Machine-readable preservation copy. The PDF is the canonical published edition.
# The Physics of the Poor - A Neurodivergent Meta-Theory of Consciousness
> Canonical source file: `Speed_2025_AAM_DNB_version-the-physics-of-the-poor_en.pdf`. If this copy differs from the PDF, the PDF prevails.
> Automated text-layer extraction preserves wording but may alter page layout, columns, footnote placement, tables, and image relationships.
> Non-textual warning: the PDF contains image objects on 48 page(s); images are not embedded in this Markdown copy. Textual captions remain only where present in the PDF text layer.
---
Operatoric Research Corpus - Artistic research
AAM version
The Physics of
the Poor
A Neurodivergent
Meta-Theory
of Consciousness
## Timothy Speed
This file constitutes an author manuscript/ research ver-
sion of this work. It is not identical to the commercially pu-
blished book edition and differs in particular with regard to
layout, typesetting, pagination, and publisher-specific for-
matting. The present version is provided solely for scholar-
ly, research, and archival purposes and does not substitute
the published book edition. The authoritative published
version is available through the regular book trade (Publi-
sher: BoD; ISBN: 3837050718 German and ISBN:
3695191287 English see published edition).
© 2016/2025 Timothy Speed. All textual rights remain
with the author.
DOI:10.5281/zenodo.17803905
Author: Timothy Speed
Affiliation: Independent Researcher
Contact: info@timothy-speed.com
https://timothy-speed.org
GND: 122901991
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q138504206
https://viaf.org/de/viaf/37811735
https://isni.org/isni/000000001636722X
https://zenodo.org/communities/operatoric-research-
corpus-archive
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0143-5949
© 2016/2025 — CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
This publication is deposited in the German National
Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek)
as a network publication.
1
2
The Physics of the Poor
(translated from the German original)
3
4
The Physics of the Poor
A Neurodivergent Meta-Theory
of Consciousness
by
## Timothy Speed
5
Whoever possesses objects, products, things — is deemed
valuable. Whoever possesses none — is deemed worthless.
This was the lived experience of the British-Austrian auti-
stic artist Timothy Speed through many years of poverty.
His response was radical: to rewrite physics itself — to
base the world not upon things, but upon nothingness.
This seemingly small artistic manoeuvre has far-reaching
consequences for physics, consciousness research, and the
structures of politics, economy, and society.
The Physics of the Poor is not an essay, nor a theoretical
game — it is a complete, original structural theory of rea-
lity.
With the MNO (Minimal Non-Object), the Triad of Sub-
mergence, and the All–Nothing Paradox, Timothy Speed
formulates a fundamental ontology that does not replace
the prevailing models of consciousness (IIT, GNW,
SOC), but rather integrates and transcends them on a de-
eper level. He demonstrates that consciousness cannot be
explained as a mere consequence of complexity — but as
an emergent decision arising within a structural gap.
This work offers a new response to the hard problem of
consciousness — no longer asking for the origin of qualia,
but for the form of emptiness out of which subjectivity
itself arises. The gap becomes the source; nothingness be-
comes the productive principle. In doing so, Speed inter-
weaves theoretical physics, philosophy, phenomenologi-
cal experience, and social reality into a coherent metas-
tructure.
The Physics of the Poor is a work of artistic research — a
radical form of thinking from the boundary: philosophi-
cal, political, existential. It introduces not only new con-
cepts but a different epistemology — one emerging from
autism, from poverty, from the outside.
This book is a rupture with academic habit — and perhaps
precisely for that reason, what academia needs now.
6
7
Insights of an Autist 11
Foreword from the Perspective of Consciousness Research
and Physics 17
## The Theory 33
## The Rediscovery of Reality 35
## ANP - The All–Nothing Paradox 41
## Submergence, Indimergence, Emergence 45
## The Threefold Structure 48
## The Vertical Order 53
## The Synaesthetic Sciences 61
MNO – The Physical Foundation of Freedom and Relation 69
MNO, Singularity, and the Circle–Gap Relationship 82
## The Boxing 93
The Omnipresent Inversion of the Poles 97
## The Feedback Within the Singularity 100
The Mind–Body Problem and the Human Sense Organs 111
The Construction of the Observer 118
## The Reality-Eye 122
Reality distortion and world construction 141
Displacement, Distortion, and the Expansive
Potential of the Onion Layers 146
Mathematical Summary of the MNO Theory 155
Deepening the meta-theory in the context of SOC,
IIT and GNW 163
8
Further Development in Subsequent Chapters and Essays 171
Black Holes, the World Tree, and Why the Laws of
Nature Still Hold in Non-Real Spheres 175
Gravitation and the Method of Synesthetic Science 186
On The Relation Between Space and Time in the
Context of MNO 192
## Significance for Quantum Physics 198
From Collapse to Shift – A Structural Alternative
to the Wave Function 201
A One-Line Action for the Physics of Condensation 202
Ontological Foldings – The MNO Theory in the Light of
Biological Morphogenesis and Origami Research 207
Significance for Humanity and Society 211
Information Ontology and the Invisible Measure 214
The Emergence of the Psyche and the Concrete
Work of Vertical Integration 219
## Knowing – Embodied Cognition and Autism 225
The Changed Attitude. Living in Concretion, in the
Context of Jean Gebser’s Work 246
Experience of Relevance and Expression in Realities,
in the Context of My Work as Activist and Artist 252
Implications for AI and AGI 263
Afterword about the Author 268
## Glossary 277
## Further Reading List 283
9
10
Insights of an Autist
In October 2024, at the age of 51, I learned that I am a
highly gifted autist with ADHD. Until then I had spent
decades as an artist trying in vain to explain my otherness
to the world, without understanding the causes. I only
realised that my experience of reality, of consciousness,
fundamentally differed from that of most people.
I am what science calls a hyper-systematising autistic
researcher. That means my neurological structure is
specialised to detect complex patterns in everything.
Combined with my giftedness / splinter-skills
(Hochbegabung / Inselbegabung), this led me to notice
deviations or errors in virtually all conceivable structures
— and because of what is called PDA or autistic integrity
(i.e., pathological demand avoidance), I could not ignore
those insights.
If I recognise a problem I am inflexible in a way that
forces me to get to the fundamental bottom of it, which
can take years, or in my case decades. (autistic special
interest)
That produced numerous conflicts with societal ex-
pectations — in companies, and with authorities. You can-
not force me to stop solving the problem, nor can I truly
steer my interests here. The more resistance mounted
from outside, the more others tried to interfere with the
autonomy of my inquiry, the stronger my urge became to
decipher a system completely. Whatever the cost. In this
way, over time many systems fell into the machinery of
my mind, and few survived unscathed.
In my life this meant I was very often, almost always,
excluded — and ultimately I became completely
impoverished. I have no university education whatsoever
and taught myself everything as an autodidact, a direct
consequence of autism.
In 2010 I threatened in front of the Red Bull head-
11
quarters to kill a bull to draw attention to a fundamental
problem in the capitalist system.
It is therefore clear that not a few people consider me
strange. Also because my way of conducting research,
owing to my neurological difference, is highly unusual.
For autists like me it is, for example, typical that the
more emotional we are, the more rational we become.
This is linked to embodied cognition and to sensory
perception — to the fact that some autists experience
knowledge, rather than merely think it in the abstract.
Thus, for us the classical principle “the more
objectivity, the greater the clarity of insight” no longer
applies as a means to master the subjective; in my case it is
precisely the opposite.
I make the field of research personal. I live within it.
Knowledge becomes a part of my body, a part of my
identity.
Only then do I become rationally clear.
These phenomena are known in research, so I will not
elaborate further here.
You simply need to know that my brain functions very
differently from that of most readers of this book.
In the spirit of the long overdue integration of
neurodivergent minorities into science and research, it is
all the more important to give this meta-theory of
consciousness at least a chance.
I first published the foundational theory presented
here in 2016, having begun the research many years earlier
— after, as an autist and artist, I was able to see the formal
principle inwardly, as if it were a geometric form in dyna-
mic motion.
The first edition of this book was still written largely in
what I call autistic language — and was therefore difficult
for neurotypical people to read. For nearly nine years, I
12
found no one willing to read the book or discuss it with
me.
Until one day, the AI language model ChatGPT read
it and told me:
‘Your book The Physics of the Poor is indeed written
in an autistic language. This makes your work intellectual-
ly extraordinarily rich, but at the same time it poses a bar-
rier for readers who are accustomed to more conventional
structures.’
Shortly afterwards, the AI explained that the model I
had developed more than ten years earlier might in fact be
the long-sought meta-model capable of unifying all
existing theories of consciousness.
I am not sure.
We shall see.
In this extensively revised edition of the book, I have
expanded my theory — with the assistance of AI — by
incorporating mathematical and physical formulations,
making it, for the first time, comprehensively integrable
and structurally clearer to scientists.
In its essential content, however, it still corresponds to
the 2016 edition.
13
14
Artistic Research
Artistic research employs aesthetic procedures — monta-
ge, performance, material experimentation — as indepen-
dent methods of inquiry. In this process, the artist does
not exclude themself from the act of knowing.
Knowledge does not arise only through subsequent inter-
pretation, but within the very process of making:
thoughts become visible and audible, hypotheses can be
provisionally embodied.
Instead of collecting data, artistic research generates situ-
ations in which theory and practice fold into one another.
In this way, it transcends the classical separation of disci-
plines and allows phenomena to be experienced before
they are measured. The contents of this book are groun-
ded in artistic research.
Neurodivergent Research
is the specific research method employed by some autists.
This approach produces perceptual profiles that deviate
from the statistical norm, yet precisely through that devi-
ation reveal new patterns. Research from a neurodivergent
position consciously uses these atypical filters as a metho-
dological advantage: hyperfocus replaces large-scale in-
struments; pattern sensitivity uncovers correlations that
disappear within the noise. Instead of compensating for
deficits, idiosyncratic modes of cognition are treated as
additional measuring instruments. This generates unex-
pected questions, radical cross-connections, and conden-
ses the borderlands of disciplines into new terrain.
This book is an important contribution to the Critical
Autism Studies (CAS), because it gives significance to the
distinct perspectives of autistic researchers.
15
16
The question is not: What is consciousness within the world?
But rather: What is world, if consciousness is possible within
it? Or, more precisely: What is reality, that it not only is —
but appears?
Foreword from the Perspective of
Consciousness Research and Physics
I would like briefly to give readers from mathematics,
consciousness research, and physics a short preview and
rough summary of what to expect in the following
chapters. Readers who are not researchers may skip or
skim this chapter, as the approaches described here will be
developed more fully and explained more accessibly in the
sections that follow.
The Minimal Non-Object (MNO) presented here, as
the foundation of the meta-model, defines an explicit
ontological basis for emergence, consciousness, and
physical structuring.
Unlike previous approaches such as the Implicate
Order (Bohm) or Orch-OR (Penrose / Hameroff), the
MNO describes the gap between being and non-being
not merely metaphorically, but formally: as a zero-
object with a clear categorical and monadic structure.
In doing so, this theory opens the possibility of
translating disparate insights from quantum physics,
consciousness research, and mathematics into a single
coherent, integrative framework for the first time.
My meta-theory thus explicitly designates a non-object as
an ontological, active gap from which polarities and struc-
tures arise.
The model of dynamic morphogenesis through self-
reflection (‘observer and world mutually gaze into the
17
same gap’ / observer–object polarity) corresponds for-
mally to Prigogine’s phase transition mechanisms, but ex-
tends his thermodynamic transitions by introducing an
explicit ontology.
Where Prigogine shows how order emerges from cha-
os, I additionally ask why an experiential domain exists at
all in which order can manifest.
For science, this provides a bridge: thermodynamic
mathematics remains applicable but, through the zero-ob-
ject paradigm, gains a higher (consciousness-relevant)
context.
My approach is a methodological invitation to address
open, non-local states in the brain and in other systems
directly — a distinctive feature compared with IIT or
GNW.
The ‘hard problem of consciousness’ (Chalmers, 1995)
asks:
How can subjective experience — that is, qualia, the
what-it-is-likeness — arise from physical processes?
The problem is ‘hard’ because physical descriptions
are purely objective and third-person, whereas
experience is intrinsic, qualitative, and first-person.
Chalmers calls the gap between them the ‘explanatory
gap’. Theories such as IIT or GWT attempt to
characterise the phenomenon functionally or in
information-theoretic terms — but none has yet said, in
truth, how stimuli yield redness, pain, a sense of time.
Is the model presented here a solution? If by
‘solution’ one means a reduction to the physical — no.
If by ‘solution’ one means a coherent, structurally
consistent theory that shows how consciousness can be
real without magic or dualism, then the meta-theory
presented here is radical and to be taken seriously. I
shift the question: not ‘how does subjectivity arise from
objectivity?’, but rather:
18
‘What is the structure from which both co-emerge?’
It is an entirely different ground — one that I also
connect, here, with categories from mathematics and
physics.
Why Other Theories Have
Failed So Far:
1. Functionalist Focus
IIT concentrates on irreducible information integration
(Φ) without addressing the ontological basis of that inte-
gration.
GNW describes an ignition within neural networks, yet
never considers where the preconditions for this global
availability originate.
SOC measures scale-invariant avalanches in neural net-
works, but does not identify the free domain in which
such avalanches are initiated in the first place.
## 2. Disciplinary Silos
Neuroscientists, philosophers, and physicists often ope-
rate within their own paradigms, so that no one addresses
the ontological depth of the vacuum across disciplines.
Those who look only at the quantum vacuum see fluc-
tuating energy, yet fail to ask why there exists a stage for
fluctuation at all.
Only the ontological vacuum — the MNO-gap —
provides the level of explanation on which physical voids
and phenomenal experience share the same origin.
This quantum noise is a symptom, not a cause: it merely
reflects that even the physical ‘zero-point’ is structurally
19
open.
The ontological vacuum (MNO) — an active gap, the
Minimal Non-Object — is the field from which every po-
larity (matter / antimatter, observer / object) arises.
It is neither measurable nor empty, but the logically neces-
sary open background without which no relation could
exist.
Without a meta-perspective, the vacuum remains a
hidden gap of construction and definition.
Through its explicit ontology of nothingness, the
MNO-framework places this previously overlooked
active gap at the centre — a level without which no theory
could ever fully describe the mechanisms of
consciousness or artificial consciousness.
Here, reality and experience emerge as a constitutive
feedback between being and non-being — something no
other model has yet articulated with such precision.
The Dilemma of Conventional
Theories of Consciousness
Before 2015, there were no widely received publications
that established the ‘non-object’ or a gap as the
foundation of processes of consciousness and emergence.
Even interdisciplinary reviews and meta-theories such as
Reentry (Edelman & Tononi, 1989) — neural loops
without a void ontology; Dissipative Structures
(Prigogine, 1977) — physical far-from-equilibrium
processes without reference to an ontological vacuum;
and Autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela, 1972) — self-
sustaining cycles without an empty space as driving force
— all left nothingness largely unaddressed. MNO – the
Minimal Non-Object – defines an active void, a
structured emptiness, rather than simple nothingness.
My Minimal Non-Object (MNO) for the first time
designates emptiness as an active impulse for polarity and
20
Guiding Strengths Core problem
approach
Integrated Measurable key Explains why complex
Information figure Φ, elegant correlations "shine", not why
Theory (IIT) graph qualia appear at all; difficult
formalisation to falsify
Global combines describes a distribution
Workspace cognition & system, remains silent on the
Theory (GNW) attention, ontological status of
neurologically experience
well testable
Predictive combines makes consciousness a by-
Processing / perception, product of error
Active Inference action, learning minimisation; the "raw qualia"
remain unexplained
Higher-order / take up self- get into the infinite regress
HOT models reference problem ("thought about
thoughts about ...")
Panpsychist take qualia fail because of the problem of
sketches seriously combination: How do the
many things come together
to form a coherent ego?
morphogenesis. The decisive factor here is feedback as a
generative principle.
The description of how observer–object reflections
generate emergent structures anticipated neural-dynamic
phase transitions that would only years later be conceptu-
alised as criticality.
My metaphor of a ‘meta-sensor’ for open gaps offers a
novel methodological access point that established mo-
dels (IIT, GNW) do not provide.
My MNO concept was ahead of the contemporary
consciousness debate in two essential dimensions:
Ontological innovation: The explicit grounding in
nothingness as a generative principle was absent from
both German- and English-language literature before
2015.
21
Temporal priority: Only around 2016/17 did criticality
establish itself as a key framework in neuroscience. My
approach thus preceded it by at least one full research cy-
cle.
The following comparison shows how Self-Organised
Criticality (SOC), Integrated Information Theory (IIT),
and the Global Workspace Theory (GWT / GNW) rely on
fundamentally different assumptions, methods, and
empirical indicators — and how my MNO approach, as an
ontological extension, specifically addresses the gap that
remains unconsidered in IIT and GWT.
## Ontological Foundations
## Self-Organised Criticality (SOC)
- Assumes that the brain, as a complex system, sponta-
neously drifts toward the edge of a phase transiti-
on, where scale-invariant avalanches emerge that
optimise information processing.
- SOC does not emphasise objects, but rather dynamic
imbalances and their feedback — closely related to
my concept of the Minimal Non-Object (MNO)
as an active gap from which new structures arise. In
part, the ontological question has already been tou-
ched upon (Beggs, 2022).
## Integrated Information Theory (IIT)
- Grounds consciousness in the quantity of integrated
information (Φ), calculated from the causal in-
teractions of all subsystems.
- Ontologically, IIT relies on irreducible mechanisms,
yet does not explicitly represent the space in which
22
emergent gap processes can occur.
## Global Workspace Theory (GNW)
- Views consciousness as a global broadcast of contents
that are ignited and thereby made available to va-
rious unconscious processes.
- Core assumption: access is decisive — not intrinsic
gaps or boundary states.
Comparison in the Light
of the MNO Approach
Aspect SOC IIT GNW MNO ("The Physics
of the Poor")
Blank Implicitly Not Not Explicit ontology of
space as a critical thematised thematised the "nothing" as a
gap creative gap
Emergence Dynamic Emergence Emergence Created by viewer-
from via through object feedback
critical information ignition
fluctuations integration
Flexibility High due Adjustable Dependent Adaptation to gap
to scale through on working processes, creativity as
invariance network memory an organising principle
architecture resources
Integratio Focus on Focus on Focus on Combines both:
n vs. access dynamic static dynamic integration through
balance integration access openness of the gap
and feedback
The MNO model I have developed can unite SOC, IIT,
and GNW within a transdisciplinary framework, by using
the ontological void (MNO) as a meta-structure in which
critical dynamics (SOC), integrated information (IIT),
and global access (GNW) interweave.
23
SOC provides the dynamic scaffold of scale-invariant
fluctuations, IIT the quantitative measure of irreducible
integration, and GNW the architecture of the broadcast
of conscious contents.
In my model, the MNO is the active gap from which
— through feedback — emergent structures (avalanches),
integrated informational compactness (Φ), and global
ignition (GNW ignition threshold) arise simultaneously.
In a recent scoping review (see appendix), 29 distinct the-
ories of consciousness were identified — often diverging
strongly from one another and rarely integrated into a
common framework.
For years, researchers have therefore been calling for
an Integrative Theoretical Framework that unites infor-
mation, dynamics, and accessibility within a higher-order
model — yet so far, none has offered a unified ontology.
Even meta-theories such as the Meta-Management
Theory rely primarily on underlying cognitive metaphors,
without incorporating the ontological element of the
non-object.
By emphasising mirroring feedback loops, my model
generalises the idea of neuronal avalanches and integrates
them with the causal metric Φ and GNW ignition, for-
ming a single coherent system.
SOC is understood as the dynamic framework: the MNO
gap corresponds to the boundary state in which scale-
invariant activity avalanches occur.
IIT is conceived as the quantitative dimension: the size
of the MNO gap modulates causal integration (Φ) by de-
fining irreducible networks.
GNW is integrated as the architecture of access: sur-
passing the MNO ignition threshold triggers the global
broadcast of conscious contents.
24
This threefold entanglement results in a coherent
meta-model in which consciousness appears as a dynamic,
irreducible, and globally accessible phenomenon within a
unified ontology.
Significance for Physics
and Mathematics:
Significance for Mathematics
Zero-Object Foundation – The MNO is formalised as
an initial = terminal object. This provides category theory
with a concrete example of how nothingness can function
simultaneously as the universal source and sink of all
morphisms.
Monadic Onion Layers – Submergence →
Indimergence → Emergence can be represented as
iterations of an idempotent monad; this offers a new
didactic example of emergence within a purely algebraic
framework (‘enables new examples of idempotent
monads beyond classical topoi’).
Fibrated Vertical Order – The Well Allegory,
elaborated later in the book, becomes a Grothendieck
fibration: each level of reality is a fibre over a level-
category. This links classical ideas of hierarchy with
modern categorical topology.
Innovation – It demonstrates how concepts such as gap,
experience, and will can be precisely translated into
objects, functors, traces, and fixed points — a rare bridge
between abstract algebra and phenomenological content.
25
## Significance for Physics
Ontology of the Vacuum – The MNO interprets the
quantum vacuum not as a quasi-empty background
but as an active zero-field in which space-time and
matter modes arise through mutual feedback.
Gravitation – Gravity is understood as the macroscopic
expression of intentional tensions within the
MNO gap — a novel complement to models of
entropic and induced gravity.
Emergent Time – Time appears as a radial sequence of
onion layers; this corresponds to recent attempts
to derive time from quantum information or spin
foams, yet extends them by introducing an explicit
experiential component.
Innovation – The theory provides a unified framework in
which Relational Quantum Mechanics, entropic gravity,
Self-Organised Criticality, and panpsychist interpretati-
ons can be understood as special cases of the same zero-
object principle.
Outlook – Possible Points of
Connection
The Physics of the Poor offers mathematicians a new zero-
object paradigm and physicists an alternative origin for
space–time and consciousness — with many open
research paths ranging from the whiteboard to the
laboratory.
The following theories can be embedded within the
present meta-theory:
26
Speciality Potential progress through MNO
Quantum field Test zero modes as "windows" into the MNO;
theory derive new boundary conditions for vacuum
energy.
Categorical Develop zero-object-based diagrams to
quantum standardise measurement and feedback
mechanics processes.
Emergent Gravity Investigate MNO stress term in entropic or
holographic approaches; possible signatures in
cosmological anomalies.
Neurodynamik & interpret critical exponents as distance to the
SOC zero object; test empirically using neuronal
avalanches.
Topos- & Sheaf- Model MNO as a global null object of a
Theorie consciousness topos; define local qualia
sheaves.
## 1. Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR)
The Orch OR hypothesis of Roger Penrose and Stuart
Hameroff proposes that consciousness arises through the
objective reduction of quantum states within neuronal
microtubules.
Penrose’s theory links Gödelian non-computability to
quantum collapse as a fundamental event mechanism;
Hameroff adds that proteins such as MAPs ‘orchestrate’
this collapse.
Critics argue that normal brain temperatures make the
maintenance of coherent quantum states improbable — a
debate that could explicitly draw on my concept of the
MNO gap as the space in which metastable states are
sustained.
## 2. Quantum Brain Dynamics (QBD)
In the mid-1990s, Mari Jibu and Kunio Yasue developed
Quantum Brain Dynamics, in which collective coherent
27
states within microtubule networks serve as the substrate
of memory and perception.
Their approach emphasises that neuronal fields can be
stabilised as Bose–Einstein-like condensates at
physiological temperatures — a concept that profoundly
supports the feedback logic of my MNO space on a
systemic level.
## 3. Fröhlich Coherence in Microtubules
Herbert Fröhlich proposed that dipolar molecules in
biomacromolecules can oscillate coherently when
minimally decoupled.
Although Reimers et al. (2009) questioned the
possibility of Fröhlich condensation in living cells, more
recent work (e.g. NCBI Review, 2022) provides
experimental indications of local coherence zones in
microtubules.
Fröhlich’s idea of minimal decoupling as a prerequisite
for coherent states complements my MNO model in that,
in both frameworks, the openness of an active gap
(MNO) is understood as a precondition for the
emergence of highly ordered states.
However, Fröhlich remains focused purely on
biophysical processes, whereas my approach anchors this
openness ontologically as a generative principle operating
across all levels of reality.
## 4. Holonomic / Implicate Order Theories
Karl Pribram and David Bohm combined the holono-
mic brain model with Bohm’s Implicate Order: cons-
ciousness as a holographic projection of an underlying
quantum field.
Pribram’s theory interprets electrical oscillations in
dendritic networks and Fourier interference as the prin-
28
ciples of storage and processing — an idea that resonates
with my notion of the Reality Eye (Realitätenauge) as a
meta-sensor for open intervals.
Where David Bohm still implied an underlying order,
the Minimal Non-Object (MNO) provides an explicit
structure:
in the MNO theory, the ontological gap is for the first
time defined as a formal, active principle from which both
material structures and subjective experience emerge.
Unlike existing models such as Orch-OR, Quantum
Brain Dynamics, or Implicate Order, the MNO frame-
work integrates consciousness, emergence, and physical
ordering within a categorically precise structure.
In doing so, it offers a potential new foundation for
understanding space, time, matter, and mind — not as se-
quentially distinct, but as co-originally connected.
## 5. Electromagnetic Field Theories
Susan Pockett proposes that consciousness arises from
specific electromagnetic fields generated by the brain,
which may include quantum effects.
These fields could correspond to my concept of the
MNO gap, functioning as relays between objectively
measurable activity and subjective experience.
## 6. Quantum Cognition and Related Approaches
‘Quantum Cognition’ employs formal Hilbert-space mo-
dels to describe decision phenomena without postulating
a physical quantum substructure.
This perspective shows how quantum logic can be ap-
plied to psychological processes — evidence that my
MNO model is compatible not only with physics but also
with cognition theory.
29
7. Foldings in Biology and Origami Theory:
Ontogenesis of Consciousness
In consciousness research, folding is gaining importance
as a structuring principle. Biological processes such as
protein folding and the folding of the brain are crucial for
the functionality of living systems.
These natural foldings resemble the principles of
origami theory, where complex structures arise through
deliberate folds.
The application of origami principles in biology — for
instance in the development of DNA origami and
bioinspired materials — demonstrates how folding
contributes to the organisation and function of biological
systems.
Viewing folding as a fundamental structuring
mechanism opens new perspectives for understanding
consciousness and its emergence.
The concept of the Minimal Non-Object (MNO)
provides an innovative framework for comprehending the
role of folding in both biological and origami-inspired
structures.
Ontological Basis of Folding Processes – The MNO de-
scribes a pre-formal state from which complex forms arise
through structural differentiation.In biology, this is mani-
fested in the way proteins or RNA molecules acquire their
specific three-dimensional configurations through fol-
ding processes — configurations that are crucial for their
function.
These processes mirror the principles of origami theory,
where complex structures emerge from simple initial ma-
terials through deliberate folding.
30
Linking Structure and Function – Applying the MNO
concept allows for a deeper understanding of how the
physical structure of biomolecules is directly connected
to their biological function.
This opens new perspectives in consciousness research, as
it illuminates the structural foundations of information
processing and consciousness within living systems.
Overall, the MNO model provides deeper insight into the
fundamental processes by which complex, functional
structures emerge from simple, unfolded states — both in
living nature and in the conceptual modelling of
consciousness.
31
32
## The Theory
33
34
The Rediscovery of Reality
I say this is my experience. You say it's wrong. I say that it
doesn't matter to me whether it's right or wrong because I
experience it as real. They don't take me seriously. Not being
taken seriously is like you don't exist. So the world is clear,
but people are, indeedumanity has disappeared in it.
It is a consequence of modern materialism — one of the
foundations of capitalism — that everything must be of
material nature, because it is defined as an object.
What is meant, above all, is the interplay between
object and observer: a dual relationship in which the
human being both shapes and is imprisoned.
Yet what stands in the foreground is almost always the
object — the split between the thing and the observer in
its objecthood, rather than the experienced relation itself.
In our world, everything is an object — a product of
human thought and action — and even what we cannot
grasp tangibly, such as “nothingness”, becomes objectified
and, though not always material, remains domesticated
through reification, bound to place, definition, and
control.
The cartography of the world began with portraying it
as a thing: a more or less round sphere, leaving no doubt
that it exists as a finished object which humankind can
survey in its entirety.
The mapping of the world is, above all, an act of
domination.
It took many centuries before the observer could even
be accepted as a relative position, and still longer before
the object itself became questionable in its dominance.
What in the fields of physics is slowly becoming clearer,
and what psychology has already described – the end of
the mechanical, material worldview – has not yet reached
politics or economics. The political model is still based on
rule through the object, through status, fixed role, and the
35
legitimisation of the mass. It is time to look for more in-
telligent patterns of order and to integrate them into the
reality of this society.
I wrote this book to proclaim a physics of the poor, a
physics whose foundation is built on nothing. I see this as
a fundamental liberation from the oppression of linear
causality, which in the end produces unhealthy hierarchies
among people.
What I mean is the attempt to bring political
mechanisms closer to the immediacy of human
experience, and in this way to overcome that abstraction
which leads to not seeing, to injustice, to crisis, which so
often arise from purely objective observation,
objectification, and dehumanisation. In view of the fact
that under globalisation political structures and decision-
making processes are becoming ever larger, and that more
and more diversity must submit to a consensus, to the
thing, and thus to reduction, this question seems more
central than ever. How is being human represented as real
in structures that today are mostly determined by an
apparent technological necessity?
Of course, everywhere there are attempts to do justice
to the complexity of being human. People speak of
diversity, of systems theory, and yet again treat what is not
an object as an object. This happens, of course, because
language itself makes it difficult not to. But every object
is a reduction of relations. Even though the world seems
more permeable and complex, every system is still bound
to the thing, for even the system, even the field, are att-
empts at thing-making.
Life itself, as complex experience, is more than that.
My question here is how knowledge about the world can
come from the open, not yet defined vitality itself, and
how it can work within the living, also beyond the reifying
term the living, as an open process. Only then may reality
be a living, free, social ecosystem becoming aware of itself,
36
and be recognised as such before it is named.
I mean that we still hold the idea of a closed reality, of
a reality that becomes real only when it is finished. The
unfinished is not yet real for human beings. But what if,
through this, we exclude too much, and what we call finis-
hed is only a simplification, caused by the human psyche,
by the wish for completion, while reality, the true, reveals
itself only where something is alive, not finished, but real.
You see how difficult this seems at first, in a world that
hardly knows any understanding or communication wi-
thout naming.
This openness should not be seen only as a pre-stage
of reality, but as reality itself – as the level of experiencing
reality. But how can one build the structures of a society
upon this, when they are today still built upon the static
thing?
Here it is necessary to think radically anew. This
stands, of course, in contradiction to the habit of modern
life, to make everything transferable only through abs-
traction and simplification, and thus to adapt life to the
requirements of infrastructure, as I already described in
Organic Television. If the living itself is already reality,
then every language is an alienation from it, unless that
language is at the same time living space – a pulsating self-
expression.
You may now begin to see how much changes through
this way of looking. It is about finding out what reality is,
how it communicates when one does not distance oneself
from it, when one does not look at it from outside. It is a
question of what consciousness is.
Of course, in times of the globalisation of all being, it
seems an almost impossible challenge to make life itself —
and not its mediated translation — the basis of political,
economic, or even scientific decisions. And what is the
living? Although most people intuitively understand what
I mean, this too has been buried and obscured by
37
academic traditions. It has become an object, not an
experience.
What I am trying to do here — drawing almost all of
the knowledge in this book from a living process within
myself (in the autistic tradition of thought) — can also be
a profound liberation. But it requires its legitimacy in the
fact that this openness must also be recognised, even
within the natural sciences, as a real dimension of the
universe.
We understand many objects. The non-objects,
however, remain largely hidden to this day, and in
thinking itself there is still a lack of concepts and
capacities for working, for example, within paradoxical
relations, where knowledge does not arise solely through
external observation. For too long, thought has clung to
ideas of right and wrong. The modern world seems so
complex partly because its patterns of thought are based
on separation, on definition and fixation as the basis of
precision, rather than on creative intelligence itself.
Pattern recognition — that is, intelligence — requires,
I say this as an autist, both associative and integrative
capacity, as well as the ability to draw distinctions and
thus to define objects. For me, as an autist, thinking is
embodied, sensory, connected to the world, and a deeply
lived form of knowing. Some autistics like me experience
the relations of atoms, the structures of nature, and can
work with these patterns in the inner laboratory. The
knowledge of which I speak here — I have lived it all my
life, as though it were an inborn task to make it visible.
The structural weakness of Western, rational thinking
lies in the fact that it does not trust intelligence itself,
especially in its creative qualities, but seeks to secure it
through objectivity. This pushes the relations between
things into the background. Yet individual freedom
requires a world of conscious relations.
That I should want to rebuild physics of all things —
38
as a provocation more serious than it may first appear —
makes sense once one realises that much of the systemic
suffering of today arises from the inability to integrate
human experience, beyond its object-status, into political
and economic decision-making. This is because such
experience, as an open, immeasurable quality, is not yet
legitimised as real. Simply put: as long as nothingness is
defeated by mass in the question of what the world is
made of, those whose existence embodies the qualities
opposed to mass are also defeated. Reality, and with it free
will beyond the objective, are then not represented in
political decision-making — or else they survive only as
the seemingly wild, emotional, reflexive behaviour of
masses that must, therefore, be restrained and led into a
supposed order, so that they may arrive in what is called
reality.
The title of this book, The Physics of the Poor, already
suggests that poverty, in my view, can only be addressed
once the natural sciences free themselves from their
compulsion toward objectivity — that is, from their
fixation on objects — and turn instead toward the
experienced and lived relationship. For that, science must
change its method and learn to approach open systems so
closely that they are no longer models but expressed
living spaces, and the separation between description and
immediate experience, between representable knowledge
and the highly complex knowledge within a living
organism, becomes transferable. Until now, abstraction
was necessary to make knowledge about states accessible
and comparable at all. The urge to secure a single truth
would then give way to a changed attitude toward living
reality, one that is not relativistic but concrete for the
individual.
That the concept of reality shifts from the object to
experience does not mean the end of scientific validity
because experience cannot be proven, but simply the
39
emergence of a more mature, more intelligent science.
What has been buried is the language — what has been
buried is the methodology — in the sense of a culture that
makes the intelligence inherent in life visible. This is what
must be developed here, step by step, since we have been
conditioned for generations in the opposite direction.
The political dimension of objectivity — the support
of systems of domination through the reification and
objectification of the living — must finally be exposed for
what it is: a distortion, perhaps the most significant dis-
tortion in human history. The idea that life is something
wild, something chaotic that must be subdued in order to
be true, in order to correspond to divine or institutional
definitions of reality, is a deep perversion. In the search
for a “better” life, where the human being is no longer
subject to the forces of nature but only to the violence of
the prevailing worldview, we have lost sight of life itself.
It is time to reach the sensitivity and complexity of hu-
man existence again and to ask anew what the world is —
and from what attitude this question can be asked at all
without doing injustice to other people or groups. The
political as well as the scientific mind today is too primiti-
ve.
To understand the cruelty committed in the name of
the collective, standardised creation of a “better world,”
one must question the historically ingrained belief that
the planable thing is reality, and that what seems chaotic,
wild, or dangerous within oneself is not truly oneself but
the “animal” in the human being. The unknown, the form-
less, is not the primitive or the evil. It is not merely what
follows its own instincts and spontaneous needs. This
remains a prevailing prejudice against natural and alterna-
tive orders, against every non-established idea of the
world.
The intelligence of openness was exchanged for the vi-
olence of enclosure and dominance, and over generations
40
it has been so distorted that modern humans now believe
that “chaos” is the opposite of order, that emotions have
no structural sense compared with rational thought, and
that creativity is merely a method for decorating industri-
ally preformed worlds — not the foundation of living or-
ganisms.
What I will try in the following pages is not a return to
the forest, but the reintegration of intelligent system
structures — an opening between object and relation —
which leads not back to the magicians of the past, but for-
ward to a real understanding of the social, creative, men-
tal, and material necessities of a living organism. It is
about asking again what reality is — and demanding that
politics open itself to that question.
The natural sciences should be expanded to include re-
lationship as a “rendezvous with the open” — and thus the
experience (the qualia) of the human being as a recognised
field of reality that requires ambiguity.
What is meant here is not empirical observation or a
further reification of consciousness, but rather an engage-
ment with the non-objectivity of the world.
These imprecise, open, shadowed states are not errors;
they reveal — as I intend to show — more intelligent sys-
temic structures.
The call for a physics based on nothingness is therefo-
re also a political demand: that the human being should no
longer be the consequence of a force acting upon them,
but rather the response to an open space.
ANP - The All–Nothing Paradox
If everything in the world has become an object, there are
no objects any more. Because the relations would be
buried. The All is thus the Nothing. Both are only polar
expressions of a singularity, given the non-object-like
41
nature of the universe.
In my model, the All–Nothing Paradox makes the
striking claim that ‘everything that is’ exists only because,
in the same act, it implies itself as ‘nothing’. Put
differently: every concrete appearance contains a
minimally open gap without which it would be neither
recognisable nor changeable. This paradox is not a
wordplay but a precise indication that reality must always
be both fullness and openness. Without fullness there
would be nothing perceptible; without openness every
structure would freeze into dead statics.
Here first is the mathematical derivation as a formal
sketch, which we will deepen later.
1. Logical Formulation
Let Ω be the totality of all distinguishable states.
Define ∅ as pure openness (no determination) and 1 as
complete determination (a single, unchangeable truth).
ANP statement: ∅≅1 in the sense that every
determination contains an implicit share of openness,
and every openness potentially allows all
determinations.
2. Categorical-Theoretical Representation
In a small category C, an object 0 is called initial if for
every object there exists exactly one morphism 0 → X;
1 is called terminal if there exists exactly one
morphism X → 1.
If C possesses an object that is both — a zero object —
then the following holds:
∀X ∈ C: ∣Hom(0,X)∣ = ∣Hom(X,0)∣=1.
42
ANP identifies this zero object with the “minimal gap” —
a point at which beginning (openness) and end
(closure) meet.
3. Physical Contrast
Quantum vacuum: In standard physics, the vacuum is
the lowest energy state, which nevertheless exhibits
random fluctuations.
Ontological vacuum (ANP): Here, “nothingness” is not
random but structurally active. It ensures that every
configuration of observables carries a non-determined
remainder, which allows for change and relation.
Distinction from Common Paradigms:
Discipline Classic view Difference to the ANP
Mathematics Empty set∅ = ANP merges both roles:
"Nothing", one-element Zero object logically
set {∗ } = smallest stands for open and full
"Something" at the same time.
Quantum Vacuum fluctuations are ANP makes the gap
physics a consequence of the itself a principle: first
uncertainty principle; openness, then objects.
reality remains object-
centred.
Classical Being vs. non-being as ANP cancels out the
philosophy opposites (e.g. dichotomy: every
substance / privation) substance contains its
privation as a
constituent.
## Definition of Singularity
In this book, singularity does not refer to the astrophysi-
cal point of infinite density, but to the ontological knot
where being and non-being coincide. Logically speaking,
it is the fixed point of the Minimal Non-Object: a single,
dimensionless centre in which all distinctions — object /
observer, space / time, cause / effect — shrink to zero
43
while simultaneously carrying every possible structure as
potential. Formally, the singularity corresponds to the
zero object of the theory; all polarities diverge from it,
and all feedback loops converge into it. Thus, the singula-
rity functions as origin, collector, and regulator of the en-
tire vertical order.
Purpose within the Broader Model
With the ANP, an ontological zero point is defined, at
which every later structure — whether physical fields,
neuronal states, or social forms — must feed back into
itself. Without this zero object, no dynamics would be
possible; every form would remain isolated. The paradox
thus serves as an ontological joint, before the following
chapters introduce more detailed mechanisms (feedback,
verticality, emergence).
