STREAM : Delta Theory : Introduction

Let me begin by making it clear, I do not seek to discover the essence of the world-in-itself. While the essence of the world-in-itself, does raise my curiosity, I am just as curious, to see the end of a movie, to hear the latest sensation on the news, or to listen to the latest albums of my favorite bands. While indeed interesting, I can repress such curiosities. Nevertheless, there are issues that always resurface, no matter how many times I try to repress or forget them. To be more specific, I seek the answer to the question: What is the thing I am supposed to, suppose to be?
Let me explain. Dear listener, exactly like you, I have many needs, be it material, bodily, social, ethical, esthetical, and so on. These needs cause me to behave the way I do. Furthermore, every planned and conscious action I perform, has some sort of purpose. It does not really matter if my actions are the very purpose, for which i perform these actions, or if I achieve this purpose, only after performing them. Furthermore, possibly, many of my subconscious unplanned actions, have a purpose as well. Still, why should I care for causes and purposes, if these are all meaningless to me? Why should I care if pork chops are tasty, if I find keeping a healthy diet meaningful? Why should I care if I am dying of hunger, if I am unconscious? Why should I care if I care about something, if I do not care about anything? Indeed, logically, my last statement was invalid. I can either care about something, or care for nothing. Otherwise, I contradict myself. Still, what should I care about logical contradictions? Why should I care about the logical validity of my thoughts, if I do not care to comply with any rule? However, if I do not comply with any rule, am I not following a "meta-rule" with which I comply? Maybe, but then again, what if I do?
As you probably noticed, this way of thinking is pointless. However, if we see through these arguably postmodernist demagogues, a significant challenge emerges. Still, I am quite sure, you do not understand what I am implying. Well, to clarify, let us consider De-Cart’s famous statement, “I think, and therefore, I am”. To be on the safe side, let us dive deeper into certainty, and replace the word “think”. Let us say, “I am conscious, and therefore, I am”, or even better, “I must exist, because I can sense my consciousness.” This way, I satisfy the option I exist, even when I am dreaming. Arguably, regardless who claims this statement, it can neither be false, possibly false, or impossible to verify. Assuming a person understands the English language, negating this statement is neither a mistake, nor skepticism or open-mindedness. Negating this statement is a straightforward LIE!
But why the anonymity? Let us give this person a name. Zack, the postmodernist. Zack does not believe an absolute truth exists. This is his Motto. Zack is not even willing to accept logical imperatives are valid. Let us consider Zack's arguments. While Zack can think whatever he wants, how can we accept a consciousness claiming it does not exist? Existence is not the product of logical synthesis. Consciousness is a type of existence. The ownership of a consciousness provides the proof it exists.
Oh does it? No, it does not. Zack claims he does not fully understand what consciousness is. He does not fully understand what the ownership of a consciousness means. Therefore, he claims he does not understand my statement, and therefore, it is meaningless to him. While Zack's arguments are annoying, honestly, we did not provide a definition of what consciousness is. While arguably, we could satisfy with Zack's own definition of consciousness, we cannot escape the fact that it is simply a different opinion. Both states of mind can exist in parallel. One consciousness can believe its existence must be, even without understanding how, or what it means, while another consciousness can believe differently, even without believing it exists. If one absolute consistent truth exists in the world, meaning, if there is a single consistent explanation to everything transpiring in the world, then Zack might be an annoying liar. For example, if this truth will assert the existence of Zack's consciousness, it would imply, Zack is lying through his teeth. However, if such truth does not exist, we cannot prove even a single claim, including the claim, that the existence of both Zack's, and our own consciousness, is irrefutable. In short, while we can think whatever we want, only the essence of the world-in-itself, can determine the validity of our thoughts. Therefore, although we only seek the essence of the causes, purposes, and meanings of our lives, to find a valid answer, first, we must know the essence of the world-in-itself. It does not work the other way around, precisely because we can think whatever we want. The question regarding the essence of the causes, purposes, and meanings of our lives, attempts to determine our consciousness’ place within the hierarchy of the world in which we live. While we can put our own beliefs and perspective as the center of the world, other possible possibilities exist as well. Believing simply does not make it so. It is simply not enough.
Understanding this, we can never know the answer. We can merely believe we do. Knowing the essence of the world-in-itself is impossible. But why? Well, it so happens, that similarly to dormant genes in our DNA, there can always be elements essential to the essence of the world, which physically, do not affect it. Because they do not affect the world physically, we cannot know if they exist. Therefore, for each such element, there can always be two essences to the world: one with this element, and one without it. From our perspective, such two worlds are identical. However, things are even more problematic. There might be elements that affect the world physically, but are simply incomprehensible to human consciousnesses. Therefore, it is possible we cannot even recognize physically dominant elements that compile the essence of the world-in-itself. Still, as the argument with Zack already showed us, we cannot determine if even our own consciousness exists, without first knowing the essence of the world-in-itself. Therefore, arguably, we should give up now, pack the tents, and go back home, empty handed. We will never know the essence of the causes, purposes, and meanings of our lives.