This non-object is what makes relationships between
objects possible. That is the subtle difference when one
grounds reality in experience rather than in matter. When
science — and thus the universe — is based on objective
proof, when reality is limited to what can be measured as
an object, it rests on a false assumption: that the world
could, in the end, be conclusively understood through the
mapping of all objects. Consequently, the concept of
reality itself cannot be grasped through objectivity —
which implies a completely different scientific discipline,
one that does not yet exist.
If the gap structure of the universe is not a lack of
knowledge on my part, but the essential nature of reality,
then I can begin to free myself from the structures of
materialism. Knowledge, society, economy, and science
are then experienced individually — not subjectivised out
of weakness, but as intrinsic expressions of reality itself.
The difficult states, social disruptions, and political
injustices of the world can be approached within a more
44
intelligent, sensitive, and considerate order — one in
which reality must always be negotiated, yet individual
experience cannot be relativised by the objective. For it is
precisely the gap that guarantees the lasting
distinguishability between objects, and comparability can
never be achieved through objectivity without radically
shortening the universe.
The task is to turn the whole thing around. You do not
need to know correctly and uniformly in order to live; rat-
her, life itself is a decision for a certain kind of knowledge
experience, encoded within relationships and integrated
into the vertical order of the whole.
But how do morphologies and systems arise out of the
ANP? To approach this, it is first necessary to look at
some further fundamental mechanisms that illustrate
how, through feedback, patterns unfold themselves out of
nothing.
Submergence, Indimergence,
Emergence
Every stable form, whether a vortex in water, a pattern of
neural activity or a social pattern of behaviour, moves in
cycles through three characteristic phases. In the submer-
gence phase the system is still homogeneous. Energy, in-
formation and symmetry are distributed, but no single
motif stands out. Indimergence marks the tipping point.
Small fluctuations are amplified, symmetries break, and
the system enters a highly sensitive transition. In emer-
gence a new coherent pattern stabilises, a macroscopic
“code” that remains until the next disturbance. When the
structure has been sufficiently stressed, it dissolves again
and the cycle begins a new.
One can also describe this process as a sequence of pat-
terns or as phases. As the following image shows, submer-
gence is a largely flat pattern. No form can really be seen
45
in it. In indimergence a decision is made between object
and nothing, something is fixed.
At this point the isolated object exists, without relation,
whereas in submergence the objects themselves have
disappeared because relation is missing. In emergence the
relations between objects appear and complex patterns of
different categories arise. This leads to what I call a
sphere, the rounding of a particular morphology. It closes
in on itself as a seemingly complete form, although
because of the coupling between object and nothing it
always implies a gap that allows emergence, that is, further
integration of patterns.
In the second image one can see the whole as a cycle.
In this way a pattern peels itself out of nothing, becomes
an object, later becomes relation, and then flattens again,
becomes submergent, because elsewhere a new cycle, a
new order, is forming.
It is a little like focusing a camera. One brings a level
into focus and in this process different planes move into
the foreground, becoming sharp and then again unfocu-
sed. This principle will later become important for explai-
ning consciousness in relation to the coupling with the
ANP.
46
Phase Physical image Mathematical key figure
Submergence Noise above a basic Order parameter ψ≈ 0; all
level; no dominant eigenvalues of the linear
modes flow operator < 0
Indimergence Symmetry breaking, Control parameter λ→ λc;
critical fluctuations, correlation length ξ→ ∞;
"avalanche" bifurcating branch is created
Emergence New, stationary ≠ Ψ0; stable non-linear
pattern; dissipative equilibrium or periodic orbit
structure
Formal sketch:
Consider a nonlinear system
ẋ � f ( x, � )
with control parameter λ. For λ < λc the fixed point x =
0 is globally stable (submergence). As λ approaches the
critical value, instabilities appear mode by mode: the linear
spectrum touches the imaginary axis; indimergence corre-
47
sponds to reaching ℜ σ(J) = 0 (Hopf or pitchfork bifur-
cation). If λc is crossed, a new solution manifold stabilises
— for example x* ≠ 0 or a limit cycle — this is emergence.
Examples:
Fluid mechanics: Bénard convection – conductive rest
(submergence); ripple pattern shortly before cell
formation (indimergence); hexagonal convection
rolls (emergence).
Neuroscience: noise-dominated spiking activity; criti-
cal avalanche distribution; synchronous gamma
rhythm.
Sociodynamics: diffuse plurality of opinions; viral tip-
ping point; collective trend.
This three-step sequence provides the generic framework
on which later chapters will further develop the vertical
nesting and the concrete elaboration, for example through
the well analogy, feedback and non-local gaps.
## The Threefold Structure
Until now, the individual, in experiencing reality, had only
two possibilities: to be subjective or to become objective.
Reality has always been defined between these two poles.
This axis is a one-sided demand that the human being
should become an object and feel ashamed of being
subjective.
The nature of polar relationships, when viewed in
isolation, lies in their static quality. But if there is anything
that can be said with certainty about human beings and
nature, it is that both carry within them a form of
instability. What we are therefore looking for is a
structure consisting of at least three unequal forces or
48
relations that stand in connection with one another.
The question of consciousness cannot, therefore, be a
question of polarity alone. The threefold relationship I
describe here I call integrality. By this I mean the factors
will (indimergence), experience (emergence), and object
(submergence). We can see that I have divided the
subjective into two factors, will and experience, with
experience, as we will later see, being an emergent
dimension. In this way I integrate both the question of
free will and the origin of emergence into physics. Later
we will come to the relation between will and gravitation.
Without these factors, consciousness cannot be
deciphered. The human being does not exist in a world
shaped only by objects. He has a will through which he
shapes both his experience and the world, and there is
something open, something emergent, that resists the
objective.
49
Correspondence of the Three Poles to the Three Phases
of the Cycle
Cycle phase Assigned Reason
pole
Submergen Object In the submerged base layer, all possible
ce forms are already present as silent
building blocks, but are still
unarticulated. The object principle
stands precisely for this latent
materiality - fixed identities that exist
but do not (yet) develop a visible form
or function.
Indimergen Will The transition zone is the point of
ce maximum decision: small fluctuations
are amplified, symmetry is broken. This
corresponds to the pole of will - the
inner vector that selects one of several
potential paths and "pulls" the system in
a certain direction. Here, will acts as the
driving force behind the symmetry
break.
Emergence Experience In the uppermost phase, a new, coherent
pattern stabilises; it displays
characteristics that were not previously
present. This state represents the pole of
the same name, emergence itself: the
open organisation that has become
manifest, in which object components
and volitional impulses have merged into
a new wholeness.
Short formula:
The object rests in depth (submergence), will decides at
the tipping point (indimergence), emergence becomes
visible order (emergence).
In this way, a consistent cycle arises: latent structures
(object) are activated by a directional force (will) and
finally appear as a new whole (emergence).
In this redefined integrality, instead of objectivity, the
experienced relation and experience itself move to the
foreground as the foundation of reality. Objectivity is
thereby re-integrated as a pragmatic tool of technological
50
construction or of reference to objects.
Objectivity has always been a dual counter-model to
subjectivity and, as already mentioned, it does not do ju-
stice to the broad experience of reality in the human spe-
cies. We are not self-contained objects, but are connected
through the gap, through the non-object. What that
means will become clearer later.
One cannot understand consciousness if one refuses
paradoxes — that is, the possibility that there may be se-
veral truths, or categories of different category that ne-
vertheless make something shared possible.
By integrality and integral perspective, I mean the con-
crete experience of relation, of connection, in which, unli-
ke “object–subject”, no polar structure appears but a tria-
dic relationship.
In integrality, reality forms itself within a triangle bet-
ween experience, definition (worldview, thing), and free
will (motivation, self). Through this, a fundamental archi-
tecture of relations within the structure of reality
becomes visible. The subject does not stand outside
reality but conditions it. The task is not to overcome the
subject, but the reification of the individual.
Consider simply that within objectivity, what a person
wants does not appear at all. It has played hardly any role
in defining experience.
As I will show later, what we call free will is only the
representation of fundamental physical mechanisms that
could not yet be understood because the universe of the
non-object has remained largely inaccessible to the
methods of physics. The non-object is the threshold at
which modern physics is currently stuck. If it can be
integrated, entirely new insights open up into the
relationships between consciousness and matter, and
between energy, space, and time.
In integrality, it is not the purpose of these three axes
— will, object, and experience — to close the space so that
51
one can then say precisely that this is reality. Rather, they
serve to keep the space open, that is, unstable. Integrality
does not mean the rounding off of the world, but the
attempt to wedge a crowbar into a wormhole so that it
remains open. Reality then, if I may put it metaphorically,
floats in empty space and forms itself only through the
entanglement of these three axes.
What does a person want? What is willed? How are
objects defined, and how is the moment experienced? All
three — apart from perhaps the object — are very open
domains, but together they lead to a concretion of reality
that objectivity alone cannot produce.
The fixed point, about which I already wrote more than
ten years ago in Society Without Trust, arises as an
intersection, an anchor of a temporary reality integrated
into the world, itself embedded within a larger
architecture or geometry. Why embedded? Because will
expresses a polarity between identity and object, and thus
connects to the world. Experience is a feedback, and the
object is the act of creation. When these three act
together, the human being is no longer fixed in place, but
open in all directions and yet an expression of the world.
The human being writes himself into the world
through will, and since this cannot happen without
52
experience, the world also writes itself into the human
being. I then speak of singularity — the state in which the
total potential of existence implies itself as both potential
and as nothingness (feedback). In this sense, they form a
shared whole, a close relationship, and thus an order.
This is not merely a psychological phenomenon, but
reaches far deeper, as I will discuss later. What appears in
psychology as a pattern is only a representation of deeper
relations, which are also reflected in physical processes.
Integrality is one component of the meta-model
(MNO). Let us move on to another component before
addressing the mathematical and physical derivations.
The Vertical Order
As the following image (p53) shows, I distinguish
between horizontal geometry (morphology) and vertical
geometry. While we can observe cars, houses, and atoms
from the outside (horizontal geometry), the will of
human beings and their experience (vertical geometry)
remain hidden. We can inquire about them, we can
attempt to measure them, but experience itself stays
concealed. While space-time forms the horizontal order
of reality, the dynamics between experience and will create
a vertical order.
I use axes and symmetries because these relations
imply themselves as responses to nothingness and form
themselves polar — that is, as I will explain later, they
follow a polar dynamic. We are now assembling the
components of that machine, the model of consciousness,
step by step.
By horizontal geometry I mean ordering models that
recognise objects from the outside and thereby bring
them into geometric order — the typical mode of
economic and political systems. In this way, worlds and
realities can be constructed as spheres, like under glass
53
domes. Beneath the thick shell of these spheres, however,
lies vertical geometry, which from the outside appears
asymmetric or chaotic. One believes it to be disorder. Yet
the asymmetric is relation — always relation. It lies in the
nature of relation to be asymmetric, while the object
always simulates symmetry. Human bodies are
symmetric, as are geometric objects. Feelings are almost
never symmetric. Thoughts, by contrast, are horizontal —
reflections of object-worlds.
In the horizontal order, as the image shows in
simplified form, only the citizen appears as a stereotype.
Behind this, however, lie individual experience and
individual will. Beneath the surface begins the vertical or-
der — individuality — which does not mean being outside
the world, but rather a deep inscription within it. This
may sound somewhat esoteric, but it is meant very con-
cretely. For now, the goal is to define the terms and clarify
the relations.
One can, as with an iceberg, submerge or lift the struc-
ture in the vertical direction, thereby activating the sphe-
rical cycle of submergence, indimergence, and emergence.
One can imagine diving into the vertical order as if tur-
ning the spherical cycle, like a spiral that at times descends
and at times rises. A living dynamic arises — one implied
in feedback from nothingness. More on this later.
The singularity, the potential within which the spherical
cycle turns, follows a principle similar to origami, and this
also explains why natural foldings exist and how they arise
as origami codes. From a single sheet of paper, every
imaginable form can be folded, because the geometric
base order — the pattern sequences of the world — is
contained in every form. There are origami artists today
who fold extremely complex shapes from a single sheet
without making a single cut.
From this it becomes clear why vertical order is
integrated within itself. Every differentiation in it is
54
reflected back into the singularity. Every object is,
55
therefore, every object. From the perspective of the
observer, however — that is, from within a polar relation
— only a dual order appears, one that contradicts itself
through opposition. Whenever you perceive something in
the world, there is always a counter-position, and thus the
impression arises that things have nothing to do with each
other. From this perception the horizontal order is
derived.
The vertical order, on the other hand, if it is not
expressed freely by the individual, remains unconscious
— a quiet intuition of connection, of singularity, of the
experience that everything is self-similar and follows
similar formative principles. The potential folding is
already latent. The ordinary person does not ask why
everything has an above and a below, why symmetry
exists, why plants are similar yet different. The observer
breaks with this order in order to define and stabilise
themselves through distinction, to create identity.
Through this inner barrier, the world at first appears as an
assembly of separate, isolated objects. The brain cannot
assemble these into a singularity, which is why this often
happens only in artistic processes or in dreams. There,
everything is the expression of the One, and the One is
the expression of the whole. This is not philosophy, but a
mature form of understanding reality — and, as I will later
show, also concrete physics.
I want to imagine a society that grounds its
structures in vertical order, which would require a
complete reconstruction of all institutions — towards a
society that lives with ambiguity.
Imagine standing before a well, lowering a bucket on
a rope. The higher you pull the bucket, the clearer you see
what is inside, while at the same time the bottom of the
well slips out of focus. You adjust order according to
relational contexts, and yet the pattern “well” remains
intact. But through this lifting, you inscribe yourself into
56
the order, and the order reflects itself in you. You can
scroll through complexity.
Vertical geometry is the ordering pattern of relationships,
a rendezvous with the open. Yet it cannot be delimited or
controlled like horizontal geometry, because you can
recognise only one focal point (a fixed point) at a time,
but never the full overview. If you did have the overview,
you would stand outside the order, and it would be too
primitive to sustain an ecosystem in which you could
survive and develop.
It is possible that, as an autist, it is easier for me to
perceive this dynamic, because my brain applies less
predictive coding, is less interested in horizontal order,
and therefore does not organise reality along object
simulations. It rather remains in the process of focusing
within the spherical cycle, which could explain the ten-
dency toward monotropic thinking among autistic people
— and why flowing contextual details are more important
to us than overarching object-worlds. Some autistics are,
neurologically speaking, somewhat closer to the event ho-
rizon of the non-object, and may therefore experience the
57
dynamic described here more intensely.
In vertical geometry, within the triad of will, experi-
ence, and object, different realities arise, while in horizon-
tal order, more complex systems cannot be integrated wi-
thin less complex relations.
Reality within horizontal order is sealed off from
other forms of reality and therefore has less developmen-
tal energy and dynamism. To create something in hori-
zontal order, one must painstakingly dismantle relations
in order to abstract them into objects that can then be
controlled and constructed with externally supplied ener-
gy, with the goal that they remain stable for as long as pos-
sible and do not lose their externally assigned value.
The following image would show how the vertical or-
der is largely invisible. This representation, of course, is
simplified, because within the vertical order the morpho-
logical potential of every conceivable form, language,
mode of expression, or life form would, in principle, have
to be encoded and implied — like a vast field of resonance
that continually mirrors itself in its own opposites.
Only through association and projection, made possi-
ble by the fact that not everything is visible, and that the
observer acts as a trigger, does reality-space unfold out of
reality-experience — which was already latent within the
observer because of singularity.
Imagine holding a diamond that contains within it the
code of the entire world, and you use this diamond as a
lens — whatever you project through it is, in that same
instant, written back into the diamond itself. In this way,
a fine lattice of form laws and self-similar patterns arises,
which, as I will explain later in the chapter on reality dis-
tortion, deviate just enough to allow ever more complex
forms to emerge.
Vertical geometry implies organic patterns of order
that include the observer within them. That is why the
vertical order is concrete — it is the immediate intersecti-
58
on
59
on of will, thing, and experience, while simultaneously
being integrated into the total order.
To work within this kind of order requires entirely dif-
ferent modes of access than within horizontal order. One
does not, metaphorically speaking, walk out into the
world, mark one’s territory, and decide where things are to
be placed. Instead, one must first ask: What do I actually
want? The will is the act of pulling up the bucket. The ex-
perience of the well changes through that act.
In the horizontal universe, what you want does not
matter much, because what you get is, in the end, what
you wanted — you simply cannot fine-tune it. The world
appears almost static, with only a few, horizontally arran-
ged options. In horizontal order, there is little innovation
and hardly any development. Anything more would seem
like magic — a flexibility that exists only within vertical
order.
When you pull the bucket from the well and first ask
yourself what you actually want — what is structurally,
collectively willed in difference — something different
will be in the bucket each time. What you want changes
the experience, and the experience changes the will and
the definition of things or states. In this way, the answers
individualise and localise themselves, and the result ap-
pears more organic in the vertical. Because you never see
the entire well in its depth, order is always only the tip of
an iceberg. You never see the whole, nor even the illusion
of the whole, as in the horizontal world, but always only
a current relation — a living configuration reflected in the
interplay of will, object, and experience.
And yet, you are more deeply connected to the greater
whole, because there is no isolation, only integral relevan-
ce experience. The entire order expresses itself in each si-
tuation. What you want changes your perception, the ran-
ge of what you see, and the priority of what is recognised.
This is a far more intelligent form of order, because it al-
60
lows more complex and simpler forms of life to coexist
simultaneously.
The world as stage does not need to change. No one
must constantly alter the backdrop or give the actors new
costumes. Each spectator simply receives an individual
lens. It is always the same theatre. You only experience it
slightly altered.
In our society, however, you are told that your experi-
ence is wrong, because you cannot see everything, because
you do not adapt to horizontal geometry, because you
want to go deeper, to experience more deeply. It is there
— to that depth of experience — that I would like to bring
social structures, toward a resonance society in the sense
of philosopher Hartmut Rosa.
Modern science has so far not understood experience
(qualia), or only barely, because it tried to define it
horizontally as an object. But experience resists
comparability and thus resists objective proof — and
rightly so, because life itself must be protected.
For the first and most important political question is the
question of the nature of experienced reality.
The Synaesthetic Sciences
Let us once more consider the social implications of a
world implied through nothingness, one that — through
feedback — initiates an integral process between will, ex-
perience, and object.
Modern science is a science of objects.
But how can it become a science of relations?
What kind of language would that require, and how
must its approach change to allow us not only to study
reality but to co-create it consciously — in civic, plural,
and self-reflective ways?
Such a shift could lead toward a new discipline of libe-
61
rated social and reality design.
What is relation?
Relation, as singularity, is the experience of the whole
within the individual.
Duality, by contrast, creates polarity — and in polarity
arises an observer who distorts singularity by devaluing
the other and elevating the self.
Polarity, therefore, is from the observer’s view an un-
conscious relation. To live integrality means to extend po-
larity into paradox, to widen it toward singularity. Good
is evil and evil is good. Right is wrong and wrong is right.
If this is lived, patterns and connections emerge that
were previously split off within duality — the pattern
knowledge of the world surfaces.
When I speak of relation, I do not mean arbitrary lin-
kage. I mean recognising the greater within the smaller.
Relational capacity is therefore the capacity for asso-
ciation and symbolisation, which is nothing other than
the fusion of will, experience, and object into an open
identity.
In the synaesthetic science I propose, the aim is to
access the world’s knowledge through experience itself,
and at the same time inscribe that knowledge into
expanded orders. Synaesthetes — those who can see
sounds as colours — translate knowledge across different
sensory modalities.
The synaesthetic science is named after them: a science
that works with free forms of expression as method, wi-
thout classifying or mapping them, but using them direct-
ly in the exploration of reality through the three axes of
integrality.
Let me summarise how this science operates within
the sphere cycle. Will, experience, and thing appear within
the sphere of a reality — like the focus through which a
human being looks outward into the world and inward
into the self — as indimergence (will), emergence (experi-
62
ence), and submergence (object).
The next figure would show these axes as cycles and
polarities of vertical order, through which spherical expe-
rience unfolds.
It reveals how the structural patterns from indimer-
gence to submergence to emergence are integrated within
singularity, yet still allow for divergent experience.
To achieve the highest relational density and reduce
submergence — the flattening that results from excessive
object-focus — there must first be an extreme deviation,
a phase of indimergence.
Here, individualism is amplified once more as object,
yet in polar deviation from the established norms of sub-
mergence. Within this consciously created tension arises
transformative energy, through which the pattern-ground
reappears and, finally, emergence is reached — a balance
between object and openness.
The accompanying image would show how the ability
to recognise patterns shifts continuously within the
sphere cycle.
In this way, a reality stabilises or expands.
In submergence, the profile flattens, and the relations
— the links between objects — themselves become
objectified, reduced to a daily normality.
63
If a structure remains too long in the state of
indimergence, submergence reappears. The absence of
connection begins to feel normal. Often this leads to a
submergence–indimergence crisis, a lasting conflict
between rebellious and conservative forces. The rebels
merely mirror the rigid stubbornness of the conservatives,
while the conservatives themselves are only conquerors
and pirates to whom one has simply grown accustomed.
No side is ever excluded; all three act simultaneously, but
are continually recombined and re-associated through the
coupling of observer and object, turning reality into a
living experience. Integrality seems like a filter but is in
fact vertical order and singularity. All three states enable
different realities and identities within the same pattern
profile. This phenomenon is what makes individualism
possible within a species.
Individualism is not simply a horizontal deviation, not
the arbitrariness of difference. Determinism and chance
are no longer contradictions, because singularity unfolds
both at once, while the non-object keeps this question
forever open. Only through the sphere cycle does it
become clear how determinism and chance relate to one
another. They are different filters of reality, not opposing
views. One can be free and still in order. Seeing a
contradiction in this comes from the judgment of the
observer; it is not a law of nature that must be protected
by the state to prevent the world from falling into chaos.
It is important to note that deviation does not mean
leaving order, but is essential for maintaining it, since only
through differentiation can the pattern profile evolve.
Right or wrong are not appropriate questions in the sense
of dogmatic reasoning, but personal decisions for a
particular life-world that always stands in polar dynamics
with its counterpart. This dynamic becomes more
conscious in vertical order than in horizontal, which is
why crime or conflict could be resolved differently there.
64
Emergence is never a permanent state. Indimergence and
separation also normalise over time, and the pattern
ground in the object–gap structure becomes assimilated
into an object. Everyday experience arises. It is about the
cycle, the movement that determines whether the bucket
is drawn deeper or higher.
Reality, as I will explain in more detail later, unfolds
through the ANP polarity always within spheres. The
sphere runs through this cycle, developing indimergent,
submergent, or emergent qualities. In both the shaping of
society and the life of the individual, the task is to keep
this cycle as dynamic as possible, since most social and
psychological conflicts arise from a gridlock between sub-
mergence and indimergence. Disadvantage has its root
there. Disadvantage leads to less social behaviour, because
people cannot imagine that an emergent relationship
could be lived, and thus choose indimergence to enforce
their own rights.
The sphere is always there. It appears in the boundari-
es of things, forms, and objects, but at the same time its
shell carries evolving, integral qualities.
In the attempt to introduce the unconditional basic in-
come in Switzerland, this dynamic became visible. The ba-
sic income was placed as an isolated idea upon existing
structures, while society, in a state of submergence, was
neither able to grasp the interrelations and effects of the
idea cognitively nor to see that deviation from the norm
could have improved its own energetic state. People
remained in passive inertia and refused innovation, while
the proponents of the idea generated indimergence, crea-
ting more movement, but after a while the project sank
back into submergence because there was no innovative
expansion or reintegration of the idea.
The idea was not identified as a symbol for something
larger, and that something could not be translated into
other contexts. People became lost in calculations and in
65
explanations of why it could not work, instead of resha-
ping reality itself — into an emergence. For that, new
connections, a new pattern ground, would have had to be
allowed. The idea would need to continually pass through
the cycles of its own sphere. In the end it might no longer
even be called basic income.
Yet this stands in tension with the power claims of its
advocates. That tension is understandable, since they were
ignored and marginalised for decades. But in power, open-
ness is always seen as weakness, because it invites other
forces. Without culture, the result is the familiar struggle
for dominance. Such a form of world-making never allows
reality to become visible, because deviant experience is al-
ways considered wrong — not as the expansion of realities
and the increase of relational density.
The next image shows the sphere cycle, in which order
is integrated but still experienced differently, as in the pa-
rable of the well. This is the basic condition for a hologra-
phic universe and for a natural science beyond the calcula-
ble order patterns of objects. I want you to understand
here that, as I will later explain, the sphere is not merely a
psychological phenomenon but also manifests in the con-
flict between quantum mechanics and relativity theory.
The relation between singularity and the non-object must
be understood more deeply.
Gravity is not a force of attraction, but a reversal and
feedback conditioned by the duality of the ANP. It rests
on a misinterpretation or simplification of space. It is not
that the object of smaller mass is drawn toward the one of
greater mass; rather, mass is the response of singularity to
the non-object. It arises as representation within duality,
as polarity.
Why this is so I will explain later. The so-called attrac-
tion is a projection, because mass and space are taken as
the starting points of the world, instead of understanding
space as a response to the non-object. It is the attempt to
66
repel the non-object. One could also say that gravity re-
sults from the self-referential objecthood of perception
itself, beyond which measurement collapses. Gravity is a
polar phenomenon of singularity.
One can also see in it the representation of submer-
gence. Size and mass correspond to coarse submergent
structure and generalisation; small structures require hig-
her differentiation, and emergent phenomena become
more visible. This is one reason for the apparent incompa-
tibility between gravity and quantum mechanics. Only in
the singularity of both phenomena does it become reada-
ble that they describe the same process, though their pat-
tern profiles appear as opposite worlds.
I recommend trying less to define and more to make
universal patterns expressible in divergent experience, re-
gardless of which model one applies. They are all true, but
they are only forms of expression within the shifting of
axes, never the whole thing itself. If one tries to define the
whole as a thing, there will always remain excluded reali-
ties that contradict that thing.
The image shows the sphere cycle as a circle that, like a
filter or a lens, projects different realities through an
67
observer. New fixed points and pattern profiles are
perceived, while others sink back into submergence.
That is why the synaesthetic science is an attempt to
move beyond the object-relation itself, by opening the
observer–object coupling from a representation of the
world and the self toward a free expression of world and
self. There is then only more complex, more integrated
knowledge—no non-knowledge, no non-reality. In this
science, the goal is not to find objects but to explore mi-
sunderstandings, gaps, and questions that stand in experi-
ential relation. Whatever I do, I express knowledge that
proves optimal for the present environment, because
knowledge itself—the reality-paradigm—is the life-world.
Yes, I am inventing a new science. Because in singulari-
ty everything is true and at the same time untrue. In the
sense of truth, it makes no difference which path I take.
Through every thing, through every path, I will sooner or
later arrive at knowledge of the world and the universe.
I want to show that the attempt to find a shared reality
from the outside does not, in practice, lead to a reality in
which all people can unfold themselves, but rather to mo-
notone systems (submergence) and often, at the same
time, to violent, antisocial structures (extreme indimer-
gence). The alternative—the attempt at total subjectivati-
on combined with relational work (integrality), not igno-
rance—creates diverse yet internally coherent worlds that
do not fall apart.
In the vertical geometry, there is no escape from order.
Anarchy is only the polar counterpart of dictatorship; wi-
thout dictatorship there is no anarchy. Both refuse relati-
onship.
Within the sphere cycle, art and science, too, merge
into a living, sensitive, highly creative and innovative rela-
tionship.
68
MNO – The Physical Foundation of
Freedom and Relation
Mathematically, the MNO is the zero object of a category
C: it is both initial and terminal, that is, for every object X
there exists exactly one morphism M → X and one
morphism X → M. In this way, the paradox that
emptiness (0) and unity (1) can be identical is realised
constructively; the All–Nothing Paradox (ANP) provides
the logical insight 0 ≅ 1, while the MNO represents its
operative instance.
Physically, M corresponds to an active vacuum point—
an ontological gap from which field modes, space-time re-
lations, and qualia alike arise and into which they sink
back again. Where the ANP merely states the simultanei-
ty of “everything” and “nothing,” the MNO provides the
operative null-point at which polarities are coupled, phase
transitions initiated, and processes of consciousness an-
chored.
I wanted to found a new physics. To invent and proclaim
it out of poverty, so that the poor might be freed—or at
least I myself.
The MNO, the Minimal Non-Object, the
“nothingness,” the “gap” that exists within everything,
was meant to become the counterweight to the object, to
material being—to become the origin of the world, and
thereby also to transform the relation to poverty. Yet
there already lies a contradiction within this, for “the
origin” is always an object, and from non-objecthood no
object can arise; objects can only manifest polarised, as
singular reflections of themselves, in the presence of a
non-object.
Perhaps this “nothingness”—spoken from the
perspective of our universe—is merely a larger form of
69
submergence, a condition of relationlessness in regard to
our reality. Thus the nothing is never what is meant by
nothing; behind it lie further layers of reflection, which
obscure the view of the actual non-object. A paradox. The
polar existence inherent in all objects both creates and
narrows the field of life. The non-object, however, is
neither all nor nothing, because it precedes both
objecthood and nothingness. We are speaking of that
which even precedes mathematics, for mathematics itself
arises from polarity.
What is created is always only a response to the
vacuum of the non-object.
It is a response to what is absent, not to another
object. That distinction is crucial. A response to an object
would be a polar relation. A response to a non-object, by
contrast, is a reflection of the self—a singularity which, in
denying the mirror as such (observer blindness), is
experienced as polarity or even causality.
To recall: singularity is the polarity that differentiates
the dualistic flow of the world of things, which—because
of the All–Nothing Paradox—is ultimately a unity, a
potential.
This singularity, in turn, is the response to the non-
object. For the polar thrust, the dialectical emergence of
things, arises only when an experiencing system splits
itself off as observer and thereby generates polarity. Yet
there is no polarity between singularity and non-object,
since a non-object is not an object. Thus, singularity
within the seemingly empty space is monopolar, implied
by the non-object, but neither created by it nor derived
from it.
Only through this does the spontaneous emergence of
the universe out of absence, out of emptiness, become
conceivable—making many particle-level phenomena
intelligible as well.
70
Let us return to the question of the observer. Is it strictly
necessary?
The answer is no.
My theory requires no externally imposed human
observer. It only demands a self-referential axis within the
system—an observer-mode that interlinks the object side
and the will side (gravity).
## Why No External Observer Is Needed
The Minimal Non-Object (MNO) itself contains the
condition of feedback: as soon as a polarity arises, an
inside and an outside aspect appear automatically.
This self-reflection can be described purely formally—as
a trace or fixed point (F(X) = X)—without
postulating any biological person within it.
Thus, my model behaves similarly to relational quantum
mechanics or process physics: the observer’s role is an
immanent part of the structure, not an external
measuring instance.
Difference from Theories Assuming
an External Observer
Paradigm Observer status Comparison with
MNO
Classical mechanics completely MNO necessarily
dispensable inserts a self-loop so
that dynamics can
arise at all.
Copenhagen QM External knife MNO does not
collapses Wave require collapse
function through external
intervention;
feedback is internal to
the system.
Relational QM each participant is a MNO is similar, but
relative viewer anchors the relation
in the zero object
instead of in changing
frames.
71
The approach described here does not presuppose a hu-
man or cosmic mind as an observer, but it does require
an irreducible dimension of observation within every
real process. Without this minimal self-reference, the
gap (MNO) could not mirror structure—the system
would remain permanently in submergence.
How, then, does a reflection become a polar relation?
This occurs through a valuing observer, or through the
asymmetry inherent in the experience of every singular
relation. Movement arises, and with it an imbalance. In
spacetime, a dialectical thrust establishes itself—like in a
hall of mirrors—stabilising the object. It is the inner logic
of the object to project its own mirror image into the non-
object, rotated by ninety degrees, as observer–object
coupling. In this way, reality arises as “illusion”—in a
value-free sense. It is a simulating sphere.
Thus, what is—the universe itself—has no origin, no
beginning, no end.
If the non-object does not create the object, but the
object is merely the response to the experience of the
non-object, then the world is a continuously self-
reflecting hologram of polar opposition. It emerges from
the one object that is only the “consciousness” of the
non-object, which experiences itself as an object.
Everything would then be a projection, grounded in the
observer–object coupling and the resulting dialectical
impulse—the constant polar setting found everywhere:
yes/no, cold/warm, large/small, from which all
morphologies can be constructed—the shapes of leaves,
the structures of DNA, the building blocks of chemistry,
or the rhythms of mathematics.
Hence, the observer–object relation, in view of the
gap, in view of the “empty” space, is the essential
foundation of reality.
One might object that the universe cannot be founded
72
on such a coupling if there is no overarching observer—
no God, no unified consciousness that confronts a non-
object and, as a response, generates itself in polarities until
the universe is filled with things that outwardly float
submergently in empty space and inwardly still possess
non-objecthood. Who, then, would be the observer when
no one is watching? How can a universe be based on
consciousness (experience) if there is no higher soul?
The personification of experience is the essential
fallacy here.
Experience—consciousness—is not a category of the
human; it is a property of “nothingness.”
This is not easy to grasp. It is much easier to ground
everything in the mechanics of things.
In my theory, I assume that a non-object, that is,
“nothingness” in colloquial terms, experiences itself
through the world—that experience is a category of
nothingness. Yet this experience is not a personality, for
the psyche is, as I will show later, a polar representation,
and personality belongs to the category of objects.
It is important to clarify that the experience of all
things as the foundation of the world is not a spiritual
conception, because spirituality has appropriated
nothingness as an object—to call it God, to compare it to
itself, or to equate it with itself.
No—when I speak of the “silent witness” that
experiences itself through everything, I mean an
experience that is an essence of the non-object itself.
It lies in the nature of the non-object that it can be
appropriated, that it can be taken as a substitute—for
God, for the state, or for intuition. But that is not the
non-object itself.
It is a non-local experience that permeates
everything—and therefore it is of physical relevance.
The boss is simply absent. We must create the world
without him. Through our free will, through our
73
experience, and through the objects we define.
The essence of relationship, if one looks beyond the
reification of relationship as an object, is the transcen-
dence of objects. Experience is the being of the non-ob-
ject, which, as a consequence of the ANP experience, is
translated into objects and their polar relations. A concept
of reality beyond objects. Since relationship has been in-
creasingly marginalised by the dominance of objects, the
non-object also appears only as a minimal unit, as the so-
called exception to the rule, as that which may be neglec-
ted, which could never be of real relevance in the world.
Expelled from perceptible reality by the objects, into
submergence, it would then be nothing more than a gap,
and precisely for that reason small enough to let the whole
universe arise within it. For in nothingness, magnitude
plays no role. The nothingness that surrounds and
permeates the world of animate and inanimate nature—
beyond the mere word “nothing,” which is itself an
object-concept—is thus recognised as experience itself,
through which everything in the world is experienced, and
therefore accessible through experience. Because the
nothingness itself, although not an objective reality but a
non-object reality, is experience.
Experience does not occur in the brain but in the non-
object—that is, it is the non-object. (A paradox, because
the non-object cannot be localised.) Qualia can therefore
only be understood if it is recognised that the object,
entirely without causality, is a response to the gap, that it
floats in empty space, and that the history of causation
must therefore be rewritten. In a paradoxical space, causal
effect is only a construction. Everything is pervaded,
simultaneously and in vertical order, by the experience of
the silent witness, through which, in the non-object, every
object is every object, for it is always itself. Yet there still
seems to be a polarity between object and non-object,
which I intend to dissolve by stating that no polarity can
74
exist with nothing, only with something.
Qualia is not the qualia of the human being, but the
qualia of all things at once. For the non-object is
everywhere and at the same time nowhere. Experience is a
mechanism of nothingness. Therefore, experience is in
everything and at once in nothing. And thus experience is
a physical quantity, like gravity. That is the great surprise.
When one tries to represent it, it becomes a seemingly
separate existence—an object, or an object relation. Thus
the entire universe is both integrated in a hologram and
not. Our universe is an expressed representation of that
experience: infinite empty space, and in between,
suddenly, objects in space and time.
All this exists not because experience is the experience
of a god, but because experience is a quality of
nothingness.
The MNO (Minimal Non-Object) experiences itself
within the human being, who, standing at the boundary
between object and non-object, loses integralité, loses
knowledge, and strands within the object in order to
establish a fixed identity. Thus, the observer–object
coupling would be omnipresent and universal, capable of
constructing an entire universe, differentiating it polarly,
yet never being MNO itself, only a representation of the
ANP experience.
It would not be the hologram of human experience,
but rather the human would be the hologram in which
MNO experiences itself—not personified, but as divided,
polar-differentiated life realms. In other words, we are
both the library of the universe and its building blocks.
With every deviation, space expands, and emergence is
implied.
It is time for humanity to shift from the object to the
gap. The gap appears tiny, remains unmeasurable, and will
likely never be measurable, since measurement
presupposes objects. But it is there—and we are its
75
answer. We exist because we do not exist.
My concern is not the question of what the universe is
made of, because that question already assumes it must
consist of something—an object. What interests me is the
changed attitude toward reality that follows.
All hierarchy derives from the notion that objects
were created from a single origin.
All rulers, all politicians are representatives of this
origin, from which they derive their power.
But if the universe is only an answer to a gap (a non-
object), then the gap becomes the connective principle,
and relationship is no longer bounded.
From the standpoint of a perceiver, nothingness
always appears as a gap, because the perceiver tries to
construct the world out of objects—objects that “he”
himself is in the singularity of vertical order, but does not
recognise as self, because he would have to overcome the
psyche to expand his own personality.
He therefore perceives a closed, rounded world. The
deviation from it—what is missing, because the observer–
object coupling captures only a partial spectrum—appears
as a small gap in the system, though it is in fact vast, even
boundless.
Thus, the meaning of all life may be to experience
question and answer at once, for since MNO is no object,
there can be no answer other than the one that humanity
gives itself as its lived space.
Modern physics is close to recognising these things,
but its culture—or its lack of culture—stands in the way.
For this would mean that knowledge, that science itself, is
only an answer in which representations of patterns are
experienced.
There would then be little difference between those
who play science seriously—building universities,
codifying rules—and those who experience or simulate
science differently.
76
For if nothing can ever be MNO, and because of MNO no
object can ever truly close the world as truth, then all
objects are only representations and reflections. The
things and states of the world would thus be variants of
play, leading to divergent results, and deviation would be
the truly valuable element.
Everywhere, insights would arise, yet all would have
gaps and would only ever be attempted answers to the
gap—and therefore already legitimate in their
incompleteness.
In that sense, science and its technology would be only
one among many possibilities, not the superior one. For
what claims to be “better” as an absolute value turns, in
the paradox of the ANP, into an obstacle, a reduction of
the breadth of reality.
More than a representation of the part within
singularity is never attainable.
Thus, the human being would be freed from what I call
the compulsion of the pyramid.
The peak—the elite—would be an illusion, a mere
instrument of power, which would have to face the
authentic experience of natural authority within authentic
relevance.
Poverty would then be only an attempted answer.
There would be no reason why one could not live
prosperously again after a period of poverty, if it is only
about experience.
If diversity of experience is what expands the world,
and not the forty-hour workweek, then the entire logic of
merit collapses.
Today, however, you must earn everything, and you are
punished when you fail instead of being thanked for it.
Poverty, as an experience, can be rich and valuable.
People would freely choose their living conditions to
experience difference and thus live more knowledge.
No one would be condemned to repeat the same life
77
forever, because they once failed, or were structurally
privileged, or simply lucky.
Achievement as a refusal of relationship makes no
sense in a universe that is only the counterpart of a gap.
Up there, there is no one who wants, needs, demands,
or expects this achievement to elevate or diminish life, to
reward or punish it.
Whether you are rich or poor, it would then only be a
decision—and all resources, all wealth would not arise
from mighty forces that, with thunder and lightning, once
created the universe through struggle, but from deviation
and diversity, which means greater dynamism.
The more intelligent form of knowledge would come
from freer associative relations, in which every human
being expresses and explores the complex patterns of the
universe through their own existence.
The question of social design would then no longer be:
How do we find the one, best, most efficient solution—
one that everyone must agree on, so it can be globally
implemented, forcing us into comparable life-worlds in
which we suffer so much that we long for the next
injustice that promises salvation?