But wait a minute. I am not willing to give up so soon. As I said from the very beginning, the essence of the world-in-itself is not my main concern. Let us try a different route. Instead of asking if we can know the essence of the world-in-itself, let us ask what we can know of essences of worlds-in-themselves, in general. Maybe this way, we will learn something about the essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings. Indeed, arguably, this will not teach us what this essence is. Still, we will have a better idea what it might be. Perhaps by learning the possible options, we will learn some of the things we seek. Considering the alternatives, this is good enough for me. If you expect more, I suggest we part ways, before wasting more of your time.
Still, even if we satisfy with this humble alternative, it does not solve all our problems. Far from it. I mean, what are we talking about? What is this vague term “the world-in-itself”, to which we seek its essence? Let us define it. When I ask, “What is the essence of the world-in-itself?” what I am actually asking is, “What is the truth that nests all other truths?” We cannot define the world-in-itself as a single unit. Any unit, tiny or colossal, always resides inside some sort of “field”. Therefore, we should rephrase this question, and ask, "what is the essence of all units, as well as the “fields” in which they reside?". The answer to this question will be the definition of the term: "the essence of the world-in-itself."
Still, again, we cannot know what this essence is. To explain, we can only define things we can recognize. However, our definition of the world-in-itself implies it includes all elements, regardless if we can recognize these elements or not. Therefore, obviously, we did not define the world-in-itself, but rather the subject of our contemplation.
In addition, surprisingly, our definition of "the world-in-itself", may exclude some elements we can recognize. For example, had we proven that objects appearing in our dreams, can exist only within the boundaries of our thoughts, and that a mechanism similar to a computer program, produces thought-in-itself (meaning, all the elements and processes involved in our ability to think), then the essence of the world-in-itself would permit the existence of thoughts about objects appearing in our dreams, but not their existence. To clarify, in many ways, this is similar to the three-dimensional illusion, of a two-dimensional painting. Naturally, paintings do not yield a third dimension behind the cloth, regardless if we interpret a painting as representing a three dimensional space. Considering this, we should change our definition again. Our new definition for the world-in-itself will be “the group of elements that can produce other elements, and that no other element produces them, other than possibly, themselves”. I will use this opportunity to define the world as “the collection of all producible elements”. Therefore, the essence of the world is the world-in-itself.
Our new terminology sheds a new light on Zack’s annoying perspective. For Zack, the essence of the world-in-itself implies, that thought takes no part in the world-in-itself. While indeed, Zack understands the world-in-itself produces him, he does not believe he is a part of it. Arguably, Zack’s perspective identifies the world as the world of phenomena, and the world-in-itself as the world of Ideas, but that would be imprecise. Such terminological translation implicitly suggests, Zack believes there are no elements existing in both the world, and the world-in-itself. However, none of Zack's claims demand this restriction.
Regardless if we agree with Zack or not, his arguments show us a major difference between the world and the world-in-itself. While the essence of the world-in-itself must include "existence", the essence of the world may exclude it. The same applies to our consciousness. It is possible our consciousness does not exist. Still, if it does not exist, then the illusion of its existence must exist. The essence of the world-in-itself can either include this illusion or produce it. Still, regardless, the world-in-itself exists. At the very least, the world and the world-in-itself are identical, or completely different. To clarify, something must exist, either our consciousness, or the elements producing the illusion of its existence. We cannot claim the world-in-itself does not exist at all. We can merely reduce the essence of the world-in-itself to a consistent rational model, which we can conceive in its entirety, or claim the essence of the world-in-itself is entirely inconceivable.
We can deduce every possible essence for the world-in-itself, from the relation it sustains with the world, meaning, introducing and classifying all elements, as either producing elements, or the product of elements. Therefore, naturally, we would think, we should focus our investigation on this issue. Still, sadly, things are much more complicated. To clarify, it is possible our consciousness exists only within the world, and not within the world-in-itself. It is possible we can never encounter the world-in-itself, as our consciousness cannot perceive it. Therefore, arguably, discussing the world-in-itself from the perspective of our consciousness could be impossible. Immanuel Kant, already understood this issue, while Friedrich Nietsche, utilized this notion to affirm the prime arguments supporting his epistemology, the Perspectivism. Therefore, it appears our path is blocked, and our journey is coming to its end. There is a chance we cannot discover anything, and it is all a waste of time.