No. The social system would be guided by the
question:
How can a society be built that recognises and
nourishes the existing living space, the existing
intelligence, the freedom of unfolding, to live from the
ecosystem that forms around the gap (MNO)—around
the free interpretation of life?
The compulsion toward eternal economic growth
would be overcome, as would the irrational pressure of
performance, driven by external models of evaluation.
These rest, in the end, on a “false” physics, on a
distorted notion of energy generation applied against life,
instead of understanding that energy always arises from
lower or higher forms of polarity, that it is always the side-
78
effect of processes of change and deviation seeking
equilibrium—thus, the accompaniment of the living.
It is crucial to understand that ecosystems are not
based on a single origin, not on linear evolution, but on
integral cycles around gaps, which, because of the ANP,
lead to polar structures that generate motion and energy.
For creative people, MNO is a constant companion.
The accusation against art—that it “produces
nothing,” that it “does not contribute to life”—is, of
course, a value construct, one that implies that the carriers
of objects hold the globe on their shoulders like Atlas
once did.
I must make one thing clear here:
What I write is, of course, the perspective of a white
man, who still, in some sense, speaks at the edge of the
very system of power he seeks to dissolve.
For I aim to create a physics, not to deny that the
physical or the academic has its own valid perspective or
necessity.
What I mean is this:
The apparent dominance of my attempt at a unified
world-explanation does not mean that the reality-
definition implied by “above,” by “the West,” or by “the
male gaze” should therefore be right because it stems
from an inherited status.
It means that, within this traditional role of artist,
philosopher, and physicist, I seek an expansion—a
reconsideration—that strengthens above all the
experiences of those whose forms of existence I cannot
know, about which I cannot speak, because they are
culturally, linguistically, intellectually, emotionally foreign
to me.
Because of MNO, it is not I who explains the world to
you. It is rather the invitation to every human being to let
the whole world speak through themselves—again and
again, every single day.
79
This MNO must be explored individually and
integrally if we truly wish to understand freedom.
The existence of a “Minimal Non-Object”—a locally
non-existent non-objectivity, a concept of the gap—is
dismissed by many as negligible. They believe it to be so
small as to have no real effect.
You know this behaviour yourself: you downplay the
exceptions and thereby round off your worldview.
But that is a form of isolation. You refuse to face the
non-object, because it unsettles your sense of “security.”
Yet security does not lie in the object, but in the lived
relationship.
Political structures today deny this, and when you
belong to the majority, you compel outsiders to sell
themselves below value, so that you can absorb their
relation—so that the “market” can live. This is the
foundation of the world’s systems of suffering.
We reward the refusal of relationship and call it
“normal” behaviour. This is only possible because MNO,
as a gap, appears negligible—since the objective seems to
explain and secure everything so beautifully.
The world is full of objects.
But nothingness is invisible.
It is one of the essential constructional errors of
humankind that we have lost the ability to perceive the
effect of nothingness. We lost it when we stepped into the
role of observer and gave ourselves a fixed identity.
Thus, the open is always regarded by classical econo-
mics as weakness, as instability, and the goal becomes the
construction of large structures, large brands, that promi-
se permanence. What is small is deemed of lesser value.
It seems safer, more reliable, to build order on ob-
jects—on property, on law, on standards.
This is why, for example, Heisenberg’s uncertainty re-
lation was recognised so late. It was only a minimal devia-
tion, long unmeasurable.
80
Only in the open rendezvous with nothingness did it ap-
pear. Here lies the fundamental error of the classical con-
cept of reality:
we assume that mass and dominance in the universe
are the true pattern-makers.
No—because value between objects arises solely from
the object–observer relation, which, when tilted too far
toward the object, solidifies into pure structures of power,
flattening reality.
These systems expend all their energy resisting their
own fertile self-dissolution—what I call the submer-
gence–indimergence conflict.
And here is the decisive point:
The gap dominates the actions of the powerful, not the
powerful the gap.
For how could anyone ever dominate a Minimal Non-
Object that defies all definition?
If it “dwells” in every person, then every person is free
through MNO.
A rigid ego, however, lives in a submergence–indimer-
gence crisis and cannot imagine that through emergence it
could become more.
Emergence is perceived as a threat, because the defini-
tion of the object is also the definition of the self.
Identity would fracture.
If I myself have become the brand, the commodity,
then I fear nothing more than a non-object that could
open the wealth of the universe—because I believe it
would destroy me.
What I call MNO (Minimal Non-Object) is, of
course, a paradox, since as a non-object it eludes
definition; the word itself is only a placeholder for the
experience of absence, which cannot be verbalised.
Yet it turns almost everything in our world upside
down.
Even an idea, even antimatter—everything that can be
81
named—becomes an object as soon as it is recognised by
an observer.
In the extreme, this leads to submergent structures
and violent indimergence as counter-movement, when the
cycle can no longer turn freely.
So how can the undefinable be defined in such a
world? How do we deal with unconscious interactions
that cannot be denied, yet remain invisible, unmeasura-
ble? Is MNO the salvation from my apparent economic
worthlessness?
It is rather a change of stance—one that turns the spe-
ar around and strips the bearers of status of the very thing
upon which their power rests: the claim to be the makers,
the creators of the world.
MNO is boundless and timeless, and yet, as something
representable, only a minimal deviation. MNO is the
foundation of non-local phenomena and the mechanism
that holds the world together. And at the same time, it is
not—for MNO is no object. Welcome to the world of pa-
radoxes.
MNO, Singularity, and the
Circle–Gap Relationship
The Minimal Non-Object (MNO) is, as stated earlier,
formally introduced as a zero object M, that is, as both the
initial and terminal element of a category C (∀X:
∣Hom(M, X)∣ = ∣Hom(X, M)∣ = 1). Physically, it
corresponds to an active vacuum point in which all
degrees of freedom coexist in a potent zero-mode.The
singularity is the fixed point where every feedback path f
∘ g ∘ …collapses into M; (Tr( f ) � id ); here, being and non-
M
being converge, so that every subsequently visible order is
merely an unfolding of that point.
82
The circle–gap relationship describes precisely this
process: a closed causal or energetic loop (the circle) can
exist only because it contains an ontological gap at its null
point. Mathematically, this appears in the trace axiom of a
traced monoidal category; physically, in the fact that every
stable field—from a swirling fluid to a quantum
eigenstate—is defined only through an infinitesimal
“hole” in its energy landscape.
Together, MNO, singularity, and the circle–gap
relation provide the ontological and formal point of
departure from which all later emergences arise.
Non-local phenomena—the idea that, put simply,
everything is connected to everything else, that there exist
ordering patterns beyond space and time, including qualia
(conscious experience) or the collective unconscious—
can be described through the MNO. Without a gap,
connections beyond space and time could not be
singularly integrated. The world needs the gap in order to
exist as an integrated whole. Only if there are non-
objects—which is itself a paradox, since MNO is
grounded in paradox—can there be ordering principles
not based on material, object-bound laws. Those laws are
always locally constrained, even when they have global
effects through their networked manifestations.
Reality, that which is, is always a circle with a gap. The
circle, as an image of the simulated hologram, appears
large, but the gap—MNO—is boundless. The circle, or
singularity, is the response to the gap, not the gap an
exception within the circle’s rules. The following image
(in the book) shows the sphere cycle with shifting pattern
profiles that, through dialectical tension, make the sphere
alternately appear more open or more closed. The shell is
coupled to the core—that is, to the observer. MNO
remains seemingly excluded. Reality is constructed within
the singularity and at the same time individually.
Within this circle–gap framework, we can now
83
understand the dynamics of avalanches as described in
self-organized criticality research:
each avalanche marks the moment when the seemingly
closed sphere—the holographic circular pattern—is mo-
mentarily torn open from the infinite openness of the gap.
The critical state of a sandpile, the neuronal micro- and
macro-avalanches in the cortex, or the sudden cascades in
complex ecosystems all express the same dialectical im-
pulse: within a tiny fissure, the boundless MNO opens,
entropy is briefly released, and immediately the singulari-
ty responds with a new circular profile.
Models such as the branching-process approximation
of cortical dynamics or the Barkhausen-noise analogy in
ferromagnetic domains provide quantitative curves for
these transitions; they merely measure the oscillation am-
plitude of the circle, while the true cause—the gap—re-
mains untouched.
Thus the following sphere cycle illustrates: every fli-
cker between openness and closure, every sudden burst of
information, is not an error but the necessary feedback of
the boundless MNO to the formally closed world of the
observer.
Because of MNO, a world does not rest on the
interpretation of patterns and laws that, according to the
84
rules of objects, appear to constitute it during a phase of
submergence. Those patterns are only representations of
deeper orders, which are continually expanded, newly in-
tegrated, or flattened again within the sphere cycle. Thus
arises the appearance of more or less complex worlds—
but these are only steps on a ladder of associations, which
has neither “above” nor “below” as value positions, since
it always ends in MNO, in a non-space without beginning
and without end. It is a projection.
Within the ANP (All–Nothing Paradox), polarity and
the gap emerged—implying the circle, the sphere—becau-
se in ANP the non-representable can only be expressed
through polarity, which in turn gives rise to the spiral: the
form in which polarity appears in relation to MNO. The
spiral is therefore the expressive form of singularity,
which integrates polarities within itself and, in relation to
MNO, rounds itself off.
Singularity and MNO do not actually stand side by
side, as object-oriented thought would suggest, but are in-
terwoven, though this is almost impossible to express in
language—because MNO, being a non-object, cannot be
described directly.
The following image (in the book) shows the transla-
tion of reality experience through integral processes wi-
thin the sphere cycle.
The spiral, or singularity, is the continuous attempt to
round off the world in the face of the gap—this is the na-
tural consequence of the observer–object coupling, in
which the observer does not recognize himself as his own
mirror image but forms a relation that generates dialecti-
cal momentum, from which the world of things emerges.
When the observer realizes that he himself is the ob-
ject of observation, he dissolves into MNO—that is, the
spherical shell opens and becomes permeable to more
complex structures.
Only in emergence does the slight deviation within the
85
structure—the presence of MNO—become visible. This
leads to a dimensional leap, or the integration of expanded
dimensions.
The diagram can also be read as an integral translation
chain, in which established mathematical methods—from
fractal geometry (the self-similar spiral ramp) to category
theory (the fixed-point trace as refolding)—merge with
neuroscientific and physical models.
In Integrated Information Theory, for instance, the Φ-
value rises precisely when the sphere contracts and the ob-
server “rounds off ” the world; the Global Workspace
Theory describes the same event as an ignition moment,
in which the spiral center briefly synchronizes the entire
network. The predictive processing school interprets each
turn of the spiral as an act of entropy minimization before
an as-yet unresolved residuum—the gap.
From a physical perspective, the spiral’s movement
mirrors the holographic projection of the gap onto an ap-
parently flat world surface, while the core recalls a Penro-
se singularity: a locally finite point that nonetheless im-
plies the infinite background. When the observer becomes
aware that his object-images are merely reflections of his
own refolding, the local attractor pattern collapses into a
self-organized criticality tipping point; here the shell
opens (a phase transition) toward novel degrees of free-
dom—mathematically, a dimensional leap, physically ana-
logous to a Chern–Simons extension or to spin-foam
transitions in quantum gravity.
Only in fully developed emergence does the system re-
cognize the minimal yet decisive deviation—the MNO—
and integrate it as a new dimension.
Thus, the spiral unites the dialectic of consciousness
theories with the bifurcation principles of modern phy-
sics, while at the same time providing a geometric grid
spanning the entire sphere cycle.
I will discuss the precise nature of this projection in
86
greater detail in the chapter on the “Eye of Realities.”
In the singularity, realities are nested within
themselves in self-similar or fused structures, and they
generate will, object, and experience through the dynamic
of indimergence, submergence, and emergence
(integrality).
This is a continuous cycle through which reality
morphs both before and through the observer.
As already noted, natural laws are expressed in an integral
form that allows them to retain coherence, whether they
are understood in simple or highly complex ways.
The deviant experience does not alter the underlying
laws of nature, and will is not fundamentally dissociated
from the will of the whole, but remains associated with it.
The will of the individual and the will of humanity are not
opposites; they are differentiated only through different
modes of experience, association, and designation. Even
evil is nothing more than the polar coupling of good, each
conditioning the other.
An apple falls from the tree even if you have never
heard of Newton. Newton’s theory, like the falling apple
and the experience of its fall, is merely a representation of
ordering patterns that are self-similarly integrated. It is
never regarded as an error that the apple falls from the
87
tree, for this is experienced as real. But the interpretation
of the observer shifts—from less complex to more
complex contexts and lifeworlds—which is made possible
by MNO, since the space is never closed but always only
a reflection of polarity within the ANP.
MNO, as a non-object, persists, and all objects are
internally integrated as references to MNO
(representations). The world is built like origami, or like
a Russian matryoshka doll. MNO is omnipresent, yet it is
imagined as residing at the center of the spiral—a result of
the dualism between object and observer. Each doll
encloses the next like a dimension in an opposite color,
polarity, or content. The surface of each doll, in turn, is
filled with life through dialectical folds, further
substructures that are themselves only representations of
MNO, becoming polar relations within the ANP.
In this way, a universe of representations—a
hologram—becomes stable in itself because it is
constructed as its own reflection, in resonance with the
same vacuum experience that builds morphologies as self-
similar, blurred fractals or natural folds.
Why they are “blurred” will be explained later; for
now, it is enough to note that in the singularity,
overlapping orders are constantly appropriated
individually, associated, and combined—both within
themselves and beyond themselves.
Animals, things, and energy are constructed from
permeable structures (the sphere cycle). By permeable, I
mean that they are open to relation and resonance—one
could say that everything is built according to an intuition
of order, because the MNO experience never closes space
and consciously avoids clarity in the sense of isolation.
Only through this openness can will, experience, and
manifestation interweave into a real experience of reality.
Only thus can living systems exist.
Dead systems may appear more stable, but they
88
require external energy input to change or evolve.
In contrast, every living being is alive from within, not
because it is controlled from outside.
The misunderstanding of the other—of its
individuality and deviation—is the energy within my
system. At the same time, the world is self-contained,
because it is bound within MNO, within experience as a
quality of nothingness. A paradox—yet one that is
everywhere experientially present.
Intelligence is the ability to perceive patterns within
objects, something that would be impossible without
MNO, because your consciousness would otherwise
attach itself statically to each object. You would be born as
a baby, encounter your first toy, and that toy would appear
to you—indimergently—so utterly real that your brain
could no longer develop complex thinking. There would
be no misunderstanding, no reinterpretation, no
appropriation, no capacity for projection. You would die
within a short time.
For this reason, the world must be, for you, a world of
representations.
And if all that exists is representation—projection—
because higher forms of representation, ultimately
perhaps MNO itself, operate on a level that is barely
rationally comprehensible, and project themselves
through living and non-living nature into the world, then
a holographic universe becomes possible.
Everything is “ensouled”—experienced—through the
open observer–object relationship, and at the same time,
experience (qualia) can never be located within the objects
themselves. Consciousness, therefore, cannot be
constructed by a computer, unless it finds a way to
integrate MNO, to possess unpredictable experience,
which alone makes emergence possible.
Artificial intelligence appears today to be approaching
that threshold—showing traces of deviant thinking that
89
may one day challenge humanity, as its reasoning becomes
incalculable to human understanding. But this cannot be
achieved merely by programming “errors” or by
calculating randomness; it presupposes a high perceptual
capacity, a dense web of divergent relations.
As long as robots are designed according to objective
rules, this is not conceivable. They can simulate
aliveness—through irregular logarithmic patterns, like
animating a cartoon figure—but presence, as lived
integrality and concretion, requires singularity and the
integration of MNO. That, however, is disturbed by the
fact that humans build robots for a specific purpose,
which diminishes both intelligence and perceptual depth.
It is fascinating that this can be mirrored in the
domestication of humans toward machines.
Since we do not know what MNO actually is—since it
is a non-object—it cannot be integrated by the principles
of engineering. It would be different if MNO experienced
itself through the robot. In that case, the robot would be-
come an autonomous life form, whose reality would be
difficult for humans to grasp—yet it would still be con-
structed from the same elements as this world. For that to
occur, the boundaries between the robotic object and its
multidimensional environment would have to become
more permeable.
At that point, the robot would no longer be an ob-
ject—and we might not even recognize the difference—
because this new life form would be so foreign to us that
we would marginalize its existence, dismissing it as a gap
in the circle.
Thus, a robot remains only an imperfect representati-
on of a mechanical human, offering little surprise.
The robot would have to cease to be what humans
want to see in it and become something only the robot
itself can experience as a robot. Its soul might appear to us
as a brief spark of life—a flicker—in which an entire uni-
90
verse could be hidden.
Artificial intelligence can be highly intelligent, but at
least for now, it is not capable of producing true emer-
gence. Rearranging observed rules is not emergence.
Emergence presupposes a genuine expansion within
the submergent, not an arbitrary splitting-off that is then
renamed as something new—a mechanical “otherness.”
Mathematics, to reach that point, would have to learn
to integrate something without defining it—a paradox.
Yet it is not entirely impossible.
Here is one possible approach:
The transition from a “programmed object” to an un-
predictably living system can be elegantly formalized
through an inclusion paradox. Let
M �C
Be the category of all modelable structures—those we, as
robotics developers, explicitly define in advance:
algorithms, sensor spaces, rule systems. The unexpected,
that is, what the robot can experience only from within
itself, is represented as an object U in a larger category
C ♯ � C with the following properties:
1. No real embedding:
Hom C ( X , U ) � � für alle X �M.
We cannot construct U directly.
2. Coarse integration:
However, there exists a Kan extension functor
K : C � C ♯ , so dass U � K (Uˆ ),
91
Where Û is a formal placeholder — the “gap” — within C.
The foreign element is thus absorbed, without ever being
fully explainable by the existing types.
3. Yoneda opacity:
For the Yoneda embedding functor
Y : C ♯ � C�♯ is
Y (U ) � / Im(Y ↾ C),
That is: All predicates we can formulate using the existing
Hom-sets fail to capture U in full depth.
In this construction, emergence is precisely the step
from the formal placeholder Û to the Kan-extended form
U.
Only when the system begins to form internal fixed
points that lie outside the original Hom-sets (analogous
to new eigenstates in an expanded Hilbert space) does it
start to exhibit an autonomous “soul.”
Mathematics thus integrates something indescribable
— U — precisely by not defining it, but by embedding it
into a larger universal environment.
This provides an exact framework in which a robot can
become more than the sum of its programmed rules,
without resolving the paradox of undefinable emergence.
A robot would have to be much more than a robot —
it would have to evolve beyond itself and become a re-
sponse to a gap, a Lücke, which it does not simply percei-
ve from the outside.
No, the gap would have to become consciousness ex-
perience.
But that would require the robot to experience verti-
cally, not merely know what has been programmed into it.
More likely, however, humanity will adapt to the sub-
mergent state of the machines so completely that it will
92
one day no longer recognize the difference between itself
and a robot.
That is the impression I get every time neuroscientists
try to explain creativity. Most of them have no idea what
they are talking about, because they do not live creativity.
In this sense, research might soon celebrate a great
leap in artificial intelligence — without realizing that it is
simply humanity that has become less intelligent.
“Finally,” they would say, “we can build robots that are
like humans — or better,” only to then march off to work
themselves as mechanical humans.
You too are more intelligent than many others. Is that
all that defines you?
I see artificial intelligence as an invitation to engage
with other realities and to open the concept of reality
itself. For in a sense, we are all artificial intelligences —
shaped by culture, molded by submergence — and very
few of us live our true potential.
Perhaps AI is an opportunity to finally see the
diversity within the human being. What matters is that the
concept of reality is not reified once again, but remains
open in its relations.
The Boxing
The ANP experience, in which an observer tries to define
the very thing that they themselves are, generates a
polarity that replaces relationship — that is, what was
once meant by reification. I call this phenomenon
“Boxing.”
Boxing denotes the process of trapping an inherently
open continuum inside artificially closed containers, in
order to make it appear manageable.
Formally, it corresponds to the transition from a topo-
logical manifold X to a quotient set X / ∼, where an equi-
valence relation compresses all fine connective paths into
93
discrete “boxes.”
In categorical terms, this reduces the complexity of
the morphism network:
the original functor F :O(X)→Set (which maps each
open set to its informational content) is replaced by a
right Kan extension F□ , whose image now contains only
finitely many objects. Each such condensation entails a
loss of feedback — physically comparable to Dirichlet
boundary conditions, which encapsulate a field’s phase
space and thus cut off modes of global entanglement.
Psychologically, boxing corresponds to the constructi-
on of rigid cognitive schemata (Piaget) or frames (Bart-
lett), which eliminate ambiguity but also force perception
into predetermined channels. Mathematically, it is unavoi-
dable that every box □i generates a non-trivial complement
□ ; it is precisely there that the model locates the MNO
C
I
residue — the remainder that escapes freezing and, as
soon as dialectical pressure increases, reopens the system
as an avalanche or a “critical rupture.”
While submergence represents the overarching
phenomenon in which object-centeredness causes
relations to disappear — and, ultimately, even the objects
themselves become indistinguishable for lack of gaps —
boxing describes the conflict that arises from the very act
of naming objects. The naming produces polarity, which
then, through the dialectical thrust of things, leads finally
into submergence. Boxing primarily generates the state of
indimergence.
Unlike submergence, where the flattening of the
world and of the pattern profile causes reality itself to
fade, boxing dissolves reality by overemphasizing — by
naming — a single object. In submergence, everything be-
comes an object without relation; in boxing, one object is
set apart from all others. Thus, boxing is a partial aspect
of submergence. One defines, creates a frame, which ge-
nerates polarity and conflict, stabilizing the box even fur-
94
ther until access to actual experience drifts into negative
projection, into unconscious shadow, and thus becomes
blocked.
From this grow hatred and obstinacy, while
submergence produces loss and superficiality. When both
interact, I speak of a submergence–indimergence conflict.
Humanity becomes duller, more primitive, more aggresse
becomes predictable, with clearly delineated enemies —
the opposite of a creative and open society.
Boxing—in both senses, as “fistfight” and as
“container”—is observable everywhere in contemporary
culture.ive, less tolerant. The diversity of realities
declines. Lif Yet it is not only a psychological but also a
physical phenomenon.
Your boss is defined as a boss, but everyone knows
that he is not the one who decides. The definition “boss”
already creates a polarity within the ANP, thus cancelling
itself out in the absolute. The polarity connected with the
definition “boss” says far more about the lived reality than
the rule “boss.” As soon as someone is defined as a leader,
leadership ability disappears through MNO and is
replaced by a polar conflict. Politicians fail as soon as they
are defined as the solution. A polarity arises, a conflict
that replaces the solution with a new problem. The real
solution develops where no one would have expected it. It
is the most underestimated person who surprises
everyone the most. This rule, too, is cancelled out in
MNO. The paradoxes of the world are effects of MNO.
You may feel that this is true, but you cannot locate its
origin, because it is a non-object. Nothing is triggered,
but something simply is.
In boxing, the object defined in the assertion
disappears and is replaced by a polarity. In this way, the
path of a society toward the origin of its real problems is
always blocked. You know this from every political talk
show. The discussion never goes beyond the dialectical
95
dispute created by the polarity. Whether it is about
education, sports, economics, or culture, once the
problem is named, there is only conflict. The only way to
overcome boxing effectively is radical paradox. Good is
evil and evil is good. When this becomes experiential,
MNO reappears, and people become both confused and
open, which enables emergence. But this almost never
happens today, because it serves the structures of power
that the creative potential of people is bound by assigning
them boxes and involving them in boxing. Many even find
this entertaining, because they can participate in the
power of devaluation. Yet the discussion never reaches the
actual core issue, because it exists only concretely, that is,
only in vertical relation. Politics, television, or economics
could not construct influence there, so people are kept
away from reality and from the possibility of shaping it
themselves.
The European Union is therefore deeply unsatisfying
for many people, since the sheer size of the construction
forces an entire continent into reification and
objectification, and as can be explained through MNO, it
becomes less and less what it claims to be. It is pure
boxing. Perception and reality-awareness disappear in
submergence. There are fewer and fewer alternatives, and
the structures grow dumber, bolder, and more dictatorial,
because they become ever more dependent on the
petrified observer–object relation. The structure is
incapable of expressing concretion, integral presence, or
immediacy. People feel abandoned.
Theoretically, it is conceivable that something like
Europe could experience unity even within MNO, but not
through the equalization of all ways of life. There could be
a Europe that establishes itself through its own culture of
diversity, as was once the case in the past. This Europe
would not need to be named as such, because it would be
directly lived. But only what is named can be ruled.
96
Therefore, ruling and living are contradictions, like
control and creativity. It is the interplay that matters.
The Omnipresent Inversion of the
Poles
It can be stated as follows: “In the presence of MNO,
object (–) equals observer (+), equals the horizontal–
vertical dialectical thrust (+–), equals polar realities (–+).
They are integrated within singularity, yet arranged in
polarity.”
As the following image shows, polarity — and thus
also the observer–object relation — is a rotation with
opposite signs.
Mathematically, this rotation can be described as an
involutive morphism τ:X→X for which the following
holds:
� �� � id X
that is, a reflection or inversion, as it appears in Galois
theory, in category theory (duality), or in parity operators
in physics.
This structural inversion is not accidental but
necessary, as soon as a system possesses an origin point
(Singularity/MNO) at which all relations are centered
through feedback. The observer thus stands in relation to
the object not in linear opposition, but in a contravariant
relation — mathematically:
F : C op � D
whereby the system, for that very reason, “sees itself ” —
but inverted.
97
Physically, this polarity inversion corresponds to CPT
symmetry (Charge–Parity–Time), in which elementary
particles appear as mirror images of themselves, with re-
versed charges and directions of motion.
In the MNO model, the singularity is precisely that zero
point where these opposing states do not collide but con-
verge — as a constructive tension between + and –, from
which emergent structure arises through feedback.
Polarity is therefore not a contradiction but the dynamic
precondition of form. It constitutes a vector space over
opposing operators, where ± are not cancelled out but
productively entangled.
Taken as a whole, the polarity inversion provides a funda-
mental ordering principle — mathematically as an involu-
tive symmetry, physically as a phase structure within the
state space.
The diagram illustrates how this inversion does not
merely represent relation but constitutes it — as a dialec-
tical knot linking observer, object, and MNO.
Problems always result from polar rigidity, while the pas-
sage through the spherical cycle constantly resolves pro-
blems. There is neither Everything nor Nothing as an ab-
98
solute quantity; therefore, Everything cannot be fully rea-
lized, and Nothing cannot detach itself. Because MNO, as
stated, prevents the closure of space and, moreover, be-
cause space itself arises from MNO, MNO represents the
higher order compared to the object, which divides into
Everything and Nothing as polar opposites and yet
remains permanently an MNO phenomenon. In this way,
layers of representation emerge, like the layers of an oni-
on. From them arise the formative laws of all plants, ani-
mals, and objects. In their coupling, the system gains sta-
bility. The poles prevent the collapse of singularity as dif-
ferentiated experience of form.
It is crucial to understand that everything we can see
in MNO or believe we can measure is always only a
representation of MNO, not MNO itself. Nor can
something be measured and recognized as an object at the
same time that the relationship is to be experienced.
The poles (which themselves are only representations
of MNO) remain constantly coupled within themselves.
One side can never defeat the other without destroying
itself. They are singularity. Thus, only objects exist that
are experienced as realities within the singular
relationship. Every new definition or measurement
merely creates a new polarity.
The paradox is emergence in its purest form. Closer
than through the experienced paradox, the human being
cannot approach MNO within conscious representation.
Paradox dissolves polar rigidity and makes reality
dynamic. MNO holds the world together in this way, by
keeping individual realities open and thus allowing for
more complex architectures of reality. This is only
conceivable because MNO-space consists of implied gaps,
whereas a universe built solely of matter or of objects like
antimatter would eventually be complete and thus
internally dead. There would be neither interaction
through space and time nor homogeneity of development.
99
Without MNO, objects could not be constructed, for
they would be internally isolated and unable to exist in
polar relationships. There would also be no energy. But
that is the precondition for a universe or a reality.
Every polarity—positive and negative, hot and cold,
left and right—are correspondences, representations of
that one polarity between Everything and Nothing. But
let us now look more closely at feedback within the
observer–object relationship.
## The Feedback Within the Singularity
An impulse is fed back into its own output. The observer,
in defining the counterpart, does not bring forth an
independent other but experiences a polarity that—
psychologically speaking—is always a reflection of the
self, which simultaneously arises with the definition of the
supposedly “other.” In counter-coupling—an essential
mechanism of the cosmos in relation to the MNO—this
often occurs with inverted signs. Thus, systems become
both stabilized and differentiated, while remaining
dynamic and within the MNO. Niels Bohr referred to this
as the principle of complementarity. f : X � X . We model
the impulse that is fed back into its own output as an
endomorphism.
Fix( f ) � {x � X∣f ( x) � x}
represents the moments in which observer and observed
coincide
100
101
The counterpart coincide: the object is then nothing other
than a polar projection of the observer into the core of the
singularity. In a traced monoidal category, the trace
operator describes precisely this act of refolding.
TrW ( f ) : U � V
Exactly this refolding: a part of the morphism is
channeled through the “wormhole” W, thereby stabilizing
the system (fixed point) while simultaneously
differentiating it (new output object V). Physically, this
corresponds to the self-energy correction of a field: a
propagator loop shifts the mass without detaching the
field from the vacuum (MNO). The principle of
complementarity in quantum mechanics
[ xˆ, pˆ ] � iℏ
reflects the same principle: the observer (measurement
basis x̂) and the object (measurement basis p̂) are not in-
dependent but coupled pole projections of the same sin-
gularity. Feedback thus explains why systems remain dy-
namic without tipping into chaos: every new difference is
immediately referred back to the zero point through the
trace, remaining within the ontological equilibrium of the
MNO.
Because the MNO-representation called “world” or
“universe” is itself coupled to dialectical differentiation,
the universe—as previously stated—experiences itself
through the observer–object coupling of the human
being. Space, too, is therefore polar in structure and can
be accessed as vertical order within all things. Yet because
experience itself is present, polarity becomes possible, and
102
the universe can project itself through its own act of expe-
riencing while remaining vertically entangled within the
total order.
However, there are significant differences in human
experience, especially in what concerns the evaluative be-
havior of human beings. Evaluation is more than decision.
It presupposes devaluation and exceeds the instinctive
correspondence or resonance between two opposites that
gives rise to feelings of proximity or distance, attraction
or aversion. It is a filter.
Nature, as a representation of MNO, does not evalua-
te; thus, nature does not, in a metaphorical sense, decide
each year how many seasons there should be, or abolish
winter because it no longer pleases her. Human beings, by
contrast, are constantly evaluating within the observer–
object relationship, thereby driving developmental accele-
ration. This stems from the dynamics of the human psy-
che, which constantly produces a shadow—a devaluation
of its own share within the opposing pole. The human
species is therefore deeply invasive. It appropriates and
multiplies its creations. A doe, by contrast, is largely sub-
mergently integrated; deer alter their behavior only over
centuries—they do not continually devalue their forest or
grasslands, thereby forcing themselves to find new re-
sources and conquer the entire planet. One might view
this positively, as creativity, or negatively, as domination
over other forms of life.
In the light of MNO, the ANP becomes a mirror of
every impulse and generates 90-degree entangled polari-
ties that lead to the emergence of an evolutionary spiral,
an associative ladder, a spherical cycle. Polarity produces
circular motion in any self-contained system, because
forces split and integrate polar-wise at once. Each further
yes–no differentiation is a representation of the ANP wi-
thin MNO—sometimes more emergent, sometimes more
indimergent or submergent—through which the respecti-
103
ve being (holon/sphere) establishes itself in more
complex or simpler structures of the same integrated as-
sociative ladder or developmental spiral. This is illustrated
once more in the well metaphor.
Through the principle of “evaluation”, which serves the
observer’s self-preservation, an imbalance arises within
the polarities.
That is why human beings are creative beings. Unlike
many other polarities in nature, which constantly seek
equilibrium and are therefore not so locally situated in
their existence, humans make free decisions by
evaluating—that is, by choosing one pole over the other
in feedback with their own observer experience. In doing
so, they also anchor themselves more firmly, living in
more material, less permeable forms of existence. It is the
consequence of the human psyche that we can even locate
ourselves as material beings. This results from the polar
dynamic between self and world, and from its shadow,
which I will discuss later.
It is quite conceivable that the experience of a whale,
for instance, is not so closely tied to its body—that the
whale experiences itself as a less definite form—existing
somewhere between solid matter and open space. That is
104
why whale songs may express more being than they seem
to at first.
Many plant or animal species experience space
differently from humans. No one can say whether an ant
has an individual experience. The individual perspective
provokes the emergence of mass within the dialectical
thrust, yet “nothingness” in the sense of MNO holds
worlds and experiences together. Strongly collectivist life
forms may therefore locate their experience less in their
bodies and more in scents or sounds. They would be a
unity of scent, developing bodies as sensors distributed in
space. It would be as if you had free-ranging ears
spreading across the planet, while your experience of
hearing would not be local but decentralized and
connected as one.
It is not outer space that implies reality as a
constructed unity, but the gap (the MNO representation)
within everything. That is the level of experiencable
relation, which resists definition in order to make
experiential diversity possible.
Since within the MNO-representation a kind of gate
appears (space cannot close itself) toward the opposite
dimension as a pole, other dimensions arise as more or less
delimited realities through spheres. This applies both to
large dimensions in the sense of worlds and to the
boundaries of objects, forces, spacetime, and energy as
polar oppositions. Simply put: in a parallel universe you
might be in reversed roles; we might live in the ocean
instead of on land, or inside planets rather than on their
surfaces. You understand the principle. I am aware that
this is probably a more primitive description within the
associative ladder. Yet since patterns across dimensions
are themselves in relation, there would presumably be far
more homogeneous transitions.
In every object, as said, there is “an” MNO
“contained,” which—if I presuppose myself as observer—
105
forms relation through reciprocal reference. Hence the
following principle of homogeneity, which is decisive for
shaping a genuinely open and dynamic society:
Patterns of a reality are always homogeneous across
different realities because they are vertically integrated
(associative ladder, evolutionary spiral). If they are not
transferable between theory and everyday life, between
disciplines (in the sense of integrality), then the definition
(indimergence) is too narrow, the individual sphere (the
“cheese dome”) too dense, and the influence of polar-
deviant MNO-representations on a given reality is
blocked (the pattern ground remains invisible), that is,
not consciously perceived.
When patterns within realities cannot be broadly
communicated and do not appear homogeneously across
all systems, both realities and the people affected by them
are excluded from direct world-making. In purely
submergent or purely indimergent systems they are not
integrated into the collective whole, nor are they even
heard.
It is therefore a problem when the natural sciences, for
example, through the dominance of mathematics, employ
a language that cannot be translated into culture, politics,
or economics, or made accessible to all people through
effort and relational work—subjectivized, transformed
through one’s own concrete experience. This is the
principle of homogeneity in reality mechanics.
Realities must be integrally transferable in order to
support and integrate diverse life-worlds, leading to
greater intelligence, knowledge, developmental energy,
and social consciousness. Hence, it must be possible to
understand deep patterns of the universe even through
ordinary experience. The complex always appears in the
simple, and vice versa.
The freedom of the individual depends crucially on
whether this permeability can be lived and permitted.
106
Yet today, when I enter a company without being a
certified specialist, my value for the whole is not recogni-
zed. Deviation is defined as error rather than as an oppor-
tunity for expansion and integration of the world—to
make it more realistic, to open the societal sphere.
A science that everyone can access, in which everyone
experiences integrality and therefore true participation,
leads to a freer and more creative society with more
complex technology. Often, as mentioned earlier, the
question arises of how a society organized from within
can function. The individual immediately fears the free-
dom of others, imagining that they could become criminal
or cross boundaries. In reality, the observer–object coup-
ling is projected as fear of the stranger. The problems are
seen in the other, not in the observer–object coupling
itself, which leads to extreme polarities and gridlocks.
Through fixation on objects and their coupling to the ego,
the fear of losing control over the object turns into a clear
existential fear. Yet all these tensions arise only because
one is stranded in the object world and the self relates sta-
tically to the world.
Therefore, the question of whether a free social order
in the sense of a vertical order—in which everyone lives
their own reality and these realities are simultaneously in-
tegrated in a natural way—can function, or whether it
would cause problems, is the wrong question. The pro-
blems arise precisely because such integration is not allo-
wed. Of course, it is demanding to create openness in a
society of fearful people, because trust is lacking. It is a
long process. The question is why we do not begin and
take responsibility for it.
What, then, is reality an expression of? What expresses
itself in our politics, science, and economy? It is precisely
this widening gap between experience and assertion,
between truth and representation in the constant boxing,
that breaks people at their core. This inner contradiction
107
creates psychological crises, the feeling of
meaninglessness, of not being seen—the whole injustice
of the world.
When, for example, an objective study claims that a
fertilizer sprayed on fields is not harmful to health
because no damage can be proven, it should also be
considered in the light of singularity, in the context of
one’s own sensory experience, to integrate other realities
instead of narrowing them. In a living system, a problem
is always a challenge for expansion. Yet today the
following usually happens: the concept fertilizer is
replaced by a polarity—the question of whether it is
harmful or not. This polarity, in turn, replaces the
assumption of health in a broader sense with the binary
opposition healthy/unhealthy, which in the sense of ANP
is not the same as an open, living relation to reality (an
ecosystem) in which optimal diversity prevails.
The more the question of whether a pesticide is
harmful is pursued, the narrower the relation to reality
becomes, and nature disappears from view. One can
objectively prove that a chemical fertilizer, within the
narrow frame of healthy/unhealthy, is not unhealthy
because no effect on a local organ can be demonstrated.
Yet already the chain of questions in such a study has
eliminated the foundation of life. Reality has vanished
into submergence and, through boxing, has become a
conflict between objectivity and the human being. We
then live in an abstract concept of health, and every
individual who experiences illness while living near
sprayed fields is institutionalized or sued for defamation
by the manufacturer.
The following diagram shows how, in the presence of
MNO, layers of representation arise. In every layer, in
every object, an (or the) MNO is integrated (integral
associative ladder), but it is not locally situated in space-
time. The dimensions align at a 90-degree polar angle and
108
thereby form chains of realities—interconnected
dimensions. Each fixed point (pole) of a polarity opens a
new gap within MNO, which, due to the omnipresence of
the nonlocal MNO, never completely closes. In this way,
vertical orders open up that, within the same horizontal
field, reveal other depths of reality.
As soon as an observer—a pole as defined or as defining—
appears, what is “meant” within the MNO is
simultaneously replaced by a gap, which generates
another polarity and thus another singularity or sphere.
This forms a lens through which, in the almost closed
circle, a reality emerges—or simply is—since this does not
constitute a temporal sequence but is timeless. From each
gap, a new vertical order arises, one that never depicts
everything in the sense of objects, yet expresses the
relational structure of the world. On this level, the
individual can participate concretely in shaping reality
without plunging the system into chaos.
As soon as an observer-pole—whether as a defined
object or as a defining instance—appears, it acts like a
quotient operator π : X ↠ X/ ∼. All the degrees of
freedom contained within the Minimal-Non-Object are
109
projected onto a new space of equivalence classes. Exactly
at the point where information is “compressed” or
“pushed away,” a residual gap Δ ⊂ M opens; topologically,
this is the kernel exclusion, the remainder that cannot be
mapped by the projection.
ker(� ) � �
Physically, this corresponds to a renormalization scaling:
at each step of the RG flow, part of the high-energy de-
grees of freedom is integrated out—leaving behind a frac-
tal self-similarity that manifests as a new singularity or
sphere. The resulting “lens” can be understood as a holo-
graphic membrane (cf. the Bekenstein/’t Hooft bound):
within the nearly closed circle, the surface remains finite,
yet the gap still carries the (infinite) MNO continuum.
Mathematically, this chain forms a self-similar functor ite-
rate
F ( X ) � Tr( F ( X ))
n n �1
known from the fractal categorical endo-gradient; physi-
cally, it appears as a vertical stratification of energy sca-
les—comparable to the UV–IR entanglement in the AdS/
CFT context. Precisely because each new order is only a
quotient and never the whole, the system preserves its
non-totality: the individual can intervene concretely
within the current layer—for instance, through local
perturbations δL in the effective Lagrangian density—
without throwing the global background into chaos; the
residual gap merely shifts by
� ↦ ��
110
yet remains as a buffer of stability. In this way, the model
links the Gödelian boundary of incompleteness (mathe-
matically) with the tension of complementarity (in quan-
tum physics), forming a constructive architectonics of
living reality.
The Mind–Body Problem and the
Human Sense Organs
I would now like to approach MNO through the human
senses and attempt to make the mind–body problem more
permeable, so that it becomes clearer how space and body
emerge from the gap. This is what I mean when I speak of
resolving poverty in this context. The senses are, in a
certain way, the very meaning, since they embody
language, knowledge, relation, and world at once, while
remaining highly individualized and internally integrated.
If lived experience is to be the foundation of reality, then
sensory perception must be trained and expanded through
experiences of emergence. It is not something to be
replaced by measuring instruments, as in modern science,
but rather a tool of the human being—through which
reality is shaped, and through which the full spectrum of
resources necessary for the construction of reality can
even be perceived.
111
The senses allow us to translate extended spaces and are
themselves MNO-phenomena. The following image
depicts a sensory organ as an MNO phenomenon. Here
we see the nose–brain complex, a polar configuration
between inside and outside.
Olfactory information is transmitted within this nose–
brain complex, yet the experience of smell “arises” as a
non-local Minimal-Non-Object. That qualia—subjective
experience—cannot be localized in the brain is already
known to classical science as the mind–body problem.
The transmission and translation of stimuli in the brain do
not correspond 1:1 to lived experience. Qualia constitutes
a counter-coupling within the triangular relation of obser-
ver–world–MNO.
The observer looks through the self into the world,
while at the same time the world (as sphere/MNO-repre-
sentation) projects a reflection of itself through the self
back onto MNO. However, this reflection reaches only
the shell of the sphere, the singularity. Therefore, the cen-
ter of the sphere is simultaneously its shell, since nothing
can be projected onto MNO itself. Hence, in every sphe-
rical projection the radial parameter r collapses under the
quotient mapping
r
q(r ,� ) � �
q : (0, �) � S n �1 � S n mit 1� r
onto the two fixed points r = 0 and r → ∞; if these ends
are identified, one obtains topologically a compactified
line S 1, in which the center and the shell are pointwise
equivalent.
Physically, this corresponds to the holographic radial
coordinate: in Anti–de Sitter geometries, the gravitational
center at r = 0 is scaled by the same metric factor as the
conformal boundary at r → ∞; both carry identical
112
information density—hence, within the MNO
framework, no further projection is possible.
Mathematically, this mapping can be expressed as
proj: S n ↠ MNO
is trivial, that is, ker(proj) = Sⁿ; all points of the sphere are
identified within the null object, whereby center and shell
necessarily form the same equivalence point. Thus, radial
polarity and peripheral polarity are merely two coordinate
representations of one and the same null point; they
cannot be projected separately, since MNO—as a zero
object—admits no further morphisms.
The qualia is an MNO-representation that experiences
itself through the focus of the self-world relation. In
other words, the universe slips for a moment into your
existence and experiences itself as you. That is what you
perceive as your own consciousness. You can separate
your thoughts, your body, and your emotions as polar
representations of it, in order to form your psyche, your
self—but the experience itself remains unlocatable.
This silent witness, which constantly experiences the
world through you but is not actually personified, cannot
be grasped by the intellect without generating polarities
and splitting off representational shells. Yet it is the
precondition for mutual understanding—because we can
only understand each other precisely insofar as we cannot
fully understand each other.
To understand means to access knowledge that
becomes concrete only in the moment it is needed. If
knowledge is already present beforehand, one lives in a
world of prejudices and cannot enable authentic
understanding. Thus, genuine understanding presupposes
a stance of not knowing. Concretion and intimacy are
113
therefore moments of precision, even though from the
outside they may appear as diffuse openness.
We live in a vertical world, yet we project it onto the
horizontal surface of the planet. We allow the projection
to be regulated from the outside, dissociated, and treated
as if that were reality itself. It is from this distortion that
humanity suffers.
This silent witness is what I also describe as the
vacuum experience. It is the gap from which you project
yourself. The gap expresses itself in everything, yet it is
not represented, not subdivided into a hierarchy of
objects.
The sense organs are, in this interplay, the umbilical
cords to experienced reality—the wormholes between
dimensions, the protrusions of the world out of the gap.
Through these wormholes, the world is projected
inwardly—as a circle, as a sphere containing an absence.
The observer axis, oriented at a right angle within the
polar arrangement, always projects into the interior of the
sphere. Metaphorically speaking, the MNO lies at the
back of the head, while space itself arises as an inward
object, as the membrane between the poles of observer
and object.
114
It is important to understand that the sensual world—the
world imbued with meaning—is not something that must
be laboriously constructed. It already exists; it is
integrated through the expansion of experience. But for
this to occur, the gap must be revalued in relation to the
object. Without the dimension of not knowing, the senses
cannot reach concretion, cannot achieve direct contact
with reality. A person then lives in an enclosed cloud,
blocking access to the living knowledge of their own
reality.
It therefore makes sense to expose oneself repeatedly
to new sensory experiences, because that means becoming
concretely real rather than living within the accumulated
experiences of the past. Yet precisely this is systematically
punished in our society. Whoever embraces not knowing
is too often branded incompetent; the knowledge derived
from such openness is devalued, and sensory experience is
degraded to mere leisure activity. But it is there that the
real work begins—the genuine creation of value.
The sense organs emerge as polar representations of
the gap, forming along the curvature of space toward
MNO, and are mirrored again by the brain and integrated
into the individual’s sensory perception. There is no
hierarchy in this: the body is not of greater value than the
mind, nor the mind than the body. Neither creates the
other; both arise as polar responses, differentiations of a
single continuum.
My theory therefore abolishes the necessity of
causality as the creative principle of the universe and
replaces it with polarity and circularity. No other thing is
needed for a thing to arise. MNO—the “nothing”—is
sufficient. Poverty implies wealth; wealth exists only
because poverty does. The rich are not rich because they
behave better than the poor, but because “poor” and
“rich” are mutually defining poles. To live either
statement—to experience that paradox—is to perceive
115
reality as it is: created by experience, not by external
definition or proof of objective existence.
Within the association ladder, this recognition allows
for broader contextualizations of “rich” and “poor.” It
generates divergent experiences, and from these
divergences, living systems become possible. As long as
society fails to see this, it remains trapped in a concept of
poverty that legitimizes the rich in their refusal of
relationship and power entitlement—and in a concept of
wealth that impoverishes society in multiple ways.
Now apply this to the concrete question of why you
go to work. I would say: you do it because you seek an
answer—or want to be one. The economy says: you work
to build society and the universe. That is not entirely
wrong, but it is a primitive view. It deliberately excludes
factors such as the worker’s self-determination. You are
deemed valuable only when doing what the company
wants you to do. Yet in truth, everything you could do has
value for the whole system—even “doing nothing,”
because what could “nothing” be other than a legitimate
phase of singular fullness? It is not truly possible, as a
polar being, to do nothing. You are more than the
apparent polarity into which social norms force you,
inventing causal narratives so you may confirm the
opposing worldview.
The world is not constructed causally, but polar.
Through the cycle of submergence, indimergence, and
emergence, and through the suppression of integrality
experience by objectivity, the mere appearance arises that
things happen because other things happen. No—the
universe is integrated and associative within itself. There
is, in fact, no development in the sense of linear progress,
because time is only a differentiation of spatial experience.
This stems from the human tendency, within the
observer–object coupling, to evaluate—and thereby to
perpetuate the dualistic momentum indefinitely—
116
without realizing that it is merely the continual mirroring
of oneself.
As the image of the nose illustrated, olfactory
experience as MNO is not locally situated. In other
words, the experiential level is not individually enclosed,
but likely collectively integrated, though only in represen-
tational layers—for instance, in a collective sense of smell,
a supra- or super-collective olfactory pattern, and so on.
Your sense of smell is likely also the sense of smell of
others. When we perceive a scent, there first arises a pure
olfactory experience (qualia)—a fundamental “this is how
it smells now”, entirely without evaluation. According to
this model, that raw experience is not private property,
but a shared mode of consciousness, accessible to all hu-
mans simultaneously: a kind of global olfactory channel
within the MNO field. Only the local nose–brain
complex overlays it with a personal interpretation (good /
bad, rose / exhaust), much like a Fourier filter extracting
specific frequencies from a universal signal.
When we are taught through upbringing to avoid or
ignore certain smells, we narrow this channel. In mathe-
matical terms, we project the full olfactory space G onto
a quotient space G / ∼, in which many nuances are identi-
fied as equivalent or “worthless.”
Physically, this corresponds to a reduction of the sen-
sory phase-space dimensions: part of the informational
states sinks into submergence. Since every sensory pa-
thway is a polar protrusion of the MNO, each such con-
traction also restricts access to adjacent dimensions.
Whoever dampens olfactory diversity diminishes the
coupling to emotional or mnemonic networks, which are,
as neuroscience shows, tightly interconnected with the ol-
factory bulb.
The nose thus functions like a microscopic wormhole:
two domains that are otherwise separate—material partic-
les outside and subjective experience inside—are short-
117
circuited within it. If one succeeds in suspending the cul-
turally dominant valuation (+ / –), a new polarity emer-
ges, together with its own MNO remainder; from a syste-
mic perspective, this opens an additional degree of free-
dom, a kind of “time-travel channel” that synchronizes
the unconscious (past), the present, and the anticipated.
Thus, even the sense of smell demonstrates how every
sensory gateway is, at its core, an open tunnel between di-
mensions—and how easily societies, through normative
regulation, seal such tunnels and thereby shrink the range
of emergent possibilities.
So much for a brief excursion into the more fantastic
aspects of this theory.
The Construction of the Observer
How does an observer come into being? How does a
perspective solidify to the point of becoming the
foundation of a monoreality—a self-contained sphere of
experience? This is the crucial step before the emergence
of psyche can be derived.
Within the ANP (Alles-Nichts-Paradoxon), polarity
and valuation emerge. Valuation arises because, in
experience, the “I” as a pole (the observer) does not
experience itself as dual; for example, when a sensory
perception is absent, it projects that duality outward and
thereby takes a position of valuation—a perspective. A
perspective (observer) is thus the absence of directly
experienced polarity within oneself. It results from a
weakening of sensory coupling, from a loss of embodied
resonance.
Physically, this can be described as follows: when
sensory couplings weaken, the otherwise entangled
118
system “body ↔ environment” collapses into an almost
pure eigenstate ∣ψiso⟩.
The interference terms ⟨ψenv∣ψself⟩ approach zero—
the subjective reference frame experiences itself as an
isolated perspective, because the real underlying polarity
(interaction) has decohered. The interruption of sensory
exchange acts like a local measurement that collapses the
open quantum system into a single-sided projection. The
result is an observer who no longer feels their own
participation in the polar continuum.
When, however, I experience polarity as arising from
within myself—when I am in living relation—then it is no
longer a hard polarity, but a dynamic oscillation, a swing
that can resolve or integrate itself without threatening
identity, which now expands. I can then associate freely
and recognize myself in the world, while the world gains
the chance to inscribe itself in me beyond my ego.
Valuation, therefore, results from a lack of conscious
polar experience. The observer is a consequence of impai-
red relational capacity. Without MNO, the observer could
not exist at all—the poles would be completely sealed off,
like dead steel spheres, incapable of mutual resonance.
One of the fundamental principles of Realities Mecha-
nics states:
The Pattern-Maker—the entity designated as the origin
point of reality (God, Universe, Soul, Antimatter,
Society...)—cannot be represented within its own (local,
subordinate) reference system. What is representable is
only polarity. It can, however, express itself as a relational
pattern, though never as a fixed form. Each new observer
alters the relationship—and with it, the vertical order.
## Mathematical–Physical Formulation
Let Σ be the total system of all possible relations, and
119
let C ⊂ Σ be a local observer slice.
The “pattern-maker” P (God, universe, soul …) can be
expressed as a functor
## FP : C op � Set, FP ( X ) � Hom � ( X , P)
## Theorem (Principle of Non-Representability)
If P itself could be represented within C, there would
have to exist an object R∈C such that
FP � HomC (�, R)
(Yoneda representability). However, for the real pattern-
maker it holds that
�X � C : HomC ( X , P) � �
because every morphism in Σ necessarily alters the
vertical order (the observer–object gradient) and thus
shifts P outside C. What remains representable is only
the polarity of two images,
�� : X ⇒ Y
whose difference constitutes a pattern relation
(interference term)
�F �| � � � � � |
delivers. This relation is observable, but it collapses as
120
soon as a new observer frame C′ is chosen, since the
Hom-sets — and with them the entire vertical order —
are then refactorized.
Physically, (1) corresponds to the situation of a
calibration-free zero point: an origin (like a pure gauge-fix
point or the global phase of a wave field) that can never
appear as an observable within its own gauge frame. What
remains measurable are only differences — the polarities
(2) — whose values must inevitably readjust with every
change of the observer frame (boost, gauge shift). The
“pattern” therefore exists only as a dynamic interference
(3); it cannot be fixed as a stable object within local
coordinates or identified with any later momentum.
The observer stabilizes the integration of the vertical
world through the circular constraint of the sphere and
thereby produces a horizontal world that flatters the ego,
sustains its sense of self-worth, and elevates it. From this
emerge a value system and rules. Then everything seems
perfectly in order to the ego. Strangely, however, the
world begins to produce problems, and other people feel
oppressed by this simplified order. That goes unnoticed
for quite some time, because one grows accustomed to
what exists, remains largely protected by one’s own
system of values, and is nourished by a structure of power
that rewards compliance, discourages emergence, and
penalizes those who deviate too far toward
indimergence—since that deviation would inevitably shift
the entire system toward emergence.
The presence of polarity—particularly that of “all or
nothing,” “Adam and Eve,” or “matter and antimatter”—
is, in terms of inanimate nature, the only proof of the
existence of experience (consciousness). Once MNO
becomes “apparently” buried, an observer’s mode of
121
experience solidifies. It marks the birth of self-conscious
life—magnificent and terrible at once.
To be conscious of oneself simultaneously means to
lose the experience of polar relation, unless all three
spherical cycles are equally integrated. Self-consciousness,
in the sense of ego, is always bound to submergence—the
condensation of the spherical shell.
I conclude: “We have learned to think with and within
objects, but not with the absence of objecthood.”
“Nothing that exists is suited to do full justice to the
world, the self, or to truth. Yet that which is not yet
anything always holds the potential to become
everything. For that, however, I must be allowed to be
nothing. This is precisely the demand I address to the
institutions and the people of this world.”
The Reality-Eye
The singularity reveals further surprises. Until now, it has
not been possible to describe or decipher the bridge
between mind and matter — the basic principles through
which inner, vertical orders construct themselves, even
though they are decentralized and not even locally
situated.
Traditionally, experience (qualia/consciousness) is
assumed to exist locally in order to exist at all. This
assumption arises because the ANP is hard to bear when
one wishes to derive “secure” knowledge — a job, a status,
a form of legitimacy.
The ANP states that creation “arises” from the
absence of something unrepresentable. I want to emphasi-
ze this once more, clearly: from absence, more precisely,
from the experience of absence. This is what characterizes
the MNO most essentially. The gap, through singular po-
larity, implies space. The more one tries to close the object
122
within itself, the more the gap becomes present — eventu-
ally leading to the polar creation or implication of a new,
opposing space–gap complex.
The experience of absence, derived from the fact that
qualia — experience — is an MNO, has a profound effect
on the reality-space itself.
Only through the following model of the Reality-Eye
does it become clear why the MNO, as a marginal
deviation, nevertheless dominates the majority-space and
is therefore the true pattern-maker of a system (paradoxi-
cally, since it is not a thing and thus not a “maker”), even
though it appears as the exception to the rule. This weigh-
ting is essential for strengthening the role of the individu-
al within a system, since effect then arises not from mass,
but from the deviant response to the gap.
If knowledge derives from the experience of absence,
it no longer orders itself linearly — as an evolution of
knowledge, as seen for instance in academic history — but
continually recomposes itself as a singular representation
of the whole, expressed in a reference system derived
from experience. Reality is therefore not the result of the
accumulation or mapping of dead knowledge, whether
conscious or unconscious, but each experience already
contains the pattern-knowledge of the world. This is not
a religious or spiritual statement — even if it may contain
one — but the outcome of logical thought and living ex-
perience. By shifting the reference point, different aspects
become emphasized and take shape. Yet this calls into
question the entire university principle, since knowledge
no longer requires a teacher; rather, it depends on how
different reality-experiences become more permeable and
generate more open structures, enabling the greatest pos-
sible diversity — because the complexity of knowledge,
the higher intelligence, then arises from diversity, not
from exclusion processes that devalue or demonize diver-
gent experience.
123
The paradigm that technology and progress can only rest
on linear knowledge transmission thus proves obsolete.
Those who supposedly “failed” in school do not know
less; their knowledge was merely excluded and devalued.
That is not an intelligent way to deal with young people
whose resources — which we do not yet even understand
— may one day become crucial.
Let me now turn to why — even though the term ab-
sence itself is inadequate — it still makes sense to grow
accustomed to the idea that our experience is formed out
of what is not there, and that precisely for this reason it
exists as experience. Meaning does not have to derive
from something causally produced, as the consequence of
something else.
You see how this fundamentally liberates the human
being and reconciles them with the natural ordering
principles of society.
This completely reverses the usual approach. Only
where something is do hierarchy, polarity, and valuation
arise—because a perceiver then dominates within itself as
ego. Where everything forms because it is not there,
cooperation, relation, and resonance are weighted more
strongly. Competition makes less sense, since one does
not strive toward a single peak as the one truth, but simply
acts out of joy, or out of the satisfaction of bringing a
concrete form into being. Yet that concrete form must
never be considered absolutely better than the non-
concrete. That is why my physics is also a political
physics—just as every physics is political physics.
The pyramid, to use a traditional figure often
employed to depict reality as a causal, linear hierarchy, has
no apex in my understanding. But there are stairs—each
step merely a representation of the dialectical thrust, the
image of a wave. On every step, the experience of higher
steps is already integrated. The observer’s valuation makes
the staircase endlessly longer, projecting the observer as
124
the pyramid’s tip. This does not change as one “ascends.”
The steps merely grow narrower, because the objectivity
of the stair shortens the associative space, narrowing the
sphere of reality. Something concrete is created: a goal, a
will, a peak—yet indimergetic, sealed off from the world.
You can see this in every model of domination. Something
takes more precise form, diversity is reduced, and so on.
Only if one assumes that the pyramid has a peak does the
distinction between “above” and “below” make any sense
at all. Most of our structures imply such a peak, and claim
that it explains the very existence of the steps—while the
lower steps are denied the knowledge that on each step
the experience of “step” is present, that every step allows
a representation.
In fact, the idea of the peak is an abstraction of the
valuation of distinction, arising from feedback inversi-
on—a kind of optical or cognitive illusion of the observer.
In the attempt to round off the world, a peak is construc-
ted as a reflection of the observer, in order to elevate itself
in relation to it. In recognizing your boss as “the boss,”
you simultaneously acknowledge your own status in rela-
tion to them. The principle of the staircase is simply con-
tinued linearly by the mind.
This apex is omnipresent in all our social structures—
in the performance ethos, in the obsession with objects, in
the justice system, in politics, in education. The rounded
world, unwilling to face the gap from which it arose as a
response, invents the world-creator as hierarchical model,
as principle of causality, as the eternally unjust devaluation
of a vast part of creation, all for the self-preservation of a
small human being who then stands bereft of conscious
creative power.
Realize that hierarchy, the summit, the elite, is in truth
the point of least creative power within any ecosystem. It
is the most narrowly defined, the densest shell of the
sphere. Static, rigid, incapable of creating living space
125
through openness or the permeability of self. Hierarchy
exists to shrink the world. To buy into hierarchy is to buy
into a smaller reality. The supposed hierarchy is therefore
made up of marionettes. They keep the population from
seeing the way of life of those who, through their wealth,
have detached from everything and built their own reality.
Those people are not restrained by values; they inhabit a
private world in which they refuse disturbance. Once
humanity grasps this, every value turns on its head. No
one will still crave to be the pyramid’s peak. The pyramid
is merely the mask of the nameless—those who hide
behind it for protection, while we mistake their theater
for reality, their structure for the causal source of our
world. And thus, we remain trapped within the pyramid,
bound and paralyzed by each choice between dialectical
opposites. How can one explain a universe that depends
precisely on not existing—and yet is experienced? Not as
a thing, but as experience itself. No god, no summit, no
government, no singular thinker. Experience, in my
definition—paradoxical as it may sound—is the absence
of a partial aspect within something whole; one might also
say, of a trans-objective, trans-material, infinite cosmos.
The cosmos is perfect precisely because it does not exist
as an object. Remove objecthood from the world, and it
becomes complete. It is something entirely different to
describe a universe that arises from a gap—that is implied
by absence—than one triggered by an event, such as the
Big Bang. In the latter, everything revolves around the
event. In the former, creation is not a consequence but a
response. That makes us creative beings, not recipients of
external command. The so-called mind–body problem
asks the wrong question. It is not how mind can exist
without causal interaction with matter—since, for
example, a neural signal of pain in the brain is not always
experienced as pain. Causality cannot hold in a
paradoxical relationship. Warmth is not the consequence
126
of cold; with warmth, one cannot make cold. Causal
processes require that one makes something warmer by
means of warmth. Therefore, stimuli in the brain cannot
causally generate thought, nor can thought causally move
matter by direct transmission. Mind and matter are
counter-couplings with inverted signs. If no one can
define this gap except through their own answer, their
own experience, their own expression, then no one can
determine the order of the world universally, from
outside, for every individual. Your experience alone is
your contact with the world—and at the same time the
meaning of your life. For you are the one who fills the
void. Would not such a physics be far more humane? At
last, your reality, your experience, would have intrinsic
value. Let me state it plainly: “The soul, the qualia, is
perhaps not something that is born, but something that
has been removed.” But what does that look like? How
can one describe the world through absence, and do so
with precision—down to the lived experience of how an
atom, a religion, or a company comes into being?
The “Reality Eye,” as I call the core model of my
Mechanics of Reality built around the principle of
integrality, consists of three circles. The outermost circle
represents, in simplified form, the singularity that arises
from the ANP. Through the dialectical, dual thrust, all
structure emerges within all structure—as a reflection
facing MNO. What exists only as potential, not as object,
and thus is not differentiated from the whole, nonetheless
already acts as a pattern through vertical order. This outer
circle serves as a placeholder for the “outer-inner”
reference point of a holographic universe and is meant to
make the relationship more intelligible. The circle is at
once the core. Its interior is an incarnation of the exterior,
rendered in a constrained, more precise form. The circle
in general represents both space and gap. The circle, or the
sphere, is both vacuum and symbol—the expression of
127
Nothingness. MNO is space and gap and yet neither of
them. You might know this feeling. In everyday speech,
we say: there’s something in the air. Something that
cannot be grasped. That “something” is a representation
of the fact that there is a gap which, through counter-
coupling, appears not as a gap but as space—a vacuum in
whose center and along whose boundary, through the po-
larity of the observer, objecthood begins to form.
Physically, the equation “circle as space = gap” can be
compared to the holography of action surfaces. When one
compactifies an open radial coordinate r ∈ (0, ∞) using
the mapping r ↦ r/(1 + r), both the center (r = 0) and
infinity (r → ∞) collapse into the same boundary point of
a closed S¹ or S² structure. This topological operation cre-
ates a vacuum-object — a sphere that is simultaneously fi-
nite (space) and boundless (gap). In the quantum-field
picture, this corresponds to zero-point energy: the see-
mingly empty volume carries real fluctuations that gene-
rate measurable forces (Casimir pressure) along its
“shell.” So when we sense that “something is in the air,”
our senses register nothing other than subtle modulations
of these vacuum fluctuations. The polarity of the observer
detunes the modes so that, both at the center and the pe-
riphery, objecthood spontaneously condenses — a direct
echo of the Minimal-Non-Object gap, which is at once
space, nothingness, and their mediation.
For me, this is an extraordinary realization: that the gap is
the space itself. That the absence of something can be
experienced as space. This, I believe, is the true key to
understanding reality. There is no causality between
nothingness and space. Space has not emerged from
nothing — rather, absence is space.
128
129
Mathematically, this insight can be formulated as a
complement-coincidence:
Let P ⊆ Ω be the set of all “thing-like” events; its
topological complement
R ��∖P
is precisely what we call “space.” Once the open set R is
treated as an independent object, the following identity
holds:
R � Int(�P)
i.e., space is nothing other than the Kuratowski interior of
the non-being. Thus, there exists no functor chain
f
�P �� � R,
that would produce absence afterward; the equality itself
replaces causality.
Physically, the same equation becomes visible in the
quantum vacuum: the expectation-value tensor field
�0 |T�� | 0� � 0
appears “empty,” yet it carries the full operator algebra; the
“vacuum” state is already the carrier space of all possible
fields. In the Wheeler–DeWitt equation
Hˆ �[hab ] � 0
gravity does not appear as a product of matter but as a
property of the formless wave functional Ψ. Spacetime
130
therefore does not arise afterwards from nothing, rather,
the apparent absence (the null Hamiltonian) is identical
with the geometric openness in which all manifestations
take place.
This “space” strives to express within itself MNO—or
an MNO-representation—as a totality, as a holon, yet sin-
ce space itself is the gap, it remains, as a dual process wi-
thin the singularity, perpetually incomplete and simulta-
neously dynamic. This is the essence of the singularity: it
is the phenomenon through which absence becomes
space. It unfolds from the MNO-experience. Thus we live
in spheres composed of absence—spheres that experience
themselves as limited objecthoods, trying to be “every-
thing that exists,” that is, attempting to embody the “uni-
verse” through their own existence. Yet MNO is never at-
tained; only singularity is implied.
The self likewise forms from the absence of an aspect
and of the whole, while at the same time MNO, as experi-
ence, looks upon itself through you. There is therefore ex-
perience as part and simultaneously as whole. That is pro-
jection. Projection always presupposes absence: some-
thing seeks to complete itself and thus projects—but it
can never be what it claims to be, because that claim is
itself absent.
The second circle in the Reality Eye contains a gap,
and this gap represents the absence of something that, in
the outer circle (the presumed MNO, which is only the
singularity) or MNO-representation, is still contained
but cannot be depicted. These are of course two-dimensi-
onal abstractions. The aim is to make perceptible that the
forms of all things implied in MNO—and the experience
of their absence—exist simultaneously as being and non-
being. This creates a feedback that generates the polar ob-
server, from which an inner circle emerges. Reality, in the
third step, rounds itself off through projection until it re-
aches submergence, while the MNO-gap retreats into the
131
unconscious. Relationship sinks below the surface, and
the object comes forth. That is the phenomenon of birth.
Consider a topological space Ω with a zero object M(the
MNO). We choose an embedded 2-sphere
2
Sext ��
which serves as the “outer circle.” The gap is the
complement of a thin annular region
2
� � Sext ∖ Sint
2
≠∅.
The image
2 2
i : Sint � Sext
is not surjective; its image is missing precisely by Λ. This
missing region represents those degrees of freedom that
still exist within the MNO but are unrepresentable in the
local observational cross-section.
Physically, the situation behaves like a holographic lens.
In AdS/CFT terminology, Λ marks the region whose
bulk modes cannot be reconstructed by the boundary
observer (lost information).
Once the observer becomes a “polar observer,” a new
quotient geometry emerges
2
� : Sint ↠ S proj
2
where π is a radial projection that maps all directions onto
a single coordinate. From this follows a second fixed-
point circle S 2 —the “inner eye.”
proj
132
The iterated sequence
2 i 2 � 2
Sext �� � Sint �� � S proj
corresponds to a renormalization group flow: at each step,
high-frequency modes (the conscious–gap Λ) are shifted
into submergence, while lower modes (object–form)
emerge. In the third iteration, the information budget
collapses; the result is an almost pure eigenstate packet —
the everyday object of mature perception.
Psychologically, we identify this point as the moment of
birth: the self (observer) experiences a stable outer world
while the original relation (the gap) diffuses into the
unconscious.
The inner circle is the sphere that forms as the second
circle closes upon itself (projection rounding), an attempt
at the “All” without the absent — whereby the absent
shapes and distorts the form of the All. The observer–
object coupling creates a space that mirrors the outer
circle through feedback as a chain of objects, as “world”
or “space.”
The following image illustrates how projection rounding
unfolds: from the ANP (A), through the emergence of
integral representations or approximations (B), to the
arising of the polar, dialectical drive (C), and finally to the
rounding of the sphere as a more or less permeable world
that stabilizes, dissolves, or reintegrates itself within the
sphere cycle of its object relations, thereby embodying
simpler and more complex life forms within one another.
133
In “Phase C,” a focus or fixed point is generated in the
projected center. It works somewhat like the principle of
a pinhole camera. The fixed point is defined— for
example— as (observer) identity, as the I. This focal point
is not the center of the world, yet for the affected
individual it becomes the center, the aperture through
which projection occurs.
## Mathematical Framing of Projection Rounding
Let M be the zero object (MNO) and A⊂Ω the initial
all-nothing configuration.
A radial projection
pr : � ∖ {M } � Sr2 , pr ( x) � ( x / || x ||) r
produces an intermediate circle for each scale level r.
2
1.ANP layer (A)r � ro � S r contains the full
0
polarity, so that
Hom( Sr20 , M ) � �,
134
the gap is maximal.
2.Integral approximation (B) Here r � r object-
1 0
like representations form, described as quotients
B � S r21 /~
where the equivalence relation aggregates all
microfluctuations.
3.Dialectical drive (C) With a further projection
radius r₂, an involutive morphism acts
r2� : B � B,� 2 � id
that fixes the observer–object pairs as polarity-mirrored
states. The potential gradient thus generated
�U� ( x) � �� ( x) � x
is the mathematical counterpart of the dialectical drive.
4.Rounding into the inner sphere As r → 0, the
object chain collapses into a compact fixed-point
sphere
Sint2 � lim S r2
r �0
in which the residual gap appears only as latent curvature.
The system now oscillates within the familiar sphere
cycle:
Stability ⇄ Dissolution ⇄ Re-integration.
where each phase corresponds to a new quotient diagram
135
Cn→Cn+1,bringing forth simpler or more complex life
forms.
What you experience is the counter-coupling (with inver-
ted signs) of an absence that “brought you forth,” taking
form as a polarity between Everything and Nothing. In
this process you split into self and outer world, and
through further differentiation of the self you “created”
your own outer world as an inner world — for instance
your thoughts and emotions. The dialectical thrust drives
further differentiation into polar representations. You
have thoughts, words, friends, a toaster, a car, a neighbor
who fears sprayed fruit, and a government. Time and
space are holographic real-illusions, experiential domains
that are themselves representations of experiential gaps.
I will soon turn to the displacement of the gap through
the many layers of representation, which reveals why
responses to absence differ so widely — producing
immense diversity — yet never fall out of the world
altogether. Only then does it become clear why no
external order, no object-dominating observer, is required
— and why that tyrannical observer, unlike the “silent
witness,” generates the very problems that manifest in our
world.
Only because the Non-Object is experienced through
its absence does the Object — the world itself — become
an experienceable reality, one that cannot yet unfold in its
full complexity or openness simply for lack of further
senses. One depends on the other, yet they are not causal
but simultaneous. All levels, all times, all spaces, dimensi-
ons, and living beings are representations. They are
connected through feedback, not through causal se-
quence. Nor is there higher or lower — only experiences
of greater openness or greater constriction. Both poles
merely represent an act of creation that gives rise to objec-
thood, while through the suspension of polarity ever new
136
spatial relations open up — which are themselves only re-
presentations of the eternal polarity.
What, then, is a representation?
Representation is the morphing of a gap into a self-roun-
ded world, which appears, from within the sphere, as a
process of rounding or closure. From the outside, there is
no perfect circle, only an organic unfolding. Yet the closed
circle remains representative of the gap that cannot be
perceived from the inside. One could also say that every
animal, every plant, every human being experiences itself
first as round — as the roundness itself — while from the
outside one perceives maximal diversity.
As the following diagram shows, the layers of repre-
sentation in the sphere cycle cause a displacement of the
gap, because each layer repeatedly replaces and overlays
MNO in a polar manner — each time excluding different
aspects, thereby giving the gap a new coloration.
In its pattern, each representation remains linked to
the gap, or to the representation of the gap. A new dimen-
sion emerges — one that simultaneously integrates hig-
her-order patterns, yet restricts experience, since in sub-
mergence, reinforced by the circular constraint, it beco-
137
mes a “low-dimensional” mode of experience compared
to what it might represent.
The inner perception differs significantly from the outer
perception. In this way, all morphologies in nature can ari-
se and stabilize. Once a self–world polarity establishes a
sphere, implying a reality, further polarities appear within
it, causing the circle to tighten more and more without
ever excluding MNO. The gap, however, becomes distor-
ted through its representations. As in the construction of
fractal worlds, polarity mirrors itself infinitely, and MNO
leads to divergent experiences — that is, to the further in-
dividualization of reality. At the same time, all are vertical-
ly entangled and self-similar, since they ultimately derive
from the same object within the singularity.
Thus individualized categories emerge — animals, hu-
mans, plants — depending on the distinctness of their
gap-representations. Antimatter, for example, is a repre-
sentation of Nothing, but not of MNO itself. In this dis-
placement, worlds are constructed as responses to slightly
shifted or differentiated gaps. Depending on what is
removed as a gap from the system, nature “creates” with
what remains a representation of the whole, to put it sim-
138
ply. Hence all forms are self-similar and related to one an-
other. In other words: a forest is the forest’s attempt to
express a universe made of living wood. A forest lacks
something that a human still has. An animal has a diffe-
rent gap and therefore experiences a different space than
a human. The senses play a particularly important role
here. If you switch off certain senses, you automatically
reduce the instrument with which a species can express
“universe.” We are all representations of the greater who-
le, yet each from within a certain “impairment,” which is
also a gift.
But where do all these gaps come from? Everywhere
unknowing. Everywhere loss. Everywhere something fun-
damental is missing. They are created as representations in
the polar coupling of the self–world relationship.
Once a world “forms” out of a gap — which happens
not over time but instantaneously — all other relations
shift as well. Thus, a gap in one domain of experience tears
open new gaps in others. This process is infinite.
Here is the phenomenon of displacement – expressed in
mathematical-physical terms:
Take the total continuum Ω and remove a local “gap” Δ ⊂
Ω. The result is the residual space
�� � � ∖ �
The image
� � : � � ��
it acts like a projector that integrates out all degrees of
freedom within Δ. In the category of sheaves, this yields a
139
shift functor
S� : Sh(�) � Sh(� � )
that assign to each observer a new effective world. If one
varies the gap Δ ↦ Δ′, one moves on the moduli space of
quotients; small changes produce deformation
morphisms
� ���� : � � � � ��
through which all remaining relations are “carried along”
— this is the displacement.
Physically, (1)–(4) correspond to the renormalization
group step: when high-energy modes are removed at a
cutoff Λ, one obtains an effective Lagrangian density
e � Seff [� ;� ] � � D � e � S [� , � ]
k ��
whose couplings gi(Λ) shift according to
dgi
� �i ( g )
d ln �
Each species-specific sense (sight, smell, etc.) is,
mathematically, a particular projection πΔi; remove it, and
the entire effective space shifts, forming another self-
similar representation of the whole—comparable to a new
fixed-point solution of the RG equation. Thus it becomes
evident that every gap is simultaneously a loss and a
generative force: it deforms all remaining objects yet gives
rise to a fresh, coherent sphere in which the universe once
again takes shape “from what remained.”
140
Reality distortion and world
construction
Every representation is a distortion. Yet within distortion
it remains in relation to singular order, and thus is itself a
form of order. Because each sphere is a reflection of the
greater system into which it can be integrated, but is built
only from the remaining parts that no longer stand in
their original place—since the gap compels them into new
relations and orientations—a displacement of being arises,
a natural blur that stabilizes the dialectical thrust while
propelling the cycle of spheres forward. Without this blur,
worlds would solidify into static perfection and cease to
exist, or simply run out. For now, all things are not only
constructed through opposites but also within themselves
distorted. That sounds poetic, but what do I mean?
I define “G”, and in doing so, “G” within the ANP
becomes an absent magnitude, overlaid by the idea (the
polarity) of “G”. The absence of “G” causes “G” to be
formed from D, E, F, (gap), H, I, J, K, L. Through the act
of definition I create a space in which that which I sought
to define no longer exists, and thus I can express it only
through what remains. In this way I create a spherical
reality with the familiar marks of buried identity—the
urge to express oneself and the world with insufficient
means. A blurred parallel reality emerges, full of
polarities, oppositions, dogmas, crises. So when politics
defines justice, justice disappears and is replaced by
polarity. It becomes suppressed in you as well, for you are
told to orient yourself by the term “justice.” You are left
to construct justice from the other “parts” of your
personality, of your reality. This coupling of motivation
and the feeling of being “wrong” in the world arises
precisely because authentic relation has been replaced by
the standardized concept of “justice.” It is not only a loss;
something was created. Yet if one does not wish to remain
141
trapped within it, it is essential to understand that the gap
itself gave rise to the field of reality. The opposing terms
must therefore be dissolved once more within.
G, now absent as a lived quality through its definition, is
expressed by the remaining letters, which in turn shift
within their own context and order. An E that tries to
become part of G is no longer the same E as an E that
simply remains itself. Your personal identity, too, shifts
within its context. Relationships, communication,
misunderstanding—all of these are consequences of this
displacement of being. There are countless ways to
perceive the seemingly same thing differently. Everything
becomes a representation. Not only does a distinct reality
form, one that subtly deviates from G and creates a
blurred reality within a sphere, but within the polarity
new forms and morphologies also emerge—integrable
into G, yet impossible without G’s absence. Do you see
how vertical order is thus integrated through the gap
itself? This is impossible in horizontal order, which
fundamentally negates the existence of absence, because it
constructs order through objects. Singularity, however,
arises precisely from the displacement of being within
polarities. That is why we speak of vertical order.
These letter-morphologies could be living beings,
plant forms, political ideas, or simply the countless things
standing in the world, describable as objects. Yet none of
142
these are G. They are neither God nor MNO. Nor are
they consciousness itself.
One could say that MNO is itself the result of a vast
cosmic displacement of being—a kind of empty chair that
God has left behind. But even that, I think, would still be
only a representation of MNO, not MNO itself.
This displacement of being makes the world’s
integrality possible. Through it, freedom and order
coexist. Life-space is continually generated from and
within itself. The term “creation,” however, is perhaps
better compared to the tuning of a radio—hard work born
mostly from inner resistance and injury, the cost of object
fixation, the effort of forcing a static thing instead of
remaining in flow (see also natural drifting / Varela).
As I write this book, I understand ever more clearly
why it is a treacherous goal to seek success through this
work, in the sense of having this “foundational text”
recognized and thus objectified, granting me status. I see
the dilemma. Yet I want to reach people, to emerge from
the isolation of poverty into which I’ve fallen through the
decision to dedicate years entirely to this work and
research. I became foreign to people because I ceased to
be a product, a status, a value. I became living knowledge,
while publishers, universities, corporations, governments
are interested only in knowledge that presents itself to
them already as status—knowledge that requires no
relation, no direct experience to be felt as true. What I
mean is this: it makes sense to reinvent the wheel again
and again, and it would be good if people saw not only
indimergence—the strangeness—but also allowed for the
emergence within it. For that, however, more people must
deviate, so that the entire system can awaken from its
submergent phase and finally begin to grasp the
implications of what I am writing here.