But why? Again, we already stated, we are not interested in the essence of the world-in-itself. Indeed, we can derive the essence of our consciousness, only from the essence of the world-in-itself. Still, we already agreed, we merely wish to discover what the possible answers are. We do not need to determine which one of them is true. Therefore, we should climb over this ontological obstacle. We must shift to a less problematic path. Still, what are our choices? Well, actually, we have only one choice: our consciousness. But which consciousness? Well, we will each choose our own consciousness. It does not matter if we harbor a consciousness, or if we are under the illusion we harbor one. In short, we will take a constructive intuitive path, rather than an empirical consistent path. Still, what does it mean? Well, we will utilize the things we think we know, to build models explaining the things we think we cannot know. We will not prove these models empirically. As we already concluded, we cannot determine if our consciousness exists. It is possible our belief we harbor a consciousness, is but a mirage. Therefore, anything transpiring within our consciousness could be an illusion. Therefore, without a better choice, we will use our consciousness as our starting point. It will be our only axiom, meaning the imminent existence of either our consciousness, or the illusion it exists. We will consider several optional models. In some, our consciousness will exist, while in some, only its illusion will exist.
Because we will refrain from empirical consistent argumentation, our trip will be philosophical, but it will not form a philosophy. While some of our discoveries may be new to philosophy, we will not form a single metaphysical model, but rather a meta-model, from which we could build several specific metaphysical theories. In addition, we will refrain from searching for the single true relation, between the world and the world-in-itself. Instead, we will find several such relations, even if some of these will contradict the others. This is none of our concern. Consistency is a trait mandatory to philosophy, and philosophy, like the essence of the world-in-itself, and like the end of a movie, may arouse our curiosity, but nothing more. While philosophy resides in the shady field between man and his gods, Delta Theory lies in the frustrating field between man and himself.
Moreover, we will not deal with psychology. While we will discuss issues related with our consciousness, which naturally, have implications in psychology, to attain psychological imperatives, first, we will have to select specific metaphysical axioms. However, because we wish to avoid such selections, we should not expect to compile such imperatives. To explain, to treat their patients, psychologists utilize axioms regarding the human psyche, which in many cases, are inconsistent with their personal beliefs. Actually, the same applies to all sciences. The scientific approach is functionalistic and pragmatic, as if saying, “While I do not know if it is true, according to past research, it will probably work”, or alternatively, “I use this approach, because it is the most effective approach I know.”
Our approach will be different. We will build our psychological models, by following intuitive fundamental assumptions, which we will not bother to validate. We will compensate on our scientific methodological error, by offering a variety of theories in psychology. Potentially, this variety will be as large as the number of metaphysical theories, which we will derive from our meta-model, meaning, the model with which we will compile theories in metaphysics and psychology, once selecting specific metaphysical axioms,. Still, just because we will compile them, does not mean we will be interested in all. If these theories will fail to effectively answer our basic questions regarding the essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings, nothing will demand we endorse them.
Therefore, our journey, into the essence of consciousness, will be different from other similar journeys, in two respects. First, our basic assumptions, our axioms, will be categories. They will not be specific cases. We will not differentiate between Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, the existence or inexistence of parallel universes, Freud's psychoanalysis, post-Freudian theories in psychology, and the likes. In other words, we will not differentiate between the specific contents of our axioms. Therefore, we will not evaluate past theories in metaphysics or psychology, because essentially, they all depend on specific axiomatic selections. Secondly, because we seek the essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings, we will not merely satisfy our curiosity. Our goal is almost, if not completely, moral. Still, our journey will not yield a moral code. Instead, we will identify what legitimate moral imperatives each axiomatic selection implies. Still, again, nothing will oblige us to adopt the moral imperatives we will discuss. Regardless if eventually, you will decide to adopt a specific morality, while basing it on a specific combination of our metaphysical meta-model, and a specific axiomatic selection, I will leave the actual structuring of your morality in your hands. For example, if you will decide the concept of equality, belongs in the essence of the world-in-itself, while inequality does not, I will leave you the liberty to be Marxists, communists, democrats, maybe even capitalists. That is your business. I am not interested to know your choice. Honestly, I am not even curious about it. To clarify, the ethical and moral conclusions our journey will suggest, are not the goal of our journey. They are merely one of its applications. Moreover, again, they depend on specific axiomatic selections, such as the belief in god, whichever name and heritage we choose, the belief in socio-economical dogmas, and the likes. We will not bother with any of these. Therefore, again, if this does not satisfy you, you can leave this journey now. Your luggage is still in the trunk of the jeep. Thank you for staying for as long as you did, but again, it is best we part ways.

OK, let us continue. We agreed to base our discussion on our intuition. We will put whatever our intuition cannot access in a separate category, a separate drawer if you like, and we will do our best to avoid this drawer. We will label this drawer as "the consciousness-in-itself". This drawer deals with the manner the world-in-itself produced our consciousness, meaning, the manner by which the existence of our consciousness emerged from inexistence. Sadly, we could never validate whatever we may find in this drawer. To clarify, our consciousness, or its illusion, exists. Still, to the best of our knowledge, our lives began the day we were born. Arguably, we did not exist a day before the day of our birth, suggesting our existence emerged from nothing. Still, we were not there to witness the emergence of our consciousness, and therefore, we cannot validate anything regarding this crucial metaphysical event. Therefore, we must refrain from building our models, while basing them on the contents of this drawer. This drawer is off limit. We may compile our meta-model, only from analyzing our conscious experiences, or alternatively, by analyzing the components of our consciousness.