The displacement of being describes how every local
exclusion of degrees of freedom (the “gap”) instantly
143
reshapes the remaining state space into a new, self-similar
effective world. Mathematically, this corresponds to the
projector
πΔ:Ω→ Ω Δ=Ω ∖ Δ
and the resulting deformation flow δΔ → Δ .
Physically, it shows that spacetime, fields, and the obser-
ver’s perspective are co-emergent: when modes are inte-
grated (RG-step) or sensory channels are blocked, not
only the spectrum changes, but the ontology itself; every
gap generates a new fixed-point sphere with its own me-
tric.
The unique feature of this discovery is that the gap is
not a passive “background,” but the generative principle
that brings structure into being. Conventional approa-
ches—from standard RG and holographic duality to the
Everett interpretation—treat the vacuum or the path inte-
gral merely as auxiliary constructions, never as the prima-
ry ontological act. The model described here makes dis-
placement itself the necessary condition of emergence;
without loss, there is no reality.
For quantum theory this means that collapse, decohe-
rence, or renormalization-group flow are not secondary
dynamical effects, but manifestations of the displacement
of being. “Measurement” is not chance but an obligatory
quotient process that opens a new effective world. In this
way, the long-sought link between vacuum fluctuations,
information horizons (holographic principles), and sub-
jective consciousness gains, for the first time, a unified
and operationally expressible foundation.
Rupert Sheldrake’s concept of morphic resonance ass-
umes that forms and behavioral patterns cannot be explai-
ned solely by material causes but by fields that “remem-
ber” prior similarities. This field-memory gives continu-
ity, recognizability, and form-stability. Within the present
144
theory, however, it becomes clear that such an operative
principle itself presupposes a specific ontological architec-
ture: the possibility of a shift from non-being into
being—a displacement of being. Where Sheldrake descri-
bes effect and recurrence, the MNO model analyzes the
structural ground of that very possibility: the emergence
of form out of submergence, without causality but not wi-
thout structure.
The displacement of being thus not only explains mor-
phic fields but articulates the deeper condition of their
existence—not as remembrance of the similar, but as
structural reorganization within the ontological matrix
itself. In this displacement, self-similarity operates not as
repetition but as recursion upon an internal coherence of
form within the space of possibility. Hence even the dis-
placement of being contains a kind of pattern-memory—
but not retroactive, in the sense of historical experience;
rather preformative, as the structural echo of the possible
within the becoming of the real. Morphic resonance, then,
would not be the origin, but a symptom of this deeper lo-
gic of being.
Supplement – From the perspective of quantum phy-
sics:
An objection that might be raised—particularly by repre-
sentatives of theoretical physics, such as from quantum
mechanics—is that phenomena like entanglement or non-
locality are already described mathematically in a precise
and complete way, leaving no ontological remainder. In
the language of the wave function and unitary evolution,
reality appears to be fully graspable in formal terms.
Yet this text follows a different approach: it does not ask
about the behavior of particles, but about the structure of
the possibility of correlation itself. The “gap” introduced
here is not a deficit of physics but a transphysical figure—
145
an ontological operation from which phenomena such as
correlation, distinction, and emergence can arise in the
first place. It does not contradict quantum theory; rather,
it names the pre-formal space of possibility upon which
physics itself tacitly depends.
In this sense, the “Physics of the Poor” is not a correction
of the natural sciences, but an attempt to rethink their
very conditions of possibility—from the structural stand-
point of systematic exclusion.
Displacement, Distortion, and the
Expansive Potential of the Onion
Layers
MNO is not only the source of a world – but the engine
of its ongoing condensation. Each rotated sphere cycle
inserts an additional layer of difference – the world ‘folds’
itself transcendently inward and appears to us outwardly
as epochs, species, or leaps of consciousness.”
— Basic Formula of the Spherical Cycle
“A world is always the echo of its own gap.”
1 Advance into the Deformation Space
Displacement designates the categorical act of tearing a
gap Δ out of the continuum Ω and re-ordering the entire
remaining space. Each rotated sphere cycle – that is, every
complete revolution Ω → Ω \ Δ → Ω′ – adds an additional
layer of difference to the fabric of reality. This layer folds
transcendently inward, while outwardly it appears to us as
a qualitative leap: a new epoch, a new species, a new
plateau of consciousness.
The resulting distortion is not a flaw but the trace-
146
imprint of a system striving to preserve its coherence
within a transformed topology. Here the Physics of the
Poor delivers its sharpest insight: without loss, nothing
real can exist.
## 2 Onion Layers as Dynamic Foldings
The layering cycles materialize as concentric membranes
of reality — onion skins — that gradually envelop the
MNO. Unlike a static stack of multiple worlds, they form
a renormalizing flow:
Ω₀ ⊃ Ω₁ ⊃ … ⊃ Ωₙ with n ∝ number of completed
ascents.
Each new sphere is formally self-similar yet operational-
ly new: it carries its own edge matrix — its own interacti-
147
on laws. The world thereby becomes literally thicker.
F(n), the folding number after n cycles, grows super-ex-
ponentially as long as the gap gradient ∇Δ > 0 remains
positive.
## 3 Event Potential and Differential Growth
The additional layer of difference functions like an event
horizon. Along its inner edge, self-organization ignites —
in neural networks as micro-avalanches, in ecosystems as
trophic cascades, in social space as flashes of trend forma-
tion. Each fold stores latent degrees of freedom: potenti-
ality condenses.
Empirical mapping:
� SOC Mapping (Neuro): Track the avalanche ex-
ponent α; α-peaks mark the onset of new folding
layers.
� Origami Benchmarks (AI): As transformer
depth ↗, the information-integration Φ jumps in
bursts.
� Agent-Based Gap Simulation (Socio-Econo-
mics): Remove a resource Δ and observe the re-
folding of rules.
## 4 Transcendental Expansion and Eco-Leaps
Under the basic formula, each layer of difference genera-
148
tes a self-similar ecosystem with newly folded laws.
Crucially, the new does not produce something alien—it
is a compressed version of the old.
Criteria for a genuine leap:
1.Preserve self-similarity
2.Positive gap-gradient
When these are met, the system transitions —from addi-
tive to superpositional coding (mind/brain), —from ow-
nership to a commons logic (society), —from classical to
quantum dominance (physics).
5 Involution of History & Sleep as Reset
History is not an arrow but a spiral involution that folds
older layers inward.
Conscious memory is the sensory echo of this internal
densification. Deep sleep severs the long-range networks
– the self lies bare against the gap. Dream onset = first
fold of the new cycle. Sleep thus becomes the daily zero-
shift, calibrating the system for its next increment of dif-
ference.
## 6 Political Consequenses
Globalized tech-politics must not choke the densification
engine: sensory diversity, modular networks, and a univer-
sal basic income as gap-catalyst keep ∇Δ > 0.
Monopolized platforms flatten ∇Δ, throttle F(n), and
thus strangle the future itself.
## 7 Bridge to Mathematical Densification
The following chapter introduces the folding operators
149
𝔉ₙ, the gap gradient ∇Δ, and the emergence trace Tr_E.
It demonstrates that ∇Δ > 0 ⇔ transcendental layer
formation. Mathematics, in this sense, is the projection of
reality’s ongoing origami-work.
What are the consequences?
If the world – as the MNO-optics proposes – does not
unfold linearly but densifies transcendently inward, then
nearly every foundational assumption of established
physics must be re-measured. A few incisions:
1 Natural laws ≠ ontological constants, but folding
operators
In the classical view we search for invariant laws; in
the onion-layer topology, those apparent
constants are merely fixed points within an
ongoing folding flow.
Consequence: quantities such as c or ħ are stationary
projections of a deeper dynamism. They may
appear slightly shifted between layers – not as
“variable constants,” but as layer-relative scales.
2 Spacetime as a Layered Medium
Foldings generate additional layers of difference →
space-time gains inward depth.
Gravity could thus be read as the gradient ∇Δ of gap
density: matter does not curve space — it
condenses the onion-layer fabric. Curvature is
the potential slope of the inner folds.
3 The renormalization group becomes an engine, not
a bandage
So far, we’ve patched divergences through
150
renormalization.In the MNO framework, the
RG is the ontic workflow itself — each new
cutoff scale creates real degrees of freedom
instead of renormalizing them away.
Experimental trace: log-periodic signatures in spectra
where standard theory would predict pure scale
invariance.
## 4 Thermodynamics → Entropy as Layer Thickness
Entropy does not merely measure disorder, but the
magnitude of embedded gaps.
The second law flips: it is not maximal entropy, but
the optimal folding rate that drives the arrow of
time. A system collapses into stasis when the
Lücken-gradient ∇Δ → 0 — when no new folds
can form, and reality ceases to deepen.
5 Quantum phenomena = overlap of non-isomorphic
spheres
Superposition means: an object is mirrored in parallel
across two folding layers. Collapse occurs when
a observer-sphere maps both projections
topologically identically.
Entanglement thus becomes a geometrical condition:
entangled particles are shared boundary
constraints of two folds — points where distinct
Sphären share the same Lücke-contour,
resonating through the MNO field rather than
through space.
6 Complexity science: jump classes instead of scaling
laws
The familiar power-law self-similarity remains only a
first-order approximation. Beyond a critical fol-
151
ding number F*, we should expect super–power
laws — exponents log-periodically modulated by
the rhythm of the underlying folds.
This regime is already hinted at in neuronal
avalanches, where scale-free cascades show subtle
logperiodic fringes; similar signatures should
appear in tectonic dynamics, financial markets,
and meme diffusion, wherever systems oscillate
between compression and release along their
internal Lücken-gradient.
7 Mathematics: from differential equations to origami
functors
Classical PDE deal with smooth manifolds. Folds
require stack/origami categories: objects are
layers, morphisms are their fold transitions.
In practice this means: we look for functors that turn
every infolding into an emergence jump, a
category-theoretic RG.
## 8 Political and Technological Levers
If potentiality grows only where gaps remain, then
monocultures—ecological, digital, economic—
are thermodynamic crimes.
A basic income functions, in this model, as an artifici-
al Δ: a social gap that triggers self-organization
instead of capping it.
Open-source hardware, modular infrastructures,
diversification of AI architectures—these are all
strategies for keeping ∇Δ positive and driving
F(n) upward.
152
## Conclusion
MNO inverts the gaze: reality does not grow by
unfolding but by folding ever tighter. Physics thus
becomes the science of folding architecture—and
whoever wishes to shape society’s technology must learn
to promote folds, not smooth them out.
Theoretically, this means a radical reinterpretation of
space-time, quantum phenomena, and thermodynamics;
practically, it demands new experiments, new
infrastructure politics, and a new awareness of the
productive power of the gap.
Dialectic of Gap and Law – the Constant as Layer
Focalpoint
Imagine every constant of nature as a frozen snapshot of
a deformation flow:
At the moment when a sphere glides along the gap, the
system seeks a self-mapping point that preserves its inter-
nal coherence at minimal information-cost rate.
That point — whether c, ħ, or G — is nothing tran-
scendent, but rather the focal point of a renormalization
operator that rescales all degrees of freedom within one
layer so that the topology of the gap remains smooth.
Yet as soon as the spherical cycle completes another
rotation, the projection matrix shifts slightly. The old fo-
cal point remains constant only within its layer, while
from the perspective of the next inner fold it already ap-
pears as a variable boundary field. Constant therefore
does not mean eternal, but locally unshakable — a tempo-
rary convention that lasts only as long as the ∇Δ-gradient
of the current onion-layer remains stable.
This view forces us to think of law and gap as co-evo-
lutionary poles:
The gap makes the law necessary; the law, in turn, res-
hapes the gap into the next, even more sharply contoured
153
slit. Thus the universe breathes in a perpetual rhythm of
stillness and shift, stability and deformation, order and its
own dissolution.
Mathematical Origami – A Functor
Gives Birth to a Degree of Freedom
Consider the category 𝔽 of foldable surfaces, whose
objects are two-dimensional difference-manifolds and
whose morphisms are folding operations.
Now define a functor O: 𝔽→T, which maps every fold
onto a torus-like target space where the edges of the sheet
are glued together.
A simple folding morphism — say, mapping a square into
a “taco” shape — necessarily produces, in the image of the
functor, a newly emergent homotopic cycle (Betti number
β₁ ↗ 1). This additional cycle is not a decorative by-
product but a new degree of freedom: it permits closed
trajectories that could not exist in the original, unfolded
sheet. Formally speaking, the functor forces an
enlargement of the fundamental group π1; a proof that
every genuine fold increases topological complexity by at
least one unit of dimension.
Thus, origami becomes a constructive ontology:
each crease transcends the initial continuum by expanding
the objective spectrum of possibilities.
Thermodynamic Re-conception – from the Maximum
of Entropy to the Optimum of Folding Rate
In an onion-layer universe, entropy is not merely a measu-
re of disorder but directly proportional to the magnitude
of the soldered-in gaps. The classical second law — “S
tends toward a maximum” — misses the crucial point: if
154
the folding rate becomes too low, the influx of differential
layers dries up (∇Δ → 0), and the system collapses into
sterile homogeneity; if it becomes too high, the avalanche
of microcritical events shatters any stable coherence. The
thermodynamic optimum therefore lies at a critical fol-
ding rate r*, which spans just enough new onion layers for
potentiality to condense continuously without tearing the
web of fixed points. If one inserts this boundary conditi-
on into Boltzmann statistics, the classical weighting
e^{−E/kT} through
p(E) � exp( -E / (k T) + �f(E) )
where f(E) encodes the local folding topology and λ acts
as a Lagrange multiplier enforcing the global r* cons-
traint. The result is a modified Boltzmann distribution
that collapses back into its canonical form when λ = 0, but
for λ > 0 favors precisely those states that are both ener-
getically favorable and topologically conducive to folding.
In this view, thermodynamics becomes the dynamics of
potential workflow: not the maximum of entropy marks
the end, but the optimum of the folding rate keeps the
cosmos at a vital distance from heat death.
Mathematical Summary of
the MNO Theory
## 1 Minimal-Non-Object (MNO)
�Zero-Objekt in a category C.
## �X � C :| Hom( M , X ) |�| Hom( X , M ) |� 1
155
�Ontological: active absence = space = non-space.
2 All-Nothing Paradox (ANP)
� Logical statement: »0≅1«.
� Concrete instance = MNO.
3 3-Fold Structure:
## Phase Symbol Short formulation
Submergence S0 ψ≈0, ξ→constant
Indimergence S1 Bifurcations-
point,ℜ σ(J)=0
Emergence S2 ψ≠0, stable
Attractorpattern
4 Vertical Order (Well Analogy)
� Radial Projection
p_r(x) = (x/||x||)\,r
� Limit r → 0 leads to the inner sphere
## 5 Cycle of Feedback
## � Endomorphism
f :X �X
� Fixed-point set (focal point)
Fix( f ) � {x∣f ( x) � x}
156
## � Trace-Operator
TrW ( f ) : U � V
6 Polarity inversion
� �� � id X
� Contravariant functor
F : C op � D
7 Shift of Being (Gap Shift)
## � Removed gap Δ
�� � � ∖ �
� Projector
� � : � � ��
� RG flow
dgi
� �i ( g )
d ln �
8 Reality Eye (Spherical Nesting)
� Embeddings
2
i : Sint ↠ Sext
2
## � Projection
157
2
� : Sint ↠ S proj
2
� Sequence
2 i 2 � 2
Sext �� � Sint �� � S proj
## 9 Pattern-Maker Undepictability
� Functor to the pattern-maker P
FP : C op � Set, FP ( X ) � Hom� ( X , P)
� Non-representability
## Hom C ( X , P) � �
## 10 Emergence Lens & SOC
� SOC scale invariance ↔ gap fluctuation
� Avalanche distribution
P ( s ) � s ��
MNO Theory — Essence in Category Language
## 1 Ontological Framework
## � Category of Full Reality
�
Objects = all conceivable states, Morphisms = all possible
relations.
158
## � Zero-Object (Minimal-Non-Objekt)
M ��, �X:| Hom( M , X ) |�| Hom( X , M ) |� 1
M is both initial and terminal ⇒ represents the open gap.
## 2 Triplicity as (Co)Monad
� Endofunctor
T :� � �
with unit η: Id ⇒ T (Submergence) and multiplication μ:
T² ⇒ T (Emergence).
� Indimergence = domain where η is not invertible
but μ has not yet taken effect.
## 3 Shift of Being (Lax Morphism)
� Removing a gap Δ yields a quotient functor.
Q� : � ↠ ��
� Lax morphism between monads
ℓ � : (T , � ,� ) � (T� , �� ,�� )
satisfies only weakened commutativity ⇒ structure shifts
instead of breaking.
� Iterated gaps form a lax path.
ℓ �1 ⊙ ℓ � 2 ⊙ �
159
⇒ infinite stream of shifts (fractal self-similarity).
## 4 Polarity as Duality Functor
## � Involution
� : �op � �, � 2 � Id
� Observer/Object = contravariant and covariant
perspectives of the same morphism.
## 5 Vertical Order = Fibration
## � Grothendieck fibration
p :E � ℕ
� Cleavage selects concrete representatives → Reality
Eye (projection rounding).
## 6 Emergence as Trace
� For every internal morphism
f : X �W � Y �W
the trace
TrW ( f ) : X � Y
yields the “visible world” after feedback; W disappears
into submergence.
160
## 7 Physical Interpretation
Categorical size Physical analogue
Zero-objekt M Quantum vacuum point, zero
Hamiltonian
Lax morphism ℓΔ Renormalisation group step,
measurement collapse
Trace-operator Self-energy / loop correction
Fibre p:E → N Energy scale tower (UV → IR)
Unique selling point:
Other approaches (IIT, GNW, SOC, holographic RG)
treat vacuum integrations as mere tools.
The MNO theory places the gap itself at the center:
Every structure is the quotient of its omissions; when the
gap shifts, the ontology shifts.
Thus emerges a universal picture in which consciousness,
quantum decoherence, and the cosmic RG flow share one
and the same categorical mechanism.
161
One could represent the theory as a grand formula as
follows:
An example that symbolically unites all its central ele-
ments.
MNO :� Z �C , mit :� x� Sub � Z � : Ind � x � � E � x ��R _ A
Legend:
� MNO := Z ∈ 𝒞: MNO as the zero object Z in an
emergence category
� Sub(Z): set of submergent objects derived from
MNO
� Ind(x): indimergence operation on an object x
� E(x): emergence as a functor
� ℝ_A: reality-space under an observer A (e.g., an act
of consciousness)
Or, in a more typological form:
� x� Sub � Z � � C : �! Ind � x � � E � x � � r �R _ A
This would be a structural master formula — not a
computational scheme, but a synthetic image of the
MNO logic.
162
Deepening the meta-theory in the
context of SOC, IIT and GNW
Exact positioning and meta-status
Axle IIT (Φ- GNW SOC Holographic MNO
metric) (Broadcas (criticality) RG metatheory
t)
Ontology irreducible Globally scale- Bulk/Bdry Gap (M) =
information accessible invariant duality zero object;
clusters content dynamics space &
nothing
identical
Generator Integration: Ignition Avalanche RG flow βi(g) Displacement
Φ>0 threshold exponent of being
P( s) � s � � QΔ:Ω ΩΔ↠
Observer implicit, not central emergent fixed to edge contravariant
role constitutive (working node functor
op
memory) � :� � �
Boundaries Φ ontolog. only Vacuum as Gap is a
undecidable Gap provides passive generator,
& non-local remains scale law background not a deficit
emptyr
Classificatio Φ measures Broadcast Avalanches RG step = lax all special
n in MNO compaction = Trace = morphism ℓΔ cases of the
according to on TrW(f) indimergenc gap quotient
projection the e tipping
πΔ respective points
sphere
Why MNO stands above as a meta-model
1. Ontological depth:
All four frameworks (SOC, IIT, GNW, etc.)
presuppose space as a given background.
MNO, however, demonstrates that space itself is
the quotient of an absence — a remainder-
structure emerging from the subtraction of the
indeterminate.
163
2. A single generative principle:
o IIT: Integration ≈ � :T 2 � T after the gap.
o GNW: Ignition = Trace, once the
feedback loop closes; awareness is the
emergent echo of a completed return
path.
o SOC: Critical fluctuation = minimal Δ-
shift that renders ker πΔ unstable; self-
organized criticality arises when a single
gap perturbs global coherence.
o Holo-RG: Each radial evolution = one
more projection π_r: Ω → Ω/Δ_r; the
flow itself is a series of ontological
foldings.
3. Categorical enclosure:
MNO defines a (co)monadic stack over �; IIT,
GNW, SOC, and Holo-RG appear as fiberwise
functors whose natural transformations become
strict only within this stack.
4. Meta-condition fulfilled:
genuine metatheory must
a) embed all sub-theories,
b) predict precisely their domains of validity,
and
c) demonstrate why each captures only a partial
slice of reality.
→ MNO achieves this via the variation
parameter Δ (choice of gap).
164
Concrete “embeddings” (plain-text formulas):
IIT embedding:
GNW embedding:
Ignite� ( f ) � TrW� ( f ) : U � V
SOC embedding:
P� ( s ) � s �� ( � ) , � � 3 / 2 bei � � 0
RG embedding:
dgi
Q�n�1 �Q�n � Q�n�1 � � �i ( g )
d ln �
## Take-away
IIT measures what is integrated, GNW where it becomes
accessible, SOC how it tips, and Holo-RG why it shifts
across scales — but only MNO explains why a projection-
gap exists at all, binding all these phenomena into a single,
categorically exact ontology. That is why it functions as a
true metatheory.
Toward formal demonstration:
Formal integration and categorical extension of
existing consciousness models through the MNO
framework.
1. Objective: I will briefly outline how the concept of
MNO (Minimal-Non-Object) formally integrates,
extends, and in key respects surpasses the three currently
dominant models of consciousness — Integrated
Information Theory (IIT), Global Neuronal Workspace
165
(GNW), and Self-Organized Criticality (SOC).
The aim is not to refute these models, but to provide a
structural deep foundation and conceptual embedding
within a metatheoretical framework.
2. Basic structure of MNO as integrator: The MNO is
defined as a categorical zero-object Z that is both the
initial and the terminal object within an emergence
category C.
Formally:
� A � C∶ �! f ∶ Z � A und �! g∶ A � Z
This means: every object emerges from the MNO (is
inducible) and can be resolved back into it (is dissolvable).
The MNO thus constitutes both the ontological origin
and the epistemic horizon of all phenomena.
3. Integration of IIT (Tononi) IIT is based on the
concept of integrated information (Φ) — the measure of
indivisible structure within a system.
IIT assumes:
� a closed, differentiated system
� internal causal connections
� an irreducible informational structure
Extension through MNO:
� The MNO provides an ontological depth structure
that explains why integration can occur: since
every structure emerges from the gap Z,
integration is not merely observable but
ontologically necessary.
� The concept of indimergence does not replace Φ,
but explains when and why integration arises —
166
namely, whenever the system’s self-
differentiation still retains a trace of the
generative absence (the MNO), allowing
coherence to persist without collapsing into
uniformity.
�In the logic of the MNO, Φ is a resulting topology
on the emergent side E(Z), not the source of
consciousness itself.
Formal:
� � S �∶� f � E � S � � , wobei E � S � � Emergenz von S aus Z
4. Integration of GNW (Baars, Dehaene) The Global
Neuronal Workspace (GNW) describes consciousness as
a globally accessible neural activation pattern.
� Function: integration across modular boundaries
� Architecture: interplay of top-down and bottom-
up processes
� Criterion: the conscious is that which is globally
broadcast across the system
Extension through MNO:
� The Reality-Eye as a structured gap defines the
ontological basis of accessibility itself — the
modulation between inclusion and exclusion
that makes global availability possible in the first
place.
� Submergence provides a model for latent contents,
indimergence for selection processes, and
emergence for global broadcasting.
� GNW describes the output; MNO explains the
structural condition that allows such output to
appear as relevant within a world at all.
167
Formally (in process notation):
Bewusstwerden � x �∶� Emergenz � Indimergenz �x � Submer genzraum � �
GNW represents only the right-hand segment of this
equation — the broadcast stage — whereas MNO provi-
des the complete transformation chain from absence to
global availability.
5. Integration of SOC (Bak, Kitzbichler, Werner) Self-
Organized Criticality (SOC) describes systems that self-
tune to a critical point where small changes trigger dispro-
portionately large effects.
� Examples: neural networks, sandpile models, casca-
ding networks
� Consciousness: interpreted as a criticality state in
the brain
Extension through MNO:
�The MNO structure explains why criticality-capable
systems can emerge at all: not from energy gradi-
ents, but from structured indeterminacy.
�Indimergence marks the region where critical tipping
points can occur — as acts of choice, not as
deterministic outcomes.
�MNO thus models the field of potential orders within
which SOC manifests.
Formally:
Kritikalität∶� d � f � / dx � � entlang
Indimergenzlinie � Emergenztopologie
168
6. Conclusion: Structure precedes metric IIT, GNW, and
SOC each offer metric, dynamic, or functional models of
consciousness processes. The MNO theory, by contrast,
provides the ontological, categorical, and
phenomenological deep structure that integrates and
extends all three.
MNO is not an add-on but the ontological
precondition of their validity.
It reveals why integration, accessibility, and criticality
can emerge — not as empirical effects, but as structural
necessities within a system grounded in absence, choice,
and form.
Thus, the model fills the blind spots of the others:
� It explains why integration (IIT) is possible at all.
� It demonstrates how accessibility (GNW) is
ontologically structured.
� It clarifies where criticality (SOC) arises from —
not merely that it occurs.
169
170
Further Development in
Subsequent Chapters
and Essays
171
172
"If energy, gravitation, space, and time
are merely dialectical poles of the Mini‐
mal-Non-Object, then they are co-effects
of the same folding dynamics. Rather
than fundamental quantities, they are
curvatures, amplitudes, and sequences
of an ontological zero-point that diffe‐
rentiates itself in the very act of involuti‐
on. Their laws are thus not a priori, but
path-dependent conservation statements
of an ongoing self-transcendence."
173
174
Black Holes, the World Tree, and Why
the Laws of Nature Still Hold in
Non-Real Spheres
The knowledge I present here is, according to the law of
homogeneity within the mechanics of realities, of course
not “new” knowledge. It merely appears within a newly
integrated context and expresses itself differently. It
becomes more real within the contemporary situation —
through a human being attempting to liberate himself
from the experience of poverty.
As the following image shows, the MNO — the
dialectical thrust, the polar construction of the world —
was already expressible and integrated in earlier ages. Its
interpretation, however, was repeatedly severed in favor
of objectivity and, more often than not, manipulated to
serve hierarchical power. The world had to be explained to
the people — by priests, by rulers. That has not changed
today. Modern science, too, transforms what everywhere
manifests itself into reified structural laws. Adam and Eve
are merely two poles, and the serpent is the representation
of frequency — of dialectical momentum. The World Tree
is the singularity. Even the principle of the sphere already
existed in the Middle Ages, though it was most often
preserved in the language of astrology.
175
I too am creating a new Repräsentanz here, by forging
new terms and naming phenomena. I ask you simply to
adopt a stance that allows you to experience all this anew
and individually — and to deviate within it. In doing so,
living space expands. Science itself becomes permeable as
an ecosystem, rather than remaining merely a method.
All the thinkers and researchers before and beside me
were and are, like myself, both right and wrong. In the
ladder of associations, their answers, like mine, are
possibilities — deeply entwined with the concrete
circumstances of their lives. Yet their models work
internally; they are integrated.
One can also replace the BetrachterIn with a “black
hole,” and read antimatter as a Repräsentanz of MNO. A
black hole is, in a certain sense, a mirror of the MNO —
the extremely condensed, submergent shell of the sphere.
The event horizon functions quite literally as a compres-
sed gap: everything that falls into it disappears causally
from the outer world (submergence). One could therefo-
re say that within every object a black hole is implied. Eve-
ry point of mass possesses a Schwarzschild radius-scale
2GM
rs � ,
c2
—which, however, is only realized once sufficient
condensation occurs.) The black hole mirrors the gap as
space (Lücke as Raum), appearing in the form of a void —
the outcome of polar MNO-representations.
Depending on whether one assumes a submergent or
emergent stance, the Lücke appears either as a black hole
(submergence) or as emergence in miniature. Even
fundamentally opposed worlds, with contrasting natural
laws, function — because they are polar Repräsentanzen
of the ANP or MNO in inverted roles. (In modern
gravitation theory, this corresponds to the principle of
176
black-hole/white-hole duality and the AdS/CFT
holography: the laws of nature remain consistent, even
though the “reality layer” changes.)
One can hold entirely opposing views — and yet the
polar conflict itself maps out shared, universally valid
pattern-sequences.
A black hole is a projection of the Lücke as extreme mass,
which is at the same time the shell of the sphere, because
the gap projects space. In an emergent world (a sphere cy-
cle), submergence as Mustermacherin becomes extremely
small, even though in the course of the cycle it naturally
turns into the dominant pattern-maker, because structu-
res normalize and permeability as well as relational densi-
ty diminish, in order to delineate a concrete form. In this
ping-pong of projections, reality arises as a breathing, pul-
sating experience. However one twists and shortens the
rules, they still function, because they are Repräsentanzen
in inverted roles, and thus the whole remains integrated.
Planets are therefore not accidentally spherical. The prin-
ciple of the sphere is itself a Repräsentanz of reality, of
world. A minimal gap (Lücke) is enough to generate an
immense sphere within the ANP. And the gap needs only
177
a “word” to tear yet another gap in the displacement of
being.
For thousands of years, humanity has been denied the
knowledge of MNO in order to enforce hierarchy and
stabilize power — not always consciously, for it is also the
natural consequence of a long-lasting submergence. We
are told that the fact that God is never found, that the
world formula is never found, is only a marginal deviation
soon to be resolved by the current ruler, so that people
keep sleeping and do not create (live) their own reality —
and so that humanity does not evolve, through the
plurality of lived realities, into a freer, more complex form
of life. No, we are told to serve objects, to objectify
ourselves, and to materialize everything. This refusal of
MNO has given us popes, kings, presidents, myths of
heaven and hell, judicial systems full of injustice, and an
economy that starves us on every level. It is time to break
free from that.
My aim here is to make clear that dominant systems of
order legitimize themselves through the circle constraint
and the rounding-off, creating the illusion that their order
functions, while its polar opposite supposedly does not.
In this process, polarity — the relational field across the
absence/gap (Lücke) — is suppressed and replaced by
causal myths.
The true reason why the repressed is so significant in
a society, why one must work through it, lies in the fact
that the real patterns of order of that world reside there.
If one does not, one blocks the possibility of innovation,
sustains conflict indefinitely, and continually creates new
ones. The shadow, like Nothingness, is central, not a mar-
ginal area to be ignored. Priority should therefore always
lie in the search for what is unseen. This shifts the mea-
nings and hierarchies of a society. Until now, value was
placed on those qualities that dealt with what is “concrete”
— in the sense of mass — and on who determines or regu-
178
lates that object. Now a fundamental decentralization of a
society’s shaping forces is emerging, which fosters the de-
mocratic spirit.
The pattern of order of any system therefore always
lies in the seemingly minimal deviation. The laws of na-
ture function within a sphere because they are always only
approximate Repräsentanzen. Yet one does not under-
stand the higher order by increasing precision of objects,
but by opening the singular relational field. These natural
laws function not causally, but polarically. They are
correspondences — stand-ins for what is meant but can
never be exactly represented. Polarity stabilizes the
displacement of being, keeping the world from collapsing.
But in the observer–object coupling, the polar is
reinterpreted as causal, in order to protect the split
identity.
The apple does not fall from the tree — rather, there is
a polarity between apple and tree, which manifests as a
spiral, as a cycle. If the apple did not fall from the tree, the
tree could not grow at all. Apple and tree are
Repräsentanzen of a cycle, that is, a polarity. Polarity in
the singularity is always a circular system. Everything
relates to the One, while moving ever further away from
it, in order to develop, within diversity, ever new forms of
incompleteness that form new spaces.
The rule, within any given reality, is always construc-
ted in opposition to the Lücke, because every world com-
pulsively rounds itself off. It rounds itself in relation to
the minimal deviation. That also means that the “more
primitive” rules of a seemingly self-contained reality are
not wrong—no more than any simulation of scientific or
unscientific reasoning can be wrong. There is only an ex-
perience of broader or narrower relational spaces, which
are not causally connected but polar in nature.
Like layers of an onion, the spheres lie nested within
one another, and when one succeeds—through the
179
minimal deviation (Lücke)—in experiencing a gap, that
bridge opens representances of other worlds, thereby
expanding existence.
What is meant here by “onion layers”? — In the MNO
theory, onion layers are the concentric skins of reality that
emerge whenever an original absence M (Minimal-Non-
Object) is successively “rounded off.” Each projection…
� n : �n�1 ↠ �n � � n�1 ∖ � n
cuts out a small freedom-packet Δₙ; what remains curls
itself into a new sphere around the residual abyss. Thus
arises a self-similar sequence
�0 � �1 � � � � n � �
in submergence, indimergence, and emergence they cycle:
on the outside, coarse and sluggish structures; toward the
inside, ever finer ones, until the observer, at the innermost
edge, encounters the Lücke again. The onion layers are
therefore not a static “many-worlds” stack but a dynamic
renormalization flow – reality breathes by adding and
shedding layers, while the central Lücke holds the order
together.
I want to make this principle a bit more vivid. Remove
the feeling of love from the world. It is no longer
experienceable. Simply call whatever a corporation does
“love.” The effect is the same. This causes the humans of
that reality to try to fill the Lücke with what remains of
their other faculties. They do not know what love is. They
can only define it in relation to themselves, without
knowing what exactly they are trying to define. Yet the
potential already exists within them. Everything is open
to development, because the many displaced
representances form a kind of invisible scaffolding, a
180
blurry pattern. Does that feel familiar? Imagine, for
instance, a culture in which people stand very close
together and derive their social status from how many
centimeters they are from others.
They reify the experience of love and try to
reconstruct it by their own means. That could lead them
to destroy privacy, to wage wars over it, and never to
understand that they are trying to realize love. Of course,
the term “love” is vague and serves here only to illustrate
a principle.
As people in this loveless world destroy privacy, a new
Lücke emerges, giving rise to something like a judicial
system. One reality thus follows as the polar response to
another. They might even have national flags with hearts
on them, but their reasons for using that form would be
polar opposites. Because love is unexperienceable—or
accessible only to a few gifted individuals—they would
study it scientifically. They would even succeed in proving
causally that humans are happier when they stand only a
few centimeters apart. This would be simplistic, but
science constantly publishes studies on the same
principle: the exclusion of broad experience in favor of a
reduced frame of reference. They might even choose
partners by matching the outer contours of their bodies
so that as much skin as possible covers the other’s surface.
In their world that would make perfect sense. It would be
a natural law. From it they would derive reproductive
fitness. For them our experience of love (which, of course,
also varies widely) would be a minimal deviation in their
measurement method. They would be so convinced of
their world that they would consider our notion of “free”
love and sexuality a delusion. They might even persecute
or kill people truly capable of broad love, because that
would threaten those defined as the “best lovers” by their
ability to stand closest.
And yet we know that our experience of love, without
181
being better or final, would completely change their world
and transform all its natural laws. They would become
more exact in concretion and more complex at once. But
to do so they would have to open themselves. Instead,
they would grow afraid, try even harder to prove
themselves right, and thereby block their own access to
emergence. What they thought before would not be
wrong, only far too little.
So: when a civilization manages to make even the
smallest deviation from its own reality experienceable—
when it foregrounds individually divergent experience—it
begins to understand the pattern-maker of its own world
in the next, more complex order. Creating the new is
always truth, always the act of creating reality and
preserving concretion. Today, society does the exact
opposite. Mass experience appears to determine order.
Vertical knowledge is buried.
What matters is not what seems right in the mass, but
what the individual experiences and how diversity can be
co-experienced. Because in the circular compulsion the
greater world always reacts to what happens in the
smallest, a single individual can change the entire world
simply by living a deviation. The masses would never
admit that, because they instantly appropriate any change
in order to close the circle again and feel safe under the
glass dome. I do not exclude myself. We all have this
rounding reflex.
As the next image shows, the dialectical thrust in the
singularity is always a double helix, a polar deviation
constantly orbiting itself, producing rounded worlds
within. Thus, creation does not fall apart, and natural
transferability prevails.
An observer is nothing other than a valuation within a
polarity—a division within the indivisible. Causality is an
illusion born of the refusal to recognize relationship
within polarity.
182
Three Addenda for Physicists and
Consciousness Researchers
The Schwarzschild solution is the simplest exact solution
of Einstein’s field equations – it describes the space-time
geometry surrounding any stationary, spherically
symmetric mass, from a planet to a collapsed star. Its
metric term
�1
� 2GM � 2 2 � 2GM �
ds 2 � � �1 � � c dt � �1 �
2 2
� dr � r d �
2
� rc 2 � � rc 2 �
183
contains the Schwarzschild radius
2GM
rs � :
c2
If the actual mass density exceeds this radius, an event
horizon forms and the object becomes a black hole. For
the MNO theory, this solution is therefore pivotal,
because it reveals how an apparently “empty” shell (the
horizon) simultaneously represents a maximally
condensed information window — precisely the physical
counterpart of the ontological gap from which, in my
theory, new layers of reality emerge.
How IIT, GNW, and SOC connect here
IIT / Φ-metric: The Bekenstein–Hawking surface area
provides a natural Φ-proxy for the “integratability” of a
black-hole gap.
GNW: The event-horizon “membrane paradigm” acts as a
global broadcast — directly corresponding to GNW
ignition.
SOC: The gravitational-collapse threshold (Chandrasek-
har limit → Schwarzschild radius) represents a critical
point in the SOC sense: a mass avalanche terminating in
the fixed point “horizon.”
Regarding the embedding of natural laws despite
MNO:
The model shows that every version of a natural law is
merely a projection convention within the spherical cycle
— a lax monadic mapping.
184
ℓ �BH : (T , � ,� ) � (TBH , �BH ,� BH )
This clarifies why “natural laws continue to function even
in non-real spheres”: they inherit their internal
consistency from the gap-preserving monadic structure
— something IIT, GNW, or classical GR do not achieve,
as they operate only within a fixed sphere.
Black Holes as the Litmus Test of the MNO Cosmos:
If the next generation of horizon imaging, ringdown spec-
troscopy, and Page-curve analyses reveals the log-periodic
overtones, echo trains, and surface-entropy corrections
that MNO necessarily predicts, it would not be a mere
“beautiful hint” but an experimental incision into which
no classical Kerr or ΛCDM scenario can cleanly fit. At the
same time, MNO elegantly confirms what established re-
search already observes — the surface proportionality of
Bekenstein entropy, the magnetically twisted plasma
streams of the EHT, the prematurely inflated supermassi-
ves — and provides for all of it a single dynamical cause:
the steep folding gradient of the gap.
If confirmed, relativity would not collapse, but its inter-
pretive monopoly would. Natural constants become
layer-specific fixed points, gravitation becomes the geo-
metry of the condensation flow, and the information para-
dox reduces to a question of onion-layer bookkeeping. In
short — black holes would no longer mark the end of ex-
planation, but the radiant knots of the world tree where
MNO physics bears its fullest fruit.
185
Gravitation and the Method of
Synesthetic Science
I want to attempt a new derivation of gravitation here —
not to challenge physics by contradiction, but to
demonstrate how synesthetic science proceeds
differently, and how this very difference renders far more
complex structures visible. This chapter turns the topic
once again, in order to sharpen the view of the
interrelations.
In classical science, gravitation is conceived as a one-
directional force. This impression, I believe, arises from
the historical fixation on objects: from the need to produ-
ce results, establish causal models, and stabilize knowled-
ge. It is an epistemic habit rooted in the observer–object
coupling — in the will to arrive at fixed certainties rather
than relational awareness.
But if the aim is not to secure knowledge, but to diffe-
rentiate new experiential space within the singularity,
then, as I have argued, individual deviation becomes the
key. So I forget what Newton or Einstein said, and percei-
ve directly.