Arguably, the most intuitive analysis of consciousness yields two elements: states of consciousness, and changes in states of consciousness. In many ways, such division is similar to the division between time and space, with space being an internal space, and time reflecting internal changes, meaning, an internal time. As long as our consciousness does not change, our internal time does not "tick”. If the state of our consciousness changes rapidly (probably because of emotionally stirring circumstances), our internal time speeds up. However, this division is already problematic. But why? Well, ask yourself. Is it possible that because our consciousness does not change its state, our internal time would stop? While it may sound romantic, intuitively, it seems unlikely. Our body forces our consciousness to change constantly. Indeed, we can manipulate our body by sedating it. However, can we sedate our body to a point, in which the state of our consciousness will not change at all?
But what did I just say? “Will not change at all”? May we use such quantitative terms, while discussing the manner our consciousness changes?
Methodologically, NO!
Uh…? …Why? Well, such terminology implies the world produces our consciousness. To explain, as far as we know, our body exists in the world. Still, if our body can prevent the existence of our consciousness, metaphysically, it must yield our consciousness. However, if we reject the idea our body can stop our consciousness from changing, we imply, that our consciousness must always change, regardless if materialistically, our body is completely frozen. The world’s time stops, while our consciousness still changes, implying the world cannot produce our consciousness, meaning, the world-in-itself must produce it. To summarize, such terminology predetermines a relation between the world and the world-in-itself, or alternatively, that there are elements in the world-in-itself, which may refrain from existing in the world, and vice versa. We must avoid such matters. Similarly, we cannot determine whether time is continuous or not. Arguably, it could be an illusion, similar to the illusion we experience while watching a movie. We think we see motion, while in actuality, all we see are still frames changing rapidly. There is no way we can determine the answer for this question intuitively. To solve it, we must first embrace a metaphysical theory. Still, as we already agreed, we will not. In short, even if we limit our discussion to our own consciousness, we must be careful. Our preconceptions mislead us. To clarify, considering our previous question, because we trust medicine and biology, intuitively, we think in terms of sedatives and chemical effects over our body, rather than metaphysical issues. We believe that because our discussion is "scientific", we can refrain from asking metaphysical questions. However, as we just saw, our beliefs almost busted our philosophical jeep, on the first day of our journey. To conclude, we cannot predetermine any significant fact regarding the divisions of our consciousness. We must keep our divisions abstract, and refrain from predetermining anything about them, without first adopting specific metaphysical axioms.
Nevertheless, luckily, we can analyze our consciousness, without predetermining any metaphysical axiom. For example, considering the states of our consciousness, intuitively, they consist of sensations. We will define a sensation, as an element within our consciousness, that in principal, our consciousness can recognize, separately from other elements within it. A sensation is similar to an intruder that enters our consciousness, and shares our internal space. It does not matter what is the essence of this element. Moreover, some sensations may consist of several other sensations. For example, knowing will be the cognitive disposition, in which one sensation asserts another sensation, meaning, knowing is a synthesis of at least two sensations, one validating the other. Considering this, knowing has nothing to do with the absolute truth. Knowing merely represents two sensations, connected through a rationally affirming construct. Therefore, as far as we know, knowledge is identical to belief. We cannot distinguish between the two. Even if the things in which we believe are the absolute truth, we can never validate our beliefs. To explain, as we already understood, we cannot determine what is the essence of the world-in-itself. In short, the difference between belief and knowledge is in the confidence we have towards our validating sensations. It is completely dependent on the contents of our beliefs, meaning, it is subjective.
Still, what about memory? Is it a sensation as well? Let us use our intuition. If memory was merely a sensation, then by definition, memories must be elements in our consciousness. All our memories must share our current internal time and space. However, if so, then how can we forget or remember anything? Furthermore, from our experience, we know that once we remember an event or detail from our past, we sense it. While memory is unquestionably a major player in our consciousness, it can exist as either a sensation or not. Therefore, we cannot define memory only as a sensation. Moreover, we cannot verify our memories are real. The essence of memory falls outside the boundaries of rational analysis, and therefore, without first adopting any metaphysical axioms, we should not address it. We should restrict our discussion to sensations and constructs of sensations. While arguably, there may be other elements, this foundation will have to do for now.