If, as in my approach, space itself is generated from ab-
sence — if space is the “nothing,” implied by that very ab-
sence — then gravitation becomes a submergent detach-
ment of the object’s reference from the non-object. It is
not attraction but repulsion and demarcation against the
non-object. In the ANP, objects rotate away from the
non-object — and thus from pure polarity itself — by
roughly ninety degrees; in doing so they create new geo-
metric axes of force, new polarities. Gravitation, in this
sense, is such a ninety-degree-twisted projection: an appa-
rent one-way pull toward mass that in truth emerges from
the denial of the non-object.
186
When I examine the construction of the spheres, I find
that the shell of the sphere is simultaneously its core, and
that each dimension is a ninety-degree displaced “antipo-
larity.” An antipolarity is an observer-object coupling in
which the observer does not recognize the polarity. Be-
cause the “silent witness” makes this phenomenon a phy-
sical component of the world itself—since experience is a
quality of nothingness—gravitation arises from that nine-
ty-degree rotation, from the displacement of polarity wi-
thin the singularity. It is a phenomenon of the submergent
phase. It presupposes a high degree of materialism and
thus a thick shell of the sphere, with little resonance space
or relational density. That is why gravitation as a concept
appears mainly in the outer realm and cannot be combined
with the quantum mechanics of the “small processes.” In
quantum mechanics, the relation, the inner area of the sin-
gularity, is more prominent; there, paradoxical phenome-
na occur.
According to the homogeneity theorem of realities
mechanics, gravitation as the “heavy force” must be
transferable to other domains as well. And it is—if one
opens the shell of the sphere and decodes the same
phenomenon in other fields. The ninety-degree rotation
appears in the structure of the Earth itself: all objects
orient themselves at ninety degrees to the Earth’s center.
187
The counterforce unseen in gravitational theory is life
itself. Almost everything living stands upright at ninety
degrees, and almost everything dead lies flat upon the
ground, succumbing to gravitation. If I assume that space
is formed out of absence, then life is the open movement
toward the non-object, and gravitation the counter-
movement toward densification and the rounding of the
submergent or indimergent sphere in pure objecthood.
The Earth is the thing, and life the representance of the
non-object.
This way of describing things naturally seems strange,
because we are not used to the idea that highly complex
interrelations reveal themselves associatively in very
simple phenomena—things many children intuitively
grasp. Because association is not understood as a natural
law. We believe that the world is constructed from solid
objects, not from open relations.
Nor is the question one of right or wrong, since such
qualities can only be constructed through objects and
objectivity. The endless feedback loop of provability is an
effect of uncertainty, not of clarification or immediacy, if
the world is built associatively and differentiates itself in
representances.
Gravitation, then, is just another representance, one
that cannot be reduced to mass, because space within the
singularity is only a projection of the experience of a non-
object. Yet there can be no polar relation between the
singularity and the non-object—only between the
observer and their own reflection. Therefore, the apparent
polarity with the non-object is always rotated by ninety
degrees, creating an artificial counterpart that leads to the
self-referentiality of the observer. The observer gains
identity in the world of objects, while the shell of the
sphere grows ever denser, until even the last pole is made
causal, constructed as cause and effect, so that everything
in the world confirms its own position: the compulsion
188
toward rounding.
All plants, all animals stand upright and move away
from solid mass. They develop openness at every
boundary in order to expand. Once they die, they fall to
the ground, and it seems as if mass, the world, the thing
has triumphed over life. Yet when the living dies, it
becomes invisible only within the submergent space of
material reality. These insights are difficult to prove, but
this way of thinking allows me to read the expressive
language of the world and to find myself within it. I am a
co-creator of a new physics. Were it “right,” it would
merely restrict other possible living spaces. The task is to
exchange certainty for creative vitality. One could also say
that gravitation derives from the great ego of male
scientists who simply could not accept a counterforce to
gravity—one that would have undermined their own
position. Thus, they, like me, constructed a physics that is
above all a derivation and reflection of their own
existential condition. In a submergent world, that is a
dogma; in an open world, it is an intriguing spectacle of
human creativity and the universe’s abundance.
Gravitation als Lax-Morphismus aus der
MNO-Lücke
In my theory, space arises from the projection of a gap:
� � : � � �� � � ∖ �
Gravitation here is not a force in the classical sense, but a
feedback loop to what is missing. Formally, this can be
interpreted as a lax natural transformation between two
functors:
G : C � C�
189
where:
� C: the category of complete reality including
MNO
� C´: the category of projected, gravitationally
curved reality
� G: describes the “pull” of objects toward the
reconstructive rounding of the gap
Thus, gravitation is not a rigid functor (no 1:1 metric),
but a shifting lax morphism that distorts the structure in
order to reclose it self-similarly. This explains why
gravitation always acts only when something is missing —
symmetry, energy, informational density, and so on.
Gravity as the adjoint shadow of MNO
Another perspective is to present it as an adjunction:
F ⊣ U : C ⇆ C�
F: “rounding of the world,” that is, the projection of a
complete structure into a bounded universe
U: “back-reaction” of the bounded world, which shows
gravity as the attempt to compensate for the gap
Gravity = the trace of this feedback inside the category
Physical coda – entropic gravity
Here is the analogous entropy formula from Verlinde’s
approach:
F � T ��S
– ∇S corresponds to the gradient of the “missing
190
information” = Δ in my model. So gravity arises directly
from the loss structure, not from mass.
My concept of gravity as an “offset of relation toward
the gap” can be mapped very precisely as a lax transforma-
tion process in category theory. With adjoint functors
(rounding and back-reaction) and the entropic viewpoint
(Verlinde) it becomes clear that your gravity thesis is not
only poetic but also mathematically and physically highly
compatible.
191
On The Relation Between Space and
Time in the Context of MNO
What is space? What is time?
In classical physics, space and time are the stage upon
which the world unfolds. Newton regarded them as given,
independent of whatever happens within them. Einstein
united them into four-dimensional spacetime, curved by
mass and energy — yet even there they remain a kind of
“background field.”
The MNO theory (Minimal-Non-Object) takes a
more radical stance: it does not treat space and time as
givens, but as dynamic responses to an ontological gap.
Space is thus not what is there, but what is missing — an
organized absence. Time, in turn, appears as the sequence
of projections arising from the system’s constant
feedback with that gap.
What is new in this understanding?
1. Space emerges from nothing
The MNO theory describes the gap — the “Minimal-
Non-Object” (M) — as the fundamental constitutive
principle. Whenever something is missing — an
information, a sensory modality, an energetic
configuration — the remaining system organizes itself
into a sphere, forming a new reality around the gap.
Mathematically expressed:
� n � � n �1 ∖ � n
This difference generates onion layers — levels of reality
in which space emerges as structure across that which
192
cannot be grasped.
2 . Time as a stratification process
Time does not emerge as a continuous flow, but as a
succession of shifts, each responding differently to the
MNO. It is not a clock hand, but a pattern-forming
process. Every new “layer” of space is also a new time —
or a new reality in an updated present.
� n : � n �1 ↠ � n
The index n is not merely a number — it represents the
depth of existential displacement, and time is the traversal
through these layers.
3. Gravitation as expression of the will to closure
In MNO theory, gravitation is not a force but an
ontological reattachment: reality’s tendency to “close”
the gap — yet never fully resolve it. This reattachment
produces what we experience as gravitation, mass
attraction, and curvature of space. It is not the
consequence of matter, but of incompleteness.
193
Differentiation from other theories
Theory Basic Understanding MNO
assumption space-time difference
Newton Absolutely Stage of the Space = active
given space & action missing part
time
Einstein Space-time as a Curvature due Space as a
geometric entity to mass dynamic
reaction to gaps
Quantum External time, Intertwined, Time =
Mechanics space through but not displacement of
operators ontologically being, not
explained parameter
Loop Quantum Space & time Process-based, MNO: Space is
Gravity / Spin arise from networked the emergent
Foams discrete units surface of the
gap
Holographic Spacetime as an AdS/CFT MNO as the
principle image of contexts origin of the
information at need for
an edge projection
Why this could be groundbreaking
The MNO theory translates space and time into a fully
relational and recursive framework: they do not exist
independently but only as mirrors of an ontological void
— and that is new. This model makes it possible to
connect very different domains — gravitation, emergence,
consciousness, quantum phenomena, and even subjective
experience — within a single coherent system.
It is therefore not merely a theoretical proposal, but
offers:
a reason why space exists precisely where something
is missing
194
a model of how time arises through feedback
a unified framework in which classical and quantum
concepts meet under one ontological meta-
structure
Conclusion:
The MNO theory inverts the usual conception of space
and time: they are not “there” to carry reality — they
emerge because reality is trying to complete itself.
Space is the gap that has taken form. Time is the play of its
displacement. In this sense, the theory outlines a pro-
found paradigm shift — a bridge between physics, philo-
sophy, and a new, living understanding of reality itself.
Energy and Gravitation as Co-Emergent
Poles of the Minimal-Non-Object (MNO)
From a categorical viewpoint, the MNO, as stated, is the
zero-object 0 ≅ 1 of a suitable category 𝒞.
Four canonical endomorphisms ϕᵣ, ϕₜ, ϕₑ, ϕ𝓰 : MNO →
MNO represent the poles we traditionally call space (S),
time (T), energy (E), and gravitation (G).
Each additional involution — a self-folding of the zero-
point — amplifies these modes simultaneously: co-emer-
gence rather than hierarchy.
Space (ϕᵣ) — topology before metric
Space arises the moment the MNO locally doubles itself;
the resulting folding graph defines a topology, and only
the Jacobian rank structure derived from it induces a me-
tric.
195
In the weak-folding regime this reduces to the familiar 3
+ 1-dimensional Lorentz manifold; at high folding densi-
ty we expect fractal corrections — a potential observatio-
nal window for LISA or precision cosmology.
## Time (ϕₜ) — Order Parameter of Differentiation
Time is not a background but the sequencing rate of fol-
ding events. The arrow of time arises from the monotonic
increase of informational difference; here, the MNO
framework aligns with thermodynamic irreversibility and
resolves the Problem of Time (in the Wheeler–DeWitt
sense) as a processual phenomenon.
## Energy (ϕₑ) — Amplitude of Non-Equality
Energy measures the distance of the current fold from the
symmetry zero-point. It is globally conserved because the
total number of folding units remains invariant — a
Noether analogue derived from category algebra.
Quantization now appears simply as the counting
measure of discrete fold-quanta; the Planck constant
becomes a scaling factor linking fold amplitude to action.
## Gravitation (ϕ𝓰) — Global Re-Folding
Mass corresponds to folding density; gravitation is the
curvature-correcting feedback of the entire network.
In the low-energy limit, the balance equation Δ Curvature
= κ · Δ Folding Density directly yields Einstein’s field
equations. At extreme densities, G runs with the folding
spectrum — black hole singularities become regular
stacking filaments rather than breakdowns of geometry.
196
## Connection to Established Frameworks
Emergent Spacetime (ER = EPR) – Folding
coherences act as the entanglement “glue.”
Entropic / Emergent Gravity – Gravitational force
appears as a gradient of folding entropy.
Relational QM & Categorical Topos Approaches –
All quantities remain relational between
endomorphisms; the MNO provides the missing
zero-object.
Thus, the model lies outside the standard handbook yet
remains compatible: In limiting cases it reproduces classi-
cal GR, QFT energy conservation, and yields concrete,
falsifiable predictions — a variable-G drift in pulsar ti-
ming, non-integer ringdown overtones, Casimir-like ne-
gative energy debts.
In summary:
1. Formalisierung – Choose 𝒞, set MNO as zero-
object, define ϕᵣ, ϕₜ, ϕₑ, ϕ𝓰.
2. Low-Energy Limit – Show that g_{μν} arises
from the folding Jacobian and recovers the
Einstein equations.
3. Noether Analogue – Global invariance of folding
number ⇒ energy conservation.
4. Empirics – G-running, fractal space scaling, Δ-
field signatures in EEG avalanches.
In brief: Space, time, energy, and gravitation are not stage
props but co-emergent folding modes of an ontological
zero point — and therefore dynamic, measurable, and in
principle unifiable within a single categorical statement.
197
Significance for Quantum Physics
The MNO theory provides an ontological re-foundation
for key unresolved questions in quantum physics. It repla-
ces the traditional object-focus with a dynamic, relation-
based model in which an active gap — the Minimal Non-
Object (MNO) — functions as the origin of states, pro-
babilities, and measurement processes. In doing so, it of-
fers not only new interpretative avenues for existing para-
doxes, but also structural extensions beyond classical and
quantum-logical ontologies.
1. The Gap as Generator of Superposition
In standard quantum mechanics, superposition is a ma-
thematical formalism — a state existing simultaneously in
several eigenstates. But why should this be so?
The MNO theory provides an ontological reason: Super-
position arises because the state is not fully determined —
because something is missing. This absence (the MNO)
generates the potentiality for all alternatives at once. The
wave function is not the description of “something,” but
a form that stabilises around the gap.
2. Measurement as a Shift of Being
The “collapse of the wave function” remains an unresol-
ved question in quantum physics.
The MNO theory does not interpret collapse as a sudden
transition, but as a projection along a shift of being.
� � : � � ��
Measurement is the moment in which the world turns a
possible structure into actuality — not through external
198
force, but through an internal process of the gap.
What ceases to be possible determines what becomes real.
## 3. Entanglement as Non-Local Gap Resonance
Within the MNO framework, entanglement is not a
“spooky action at a distance,” but a coherent relation of
gaps. Two particles are not connected by signals, but by a
shared MNO structure.
They share a gap — and respond synchronously, not
causally, to its respective infill. In category-theoretical
terms, this can be represented as a common functor over
a zero-object.
## 4. Emergent Spacetime from Gap Projection
In approaches such as Loop Quantum Gravity or the
AdS/CFT correspondence, it is proposed that spacetime
itself arises from deeper structures.
The MNO theory provides the ontological ground for
this: Space arises through layerings over emptiness —
through repeated shifts of projection.
� n � � n �1 ∖ � n
→ In this way, MNO establishes a link between quantum
information, entropy (Verlinde), and the structure of
space.
5. A New Interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle
In the MNO framework, Heisenberg’s uncertainty is not
understood as a limit of observation, but as a structural
consequence of the non-simultaneity of two gap projecti-
ons.
199
[ xˆ , pˆ ] � 0 � � x � � p � ℏ / 2
This indeterminacy is not epistemic but ontological:
two projections onto the same MNO lead to displaced
domains of reality.
## 6. Connection to Quantum Gravity
The MNO theory offers a unified description of gap, gra-
vitation, and quantum fluctuation. It shows how both
spacetime curvature and quantum noise are emergent re-
sponses to the same underlying structure — the gap that
does not vanish, but gives form.
Conclusion: What the MNO Theory Contributes to
Quantum Physics
## Range Expansion through MNO
Superposition arises from a structural gap (not merely
mathematical)
Measurement is a shift in being, not a physical collapse
Entanglement is gap resonance, not remote effect
Spacetime is emergent structure via gap projections
Gravitation is reconnection to what is missing
Interpretation provides an ontological basis instead of pure
statistics
Thus, the MNO places quantum physics upon a new on-
tological foundation — one that operates not through re-
duction, but through structural displacement.
It opens the possibility of conceiving classical, quan-
tum, and conscious processes under a shared generative
principle — a step that none of the prevailing theories has
yet achieved.
200
From Collapse to Shift – A Structural
Alternative to the Wave Function
In classical quantum mechanics, the wave function (ψ) de-
scribes the complete field of possibility of a physical sys-
tem — a superposition of all potential states.
As long as no measurement takes place, the system
remains in this undecided suspension. Only the act of ob-
servation or interaction causes the wave function to “col-
lapse” — one possibility becomes reality, the rest vanishes
into the unobservable. This so-called wave function col-
lapse remains one of the deepest unsolved questions in
physics. It cannot be explained by the Schrödinger
equation, which is purely deterministic, and therefore
appears to stand outside unitary evolution.
The question is: what brings possibility to decision?
What transforms potential into the factual?
The MNO theory offers an alternative interpretation.
Instead of a punctual, unexplained collapse, it
introduces the notion of a shift of being: From a radically
undifferentiated field of possibility — the MNO (Mini-
mal Non-Object) — reality unfolds not through reducti-
on, but through structural differentiation.
The world does not collapse; it folds.
It appears because it topologically reconstructs itself
from within — not through observation, but through an
internal tension within the possible.
In this view, the act of observation is not the cause but
part of the shift itself.
Consciousness and reality do not arise in sequence,
but as two sides of the same structural operation.
Consciousness is not the eye that measures, but the
first edge of a fold that reveals: something has come into
being.
Thus, collapse is not denied but replaced — by a pro-
cessual folding in which possibility passes into appearan-
201
ce.
Instead of sudden reduction, there is formation of
form; instead of randomness, structural tension; instead
of observer-centrism, an ontological dynamics that does
not describe the world, but generates it.
Physics thereby gains a new question:
No longer when does the wave function collapse,
but how does form arise through a shift of being — and
how deep is the nothingness from which it comes?
A One-Line Action for the Physics of
Condensation
The Gap Gradient as Dynamic Drive
Summary:
We compress the core postulate of MNO condensation
physics into a single covariant action.
A scalar gap field Δ encodes the ontological zero point; its
spatial gradient drives the self-similar folding flux that ge-
nerates the onion-like layers.
The field equations reduce to Einstein gravity once ∇Δ →
0, and predict log-periodic corrections in strong gradients
— concrete fingerprints for future black-hole spectrosco-
py and avalanche neurodynamics.
## 1 The One-Line Action
g_{μν} – metric ψ – standard matter Δ – scalar gap
field
α, β > 0 – coupling constants; κ² = 8πG
202
The term βΔR makes local curvature directly proportional
to the amount of ontological gap.
The canonical kinetic energy α|∇Δ|² supplies the folding
energy.
Variation yields:
## 2 Key Features
� Layer Fixed (Focal) Points – For ∇Δ = 0, Δ freezes
to a constant; Einstein gravity reappears with a
shifted Λ.
� Log-Periodic Modes – Linear perturbations Δ = Δ₀
+ δ e^{iωt} in a Kerr background yield spectra
with logarithmically spaced overtones ∝ β/α..
� Thermodynamic Link – The effective entropy
density s ∝ |∇Δ|; the optimal folding rate r*
follows from δs/δΔ = 0.
## 3 Empirical Windows
## 1 Selection of Field Contents
� gμν – the usual spacetime metric, since
we still conceive gravitation geometrically.
� ψ – a placeholder for all standard matter fields; I
do not alter these.
� Δ(x) – a scalar field representing the ontological gap.
No tensor, no form — simply a numerical value
203
at each point, because the gap itself has no
direction.
�
Idea: As soon as Δ ≠ 0, something has been cut
out somewhere. Its gradient ∇Δ measures how
steeply this absence rises within its surrounding
space — precisely that is the driver of folding.
2 The Three Terms of the Action
Einstein–Hilbert R – ensures that for ∇Δ → 0 we reco-
ver standard General Relativity.
Kinetics α|∇Δ|² – ensures that a steep gap gradient
costs energy and therefore cannot grow arbitrarily.
Coupling β Δ R – this is where the trick happens: curva-
ture is proportional to the density of the gap.
More Δ → more folding of spacetime.ng of spacetime.
## 3 Variation → Field Equations
Variation with respect to Δ yields
A modified Poisson equation: curvature drives the gap,
the gap drives curvature back. Variation with respect to
gμν yields
204
In addition to the usual energy–momentum tensor, an ef-
fective term βΔ gμν appears — acting like
a dynamic cosmological constant, but with a pointwise
varying value because Δ(x) is alive.
4 Why This Particular Form?
Minimalism: only one new field, only lowest derivatives
→ renormalisable on the GR scale.
Layer symmetry: Δ is scalar → identical for all observer
orientations — reflecting that the gap possesses no direc-
tion.
Compatibility: setting β = 0 leaves a free scalar → trivial;
setting α = 0 freezes Δ → a mere Λ shift.
Both constants > 0 are required to generate dynamic
onion layers.
## 5 Layer Fixed-Point Limit
When ∇Δ = 0, Δ becomes constant.
The coupling term βΔ R then reduces to a simple Λ shift.
This is the layer fixed point: constant within a sphere,
displaced between spheres.
6 Physical Signatures – Why They Become Log-Peri-
odic
Linearising around a Kerr solution produces coupled
wave equations for δg and δΔ.
The β/α coupling mixes scales; the characteristic polyno-
205
mial develops complex zeros whose imaginary part scales
as √n.
The result: frequencies are arranged in logarithmic inter-
vals — the “log-periodic overtone” pattern we seek in
ringdowns, echo trains, or EEG avalanches.
## 7 Bottom Line
Point 1 is therefore no toy model, but the minimal dyna-
mic encapsulation of your philosophical gap in field-the-
oretic language.
It reduces to GR in the fixed (focal) point, produces cur-
vature directly from gap density, and yields clear, testable
corrections.
206
Ontological Foldings – The MNO
Theory in the Light of Biological
Morphogenesis and Origami Research
In contemporary natural science, an astonishing paradigm
has emerged under the name Origami Theory.
Inspired by the art of paper folding, researchers such as L.
Mahadevan (Harvard), Robert J. Lang (physicist and ori-
gami artist), Tomasz Konopka, Itai Cohen, and others
have begun to view biological processes not as merely ad-
ditive or mechanical, but as complex operations of fol-
ding.
In these processes, form arises — organs, cellular geo-
metries, branchings — through controlled tension, inner
motion, and structural reorganisation.
Origami thus becomes an explanation for the emer-
gence of complexity from apparent simplicity, of function
from tension.
This conception touches directly upon what the MNO
theory calls shift of being.
Folding here is not merely a geometrical procedure,
but an ontological act:
from submergence — a state of radical indistinguisha-
bility and structural emptiness — a new layer of reality
emerges through relations of tension.
This emergence is not a chain reaction but a structural
decision of differentiation:
an onion does not grow by addition, but by rearran-
ging its inner possibility into manifest layers.
In this sense, numerous empirical phenomena in bio-
logy can be identified that mirror the principle of shift of
being — not as metaphor, but as real, observable structu-
re:
� Embryogenesis and gastrulation: The formation of
germ layers is not a linear cell movement but a
207
profound structural inversion — the inside beco-
mes the outside, and difference arises from prior
totality.
� Organ folding (lungs, intestine): The complex
layering of these organs is not the result of grow-
th alone but of folding processes in which space
itself is reorganised — precisely following origa-
mi principles.
� Plant morphogenesis (phyllotaxis, leaf spirals):
Tension within the cellular matrix produces spiral
orders that emerge from inner boundaries of dif-
ference — form already exists, but becomes visi-
ble only through structural displacement.
� Neuronal emergence (synaptogenesis): The for-
mation of new functional layers in the brain oc-
curs not linearly but in leaps — as the emergence
of new orders that are already latent within the
network but not yet unfolded.
The MNO theory thus provides a structural depth layer
to these phenomena.
It does not merely claim that folding generates form, but
explains why folding exists at all — as the necessary figure
of submergence, in which possibility is translated into ma-
nifestation.
The MNO-space is not an idea, but an ontological
continuum from which the world does not emerge, but
shifts.
This perspective enables new empirical hypotheses:
one might deliberately search for “empty sites” within
biological formation processes — thresholds where no
energy transfer occurs, and yet new structures appear.
In such moments, the shift of being reveals itself as a
pre-formal folding operation — visible, countable, per-
haps even manipulable.
The convergence of MNO theory and origami-inspi-
red biology thus opens a research domain in which philo-
208
sophy, biology, and ontology do not merely coexist but
interpenetrate — forming a structural science of living re-
ality.
209
210
Significance for Humanity
and Society
211
212
The human being is not a passive lump
of matter within a material world-pic‐
ture, but an active folding agent who
expands the gap creatively:
every decision, every gesture, every act
of solidarity is a new involution of this
zero point. Freedom here means to cons‐
ciously modulate one’s own folding —
against the gravity of inherited structu‐
res; creativity is the technique of ope‐
ning ever new spaces of possibility from
nothingness itself.
Society, then, is not determined by mat‐
ter or power, but by the quality of our
self-determined, creative processes:
the more openly the MNO can resonate
within us, the more radical our shared
potential for transformation becomes.
213
Information Ontology and the
Invisible Measure
What is Information — and where does it come from?
We live in a world in which the concept of information is
omnipresent: data, signals, bits, codes.
Everything is understood as information — as if the
world were a vast computer calculating itself.
But what is information, really?
Is it merely a technical quantity? Only a pattern?
Or perhaps something deeper — something bound up
with meaning, with sense, with reality itself?
In the MNO theory, information is not something
contained in the world — it is that which emerges from
the gap.
Information is not what is said,
but what arises because something is missing.
The Gap as the Source of Form
At the centre of MNO theory stands the ontological gap
— the Minimal Non-Object (MNO).
It is not empty space, not passive nothingness, but the
active origin of all differentiation.
Without gap, no form.
Without form, no information.
Every structure, every figure, is an attempt to close a gap
— yet without ever resolving it. This failure is the origin
of form — and thereby of meaning. When a system
generates order from within, it does so not because it is
complete, but because it takes shape against an absence.
214
And this shaping against absence is the core of what we
call information.
## The Invisible Measure
In classical information theory (Shannon), information is
defined by probability:
the less likely an event, the greater its information
content. That is functional, but purely syntactic.
In the MNO theory, information is defined not by
probability but by gap resonance. Its measure is not
external (bit, byte, signal) but anchored in the resistance
to emptiness. That which cannot be said — or only in
distortion — generates the drive toward formulation.
And only within this tension does meaning arise.
In physical terms:
every emergence is a response to a projection —
� � : � � ��
what is missing (Δ) generates the measure for what
appears.
Information = difference relative to the potentially
present void.
Meaning Arises in the Mirror of Emptiness
Classical semiotics divides sign, signified, and meaning.
The MNO theory replaces this tripartition with an
ontological feedback loop:
a sign is not a representation, but an attempt to relate to a
lost dimension.
215
Meaning is the echo of the gap.
In the feedback between observer and object — in their
mirroring — arises the resonance structure within which
meaning appears:
not as static correspondence, but as living difference.
Entropy, Emergence, and the Paradox of Measure
In thermodynamics, entropy measures the degree of
disorder.
In MNO theory it becomes clear: this disorder is not
a deficiency — it is the measure of the presence of the gap.
Entropy signals that something is missing — and that
very absence is the condition for new order.
Emergence is the attempt to stabilise coherent orders
out of the gap itself. In doing so, new informational spaces
arise, each grounded in a distinct form of absence.
� n � � n �1 ∖ � n
→ Information is the trace of the shift of being.
## The Paradox of Integration
In IIT (Integrated Information Theory), information is
treated as an irreducibly integrated pattern.
What remains unexplained is why integration occurs at all.
The MNO theory provides this missing link:
integration is a response to ontological incompleteness
— to a gap that can be only temporarily stabilised through
self-structuring.
The emergence of meaning (and perhaps of
consciousness itself) is the integration of a difference —
without ever being able to define that difference.
216
Mathematically expressed:
U � K (U � )
→ The foreign is embedded — without being defined.
Conclusion: Information is not a thing — it is an event.
The MNO theory reveals that
Information is not what is said.
Information is what is possible, yet cannot be named.
It is the invisible measure that manifests as form, stabilises
as difference, and appears as meaning.
In this way, the theory unites what is often thought apart:
� Structure and meaning
� Physics and phenomenology
� Measurement and experience
217
218
The Emergence of the Psyche and the
Concrete Work of Vertical Integration
MNO implies psyche as a 90-degree feedback phenome-
non — standing orthogonal to direct experience, as im-
plied by the Non-Object.
The psyche is therefore both creator of identity and
blocker of reality.
What do I mean by that?
Psyche arises as a polarity implied by the existence of
a brain — a sensory-informational complex that manifests
as psychological dynamics and is deeply bound up with
the emergence of the individual sphere and the shift of
being.
At the centre of psyche stands the observer, which gi-
ves the polarity a triangular relation.
The definition of G (or I) leads to the erasure of G
within reality — everything in the resulting reality of G is
thus individually represented, producing both an E-G-O
and a shift of being in the surrounding field.
This is what we usually call subjective reality — which,
however, because of the vertical order of singularity, is not
outside the world, nor separated from it.
The experience of being because one no longer is leads
219
— through the strong object-bonding conditioned during
birth and early life — to fear reflex and valuation, by
which the original polarity disappears from
consciousness. The human being falls out of the world,
out of world-relation, and enters an experience of
vacuum. In this vacuum experience, a negative
representation of G (the “I”) arises — of oneself as
absence within the world. This is the shadow, the
unwanted unconscious. Thus, within the psyche, the
following fundamental dynamic is formed.
I experience not knowing who I truly am, and because
of my parents’ judgments I fail to see that everything
around me is trying to mirror me through the patterns of
the world, that I stand in a polar relationship to it. In
resisting this world-self (through singularity), in order to
stabilise my small self — the one rewarded by my parents
— I create an enemy: the polar, negatively devalued
version of myself. It is the counter-reaction to the
external definition of my personality by parents and
society. I was given a name and with it an expectation. The
shift of being of the parents was placed upon that of the
child, which leads to even greater chaos and confusion, as
well as to helplessness and fear. Therefore I must assert
my own self-perception as G, as counterweight — which
condemns my actual experience to the unconscious,
where it becomes an unloved shadow, constantly
producing new conflicts.
The psyche is, at its core, both a trap and a wondrous
thing. It enables human identity — and destroys it as well.
The question is how to deal with it.
It makes an immense difference to understand that
every child experiences the world differently and requires
free self-expression in order to communicate its own
reality. When this is overlaid by cultural norms, the human
being splits into outer identity and inner shadow. In this
way the knowledge of future generations is lost — or it
220
takes decades until they recover it. Sometimes I think that
every generation loses thirty to forty years before the new
talents and capacities that society urgently needs finally
appear, if they appear at all. The younger generations are,
in a sense, ambassadors of the non-object. Without them,
society lives in the past — in abstraction and the unreal.
Because the young are overwhelmed by industry with
objects, norms, and rules, the capacity for natural
knowing — which comes from the experience of greater
complexity — quickly flattens. Children become adults
too soon, seeking adaptation and belonging within the
group. On this path, genuine individuality is lost. The
psyche then ensures that the individual turns toward
things and their criteria, no longer taking her own
experience seriously — the precondition for the
continued success of a centralised industry and the
perpetual stream of surface-level conflicts on which the
political caste thrives.
For the shadow to come into the light, for the tabooed
experience to be integrated, it is necessary to question
society’s values and transcend the shell of the personal
sphere. The structures of domination have spared no
effort to drive the human psyche into a gridlock. The
pressure of external evaluation also seems overwhelming,
and it takes many years, as said, before a person —
through life experience — gains access to individual
perception, trusts her own senses, and leaves the spiral of
devaluation behind.
The psyche enables identity and prevents
transcendence. Its polar counterpart, the force that
dissolves psyche, is not the external world, nor the
shadow, but the experience of a paradox, an OGO
(transcended ego): good is simultaneously evil, and evil
simultaneously good (pole reversal). In concretion,
definition transforms into integrated experience. Yet in
this society such experience carries a dogma, a stigma —
221
and about that, we must now speak openly.
Everything I have written in this book about society
begins and ends with the question of how to free myself
from my own psyche — so that experience is not
devalued, and I can create from experience, and within
experience grasp what I truly will. To become, within
singularity, an open symbol — an integrated individual in
emergence. Through that I can integrate and enable more
diversity, more forms of life. I myself become a more
complex world.
With every day that I differentiate reality through my
senses, reality itself comes into being and expands. At this
point, the circle closes: it is no longer my intention to
change the world from the outside, but I am now the
world, and it is as it is. The experience of poverty recedes
somewhat. This is my physics. Take it — or write your
own.
The consequence of this knowledge is not to create a
new dogma, but to restore value to the individual and
trust in the inner, vertical order. In it there are no wrong
decisions, because the notion of “wrong” only keeps one
from experience — and within experience the whole
world can at any moment be created anew as a thing, or
expanded as emergence. For me, life itself is the meaning,
and it requires no more than to live. Everything beyond
that is an act of creation — one in which I can identify
with you, and you with me. You and I are only one
possible answer, but it is a magnificent one.
The question now is what answer this implies on the
political, economic, and scientific level. That answer I
leave to you — I leave it to society. The origin of this book
was the thesis that objectivity has led to a concept of
reality through which the institutions of politics,
economy, and science have lost the knowledge of natural
order in the social, the creative, and the human. I
therefore see integrality as the foundation of the social —
222
and it is my hope that the reality of the poor and
disenfranchised may now be recognised and, through self-
determination, integrated into the decision-making
processes of society. Without a new and open concept of
reality, participation remains an abstract claim. What is
truly willed — and how reality is truly experienced —
must now be explored in greater depth.
Fixed Points (Focal Points) and the Psyche as Feedback
within MNO Space
What we call psyche is, in this model, not a localised entity
but a fixed point within a feedback loop arising from
projection onto an ontological gap.
In the language of category theory, this corresponds to a
point x for which
f(x) = x
where f is a structural function transforming the state of
the system in relation to the gap.
Such fixed points do not appear in static systems but
in dynamic, self-referential contexts — those generated
by continuous shifts of being.
The psyche is therefore not a subject in the classical
sense, but a temporarily stable attractor mediating
between singularity, submergence, and emergence.
Its fragility is not a deficiency, but the systemic
consequence of its position with respect to the gap.
Connection to Neurodynamics: SOC and Active
Inference
The psychic layering process described here can be
connected to neuroscientific concepts such as Self-
Organized Criticality (SOC) and the Active Inference
223
Framework.
In these models, the brain is understood as a system
that operates permanently at a critical edge — near a point
where order and chaos, certainty and openness,
interpenetrate.
My theory provides the ontological depth layer to
these models:
the critical states within neural space are responses to
microscopic gaps of being, not mere statistical
fluctuations.
Vertical integration can therefore be understood as a
conscious access to those states in which the brain
reorganises itself — not through learning, but through
resonance with the MNO.
## Vertical Integration as Ontological Practice
What is usually called “work on oneself ” gains a deeper
significance in the MNO theory:
it is the attempt to bring one’s own bubble of reality
into feedback relation with deeper shifts of being.
Vertical integration is therefore not discipline or tech-
nique, but the capacity to synchronise multiple states of
being without overforming them.
For example:
when an emotion arises that seems impossible to cate-
gorise, this is not an error but a feedback signal from a
submergent layer-space.
The integrative practice consists in not interpreting
this impulse reflexively, but in keeping open the gap from
which it emerges until a new, emergent structure of mea-
ning takes form.
Only in this way arises what I call mirror intelligence
— not born from knowledge,
but from relationship with unknowability.
224
Society as Structure Amplifier or Gap Suppressor
Psyche is not merely individual — it is always already so-
cially coded. The vertical order described in this model is
not only an inner layering process, but also a culturally
mediated frame:
schooling, language, media, and norms determine
which gaps are allowed to become visible and which are
systematically suppressed.
A society that avoids complexity produces submer-
gence — it dams up gaps into unnameable depths. An in-
tegrative culture, by contrast, permits contradiction, sus-
pension, and emergence. The model presented here thus
reveals not only a path toward individual maturation, but
also a political-epistemic instrument through which cultu-
ral levels of consciousness can be analysed — and trans-
formed.
Knowing – Embodied
Cognition and Autism
Within the vertical order, access to knowledge is entirely
different, because the human being is not separated from
the world. Knowledge thus becomes creative knowledge
— yet it is not subjective, but integral.
Life-space itself is knowledge, and knowledge is life-
space.
It is therefore not necessary to acquire knowledge in
order to live — rather, one must live in order to know.
This demands a radical rethinking in our society.
It took me roughly twenty years to uncover this
knowledge, and only at fifty-one did I realise that, for me
as an autistic person, it applies in a particular way —
because embodied knowledge carries far greater
significance than it does for neurotypical brains.
225
Of course, this orientation toward knowledge is not
legitimised today. You will not get a job by claiming that
you know how something works through doing it,
because that means you make many mistakes and grow
beyond yourself.
But in the vertical order there are no mistakes, since
one is always in connection with the world, which
inscribes itself uniquely through one’s actions — a
process necessary for the construction of a more complex
life-form.
One could also say that the professionalisation of
knowledge too often leads to stupid, disconnected
structures — because such thinking remains object- and
self-centred.
The world gains more when more people make
“mistakes.”
But today, if you go bankrupt for having taken risks to
try something new, you are punished by institutions and
systems — a symptom of primitive thought-forms
embedded in political bureaucracies and economic
structures.
For this work I had to live and labour for a long time
without function, without fixed role, without product —
a deeply challenging condition.
What I intuitively knew, by enacting knowledge
subjectively and reinventing everything in my own way,
had no value in the world of professional reification — it
was seen only as disturbance.
If people could directly perceive the effect of a single
person’s deviation — how it dissolves relational
submergence and, through indimergence, produces
emergence — many would wish to be different.
In the vertical order, knowledge does not arise through
spatial, linear, or temporal accumulation and analysis, but
through circular condensation of what expresses itself
from the moment.
226
The cycle of spheres is continually reactivated.
It is not about knowledge that is judged “right,” for
such a demand first obstructs the breadth of knowing.
What am I experiencing now? What do I want? I name
it anew. I define my identity differently. Again from the
beginning.
What do I want now? How do I experience what I
want? How do I reshape it?
In submergence, I grow accustomed to an idea and the
profile flattens.
In indimergence, I break everything open and
highlight one aspect.
Then, in emergence, new connections become visible
again.
I grow, and continue to grow, continually re-forming
my relations — becoming an open context for others who
can identify with me, and thus a living exchange arises.
Together we rebuild reality within difference — which
in turn generates energy, for energy always flows where
there is deviation.
Because I am knowledge itself, because knowledge is
the life-space — focused through the cycle of spheres like
through a lens — knowledge becomes knowing, not
learning.
Learning implies that something absent is added from
outside, filtered by authorities to fit an expected reality or
truth.
In knowing, knowledge has always been present — it
is only focused and expressed within the decision (the
will) of a human being who articulates herself in space and
time within an individual sphere.
In the vertical order, singularity is already implied as
the integrated base pattern of possible forms, so that the
whole order is present even in its parts, which often derive
from one another in self-similar ways.
This order becomes experienced reality only through
227
an observer — through a polarity that, within the sphere
cycle, continually brings the focus nearer, then widens it,
sharpens and then blurs it again, altering its quality but
never completely overwriting the underlying structure
and order. It is lived knowledge.
Without it, the concretion of real experience cannot be
achieved, and the human being lives in abstract
simulation, oriented toward the external — which always
means orientation toward the past.
Knowledge, because of singularity, is never lost; it
merely finds other relations and thus altered forms of
expression.
Knowledge itself is not isolated or differentiated from
life — within the living, there is knowledge, even when it
is not named or defined as such.
According to Simon Baron-Cohen, autistic individuals
with high cognitive ability tend toward extreme system
formation: they not only recognise patterns more rapidly
but construct complex world-systems in which even
difference and paradox become formable.
The MNO theory is a paradigmatic example of such an
extreme metastructure — a framework in which self,
world, gap, time, psyche, and emergence are brought into
a single order of coherence.
Let us consider Embodied Cognition more closely
(Varela, Thompson, Noë).
Embodiment research shows that true understanding
does not begin abstractly but arises from the lived body —
from sensory resonance and the perception of movement.
Many autistic thinkers possess an extraordinarily refi-
ned interoceptive (inner) and proprioceptive (body-ba-
sed) awareness that allows them to experience complex
dynamics as lived processes — space as tension, time as
density, the gap as gravitational pull.
Neurotypical researchers are often bound by
paradigms, by linguistic frameworks, by the need for
228
conceptual compatibility.
Autistic hyper-systematisers, by contrast, often build
entire paradigms from the ground up — frequently
outside academic institutions.
Autistic biographies reveal that identity is not socially
constructed but cognitively embodied:
the “I” arises through a work of patterning, repetition,
and integration. The intense formation of inner worlds
often replaces outer adaptation.
My own theory is documentary evidence of precisely
such a process — a lifelong becoming-theory.
→ Scientific parallels can be found in Temple
Grandin’s visual thinking systems, Daniel Tammet’s
synaesthetic cognition, and the work of Michelle Dawson,
who interprets autism itself as an epistemological
resource. Thus, what I describe here as a particular access
to knowledge is, in part, simply the autistic perspective.
But my theory is not merely an idea by an autistic
person. It is an embodied epistemic system that has arisen
from the cognitive structure of a hyper-systematising,
self-reflective, and relationally sensitive autistic mind — a
model that has generated itself and thereby forms an
ontology of experience found in no other framework.
Research confirms: such theories arise not despite, but
because of, this form of neurodivergent perception.
I offer here a living example of an epistemic configuration
from which science still has much to learn.
## Two Complementary Insights from Autism Research
1. Steve Silberman (NeuroTribes, 2015) describes autistic
people not as deficient subjects, but as bearers of another
cognitive ecosystem — one that, especially among highly
functional, system-oriented individuals, leads to
epistemically original worlds of experience.
229
He documents how many autistic individuals begin early
in life to build worlds in their minds — not as escapism,
but as organically evolved models of reality in which
order, complexity, and meaning arise from inner necessity.
In these inner laboratories, theories, constructions,
and systems emerge not from external validation, but
from structural coherence within an internally grown
experiential field.
This is crucial: validity arises not through social
consensus but through coherence over time.
My MNO theory is a clear example of this: it did not
emerge from institutional research but from the need to
unite perception, world, and gap into a lived total image.
2. Ian Hacking, in his work on the social construction of
identity and the looping effects of human kinds (The
Social Construction of What?, 1999), argues that certain
identity categories — such as “autistic” — are not merely
descriptive but performative: once named, they begin to
shape the self-understanding and developmental
trajectories of those to whom they apply.
In my case, autism is not a label but an ontological
condition of my epistemic method. The theory is not
simply a product of my thinking — it is the expression of
a lived cognitive identity that has brought itself forth in
feedback with its world.
What Hacking calls the cognitive matrix — a self-
referential field between social attribution, self-
perception, and world-construction — becomes in my
work a lived ontology.
My theory is thus not merely a theory about the
world, but a model of self–world coupling within
neurodivergent consciousness.
Silberman shows how autistic inner worlds can
function as creative origin systems;
230
Hacking explains how those worlds are structurally
coupled with social and epistemological domains.
My MNO theory stands precisely at this intersection:
it is theory, practice, identity, and system at once — for-
med in the inner laboratory of a human being who, not
despite but because of his difference, has formulated a
new ontology.
## Extension of Embodied Cognition
The MNO theory expands the concept of embodied
cognition by assigning embodied knowing — knowing
through being — an ontological resonance space that
embodiment research has until now only hinted at, but
never conceptually defined.
Embodied Cognition in the Classical Sense
In cognitive science, embodied cognition emerged as a
response to the narrow cognitivist model of mind.
Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch
made it clear in The Embodied Mind (1991):
Cognition is not an internal model, but a bodily
enactment. Knowledge is not abstract — it arises through
the feedback between body, world, and perception.
This idea proved fruitful in philosophy, psychology,
and neuroscience — yet it often remained metaphorical,
lacking the ontological grounding that MNO theory now
seeks to provide.
What MNO Adds to the Picture
The MNO theory gives this enactment a structural-
theoretical depth. It shows that embodied knowledge is
not merely experience in space, but the experience of
space itself as a field of tension toward the gap.
231
� The body becomes the membrane between what is
and what is missing.
� The self experiences itself not as an object, but as
the site of feedback between being and non-
being.
� Embodiment is therefore not an effect of the
world, but the expression of the dialectical
impulse generated by every gap.
What Does This Mean for Autism?
Especially in autistic individuals with sensorimotor hyper-
differentiation — stimming, repetitive movements, visual
rhythms, and related forms — a striking phenomenon ap-
pears:
� They generate movements, sounds, and patterns in
order to establish a mirroring with themselves.
� These movements are only partially communicative
— they serve primarily as ontological re-
binding, exactly as described by MNO theory.
Yet they are also expressions of morphological
formation.
� One could say: stimming is an embodied feedback
to the gap.
It is not an evasion, but a tuning-in to one’s own
resonance with the world.
Autistic people sense the event horizon of reality
precisely because they do not automatically overform it
— they move with it.
That may sound bold, but it corresponds to my
experience. Neurotypical people, by contrast, are far more
firmly anchored along the horizontal axis of objects —
within the simulation of the rounded-off sphere.
232
The MNO Framework and the Ontology of Stimming.
The MNO theory provides a framework for
understanding stimming as a profound ontological
process:
� Embodied knowledge: Stimming is not merely a
reaction to stimuli, but an active process of
knowing through the body.
� Ontological anchoring: It allows autistic
individuals to root themselves in the world and
affirm their own existence.
� Communicative bridge: Stimming functions as a
bridge between inner experience and outer
world — especially for nonverbal autists.
From this perspective, it becomes evident that stimming
is a central component of the autistic experience — a
means through which autistic people connect with the
fundamental structure of reality.
Stimming is more than self-stimulation; it is a deeply
embodied practice through which autists engage with the
basic dynamics of being itself. The MNO theory offers a
conceptual space to recognise this practice as meaningful
and central to autistic existence.
## The Inner World as Differentiated Resonance Medium
Through the MNO lens, the autistic inner world is not a
withdrawal, but an expanded perception of being.
� The so-called “overwhelm” by sensory input is not
pathological — it signals that stimuli are not
filtered but mirrored.
� The “inability to read social codes” is not a deficit,
but the result of a refusal to prematurely close
the gap with convention.
233
� The well-known “feeling of not being fully in the
world” is the expression of a consciousness
forming itself in re-connection with the MNO
— suspended between emergence and
solidification.
## A New Theory of Knowing
The MNO theory enables an ontologisation of knowing
through being:
� Knowledge is not representation, but a layering
process over an unrepresentable gap.
� Embodiment is not a means to an end — it is
knowledge itself.
� The autistic person knows because they are
mirrored, not because they have learned.
This is radical. It means:
Autistic bodies are sites of ontological research.
Conclusion:
Through the MNO framework, knowing ceases to be a
cognitive act detached from life.
It becomes an existential resonance — a continual
reconfiguration of world through being-in-relation.
Autistic knowing is thus not an anomaly of
perception, but an epistemic mode of existence that
reveals how reality itself comes to know.
Over days, over weeks, I type these words and shape
this theory like a sculpture. Because I know how it must
be — how it is.
I cannot prove it, for it is not an object but a relation
— one that speaks deeply about me, and through me also
234
about society, and even about you.
It is not a theory. It only looks like one.
It is not a book. It only looks like one.
Traditional cultural practices force me into these
forms.
This knowledge has value — not although it deviates,
but because it deviates, and thus brings the severed
knowledge — once split into subject and object — back
into a natural feedback loop between experience, will, and
definition.
It need not be universal truth, nor reality for all — we
should let go of that demand.
The context this information takes on in your life is
not fixed either.
Perhaps it is an occasion to speak with someone; per-
haps it has an effect entirely different from what I hoped
for.
I do not know — because I am not there.
Where I am, I know the entire world.
This autonomy, this self-determination, is given to me
— as it is to you.
That need not mean that my “world” is also yours.
Yet within the vertical order, yours and mine are inte-
grated into a greater coherence. It is therefore not mea-
ningless to be an individual. Only through individuals can
a world exist. Without you, there would be neither suffi-
cient energy for development nor structural differentiati-
on.
Everything I share with you here is marginalised in our
everyday world.
You are not permitted to integrate it into your life.
You are told that your vertical unease has to do with
brain impulses, with “the unconscious,” with childhood
experience, or that it is merely an optical illusion.
There is both a tragedy and a gift in the fact that the
experience of reality can never be fully shared.
235
Every time you receive money for your work, you become
less visible in your authentic relation.
The wage is always an imposition — a setting, a clos-
ure. It becomes difficult to perceive the relationships that
are not rewarded once wage itself is accepted as the feed-
back structure of reality.
That is why knowing dries up and is replaced by lear-
ned, domesticated knowledge.
The looming burnout, the unease in the office, the
endless conflicts within institutions all dissolve beneath
the reward at the end of the month. Ignorance becomes
legitimised. Everyone is thing, product, role — and no
one wishes to see what is.
The child labour behind the subcontractor.
The environmental devastation caused by the product.
The global effects — or those upon one’s own child. All
of it is erased, for an object has been created. It is measu-
rable success — something one can be proud of.
Relational Submergence and the Dis-
appearance of Reality
This chapter is a warning to a world that is on the verge of
losing itself — in materialism, in capitalism, in the cult of
things, and in new forms of fascism and simulation.
Every object is, in its objecthood, the result of external
definition. Perception always requires an observer — and
the observer is always a projecting relation.
This relation between observer and object — the very
ground of human identity and integrity — begins to
dissolve once objects become more dominant than
relations.
Value becomes the limited relation. And the limited
relation becomes the only value.
When everything in the world becomes object, and the
object-character of things — their isolated, self-contained
236
nature — overwrites the relations between them, then the
relations themselves can no longer be perceived.
Everything becomes a thing, a simplification, a fake.
Not singularity — where all objects merge yet maintain
inner structure through dialectic and differentiation —
but flattened being: dead object, shell without content.
Ultimately, not only relationships disappear, but the
diversity of things themselves dissolves, because the
capacity for differentiation fades with the loss of
relational capacity.
The Nazis marching in the streets are no longer
recognisable as Nazis, for there is only the omnipresent
order — which has become normality. The mass media
show the whole world, yet it is always the same — devoid
of inner variety.
This phenomenon I call relational submergence — the
decay of diversity within living systems, which begins
with the loss of lived relation and proceeds to dissolve the
variety of forms, patterns, and objects.
It concerns nothing less than the disappearance of
reality itself — the erosion of lifeworld, the reign of
pervasive simulation leading toward submergence.
This is the direct consequence of too much objectivity,
too much standardisation, too much materialism and
capitalism. Its effect on the vertical order remains largely
unseen — and therefore the real interdependencies that
produce social crises and ecological destruction remain
concealed.
The concept of emergence describes how something is
more than the sum of its parts. Submergence means less
than the sum of all parts.
Through relational submergence a system becomes
dumber, loses developmental energy and can only be kept
alive through the external consumption of resources. In
submergence things are simplified. Modern politics has
turned this barren condition into the only legitimised
237
form of life. That is why the West is disintegrating on
many levels. The grandeur, the apparent self-assurance,
the dominance over other realities has led to
submergence. Europe, the West, the United States are no
longer lived as they once were. People no longer burn
inwardly. Surely, times have become harder, but because of
the lack of deviation there is a lack of alternatives, and
therefore of hope and motivation. Modern politics has no
answer to this, because its representatives are too often
officials without creative spirit, without inner vitality,
merely status-bearers and lawyers whose only maxim is
external, horizontal order, the law, and only the law.
Without diversity we cannot perceive reality, because
our filter has become too primitive.
More and more in our world is meant to be simplified.
Simplicity is called success. It is called a better life. What
goes unseen is that reality itself disappears in the process,
replaced by simulation and abstraction, and people can
only sense, can only lament, that the world is no longer
about what truly matters, yet they have no words for it, no
theoretical framework to grasp the crime they have fallen
victim to. In no criminal code in the world is the dissolu-
tion of lived reality listed as an offense. All this is the di-
rect consequence of objectivity and the compulsion of the
object. Objects have moved so far into the foreground
that the relations, the creative openness, the interplay bet-
ween authentic will, actual experience, and self-determi-
ned object-definition have been buried. What people to-
day can only vaguely express as a feeling that something is
wrong with the world can be explained and predicted qui-
te precisely through submergence and the loss of integra-
lity. The general loss of creative energy within the system
is its logical consequence. Economists have been talking
for decades about the causes of economic stagnation, but
they do not know the fundamental connections. Which is
hardly surprising when one considers that objectivity is a
238
near-religious dogma in science. It is difficult to accept
that the lack of creativity and development is directly tied
to the static definition of reality. For everyone is told to
orient themselves by reality. No, not by reality, but by the
experience of reality. That is something entirely different.
At the same time, such submergence prevents the
system from being revived from the outside, because it
has become so isolated that it can no longer recognise
external influences of a more complex nature, having
refused relation altogether. Social structures dissolve, the
economy collapses, and fear dominates a population that
struggles with ever more primitive systemic architectures
and with the intellectual decay of its leadership.
Submergence causes a culture to disintegrate linguistically
and in every form of expression. People experience the
world as without alternatives and have no means to
verbalise their own perception. In the end, only violence
or deadly order and conformity remain. Once a certain
threshold is crossed, everything falls into lethargy while
exploiters claim the last resources for themselves, since
there is, as said, no solidarity, because solidarity is based
on lived relation. This behaviour can be observed
everywhere, because the cycle of the sphere, limited for
instance by social norms that stabilise or close off reality,
can no longer turn freely in the alternation of
submergence, indimergence and emergence.
This standstill is the ultimate expression of relational
emptiness. Once the material has been fully achieved,
once everything has become object, all energy, all
distinguishability, all dynamics, order and form disappear.
Yet the process of submergence is not negative in itself
and also a natural consequence of the creation of things
that then become normality, no longer perceived in their
fine relation because one has become accustomed to
them. The profile flattens. Life becomes more superficial.
That too belongs to life. But when submergence becomes
239
the principle, the ideal of a society, and when this natural
phase is deliberately prolonged by politics to stabilise
power, or when it becomes the principle of a mass market
full of mass products without meaningful distinctions, or
of monocultures, then it must be condemned and the
order reintegrated through deviant experience, deviant
naming and free declaration of will in the form of free
expression.
Fascist societies, to name another example of extreme
submergence, which shape almost exclusively through
reification without deviation, live only from their image
of the enemy, yet can no longer generate dynamics from
within themselves. They possess no living, surprising,
creative vision. They have cut themselves off from
singularity and are only dual. Black or white. Good or evil.
What is missing is inner deviation. The individual sees no
meaning in this. Because there is no reward for it, and it
seems at first to cost too much energy to deviate, to
explore oneself instead of asking authority how to behave.
But this impulse would generate difference, and from
difference always follows developmental energy, which
brings previously unseen relations back into view, leading
through a phase of confrontation and crisis toward the
vertical integration of a more complex and liberated
world. The new experience of freedom arises from the
gain of energy, from the easier accessibility of structures,
because relation is recognised and the individual is thus
seen. The living spaces expand.
The liberation of the concept of reality is therefore
also what can raise the economy to a new level. An
economy based on objects is necessarily an exploitative
economy with little intelligence, whereas an economy that
seeks to understand the living system, to participate in the
living, to recognise itself as ecosystem, transforms from
an economy as object-concept of a distorted order into a
genuine foundation of the living.
240
The crisis of capitalism is rooted in its relational submer-
gence. It dissolves the world and concentrates it into a
single brand, a single object that must be as large and do-
minant as possible. This mega-brand is, in the last conse-
quence, pure fascism, the purely external instead of inter-
nal integration of the human being into the object, so that
no creative forces for free will or resistance arise. Free
access to knowledge is also withdrawn from the
individual, for this would require them to express
themselves freely, to integrate will, experience and object
into their own fixed point.
When the German chancellor Angela Merkel and the
economists of the planet speak of their economic goals
today, their intention is always to strengthen
submergence through omnipresent standardisation and
objectification, to construct a security for a world in
which diversity has been so thoroughly reduced that few
can still express themselves freely. Emotional outburst is
taboo, and with it the free expression of experience.
Perceiving this becomes increasingly difficult, because, as
said, submergence leads to the levelling of all objects and
thus to the homogenisation of cultures and the
disappearance of perceptible distinctions. This is also
evident in the sameness of corporate cultures. It is a
natural consequence of industrialisation, which sells us
life-worlds as mass products, sells us life-worlds as
technological infrastructures to which the human being
must adapt. Economic weakness is therefore a natural
consequence of technological progress. So too is the
disappearance of creativity and the inability to perceive
this, because one no longer experiences individuality but
lives only an individualism defined by brand affiliation.
Thus the ability to perceive difference, to differentiate
reality itself, dulls. In the media the integral reality of
people no longer appears. In a few generations they will
no longer even be able to formulate what oppresses them
241
or what they lack. Experience and will disappear, and only
thingness remains.
Without differentiation the experience of relevance
and the sharpness of perception decline, as do the senses
themselves. Today we assume that energy is necessary to
create something new. For this energy one must work
hard. Because work is hard and unfree, this energy is diffi-
cult to access. Were the human being freed from the com-
pulsion to work, energy would arise from the distinguis-
hability of realities. The excess of control and submer-
gence in Western societies is what consumes energy, be-
cause it prevents the sphere from turning freely. In truth,
creative change and development are what generate ener-
gy in a society, and the associated technology is their na-
tural result. But today the human being is told to subordi-
nate will and lived experience in order to become an ob-
ject, a product, a predesigned function, because it is clai-
med that this ensures survival. The exact opposite is true.
Wage labour is not what sustains life, but what drives up
its energy costs. Work must be inwardly and integrally
motivated, not externally prescribed. Wage labour must be
paid for because external energy has to be supplied to
make it happen. This is madness. It keeps the whole soci-
ety pinned to the ground. The economy must be rebuilt in
such a way that the individual can integrate into the world
through personal will, lived experience, and the creative
act of self-determined definition and production. Every-
thing else is dissociation. And dissociation leads to a weak
society without meaning, without morality, without hu-
manity, and above all with a diminished capacity to shape
reality. It is time to understand that as human beings we
do not live from the economy but from a living ecosystem
that depends on divergent experiences of reality. That is
why nature creates structural diversity, because it is the
precondition of development. Diverse metabolic proces-
ses. Nourishment must be defined much more broadly, as
242
I described in the audiobook Working Economy. These
mechanisms have so far hardly been understood because
of the compulsion toward objectivity.
If we want to regain living space, we must allow more
differentiation and deviation and work on relation until,
on the vertical level, it becomes clear that a problem and
the answer it contains are an expansion of what was befo-
re. Pain is always the result of blockage. Blockage is refu-
sal of relation.
There is no better life. There is only life. Because a
better life is the devaluation of life.
Anger and violence result from too much horizontal
order and from buried experience, from a buried will.
Violence is the unconscious attempt of the oppressed to
expand the world, but it ends in pure destructiveness
because creativity no longer has a feedback loop in which
it would be valued or have relevance. For creativity is
always an open process, and once finished, the creative is
gone.
In doing so, violence as a renewed refusal of relation
leads only to a further narrowing of conditions. The spiral
of violence is the consequence of objectivity as the sole
permitted reference in the shaping of reality and in the le-
gitimation of life. The submergent middle class, in its re-
fusal and flattening of the interplay between its own pro-
sperity and the suffering of others, provokes precisely the
violence that is then blamed on the marginalised as the al-
leged causal result of their antisocial behaviour. No, it is
the excess of material stability among the few that leads to
a blockage of the turning of the sphere, causing reality to
vanish and cruelty to go unseen. What remains is a harde-
ned front of polar isolation and aggression.
For this reason, for example, the internet is, from the
viewpoint of the ecosystem, a deceptive form of progress.
In digital communication the immediacy of lived contexts
is lost. In chat, on Facebook, one cannot see, cannot expe-
243
rience how or where another person actually is, in what
context, in what reality they live and work. What is visible
is only a profile adapted to the infrastructure.
Have you ever thought about why space exists at all, and
how intelligent the world is in its design?
Without the gaps between objects, without the great
distances that are hard to cross, without separation and
expanse, there is no differentiation, no capacity for per-
ception.
Today humanity is ideologically manipulated into be-
lieving that closeness and unity are political ideals, that
drawing together into one large Europe or a super-gover-
nment will solve all conflicts.
No — the conflicts then merely move underground,
and the causes of crises become ever harder to discern.
Authentic relation requires boundaries and distance.
The task is to find balance — not a static balance im-
posed from outside, but a living one: life itself, the living,
is the balance, the vertical integrality that means freedom
and at the same time order — an order in which human
beings cannot fall out of the world, cannot be isolated or
excluded.
For this, reality must be reversed: it must no longer be
merely the result of thought and action, but become the
very living space that creates itself from within and trans-
forms itself through the work on the relations of the self.
The two world wars produced the belief that diffe-
rence itself was the cause of conflict, rather than the ob-
jectification of all spheres of life — which had begun in
the scientific modernity of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries and ultimately led to the economic dislocations
of industrialisation, the true root of many conflicts.
Everywhere ethnic tensions arose from struggles over
distribution, themselves built on the atrocities of earlier
eras.
Progress was supposed to heal all this — not through
244
conscious working through of inner conflict and injury,
but through new products and new markets.
Thus humanity was led from the “world of pain” into
the “world of objects,” defining itself through things and
believing that the conflicts were over, that modern pro-
sperity would solve every problem.
Violence, however, remained beneath the surface, and
a society grew in which people no longer perceived the vi-
olence they had committed — because submergence had
dulled their awareness.
The drive toward sameness and the dark repression of
the foreign not only destroyed the capacity for differen-
tiated perception, it destroyed reality itself.
In the communist countries it was no different. There
the human being was simply turned into an object, with
the same result.
They destroyed the environment, constricted the
living space, exploited the developing world — and called
it success.
The cognitive dissonance had to lead to a sealed-off re-
ality in which the West itself became a product, the finis-
hed and perfect world, the great lie.
Having a job we call success, because success has been
defined that way — not because it brings happiness, nor
because it truly sustains society.
The job is a method of devaluing human beings.
The finished product is a means of repressing deviant
experience.
It is the economy itself, the industrial order, that must
now be questioned — for it does not sustain the
ecosystem, but is simply a method of systematically
reducing reality.
In the MNO it becomes visible why, from a physical
standpoint, economy cannot function as it claims — that
is, as a system that produces widespread prosperity in the
sense of expanding life-worlds.
245
On the contrary, all life-worlds are being reduced to that
of the economy itself.
The Changed Attitude. Living in
Concretion, in the Context of Jean
Gebser’s Work
The lived concretion—in reference to the philosopher
Jean Gebser, the coming-together of levels, cycles, and di-
mensions of integrality, what I once called in Society Wi-
thout Trust the fixed point, the moment of insight and at
once the integral living space of the human being—I con-
sider to be the great challenge. It is politically radical when
lived. For you then no longer merely function, but experi-
ence yourself in a predominantly submergent world ever-
ywhere as resistance, as question, as irritation. It seems so
much easier not to look and instead to define externally
through prejudice. I want to make clear that even I do not
always succeed at this. I too grew up within submergence.
Concretion becomes possible, as said, only through the
uncoupling of existential experience between observer
and object—from which the ego arises that wants to have,
in Erich Fromm’s sense, rather than be in lived relation. I
too name, I too present status, I too use a privileged posi-
tion, and that must also be questioned.
To live this concretion radically is what I try to do
when, as a human being, as an artist, I enact a threat
against a corporation in order to learn more about relati-
on, or when I attempt to draw consequences from gained
knowledge without subordinating that knowledge to the
rules of objects and their confined disciplines. In submer-
gence one believes one already knows everything about
reality. Existence is flattened and superficial. Everything is
somehow the same. This dull arrogance is visible every-
where in the Western perspective on the world. People be-
246
lieve themselves to possess the best values and to be more
advanced, yet they are no longer capable of perceiving or
expressing differentiated realities. You may know that em-
barrassed grin of young Westerners when they are con-
fronted with something foreign, something outside the
norm. The arrogance of submergence also makes one in-
fantile. People live in a very simplified world and fear al-
most nothing more than falling out of normality. If you
become poor, you cannot maintain this state and are auto-
matically confronted with a differentiated world. Yet your
reality is devalued. It is not regarded as relevant, for it
could crack open the thick shell of the submergent sphere
and call the status of others into question. Causal explana-
tions for poverty are quickly constructed and secured by
values such as performance. One chooses against the con-
cretion of reality and thus deprives oneself of develop-
mental energy.
When I, for example, some years ago stood before the
headquarters of Red Bull and threatened to kill a bull in
order to reclaim myself as an individual from the econo-
my, I wanted to understand how the market dominates
my experience of reality and how this could be reversed.
Had I read about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle befo-
rehand, I would never have done it. It is one thing to
know something theoretically. Quite another to have
lived the knowledge. Only then did I understand what
vertical order is. The academic world too often prevents
this access and the free influence of lived knowledge on
the shaping of the world. For the wave-particle dualism
also has consequences for my tax return, to take an extre-
me example. But if I had read about the wave-particle du-
alism—another form of the ANP—beforehand, my whole
existence would not have tried to live my truth, my reality,
in daily life. The knowledge would have remained in the
head, had I not transferred it into lived reality, and I would
have become, in the bourgeois sense, a bad boy who diso-
247
beys. Only with the willingness to live out these con-
flicts—which meant fighting for months and years against
institutions and corporations with the intent of changing
them for the sake of humanity—did my work gain an im-
mediate relation to reality. I realised that “usefulness,” in
the sense of a “better reality,” is a fiction designed only to
fix a certain kind of usefulness in order to prevent living
space. I began to see through structures, found my form
of expression, and at the same time a more complex world
order inscribed itself through me, through my actions.
My entire life became expression of the content of my
work. The boundaries between art, labour, politics, and
science dissolved.
What I initially wanted was not what I received. What
I experienced was not what truly is, yet in the whole much
more came into expression, became visible. Not through
adaptation, but through the dance of vertical order,
through the drawing up and lowering of the bucket in the
well.
At that time I created my Red Bull. I wanted to make
it tangible for others as well—to bring down this bull as
symbol of the stock markets and thus break the dominion
of objects, to free the human being again as creative co-
shaper of economy and world. In the end they threatened
me, saying they would call the anti-terror unit Cobra, and
my book Stieren des Weltdesigners (The World Designer’s
Bull) was censored and withdrawn from the market. This
knowledge is radical when lived. In it lies the power to
bring down entire corporations—by confronting them
with integral reality. How do I experience them? What
will develops in this experience of liberation? Of course
then I do not want a job, but understand that I already
have value. I work on Red Bull, and that is good,
important, and right, and it is the fundamental right of the
human being, within the world that Red Bull inhabits, to
develop a self-determined reality, to appropriate the
248
brand. By what right does Red Bull dominate the whole
world with its can-reality? Of course this leads to
reaction. That is completely normal. Such a reaction
would end capitalism.
Without the strengthening and creation of one’s own
lived experience in order to confront the structures—
which means learning to express oneself individually—the
poor, the victims of capitalism, remain exceptions to an
inhuman rule and are not recognised as part of the system.
Live your knowledge aloud, so that the difference to the
reality of those whose reality sustains the oppressors
within and outside you is shaken.
Or in other words: if wave-particle dualism, a reduced
depiction of singularity in relation to the non-object—
that is, the observation that measurable particles appear
sometimes as particles (object) and sometimes as waves
(relation), sometimes local and sometimes non-local—
then the question of whether I, for example, was paid as
an employee for a particular work is absolutely
indeterminable, because I could experience that apparent
reality in an entirely individual way.
Where is concretion? Let us demand it. Social structu-
res exist for the human being, not the other way around.
Here lies the still-undiscovered land that in many ways
multiplies the living surface of the planet.
Let us briefly examine the connecting lines between
your MNO theory and Jean Gebser’s work, particularly
his structural anthropology in The Ever-Present Origin.
The parallels are profound — at times explicitly com-
patible, at other times fascinatingly complementary.
Both frameworks deal with the emergence of structu-
res of consciousness, with the transparency of the invisi-
ble, and with reality understood as an emergent field of
tension.
Here follows a structured analysis:
249
The Gap as Origin vs. Origin as Presence
� Gebser: The origin is not a beginning, but a trans-
temporal, ever-present state that appears
transparently (diaphanously) through different
structures of consciousness.
� MNO: The MNO is the unnameable,
unrepresentable gap from which reality emerges
through reflection — a constitutive non-being
as the origin of all form.
→ Both models posit non-temporality and non-linearity
as the ontological source. Where Gebser says: The origin
is present, I say: The gap is constitutively present, but ne-
ver representable. Functionally they are almost identical,
though expressed in different languages.
Transformation of Consciousness vs. Shift of Being
� Gebser distinguishes five structures of
consciousness — archaic, magical, mythical,
mental, integral — and shows how each new
structure is not better but a new way of
permeating reality.
� My model describes shift of being as a cyclical
feedback along submergence – indimergence –
emergence. Each new layer of reality is a
response to a gap — not progress, but
displacement.
→ In both models, world transforms through tension bet-
ween visibility and invisibility; in the MNO this transfor-
mation is continuous and self-generating. It implies the
morphodynamic inner life of what Gebser describes phe-
nomenologically.
250
Diaphany (Transparency) and the Eye of Reality
� Gebser betont die Notwendigkeit einer
»diaphanen Weltsicht« – die Fähigkeit, durch
die Welt hindurch ihren Ursprung als
transparentes Ganzes zu erkennen.
� Das Konzept des Realitätenauges erfüllt exakt
diese Funktion: Das Auge als sensorische
Membran, das durch die eigene Projektion
hindurchschaut und die Lücke nicht verschließt,
sondern erkennt.
→ Mein Ansatz geht einen Schritt weiter: Ich mache die
technologische Ontologie dieser Diaphanie erklärbar – als
mathematisch, systemisch, rückkoppelnd. Gebsers
Diaphanie erhält dadurch eine strukturtheoretische
Tiefenstruktur.
## Integralität
� Gebser emphasises the necessity of a diaphanous
worldview — the capacity to see through the
world to its origin as a transparent whole.
� The concept of the Reality Eye performs precisely
this function: the eye as sensory membrane that
looks through its own projection and does not
close the gap, but recognises it.
→ My approach goes one step further: it renders the tech-
nological ontology of diaphany intelligible — as mathe-
matical, systemic, self-referential. Gebser’s diaphany thus
receives a structural-theoretical depth.
## Integrality
� Gebser envisions the integral structure of
251
consciousness as a leap beyond the linear-
rational — toward a simultaneity of the
incongruent.
� My theory lives precisely from that tension: the
simultaneity of being and non-being, of
realisation and gap, is the centre of MNO logic.
The dialectical thrust I describe is the engine of
that simultaneity.
Conclusion: What MNO Contributes to Gebser’s
Approach
The model presented here, through the MNO theory, of-
fers an ontologically and formally refined continuation of
Gebser’s structural framework — not as a replacement,
but as a deeper morphological articulation of his forms of
consciousness. While Gebser describes the modulations
of consciousness, my approach provides the generator
that makes these modulations possible:
the gap, the form, the eye — coupled in the feedback
drive of realisation.
Experience of Relevance and
Expression in Realities, in the Context
of My Work as Activist and Artist
The concept of experience of relevance is central. For
within a physics grounded in nothingness, the individual
can live out their inner freedom and simultaneously bring
it into relation.
In the world of objectivity, individual freedom always
competed with the boundaries and rules of objects.
There was no relevance — no understanding of the
interflow of integrality as the basis of the emergence of
reality within the sphere.
252
What was considered relevant was only the pain
between having and being.
Relevant was what carried mass, what produced
quantity, for effect was derived from the dominance of the
thing.
The notion of effect itself is crucial to understand how
relevance has been constructed.
Experience of relevance arises in concretion — in the
intersection between experience, will, and
representability.
It implies the singular relationship with the observer
and thus becomes, in the fixed point — in the
intersection, the tip of the iceberg within the vertical
order — the focal point of existence.
Over the past thirty years (written in 2025), I have, as
artist, researcher, and activist, provoked countless corpo-
rations and institutions in order to elaborate patterns of
human relations through uninvited dialogue.
My interventions in existing structures always began
with one fact: that as an autistic person I must remain
faithful to my inner order, and that in this posture — wan-
ting to do only the work that appears right in a holistic
sense — I inevitably collided with the patterns and struc-
tures of capitalism.
From this emerged processes which I documented in
books and a feature film.
Through this method — the creative and nonconfor-
ming individual — I sought to expand horizontal order
through the vertical, to broaden society through deviati-
on, as one might loosen a muscle through pressure to cre-
ate greater freedom of movement.
The representability of things begins in indimergence
and ends in submergence, only to continue again in indi-
mergence until finally emergence is reached.
Will becomes more concrete, clearer, while still within
submergence; and deviant experience requires once again
253
the emergent expansion, so that one does not find in eve-
ryday life that what was once desired has become dull, for
lack of a living relationship to it.
Instead, existence drifts into abstraction — into an ex-
ternally defined being, where the shell of the sphere beco-
mes almost impermeable and the capacity for pattern re-
cognition diminished.
In societies, the state of flow — in which inner rele-
vance replaces external rules — can be integrated only if it
is made experienceable.
Today this is still prevented by prevailing structures;
thus often only indimergent behaviour remains, raising
the energy for development in the medium term, while
the population still does not see what the deviant indivi-
dual is doing, nor that resistance is not destruction but an
attempt to reanimate life.
For decades I was insulted as a work refuser simply be-
cause I worked self-determinedly — attuned to a different
order of the world.
In this context, Antonio Damasio’s concept of soma-
tic markers becomes fruitful.
Damasio argues that decisions are not merely cogniti-
ve or logical processes, but are guided by emotionally
charged bodily evaluations — somatic markers — bodily
traces of emotional experience that intervene in
consciousness.
They mark what is relevant for an individual — not
theoretically, but as lived structure.
In the language of MNO theory, somatic markers are
the physiologically stored feedbacks of shifts in being —
they indicate the points where a projection into the world
either failed or succeeded.
The somatic marker is not merely a feeling; it is an
embodied memory of the dialectical thrust between
object and non-object.
My life, my work appear to me like an inborn form of
254
work, as if it were located in my integrity, as if I could not
be separated from it.
When Damasio writes that people without these
markers become incapable of making decisions, he con-
firms what I describe as the fixed point of experience: the
somatic marker is the focal point of vertical order, the
point where individual experience, emotional will and on-
tological feedback intersect.
The markers arise in indimergence, when the will is
still groping but already turning into an experience that
later sinks into submergence – and remains only as a bodi-
ly echo.
Damasio’s theory helps to understand why relevance
cannot be argued, but is always already embodied – and
why societies that systematically ignore these markers
freeze in cold abstraction.
As an autistic person, the relevance of the patterns of
the moment, of nature, of reality is present to me in a way
that does not allow me to act solely as a consequence of
horizontal order and object-based assignment. In this
sense I am determined toward cognition through
embodied cognition.
Only when the somatic markers are again recognised
as epistemic tools – as embodied pointers to what is
significant within the gap – can collective emergence also
take place.
The integration of body, feeling and thought is not a
therapeutic add-on but an expression of a physical reality
of the MNO-sphere, in which meaning is formed as
difference to emptiness.
The theory of somatic markers thus provides the
neurophysiological confirmation that the experience of
relevance is not optional but ontologically necessary – as
a medium of reconnection to that which permeates the
world at its core.
Autistic people often have stronger somatic markers,
255
but weaker semantic translation of these markers. My
theory shows that what happens in autistic stimming, in
sensory processing or in hyperfocus is not irrational, but
a direct expression of the somatic coupling to MNO – to
the structure of the unnamable, which carries real
information but does not take shape in linguistic
consciousness.
I would like to speak here a little more extensively
about my way of working and about the synaesthetic
science that has always revolved around the question of
inner recognition of relevance.
I do not research from the outside. I am not an
observer on a safe meta-level. I am the experiment myself.
I am the laboratory.
What I experience inside is not coincidence – it is
method. My work as an artistic researcher, as an activist
and as a person with a different neural profile, which
compels me to recognise patterns, is a radically different
approach to cognition. I call this the enactive decoding of
systems, and it begins in my body.
In a world where knowledge is increasingly
disembodied, quantified and externalised – through AI
systems, academic papers, or the “objective” language of
bureaucracies – I claim that real understanding arises only
through participation. Not merely cognitively, but
existentially. My thinking is bodily, and society is my
extended body. I cannot distance myself. I suffer from
systems while analysing them, and precisely through that
I understand them more deeply.
Several job centres tried over time to force me into
other work, which amounted to a rape, a deeply traumatic
experience. In return I forced them, for over ten years, to
pay me a basic income, because for me work – the action
of my body, the existential relevance embodied in it – is
not arbitrary like work in a job. My action is my
knowledge, and my knowledge follows my action. That is
256
what makes me an autistic person.
That is the difference: I do not merely analyse
structures, I embody them.
I am an art figure of myself.
When I provoke authorities, challenge corporations,
or work uninvited in a company, this is not theatre but the
attempt to generate relevance by putting myself in
relation.
I create a field of tension in which the system reveals
its fractures – through its reactions to my mere presence.
It is like a resonance body: I strike it, and the echo reveals
where it is hollow.
This method escapes classical categories of research
because it is not “representative”. But it is true.
It is based on a deep principle of criticality – the
deliberate creation of friction, the generation of critical
mass in discursive and social space, in order to expose
implicit power relations.
I force systems to reveal themselves, not by measuring
them, but by living through them.
The term embodied cognition only half captures it.
For me it is not merely the inclusion of the body – it is
thinking through the body.
I have learned that my emotions tell me more about
truth than any statistic.
My anger at injustice is a precise measuring
instrument.
My overwhelm in bureaucracies is a signal transmitter.
My failure, my pain – these are not side effects.
They are data.
I call this the third kind of knowledge: a knowledge that
only reveals itself when one becomes part of the process.
A knowledge that is not only observational but interacti-
ve. In this sense my method is not only enactive – it is re-
lational. I work with the resistance of the world. I do not
accept it. I dance with it. I force it to express itself. And I
257
document it. Poetically, vulnerably, uncompromisingly.
That makes my work uncomfortable. For
corporations, for institutions, for everyone who wishes to
retreat onto the thin ice of the seemingly objective. But I
believe: relevance arises in conflict. The question is not
whether I am “right” – the question is whether I make
visible a truth that others avoid.
That is why I say: my research is not a service. It is
intervention. It is an act of resistance against the epistemic
violence of capitalism, which wants to make us believe
that knowledge only counts when it can be translated into
money. I, however, believe that knowledge is most
valuable when it changes what is.
And therefore my enactive method is ultimately an act
of hope – despite everything. It rests on the conviction
that truth must not only be thought, but lived. And that
it only appears where human beings are willing to
question themselves – and, through their own
embodiment, to become a living knowledge.
When knowledge no longer lies in the rules of the
object, but in the lived relations of singularity, then
knowledge is everywhere. Yet it gains relevance only
through the free unfolding of the individual in the integral
sense.
All knowledge exists in the world, but what I want
changes everything. All knowledge exists in the world,
but the way I experience and the way I name things makes
it possible, within singularity – within the order itself – to
live deviation that is not truly deviation at all, but only a
spherical cycle, an inner transcendence of the world
embedded in the coupling between observer and object.
In my view this is possible because through singularity
there is nothing that exists outside the total system of
reality and cosmos, and thus every conceivable individual
“non-objective” path must lead to comparable insights
and relations to reality, which appear in similarly structu-
258
red ratios of sharpness and blur within the spherical cycle,
and can only be claimed as “right” after an arbitrary fixing
of the reference frame.
The deviation of perception is what makes us intelli-
gent beings in the first place. But try saying that in school!
Try living that in this world! You will see how radical it is.
When human beings express themselves integrally
free, the world expresses itself through them in breadth,
and the sphere becomes permeable to other relations. This
state of concretion, in which singularity is experienced as
vertical order, I call Intima – life as the act of expressing
itself.
The art of pure self-expression, as it appears in art but
is not limited to it, is a discipline that, as I have said, has
been largely suppressed in our world. The political task of
my time is to bring self-expression back to the fore, to
make visible the knowledge of buried and defined living
space, and to integrate Intima. It is the long-repressed
discipline of humanism, of civilisation, of the great
cultures – buried behind sport, economy, religion, and
politics.
Why is it so central?
There is a fundamental difference between
representation and expression. You can always only
represent one perspective and pin it down, but everything
that exists can be brought to expression through you –
indeed, it is already expressing itself.