Let us proceed to changes of states of consciousness. Earlier we understood, questioning the essence of these broad divisions, requires we adopt metaphysical axioms. Therefore, we will avoid such questions. Still, how are we to analyze the changes of states of consciousness? Intuitively, we could classify them according to their source. We could differentiate between sensations that arrive into our consciousness from the world through our senses, and sensations emerging in our consciousness through contemplation. Still, there is a problem. Metaphysically, it is possible, only our consciousness exists, while the rest of the world is but a reflection of our subconscious, rendering sensory and thought identical, as the same consciousness produces them both.
We should make a detour around this obstacle. We need a similar division, which is somehow less “prejudging”. Therefore, instead of classifying sensational changes according to their source, we will classify them according to intent. We will differentiate between sensational changes we actively intended to inflict, and those occurring unintentionally. Intended sensational changes we will call thought, and unintended sensational changes we will call sensory. Considering memory, when we try to remember something, the successful extraction of this memory sensation would be “thought”, while the emotional sensations and memories we encounter unintentionally, during memory extraction, would be “sensory”. The same applies to any metaphysical theory claiming only our consciousness exists. Premeditated changes of consciousness will be thoughts, and the world around us (be it real or an illusion) we encounter through sensory. Let us now consider the opposite process, meaning changes of consciousness, in which sensations that shared our mental world, disappear from it. Again, we will classify these according to intent. Whenever we make sensations vanish intentionally, we repress them. If they vanish unintentionally, they are nullified.
This is as far as we will go. We will not classify different types of thought patterns, such as synthesis, analysis, deduction, induction, and the likes. Instinctively, we can think either rationally or irrationally, and therefore, we cannot classify them as either thought or sensory. Furthermore, considering Zen-type metaphysical theories, we can undermine the validity of logical rational thought. Therefore, to save us the trouble, let us not analyze thought any deeper.
Still, what is memory? Well, let us compare what our memory is for our consciousness, to what the world is to our consciousness. It appears they are quite similar. While the essence of memory-in-itself and the essence of the world-in-itself may be different, they are both foreign to our consciousness. By memorizing our sensations, we create our self-definition. By incorporating within our consciousness, sensations arriving from the world, we interact with the world in which we exist. If by accident, we will lose our memory, we will lose our self-definition. If we disconnect the world from our consciousness, meaning, if we disconnect our consciousness from our senses, we lose the world in which we exist. Still, disconnecting our consciousness from our senses does not necessarily imply, that we lose our consciousness as well. For example, it is unlikely, that people suffering from amnesia, schizophrenia, or autism, do not harbor a consciousness. Obviously, we cannot validate this hypothesis. We can only validate the existence of our own consciousness (be it real or an illusion).
Still, this is not all. Let us consider our dreams. When we dream, our consciousness exists in a dream, while disconnected from the world. In addition, in many dreams, our memories are different from our memory during wakefulness. Sometimes, we are not the same person. Actually, sometimes, we are not even of the same gender. However, intuitively, we know our consciousness during wakefulness is the same consciousness during a dream, or at least, this is how it feels. Therefore, it would be better if we exclude memory from our basic divisions of consciousness.
To summarize, we compiled a short list of six items.
1. Sensations.
2. Constructs of sensations.
3. Thought.
4. Sensory.
5. Repression.
6. Nullification.

This list is the "lowest bar" every metaphysical theory we may choose to adopt must pass. Because consciousness is our only certainty, if a metaphysical theory does not effectively explain these terms, we simply cannot address it. This list is the most basic interface by which a consciousness can exist. We should rephrase this and say, that if a metaphysical theory cannot explain at least one of these terms, it is simply incomplete.
Still, what does an “incomplete metaphysical theory" mean? Is this a flaw we can overlook or neglect? Well, sometimes we can, but not the way you would think. The completeness criterion does not "rank" metaphysical theories. An incomplete metaphysical theory, is simply a theory we have not yet completed. As long as it is incomplete, it cannot answer questions regarding the essence of the world and the essence of the world-in-itself.
For example, supposing we learn of a metaphysical theory, which claims no item from our six items list exists, in either the world, or the world-in-itself. Essentially, such a metaphysical theory is useless. If we embrace it, we could never answer some of our most fundamental questions. Nevertheless, it will not "kill us". Actually, most metaphysical theories are incomplete. Still, what good is this completeness criterion? Intuitively, our main interest lies in the contents of our lives. A metaphysical theory that deals merely with these six terms, will be obscure, to say the least. Generally, metaphysical theories do not focus on explaining the divisions of consciousness we just made. The span of metaphysical theories goes far beyond it. Still, the completeness criterion is a wonderful tool, with which we can filter out useless belief systems, which accidentally, we might embrace.
For example, let us say a man tells us, that touching a dead body, saturates us with negative energies. This is the core of his metaphysical theory. What would we do? Would we believe him? No. Such foundation will not satisfy us anymore. We will use the completeness criterion. We will ask him to explain the essence of sensations, constructs of sensations, thought, sensory, repression, and nullification. If he does not have explanations for these yet, we will ask him to return once he does have them. Until then, we will not be able to deal with his assertions, since we are nothing but observing consciousnesses.
Ok, so now, let us say this man returned a week later, with explanations for all six terms. He changed nothing in his original assertions. He merely added some elements so he could deal with our short list properly. The root of his metaphysical theory remained the same. What good came out of this? Well, a lot of good. We helped him transform a theory, which deals with the transmission of energies between corpses, into a theory we can analyze. Now his theory might shed some light on the essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings.
Still, how will explanations for these six items, give us a clue what to do with our lives? How will they help us extrapolate moral axioms? We have not answered such questions yet. Until now, we merely explained why without them, we could know nothing with certainty. Honestly, it is not enough. We cannot base moral axioms merely on explanations for the six items on our list. Nevertheless, we can determine what these moral axioms could be. For example, supposing we adopted a metaphysical theory, claiming our materialistic body causes all the six items on our list. In such a case, our bodily mechanisms must produce all our thoughts, urges, and wills. There are no spirits. There is just the matter of which our body consists. According to such a belief, we must reject any morality, that will endanger our body, unless our body justifies it. We will refrain from complying with the needs of the "spirit" (or "soul"), before the needs of our body, because according to this theory, the "spirit" does not exist when detached from the body. We will build our moral hierarchies according to the needs of the body. We will reject any form of asceticism, without proving our body profits from it. We will ensure our spiritual wills satisfy the needs of our body. We all have different bodies, and therefore, every individual body forms a balance of wills, according to which we will form our personal moral hierarchy. Furthermore, to prevent willed damages to the body, we will answer questions of gain and purpose, in a manner which is consistent with our bodily mechanisms. By balancing thought with sensory, we will sense new purposes, and cause us to attempt to attain them. In short, our body will be the meaning of our lives. Anyway, this is just one example.
Still, what good are all these metaphysical theories, if we could always doubt them? Well, first, supposing our coverage will be thorough enough, the collection itself will define irrefutable conclusions, by negation. To explain, if indeed, we will review all possible metaphysical theories, then whatever metaphysical claims we will not be able to map into our collection, would have to be false. While admittingly, I doubt we could be this rigorous in our review, it is possible. Secondly, because we will base all the metaphysical theories we will compile, on analyzing our own consciousness, potentially, they will provide us with the best theories to satisfy our needs. To explain, because we will base these theories on our experience as consciousnesses, and not seek the intangible essence of consciousness-in-itself, we will avoid constructing metaphysical theories, which do not serve our existential interests. It does not matter if these theories will be incorrect. Again, "the truth" is not our main concern. To explain, regardless if our consciousness exists, or if it is merely an illusion, our consciousness needs its causes, purposes, and meanings. While indeed, if the existence of our consciousness is but an illusion, this need is an illusion as well. Nevertheless, still, we feel it. Therefore, we will not be interested in metaphysical theories, in which our consciousness is an illusion, while our causes, purposes, and meanings, are not. If we adopt such a metaphysical theory, implicitly, we would render our lives meaningless. We would become nothing but screws and bolts in an intangible metaphysical machine. Even if it was the truth, we would have nothing to gain from this knowledge, as essentially, this would imply, that we would never satisfy our most basic needs. However, because we know satisfaction is not beyond our reach, there is no justification for such a perspective. Simply put, if we cannot grasp our causes, purposes, and meanings, then these are simply not the causes, purposes, and meanings we seek. This conclusion is not trivial. Many religions strive on the idiom, in which our purpose in life lies beyond our ability to comprehend. Such religions leave their followers in a constant state of existential distress, not knowing if they are following or straying from the path of god. While we will not completely reject the existence of gods, or the idea we should follow them, we would refrain from such ambiguous metaphysical dispositions. Maybe this path will render us "evil", and maybe this path will render us "good", but regardless, we would strive to be content, as our own sensation of satisfaction is not ambiguous. It is a certainty, on which we can rely.
Therefore, let us proceed by reviewing the various metaphysical theories. With which should we start? From the one I believe in? Why not from the one you believe? Why should we not review them chronologically? Should we not begin reviewing dead religions, such as the ones endorsed by the ancient Greek? And what about Judaism? Christianity? Islam? Perhaps Buddhism? And what about non-religious metaphysical theories, such as those conceived by Plato or Nietsche?
Well, actually, we will review none of them. Again, we already decided we will not deal with specific metaphysical theories, as our center of interest revolves around the completeness criterion, meaning, our consciousness. Therefore, the span of our review should reflect it. Still, there is a problem. From the perspective of our consciousness, most metaphysical theories are quite similar. Each metaphysical theory proposes a set of non-trivial fundamental principles, in which we are to believe. Epistemologically, there is no difference between asking us to believe in god, and asking us to believe in quantum mechanics, as neither is self-evident, or obvious. However, there is no way to judge which is more valid, religion or quantum mechanics. While arguably, quantum mechanics is empirically valid, it fails to answer fundamental metaphysical questions, which religions answer in length. Therefore, to avoid this possibly impossible evaluation, let us shift our debate, away from the contents of existing metaphysical theories. Let us merely ask, what type of dispositions our consciousness may take, when confronted with different beliefs.