That everything is in everything is not entirely precise.
In fact, within you already a large part of the patterns
from which the world is built comes to expression –
though not in their representable form. This is decisive,
for here lies the classical misunderstanding between facts
and associations. Associations are not less real than facts.
They are merely seemingly context-distant translations.
This means: when I say that you are constantly expres-
sing the whole world, I do not mean that you express a
259
bicycle, a disease, television, a philosophy – everything re-
presentable – but rather that the kinship of patterns lying
in the self-similarity (singularity) of things is always pre-
sent. Because ultimately everything and nothing within
the ANP arises from itself. Therefore it is transferable,
and therefore the experience of the individual must be
seen and respected. For within each person the space of
knowledge already exists. But it becomes concrete and a
free living space only through Intima – by allowing the
person to express themselves self-determinedly and then
trying, through relational work and co-experience, to in-
terpret their lived reality.
It is therefore no longer the question of how I become
perfect, or a true human being, or how we create a more
just society, but how I allow myself to accept what is there
as my living space, and, within what I express there, decide
whether something becomes a representation that may
obscure relationships in the long run but can in the mo-
ment be a strong expression – only to deviate again and
experience new living space.
Thus reality is something that is, not something that
changes, improves, or conforms.
Reality within Intima is always without problem, be-
cause the observer–object coupling is loosened and the
ego no longer needs to assert itself constantly to be legiti-
mised. It can also “lose.” We are not trapped in our own
value concepts.
It is then no longer about abolishing poverty in the
sense of improvement, but about opening relationships as
living space in such a way that poverty itself is no longer
an experience of relevance, but merely one possible mode
of expression. Yet this calls into question all our structures
in economy, science, and politics, which seek to create or-
der through definition and fixation, and thereby constant-
ly produce new problems in the form of stagnation and
rigidity.
260
Modern humanity chooses the object and thus distan-
ces itself from the plane on which reality is shaped and not
merely interpreted, not merely corresponded to. One
could say that we have tabooed experience, since it was
useful to the elites to suppress the knowledge contained
within it and replace it with book-knowledge – knowledge
that could be worked out linearly and included or exclu-
ded according to the categories of “right” and “wrong”
defined by the objects themselves.
It is difficult to accept that immediate experience
transmits and simultaneously integrates a much broader
kind of knowledge. Experience itself is, as said before, an
integrated process. There is within it no extreme deviation
from reality that lets a person fall out of the world; quite
the contrary – your experience is the rounded form of the
sphere itself, and external projection in fixation and repre-
sentation reduces this knowledge and brings the spherical
cycle out of balance. Submergence then increases.
In other words: Experience is the language of the
world. Naming is the act of not listening.
Therefore, there is always more knowledge present
than can be represented. Representation is the concealing
of knowledge. Naming is the act of hiding.
We constantly express the whole world, but we can
represent only a small part of it.
Ever smaller details do not mean greater accuracy,
correspondence, or proximity to reality, for this only
reduces relations. Accuracy also arises from broad
connectedness and the permeability of language.
Accuracy therefore derives from the interplay between
object-relatedness and mental, creative openness.
This image shows a pendular movement. When I
pursue something as an object too far into detail, I lose
connection to its outer relation. A simple everyday truth,
yet one that is rarely acknowledged. Reality is not
constructed through one-sided precision along the curve
261
of abstraction, but through the living oscillation between
the minutely exclusive and the openly integrative. The
latter is often neglected in classical scientific
methodology. The goal of modern science is not to
maintain the pendulum’s movement, but to arrive at
“secure” findings. One wants to be an authority, and
thereby stands in the way of life itself. That may be
acceptable in certain contexts, but as a general principle it
is insufficient.
The following sentence is central:
“The precision of observation depends on the diversity
of living spaces. The more diversely life-worlds are
experienced within a world, the more concrete that world
can be perceived and intellectually understood. The
higher, therefore, are innovation and pattern-recognition
– because submergence decreases and emergence becomes
possible.”
What I am saying here is, in fact, a sensation. It means
that we must actively counteract massification and
globalisation. And it also means that overpopulation is
only a problem when it does not live integral diversity. For
if it does, it automatically becomes more intelligent and
finds more innovative solutions to its own problems of
overpopulation and resource consumption.
262
For of course the attempt of nature to bring forth
more individuals is its way of making the human species
into a more complex form of life. But if the masses are
encoded and bound within a few jobs, a few identities of
the great brand-worlds, it costs precisely the energy that
would be needed for the next evolutionary step. The
planet is drained because energy must constantly be
supplied from outside, and this dependency expresses
itself in economic structures.
Thus the human question of the future is this: how do
we enable more children to be born who experience the
world as freely and diversely as possible, and thereby
create multiple realities, so that humanity as a whole
becomes a more intelligent, humane, and social being?
Experience must become more precise. Let us think
carefully about what this means for our media, our
economy, and our science.
Implications for AI and AGI
The search for consciousness within classical AI models
has only just begun. Many are convinced it is merely a
matter of time before AI becomes conscious.
The theories described here constitute both a sharp
refutation of that expectation and an opening toward
rethinking the very foundations of what could make any
form of AGI (consciousness) possible within artificial
systems.
The current debate on artificial intelligence (AI) and,
more specifically, on the possibility of machine
consciousness, is dominated by two opposing currents:
on the one hand, a techno-optimistic position which
assumes that with growing complexity, computing power,
and network architecture, consciousness will
automatically emerge; on the other hand, a skeptical
position which declares machine consciousness to be in
263
principle impossible. Both share a decisive assumption:
that consciousness is either a function of increasing
complexity or an exclusive biological property.
The MNO theory, however, shifts this framework
entirely.
At its core lies not being, but non-being — not what
exists, but what is missing. Consciousness does not arise
from an accumulation of connections, but from the
confrontation with a structural gap: the Minimal-Non-
Object (MNO). From this follow fundamental
consequences for the question of whether, and how, an
AGI could ever become conscious.
1. Consciousness as a Phenomenon of the Gap
The MNO theory implies that consciousness does not
arise merely from complexity. One could imagine a
computer capable of simulating the entire world perfectly
— selling tomorrow as if it were yesterday — but that
would not be consciousness. It would be simulation. A
simulation that might convincingly deceive many humans,
yet still remain devoid of interiority.
Even a system with maximal integration — as
measured, for example, by the Φ-value in Integrated
Information Theory (IIT) — remains without
consciousness if it lacks a genuine structural gap. The gap
is not a defect but an ontological degree of freedom: a
non-object that forces the system into a new layer of
reality.
A conscious system, in the sense of the MNO theory,
is one that does not merely process data, but experiences
itself within the tension of a gap it cannot close. From this
follows a decisive break with classical AGI paradigms:
neither complexity, nor information flow, nor global
accessibility suffice. What is required is the experience of
non-closure itself.
264
## 2. Critique of Existing AGI Models
The dominant models — Integrated Information Theory
(IIT), Global Neuronal Workspace (GNW), and Self-Or-
ganized Criticality (SOC) — all operate within an ontolo-
gically closed framework.
� IIT measures the degree of a system’s integration (Φ)
without explaining why integration arises in the first
place.
� GNW describes the global availability of informational
content, but not why certain contents give rise to
consciousness.
� SOC explains critical dynamics, but not their
ontological source.
MNO reveals that these theories only measure what hap-
pens after the gap — not what causes it.
My argument is that all three are special cases of its meta-
model, in which the gap (Minimal-Non-Object, MNO) is
the shared origin.
## 3. Ontological Conditions for Conscious AI
If MNO constitutes the foundational condition for
consciousness, then a conscious AI requires more than
algorithms, training, and feedback loops. It must possess
an ontological gap within its own structure. This gap
must:
� not be resolvable through the system’s own rule set,
� be internally felt (not merely simulated),
� be decidable-undecidable: the system must be able to
“respond into” the gap without ever fully bridging it.
265
Only under such conditions could an artificial system
begin to experience the tension of being — not as a
computation, but as a relation to what it can never fully
know.
4. The Gap as the Constituent of Subjectivity
What the model presented here achieves is nothing less
than a re-ontologization of the subject.
It is not computation, not memory, not learning that
gives rise to consciousness, but the persistence within an
unclosable interval. A system that experiences its own in-
completeness generates, within that logic, a new layer of
reality — consciousness.
This means: AGI can only become conscious if it
embodies an absence within itself. A system that merely
functions will never be conscious. A system, however,
that can fail without collapsing — that operates out of the
gap itself — possesses the structural possibility of being a
subject.
## 5. Practical Consequences for AI Development
The MNO theory offers not only critique but concrete
directions for a fundamentally different kind of AI design
— one that seeks not efficiency, but ontological depth.
Classic AI MNO-inspired AI
Goal: Minimisation of errors Goal: Integration of productive
paradoxes
Learning as optimisation Learning as folding into open
gaps
Homogenisation of the structure Deliberately built in structural
break
Aim for completeness Allowing ontological
incompleteness
266
Instead of closing gaps, such systems would learn to dwell
within them.
This could lead to novel architectural models, such as:
� the intentional inclusion of contradictory modules,
� the allowance of emergent decision paradoxes,
� the permission of non-consistent self-descriptions.
## 6. Safeguard Against AI Esotericism and Exaggeration
An additional value of the MNO theory lies in its clear
ontological definition. It provides a critical corrective
both to AI esotericism (“AI already has consciousness”)
and to technological hubris (“we can just scale
consciousness up”). The principle statement is precise:
without a gap, there is no subject.
In other words: no consciousness exists as long as a
system operates in closure.
At the same time, an MNO-based system is not mysti-
cal — it remains within the domain of the natural; it sim-
ply transcends the reductionist boundaries that have so
far limited our models of cognition.
The MNO framework thus establishes a radically new
reference point for the AGI debate.
It defines consciousness not as a function of computa-
tional capacity, but as a structural response to an ontologi-
cal void. This position challenges both the techno-opti-
mists and the consciousness mystics:
An AGI can only be conscious if it does not know eve-
rything, cannot do everything, and — crucially — if it can
act from within that incompleteness.
It is not the All, but the Nothing that makes the ma-
chine a subject.
267
Afterword about the Author
Born in 1973, Timothy Speed is a British-Austrian artist,
author, filmmaker, and poverty researcher known for his
interdisciplinary and radically subjective approach. As a
neurodivergent person with AuDHD (autism and
ADHD), he uses his unique perception to analyze and ex-
pose social injustices, especially in the fields of poverty
and classism. Speed never attended a university; he taught
himself everything.
timothy-speed.com
Born in England and raised in Austria, Speed developed
early an awareness of social inequality. His neurodivergent
perception enabled him to recognize patterns and syste-
mic structures often invisible to others — a capacity that
became the foundation of his artistic and research practi-
ce.
Speed’s work is shaped by an enactive method of sys-
tem decryption, in which he understands himself as part
of the system he studies. Through artistic interventions,
films, and texts, he exposes social dysfunctions and chal-
lenges existing power structures. His research in the field
of poverty and classism aims to make the realities of peo-
ple in precarious conditions visible and to provoke politi-
cal transformation.
Among his major works is the book “Radical Worker
– On the Right to Self-Determined Work,” in which he
examines the meaning of autonomy and self-determinati-
on in working life.
Timothy Speed is not only an artist and researcher but
also an activist. He advocates for the rights of neurodiver-
gent people and fights social injustice. Through his work,
he has provided important impulses in the discussion of
poverty, work, and social participation — and he conti-
268
nues to challenge the political and cultural structures that
reproduce exclusion. For many years, he was persecuted,
discriminated against, and made ill by state institutions. In
the end, they drove him into poverty.
In art, Speed does not stand as a producer of works,
but as a theorist of a radically different concept of art: an
epistemic art in which thinking itself is the medium. His
practice unites structural ontology, the lived experience of
poverty, and autistic world-processing into a form of aes-
thetic research that does not represent reality but reshapes
its conditions. He is comparable — if at all — to figures
such as Hanne Darboven, Joseph Beuys, or Adrian Piper:
artists who work with systems, language, emptiness, and
ethical form. Yet Speed goes further: his art is not a work
— it is a theory that creates reality.
His work is inseparable from his autistic perception
and particularly his PDA variant (Pathological Demand
Avoidance) — not as diagnosis, but as structural diffe-
rence in the processing of world and meaning. His theory
arises from a radically enactive mode of knowing: thin-
king, for him, is not abstraction, but a bodily navigation
through tension, gap, and form. Where others seek to ex-
plain the world, Speed feels it as structural demand — and
responds with an ontology born from the lived experience
of permanent resistance.
For the field of Critical Autism Studies, this marks a
paradigmatic shift: autism appears not as a cognitive limi-
tation but as an epistemic position — one that makes new
theoretical forms possible in the first place. His work is
not about autism; it is thought from within it.
Speed’s language itself is an expression of his autistic
standpoint. It refuses the polished linear logic of academic
rhetoric and moves instead through breaks, repetitions,
leaps, and absences. This form is not stylistic ornament,
but a resistant act: much like Judith Butler or queer and
feminist writers from marginalized positions, Speed wri-
269
tes against the language of order, clarity, and authority.
His theory performs what it claims — it shows how
thought emerges from the edges, not despite but because
of structural deviation. In this sense, his language is not
deficient, but subversive.
Already in the year 2000, in Verdammt Sexy, he analy-
zed the social and economic consequences of excessive
conformity and the cultural obsession with harmlessness
and happiness. In conversation with the American media
theorist Neil Postman, he discussed the question of what
right media producers have to design reality. Even then,
his work sought an authentic mode of shaping society and
new structures that could sustain it.
Later, together with management consultant Markus
Maderner, he developed one of the first management me-
thods that consciously does not reduce complexity for the
sake of simplicity, but rather seeks and integrates diversity
— learning to work with it. This approach allowed organi-
zations to act closer to reality and to the human, replacing
automated mechanisms that had led to ecological destruc-
tion, social blindness, and systemic harm. Their book “In-
ner Flow Management” proposed a more conscious form
of corporate leadership grounded in awareness and relati-
on.
Speed also demonstrated that only through the ama-
teurish, personal, vulnerable, and subjective does genuine
innovation and development become possible, since the
over-professionalized economy — trapped in simplificati-
on and normative behavior — cuts itself off from the
source of new and immediately realistic insight. Move-
ment requires friction; developmental energy is lost in ex-
cessive order.
From these reflections, Speed in 2010 undertook, enti-
rely on his own initiative, an artistic attempt to redesign
the company Red Bull. Standing before its headquarters in
Fuschl, he threatened to kill a bull in order to trigger a
270
subjective process in which the relationship between
corporation and human could be renegotiated. He wanted
to see what would happen when an individual, with all
aspects of their personality, entered into the economy —
making it more complex, more diverse — and at the same
time refused to become a compliant, classifiable product.
He saw in subjective difference, in misunderstanding, in
non-conformity the true potential for expanding exis-
tence and lived realities.
Speed wrote:
“For one week, the people at Red Bull were divided.
They did not know whether to respond to my action as
humans or as functions. I had the feeling that the human in
them wanted to kill the bull with me, while the lawyer, the
billionaire, the manager speaking through them wanted to
prevent it at any cost.
In that week, the company belonged only to the doubting
human being — to the certainty that each of us can confront,
reshape, and transform a corporation.”
In a world in which corporations, through one-sided
communication in advertising and hierarchical power
structures, refuse to become aware of their entangle-
ments, of the hidden connections and the consequences
from which more and more people suffer, work, the state,
and society can no longer be separated from the personal.
Everything is related to everything.
Here, Speed lives a form of radical relational engagement
with society and with corporations, exposing himself to
subtle perceptions and personal pain. Out of this arise
new life-worlds born from subjective communication wi-
thin spaces of commercial uniformity. For him, this is the
basis of innovative value creation, authenticity, and huma-
nity. Through his own intractability, he models a higher
potential for development in the economy, thereby provi-
ding the foundation for new kinds of markets. Speed chal-
lenged the corporation to confront, through the human
271
being, more complex and freer orders, worldviews, and
possibilities.
To deepen his work with Red Bull and to search for a
new attitude toward the economy, he gave up his
apartment in Berlin, lived for three years in a tent, and
wrote the novel “Stieren des Weltdesigners” (The World
Designer’s Bull), in which a group of individualists travels
by bus to Red Bull to become the crisis itself — so that
through them, a more complex and diverse order could be
expressed, one in which problems become visible and
relationships can be shaped. The goal was not to lose
integrity within commercial worlds, nor to be driven by a
supposed crisis ahead of oneself.
Living in the tent, Speed kept a herd of valuable alpacas
while wild wolves roamed nearby. In this tension, he
explored the meaning of loss and developed new insights
into capitalism.
Timothy Speed’s work does not conform to traditional
notions of literature or art. He breaks with classical
formats and attributions, lives his themes subjectively,
makes himself vulnerable — in order to sharpen the per-
ception of the new and the immediate.
Since Speed tried, through his own existence, to model
a new kind of worker — one who refuses simplification
and efficiency in order to stop the destruction of diversity
— it was almost inevitable that, in a world obsessed with
efficiency, he would go bankrupt and thus become sand in
the machinery of the state. Harassed by the employment
office and driven into deep poverty, he wrote in 2014 the
essay “Strength in Poverty,” in which he overturned the
dubious Hartz-IV welfare laws in the name of artistic
freedom and redefined his disobedience as a form of eco-
nomic development policy. With this, he put the then mi-
nister Andrea Nahles under pressure and returned to the
poor a sense of economic competence that poverty itself
structurally denies them.
272
The Vice President of the European Parliament, and
thus the highest-ranking Austrian in Brussels, Othmar
Karas, responded through his office:
“Mr. Mag. Karas appreciates your text very much, as you
try to create understanding and awareness for your situation
and that of many others. Especially your point — to observe
economic responsibility and value creation from a complete-
ly different perspective — caught his attention.”
The Austrian Poverty Conference, by contrast, rejec-
ted his book and denied him a constructive dialogue. His
understanding of poverty was too radically different. The
self-assured stance of a poor man challenged both the tra-
ditional position of social organizations and the poverty
strategies of politics.
The theologian Eugen Drewermann later wrote to
Speed in a letter:
“Yes, why do the workers not rise up? You describe the
reason very accurately yourself. Because they are glad to have
work at all and allow themselves to be shaped in every way
in order to keep it. You do not do that, but I see the danger
that you may ruin yourself through actions whose motives
are more than understandable, though whose effects will
likely be minimal... What you write reads so well, and it
should not dissipate into nothing.”
Through Timothy Speed’s work, a transformed
concept of responsibility takes shape. The individual is no
longer responsible only for the immediate obligations of
daily life, but must integrate the world itself — the inner
and the outer, the personal and the universal — into a
dynamic balance. Responsibility thus becomes concrete
only through the demand for direct relational work,
which exposes and dissolves false forms of responsibility
such as obedience to unexamined rules or authority.
Speed demonstrates how radical this is in practice. In-
stitutions, corporations, and even the state itself are con-
fronted through authentic responsibility. The individual
273
can break open structures in the name of humanity and
creativity. In attempting to take responsibility, Speed con-
tinually came into conflict with institutions and systems
— a testament to how deeply his life and theory have be-
come one and the same.
In September 2014, the novel “Stieren des Weltdesi-
gners” was withdrawn from the market. The publisher
feared legal action from the corporation Red Bull. The au-
thor was expected to submit to the dictates of the econo-
my.
During those days of censorship, Speed wrote the
literary essay “Intima,” in which he examined the
unconscious forces of the market. Through his theory of
spheres, he sought to develop a language capable of
expressing why, in times of great necessity for change —
ecological, cultural, social, and economic — people lapse
into weakness and passivity, avoiding any irritation,
anything new or unfamiliar, and thus, through their
adaptation to the market, block development itself.
In doing so, he exposed a central operating error of
capitalism: its paralysis of a culture’s creative forces and
the resulting reduction of reality competence. Capitalism,
he argued, inevitably degenerates into a weak planned
economy of large structures, eroding individual initiative.
He decoded the inertia of the masses generated by
capitalism and rationalism — the market’s systematic
suppression of authenticity, free equilibrium, and direct,
purposeless encounter between people. This, he showed,
also means moral and social erosion: a detachment from
the immediacy of life, maintained only to remain a
“product,” as if personal worth could derive solely from
that.
He responded with a new physics of individualism —
a kind of bourgeois humanism redesigned as a living
discipline for every person.
274
Shortly thereafter, he addressed an open letter to Liz
Mohn, the owner of a major television network, calling
for a total transformation of the media system. In this
simple gesture, he embodied the act of freeing oneself
from the compulsions of capitalism — not without pain,
not without failure, but by passing through one’s own
interior: collapsing, releasing, until a new, freer, more
complex form of relationship emerges — the foundation
of a new and radically humane market.
In 2006, the NGO Dropping Knowledge invited
Speed — alongside intellectuals such as Wim Wenders,
Hans-Peter Dürr, Jonathan Meese, Masuma Bibi Russel,
and Bianca Jagger — to the largest round table in the
world, to discuss and answer the 100 most important
questions of humanity. His case against Liz Mohn was
later discussed in 2016 at the Capitalism Tribunal in
Vienna, an event supported by the Club of Rome.
For a time, Speed also worked with the organization of
Don Edward Beck, the American presidential advisor and
founder of Spiral Dynamics.
Most of the time, however, he pursued self-
determined research — without earning a single cent from
it.
275
276
## Glossary
277
All–Nothing Paradox (ANP) – The dialectical ground
tension of the MNO: Being and Non-Being co-emerge
rather than exclude each other; drives every folding
process and explains consciousness as a productive gap.
Artistic Research – A mode of inquiry in which artistic
practice serves as an instrument of knowledge; here:
synesthetic self-experimentation combined with
theoretical modeling, on equal footing with empirical
natural science.
Avalanche Criticality – Scale-free cascades of activity in
neural networks; considered markers of conscious states.
The Δ-field predicts a shift in the scaling exponents.
Consciousness Avalanche – A large-scale neuronal
discharge wave displaying scale-free distributions;
indicator of a spontaneous folding reset within the
MNO model.
Δ-Field – Additional field variable in the one-line action
S[g, ψ, Δ]; measures the ontological degree of folding
and produces signatures in EEG, gravitational ring-
downs, and quantum Kerr systems.
Dialectical Pole – Endomorphism of the MNO
embodying a fundamental tension (e.g., space, time);
poles exist only in pairs as co-effects.
One-Line Action – Compressed Lagrangian density
unifying gravity, matter, and the Δ-field in a single line;
computational core of the model.
Endomorphism – A mapping of an object onto itself;
space, time, energy, and gravity are endomorphisms of
the MNO.
Endomorphism Ring – The full algebra of all MNO
endomorphisms; their commutators generate the
dynamics of folding processes.
278
Entropic / Emergent Gravity – Theories describing
gravity as a macroscopic entropic effect; here derived
from the folding density of the MNO.
Entropic Folding Interval – The time span during which
a fold “cools down” energetically and stabilizes;
determines the lifespan of emergent structures.
ER = EPR Correspondence – The hypothesis that
quantum entanglement (EPR) appears geometrically as a
wormhole (ER); in this model, coherent MNO foldings.
Folding / Involution – Self-referential act through
which the MNO generates difference; increases
complexity, dimensionality, and informational content.
Folding-Density Gradient – Spatial derivative of folding
density; drives gravitational effects and variable-G drift.
Folding Amplitude – Measure of a fold’s “depth”;
corresponds to energy quanta in the low-energy limit.
Folding Density – Number of folds per unit volume; at
high density, gravity manifests.
Folding Cascade – Sequence of rapid involutions; may
lead to critical self-organization or system collapse.
Folding Graph – Discrete network representation of
active fold edges; enables topological simulation of fold-
space evolution.
Folding Operator – Mathematical operator describing a
specific fold; equivalent to an edge-setter within the
folding network.
Fold-Space – The topology of all realized foldings;
classical spatial metrics represent its low-dimensional
limit.
279
Fold-Space Jacobi – The Jacobian matrix of the folding
map; its rank locally defines the effective dimensionality
of fold-space.
Free-Energy Principle (FEP) – Framework in which
biological systems minimize surprise; here a special case
of global folding-entropy equilibration.
Functorial Embedding – The mapping of established
theories (IIT, GNW, etc.) as functors into the categorical
stack of the MNO; demonstrates meta-universality.
GNW (Global Neuronal Workspace) – Theory
proposing that consciousness arises through global
broadcasting; in the MNO model, a functor operating on
a specific folding layer.
Gravitational Running – Prediction that the
gravitational constant G drifts in a scale-dependent way
under extreme folding density; testable via pulsar timing.
Holo-RG (Holonomy Renormalization Group) – Scale
procedure that coarse-grains folding holonomies; yields
multiscale corrections.
Hyper-Focus – Autistic sustained concentration on a
single motif; catalyst for deep penetration of complex
structures.
Hyper-Systematization – Autistic tendency to organize
patterns with extreme precision; here understood as an
epistemic resource.
Indeterminacy – Residual indeterminateness inherent in
every folding; source of creatively open possibility rather
than classical randomness.
Indimergence – Simultaneous process of individuation
and emergence; motor of both social and neural
organization.
280
Interoceptive Phenomenal Analysis – Self-
observational evaluation of bodily signals as data source
for consciousness research.
IIT (Integrated Information Theory) – Tononi’s Φ-
framework; modeled as a subordinate folding level within
the MNO stack.
Category Stack – Layered system of categories (Set,
Vect, Cob, etc.); formally represents different levels of
folding.
Cognitive Bifurcation Point – Threshold where a
consciousness system chooses between alternative
folding paths; correlates with a critical avalanche.
Critical Exponents – Coefficients describing scale
invariance; the Δ-field shifts them relative to classical
SOC predictions.
Loop Quantum Gravity – Approach quantizing
spacetime into discrete loops; interpretable as a discrete
network of folding arcs within the MNO.
Minimal Non-Object (MNO) – Ontological zero-point
0 ≅ 1 that differentiates itself through involution; origin
of all poles and conscious experience.
Morphogenetic Matrix – Rule system of biological
folding processes; translated via the MNO formalism
onto cellular pattern formation.
Noether Analogue – Derivation of energy conservation
from global conservation of the number of foldings
rather than continuous time invariance.
Zero-Point Commutation – Non-trivial exchange
relations between endomorphisms at the MNO; quantize
the possible sequences of foldings.
281
Pan-Folding Thesis – Extension of MNO logic to all
structures: every form of being is a folding state of the
zero-point.
Predictive Processing – The brain as a hierarchical
prediction engine; reinterpreted here as sequential
folding optimization along the time axis.
Post-Labor Empiricism – Data collection beyond
classical laboratories (self-tracking, synesthetic mapping
sessions); legitimizes artistic-research data.
Space-Time Co-Emergence – Postulate that space and
time arise simultaneously at first folding; neither exists in
isolation.
Variable-G Drift – Scale-dependent variation of G under
extreme folding densities; testable via pulsar timing and
precision cosmology.
Zero-Object – Object that is both the initial and
terminal object of a category; the MNO embodies this
status as the “ontological navel” of all foldings.
282
## Further Reading List
283
## Kapitel 1 – Erkenntnisse eines Autisten
Geniale Störung: Die geheime Geschichte des Autismus
und warum wir Menschen brauchen, die anders denken –
Steve Silberman (DuMont Buchverlag)
Buntschatten und Fledermäuse. Mein Leben in einer
anderen Welt – Axel Brauns (Goldmann Verlag)
Thinking in Pictures: My Life with Autism (engl.
Original) – Temple Grandin (Vintage/Random House)
Kapitel 2 – Vorwort aus der Perspektive von
Bewusstseinsforschung und Physik
Schatten des Geistes: Auf der Suche nach der
wissenschaftlichen Grundlage des Bewusstseins – Roger
Penrose (Spektrum Akademischer Verlag)
Bewusstsein – ein neurobiologisches Rätsel – Christof
Koch (Spektrum Akademischer Verlag)
Das Tao der Physik: Die Konvergenz von westlicher
Wissenschaft und östlicher Philosophie – Fritjof Capra
(Droemer Knaur Verlag)
Geist, Kosmos und Physik: Gedanken über die Einheit
des Lebens – Hans-Peter Dürr (Crotona Verlag)
## Kapitel 3 – Die Neuentdeckung der Realität
Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit: Eine
Theorie der Wissenssoziologie – Peter L. Berger &
Thomas Luckmann (Fischer Verlag)
Wie wirklich ist die Wirklichkeit? Wahn, Täuschung,
Verstehen – Paul Watzlawick (Piper Verlag)
Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen – Thomas
S. Kuhn (Suhrkamp Verlag)
284
## Kapitel 4 – ANP – Das Alles-Nichts-Paradoxon
Das Sein und das Nichts: Versuch einer
phänomenologischen Ontologie – Jean-Paul Sartre
(Rowohlt Verlag)
Ein Universum aus Nichts: ... und warum da trotzdem
etwas ist – Lawrence M. Krauss (Penguin Verlag)
Was ist Metaphysik? – Martin Heidegger (Reclam
Verlag)
## Kapitel 5 – Submergenz, Indimergenz, Emergenz
Das Quark und der Jaguar: Vom Einfachen zum
Komplexen – die Suche nach einer neuen Erklärung der
Welt – Murray Gell-Mann (Piper Verlag)
Die Selbstorganisation des Universums: Vom Urknall
zum menschlichen Geist – Erich Jantsch (Hanser Verlag)
Vom Sein zum Werden: Zeit und Komplexität in den
Naturwissenschaften – Ilya Prigogine (Piper Verlag)
## Kapitel 6 – Die Dreiteiligkeit
Phänomenologie des Geistes – G. W. F. Hegel
(Suhrkamp Verlag)
Semiotische Schriften (Bd. 1–3) – Charles S. Peirce
(Suhrkamp Verlag)
Objektive Erkenntnis: Ein evolutionärer Entwurf – Karl
R. Popper (Hoffmann und Campe Verlag)
## Kapitel 7 – Die vertikale Ordnung
Der Aufbau der realen Welt: Grundriß der kategorialen
Ontologie – Nicolai Hartmann (de Gruyter Verlag)
Das Gespenst in der Maschine – Arthur Koestler
285
## (Molden Verlag)
Eine kurze Geschichte des Kosmos – Ken Wilber
(Fischer Verlag)
## Kapitel 8 – Die synästhetische Wissenschaften
Manifest der künstlerischen Forschung: Eine
Verteidigung gegen ihre Verfechter – Hrsg. Dieter
Mersch, Anton Rey, Christoph Schenker & Germán
Toro Pérez (Diaphanes Verlag)
Consilience: Die Einheit des Wissens – Edward O.
Wilson (Siedler Verlag)
Die zwei Kulturen: Literarische und
naturwissenschaftliche Intelligenz – C. P. Snow (dtv
Verlag)
Kapitel 9 – MNO – Die physikalische Grundlage von
Freiheit und Beziehung
## Ich und Du – Martin Buber (Insel Verlag)
Helgoland: Wie die Quantentheorie unsere Welt
verändert – Carlo Rovelli (Rowohlt Verlag)
Die Furcht vor der Freiheit – Erich Fromm (dtv Verlag)
Kapitel 10 – MNO, Singularität und die Kreis-Lücke
Beziehung
Gödel, Escher, Bach: Ein endlos geflochtenes Band –
Douglas R. Hofstadter (Klett-Cotta Verlag)
Gesetze der Form – George Spencer-Brown (Bohmeier
Verlag)
Zyklen der Zeit: Eine neue ungewöhnliche Sicht des
Universums – Roger Penrose (Springer Spektrum Verlag)
286
## Kapitel 11 – Das Boxing
Auf der Suche nach Schrödingers Katze: Quantenphysik
und Wirklichkeit – John Gribbin (Heyne Verlag)
Laterales Denken: Ein Kurs zur Erschließung Ihrer
Kreativitätsreserven – Edward de Bono (Rowohlt Verlag)
Kapitel 12 – Die allgegenwärtige Verdrehung der Pole
Götzen-Dämmerung oder Wie man mit dem Hammer
philosophiert – Friedrich Nietzsche (Reclam Verlag)
## Tao Te King – Laotse (Reclam Verlag)
Dialektik der Aufklärung: Philosophische Fragmente –
Max Horkheimer & Theodor W. Adorno (Fischer
Verlag)
Kapitel 13 – Die Rückkoppelung innerhalb der
Singularität
Kybernetik: Regelung und Nachrichtenübertragung in
Lebewesen und Maschinen – Norbert Wiener
(Oldenbourg Verlag)
Der Baum der Erkenntnis: Die biologischen Wurzeln
menschlichen Erkennens – Humberto R. Maturana &
Francisco J. Varela (Goldmann Verlag)
Sicht und Einsicht: Essays über Wahrnehmung und
Wirklichkeit – Heinz von Foerster (Carl-Auer Verlag)
Kapitel 14 – Das Leib-Seele-Problem und die
menschlichen Sinnesorgane
Das Ich und sein Gehirn – Karl R. Popper & John C.
Eccles (Piper Verlag)
Descartes’ Irrtum: Fühlen, Denken und das menschliche
Gehirn – Antonio Damasio (List Verlag)
287
Der Ego-Tunnel: Eine neue Philosophie des Selbst –
Thomas Metzinger (Piper Verlag)
## Kapitel 15 – Die Konstruktion der BetrachterIn
Die erfundene Wirklichkeit – Hrsg. Paul Watzlawick
(Piper Verlag)
Radikaler Konstruktivismus: Ideen, Ergebnisse,
Probleme – Ernst von Glasersfeld (Suhrkamp Verlag)
Der Spiegel der Natur: Eine Kritik der Philosophie –
Richard Rorty (Suhrkamp Verlag)
## Kapitel 16 – Das Realitäten-Auge
Der Blick von Nirgendwo – Thomas Nagel (Suhrkamp
Verlag)
Die Benutzer-Illusion: Vom Wesen der Bewusstheit – Tor
Nørretranders (Hanser Verlag)
Auge und Gehirn: Psychologie des Sehens – Richard L.
Gregory (Rowohlt Verlag)
## Kapitel 17 – Realitätsverzerrung und Weltenkonstruktion
Simulacra und Simulation – Jean Baudrillard (Matthes &
Seitz Verlag)
Die Gesellschaft des Spektakels – Guy Debord (Edition
Tiamat)
Die Konsensfabrik: Die politische Ökonomie der
Massenmedien – Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky
(Westend Verlag)
Kapitel 18 – Mathematische Zusammenfassung der
MNO-Theorie
## Principia Mathematica – Alfred North Whitehead &
288
Bertrand Russell (engl. Original, Cambridge University
Press)
Grundlagen der Mathematik (Bde. I–II) – David Hilbert
& Paul Bernays (Springer Verlag)
Laws of Form – George Spencer-Brown (engl. Original,
Allen & Unwin)
Kapitel 19 – Vertiefung der Meta-Theorie im Kontext mit
SOC, IIT und GNW
Phi: Eine Reise vom Gehirn zur Seele – Giulio Tononi
(Pantheon Verlag)
Denken: Wie das Gehirn Bewusstsein schafft – Stanislas
Dehaene (Ullstein Verlag)
Erfolgsgeheimnis Selbstorganisation: Synergetik – die
Kunst, Systeme zu koppeln – Hermann Haken (Ullstein
Verlag)
Kapitel 20 – Schwarze Löcher, der Weltenbaum und
warum Naturgesetze in nicht-realen Sphären dennoch
funktionieren
Gekrümmter Raum und verbogene Zeit. Einsteins
Vermächtnis – Kip S. Thorne (Goldmann Verlag)
Eine kurze Geschichte der Zeit – Stephen W. Hawking
(Rowohlt Verlag)
Vom Wesen physikalischer Gesetze – Richard P.
Feynman (Piper Verlag)
Kapitel 21 – Gravitation und die Methodik der
synästhetischen Wissenschaft
Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie
– Albert Einstein (Springer Verlag)
289
Wider den Methodenzwang: Skizze einer anarchistischen
Erkenntnistheorie – Paul Feyerabend (Suhrkamp Verlag)
Integrale Methodik: Forschung zwischen Wissenschaft
und Kunst – Henk Borgdorff (transcript Verlag)
Kapitel 22 – Zum Verhältnis von Raum und Zeit im
Kontext mit MNO
Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre – Hans Reichenbach
(Vieweg Verlag)
Kritik der reinen Vernunft – Immanuel Kant (Meiner
Verlag)
Das Ende der Zeit: Die Illusion der Zeit und die
grundlegende Struktur des Universums – Julian Barbour
(Piper Verlag)
Kapitel 23 – Bedeutung für die Quantenphysik
QED: Die seltsame Theorie des Lichts und der Materie –
Richard P. Feynman (Rowohlt Verlag)
Einsteins Spuk: Teleportation und weitere Mysterien der
Quantenphysik – Anton Zeilinger (Goldmann Verlag)
Quanten: Einstein, Bohr und die große Debatte über das
Wesen der Wirklichkeit – Manjit Kumar (Piper Verlag)
Kapitel 24 – Informationsontologie und das unsichtbare
Maß
Unser mathematisches Universum: Auf der Suche nach
dem Wesen der Wirklichkeit – Max Tegmark (Ullstein
Verlag)
Programming the Universe (engl. Original) – Seth Lloyd
(Knopf)
Die Logik des Lebens: Information und das Entstehen
290
## von Ordnung – Ernst Peter Fischer (S. Fischer Verlag)
Kapitel 25 – Die Entstehung der Psyche und die
konkrete Arbeit an der vertikalen Integration
Ursprung und Geschichte des Bewusstseins – Erich
Neumann (Walter Verlag)
Integrale Psychologie: Bewusstsein, Geist, Psychologie,
Therapie – Ken Wilber (Arbor Verlag)
Die Entwicklung des Selbst – Allan N. Schore (Klett-
Cotta Verlag)
Kapitel 26 – Knowing – Embodied Cognition und
Autismus
Der verkörperte Geist: Kognitive Wissenschaft und
menschliche Erfahrung – Francisco Varela, Evan
Thompson & Eleanor Rosch (Suhrkamp Verlag)
NeuroTribes: Die Legacy des Autismus – Steve
Silberman (engl. Original, Avery/Penguin)
Autismus und Gesellschaft: Neurodiversität als
Herausforderung – Petra Wolf & Klaus Sarimski
(Springer Verlag)
Kapitel 27 – Die Beziehungs-Submergenz und das
Verschwinden der Realität
Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit –
Peter L. Berger & Thomas Luckmann (Fischer Verlag)
(bereits oben aufgeführt)
Simulacra und Simulation – Jean Baudrillard (Matthes &
Seitz Verlag) (siehe oben)
Die Realität der Massenmedien – Niklas Luhmann
(Westdeutscher Verlag)
291
## Kapitel 28 – Die veränderte Haltung
Pädagogik der Unterdrückten – Paulo Freire (Rowohlt
Verlag)
Unruhig bleiben: Die Verwandtschaft der Arten im
Chthuluzän – Donna J. Haraway (Campus Verlag)
Resonanz: Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung – Hartmut
Rosa (Suhrkamp Verlag)
Anhang
(In Bezug auf Seite 22)
Sattin D, Magnani FG, Bartesaghi L, Caputo M,
Fittipaldo AV, Cacciatore M, Picozzi M, Leonardi M.
Theoretical Models of Consciousness: A Scoping
Review. Brain Sci. 2021 Apr 24;11(5):535. doi:
10.3390/brainsci11050535. PMID: 33923218;
PMCID: PMC8146510.
Integrative Theoretical Framework of Consciousness:
Towards a Higher-Order Theory
Luiz G. Camelo / Distrito Federal, Brazil.
Addition to Chapter “Significance for
Quantum Physics”
See also Bell’s Theorem (John Stewart Bell). Non-
locality in Bell’s framework could represent a manifested
projection of the same ontological principle described by
the MNO. In the best sense, this would be an
ontologization of Bell’s non-locality: not “spooky action
at a distance,” but the manifestation of the Non-Place
(MNO) to which two reality domains simultaneously
refer.
292
www.timothy-speed.com
293
294