We already mentioned the hybrid type, meaning, the disposition in which we believe only in a specific set of unproven principals. Therefore, let us now review the borderline types, meaning, the choice to believe in anything, regardless of rational justification, and complete skepticism. Well, obviously, believing in everything in parallel, is impossible. Even if we chronically shift our beliefs, we cannot believe in everything at the same time, as some of our beliefs are bound to contradict other beliefs. However, the opposite polarity, meaning, believing in absolutely nothing, is not any better. If we believe in absolutely nothing, whenever we sense a sensation, we will refrain from validating it with any other sensation. It is not that we will believe our sensations are unreal. We would simply lack the motivation, to bind sensations together, and form constructs of sensations. Therefore, our consciousness would harbor nothing but raw sensations. Furthermore, we could not experience any form of intent. To have intentions, we must establish a rational link between cause and purpose. To explain, we must bind the reason why we do what we do, with an effective course of action. However, if we refuse to believe in anything, we would refuse to believe, any course of action is more effective than any other. Therefore, we would not be able to think about anything, intentionally. Still, if we think about it, this is impossible. Our beliefs are instinctive. For example, we instinctively believe in gravity. Through experience, we learned, that objects fall down once we let go of them, in midair. Therefore, to negate this instinct, we must possess intent. In short, belief is not thought. Belief is a raw sensation we sense. Therefore, believing in nothing is impossible, as we must harbor a belief to negate it. To summarize, the consciousness of a complete skeptic is nothing like our own. Therefore, because we are interested only in metaphysical theories we can apply to ourselves, complete skepticism will not interest us.
To conclude, in any metaphysical theory in which we might be interested, sensory must validate thought, and form constructs of sensations. Still, even if the two polarities we just reviewed, failed to yield us with useful insights, they showed us a method how to sort the vast variety of metaphysical theories that might interest us. We can divide and sort metaphysical theories, according to the manner they balance thought with sensory. However, what could be the criterion, by which we will differ between complete metaphysical theories? As we already understood, if our metaphysical theories are well thought of, there is no way to rank them. For example, if we consider Judaism, it is not that different from empirical sciences. Both utilize thought as the prime method for understanding the world. The only difference is that empirical sciences use empirical findings as their validating entity, while Judaism uses ancient texts. Still, in both, the validating entities exist in the world. However, metaphysical theories such as Zen, which attempt to undermine the validity of causality, cannot share the same category. Zen asks our consciousness not to seek explanations, and persistently attempts to undermine the world's consistent rational appearance, in order to see "beyond it". From the perspective of the completeness criterion, Zen favors sensory over thought.
To summarize, the more a metaphysical theory is consistent, the more it allows us to think, while the more a metaphysical theory introduces inconsistent arguments, the more it requires we use sensory. The reason for this is simple. An inconsistent principle negates itself, and therefore, it is impenetrable to rational analysis. Actually, any unproven metaphysical principle is inconsistent. In some minds, it spores out of thin air, while in other minds, it does not. Nothing obliges us to believe it is true, and nothing obliges us to reject it. Therefore, the manner by which we react to unproven metaphysical claims, does not comply with rationality. However, this implies that in many ways, Judaism, empirical sciences, and Zen, ask us of the same thing. They ask us to believe in some metaphysical claims, while rejecting others. This poses a problem for us. How will we differentiate between them? Obviously, counting the amount of inconsistent principles a metaphysical theory introduces is pointless. The amount of inconsistent principles a religion endorses, does not interfere with our ability to think. For example, while the ancient Greek believed in a vast fantastic polytheist mythology, it never stopped them from thinking. Furthermore, I have no intention to review every metaphysical theory that may have crossed the fevered minds of every human throughout history.
No way. We need categories. Therefore, let us pick up our philosophical machete, put the metaphysical fish on the table, sever its head, and cut its tail. Here you go. Our fish has been categorized. Beginning, middle, and end. The same we will apply to metaphysical theories. We will divide them into three categories.
1. Completely inconsistent.
2. Inconsistent.
3. Consistent.

Metaphysical theories such as Zen, we will define as completely inconsistent. Such theories completely undermine thought. And what does Zen teach us, when considering our causes, purposes, and meanings? Well, nothing really. Nothing in the most explicit sense of it. Not only does Zen refuse to provide us with answers, it actually demands we refrain from asking such questions. Naturally, you can choose this option, as many other people have done in the past and present. However, personally, understanding I can only exist as a consciousness, I have no interest in these. Therefore, let us proceed to the inconsistent metaphysical theories category. In the inconsistent metaphysical theories category, we can find an almost infinite amount of theories, a number proportionate only to the number of thoughts, that crossed the excited consciousnesses of human beings, from the dawn of human history. In many of them, we will find inconsistent principles, hiding behind a web of logical arguments. In western monotheist religions, the omniscient omnipotent god, contradicts its inability to change anything in the world. The western monotheist god knows our actions before we perform them, rendering concepts such as good and evil, reward and punishment, nonsensical. Considering empirical sciences, they do a terrible job answering almost all of our most basic metaphysical questions. For example, what was before the beginning of time? What was before the first "cause"? Considering existentialism, or Nietsche's Perspectivism, all these philosophies fail when dealing with issues related with the essence of the world-in-itself. It appears ontology is the Achilles heel of metaphysics. Ontology repeatedly fractures the consistency of otherwise flawlessly consistent metaphysical theories. To keep all these metaphysical theories from collapsing, they always demand us to sense at least one ontological principle, while repressing other sensations.
Nevertheless, inconsistent metaphysical theories provide us with many insights, regarding the essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings. These insights vary between devotion to god (through religion), devotion to progress (through science), devotion to existence (through existentialism), and so on. However, again, it is hard to analyze or rank this variety effectively, and therefore, we will postpone dealing with it for now.
Still, what about consistent complete metaphysical theories? What can fill this category? Well, Nothing. This category is empty. Actually, this is not that surprising. How can it be possible to explain ideas such as the essence of the "first cause" logically? Instinctively, our consciousness rejects any attempt to explain it rationally. Completely inconsistent metaphysical theories, avoid these questions, by undermining our ability to think rationally altogether, while inconsistent metaphysical theories, offer a collection of strange fantastic mythologies and hypotheses to explain them. However, a consistent metaphysical theory, meaning, a theory that explains everything through rational argumentation, cannot use such tactics. It must provide a rational consistent solution to everything, including what happened before the creation of the world. At no point, can a consistent metaphysical theory, demand us to believe in anything, as our belief is not necessary. A consistent metaphysical theory can offer logical proof, instead of belief.
Considering this, it appears a consistent complete metaphysical theory, is exactly what we need, to compile our metaphysical meta-model. Because consistent metaphysical theories, do not introduce elements, which they cannot rationally explain, essentially, they do not introduce elements, which possibly, could contradict other metaphysical theories. To clarify, unless an inconsistent metaphysical theory completely contradict rationality, whatever is true to consistent metaphysical theories, should be true to inconsistent metaphysical theories as well. Therefore, theoretically, all inconsistent metaphysical theories, could "borrow" explanations from consistent metaphysical theories, without risking their explanatory cores. To clarify, each inconsistent metaphysical theory, could claim it is identical to a consistent metaphysical theory, apart from specific cases, in which it negates rational thought. Therefore, had we had a consistent metaphysical theory at our disposal, essentially, we could identify each inconsistent metaphysical theory as its subset, with this consistent metaphysical theory, being the meta-model, from which inconsistent metaphysical theories can derive.
However, as we just explain, this category is empty, and therefore, currently, our meta-model, does not exist. What shall we do? Again, how can we explain the enigma of mechanical determinism, consistently? How can we fill this deterministic explanatory hole, without resorting to faith?
How?
Er.
Hey!
Wait a minute. Determinism is also a type of belief, is it not? To clarify, as we already mentioned, we do not think "causality". We sense it. However, consistent metaphysical theories, do not require such raw inexplicable sensory. Consistent metaphysical theories explain everything through thought, rendering the world-in-itself an existing logical construct. Therefore, this solves our problem! The "first cause" is not really a problem, because it does not exist within consistent metaphysical theories, by default.
Consistent metaphysical theories predetermine, that any element, whose existence we can completely explain rationally, can exist, while whatever contradicts any logical argumentation, cannot exist. In a consistent metaphysical theory, the essence of the world-in-itself, is logic-in-itself, meaning, the metaphysical producer of rational consistency. In other words, every element existing in the world, is a product of pure logic. Unless we define logic-in-itself wrongly, contradiction simply cannot "enter" consistent metaphysical theories. Therefore, in order to populate this category, we should redefine logic, so we could map all the consistent elements in the world, in a logical and consistent manner. Still, what exactly is a consistent element? Obviously, within a consistent metaphysical theory, every element in the physical world, is consistent. Only logic can produce physical elements, as logic is the essence of the world-in-itself. In addition, everything we can sense or think, is a product of logic as well. Therefore, whatever sensation occupies our consciousness, it must be consistent. Make no mistake. The contents of some of our thoughts, can surely be inconsistent with the contents of some of our other thoughts. A consistent metaphysical theory is not an insurance policy. We can always make mistakes.
To conclude, it appears we need to define a new model for logic. Therefore, it is time we end the introduction of "Delta Theory", and begin its first chapter.