The deep energy and the deep informationare in the matter and are responsible for the motion and the dialecticsof the matter.
This approach is for the author the onlyway to find the common source of physics, biology, mathematics,psychology and conscience. As may be observed, all philosophiesare directly or indirectly ranging over larger or smaller portionsof the Ring of the Existence . In this respect, all past philosophiescan be used as mainstays in defending the R.E. model. Any newphilosophy can no longer be satisfactory unless it gives supportto understand the unity of the material world and, more specifically,the unity of science, i.e. a basis for a simultaneous explanationof the living and of the non-living, of the mental and informational,psychological and spiritual forces. This means that we may witnessthe rise of science-based philosophies which would be as manyincentives to future investigation. Meanwhile, after having joined,but also broken away from science, philosophy must revert to theissue of man, of his conscience and spirituality. This ontologygives only some of these break-throughs, as most of them are theobject of the volumes Spirituality, Information, Matter(in Romanian), Bucharest, Editura Academiei, 1988 and Informationof Matter (in Romanian), Bucharest, Editura Academiei, 1990.
The Depths of Existence givessome experimental results which envisage a reality deeper thanthe space-time property of the universe. A new philosophy is notan invention that could be born all of a sudden. That is why itcannot be formulated in a fairly systematical way, shortly afterit has been generated. What really matters is to separate whatis new, and how this separation can be conceived.
Orthophysics develops most ofthe ideas contained in The Depths of Existence andmarks a transition from the structural science and view to a structural-phenomenologicalscience and view of the world. The author observes the weakness of thestructural science today, and because of that its future crisis,which is no source of misfortune. For this crisis is caused bythe obvious inability to explain the living, despite the successof molecular (actually structural) biology and the inability to reach the deep matter by high-energy particle collisions (thatis, for the time being, a philosophical standpoint by virtue ofthe R.E. model). The unsatisfactory principle of structuralknowledge which can be induced from the experience of themolecular biology with respect to the mental processes, justifiedby virtue of the R.E. model and subsequently applied to the elementaryparticle physics (i.e. present-day physics), shows together withthe principle of the selfconsistency of matter, which leavesno other path to take, that there must exist some matter endowed with non-structural, phenomenological properties and which isresponsible for the formation and operation of the living matter.Such a phenomenological matter is the informatter which is essentialin explaining the living and the mental processes but also ingenerating a universe. The existence of the informatter appearsas a certainty in the light of the two principles mentioned above,but it is so only with respect to the living substance and the mental processes. This informatter might not be deep, but as ithas not so far been experimentally traced in the space-time realityof the living matter, and given the ontological generalizationof the information, the author is entitled to regard it as a deep matter. This does not necessarily appear to be a certainty inphysics; instead, it is a plausible philosophical stand whichfinds the ultimate mainstay in the whole view advanced in theRing of the Existence.

Is what is not a certainty or a semi-certaintyan uncertainty ?

The uncertainty only shows theunsafety of some concepts or models. The semi-certaintyshows that only little is missing to have a certainty.
The mystery is the unknown, of which wehave no idea. Sometimes the mystery is the unknown of which we cannot, nor will we ever, have an idea. Kant's thing-in-itselfis the mystery we cannot know, but about which we may have, asKant says, inevitably antinomical ideas. Strange enough, the structural scienceof today introduces a mystery of the unknown type about whichwe cannot know anything. As the mental processes cannot be explainedby structural ingredients, then the mental contains somethingof the order of mystery which cannot be known. Then the structural science finds a narrow escape by attributing the brain limitedabilities to know the mind and the reality.

Why should science stop here ? How couldwe know that these are the limits of the human brain and not thelimits self-imposed by our view (our cognitive framework) aboutthe world and about the mind ?
The Ring of the Existence isan attempt to extend the cognitive framework of knowledge andto suggest a structural phenomenological science in the aftermathof, and striding beyond, structural science. Let us suppose that the R.E. model wouldbe validated scientifically. Then the phenomenological informationin the deep matter would account for the birth of many physicalprocesses in the universe and for the mental, creative phenomena. Then we would know the properties of the deep matter which willhelp us to understand all that is going on in the universe.
Similarly nowadays, we know much of whatis going on in the physical universe starting from the elementaryparticles qua given. Hence, we do not know exactly howthe true elementary particles are formed.
The deep matter accounts also for the elementaryparticles. However, the deep matter will keep the still unexplainedphenomenological senses (the orthosenses), which haveonly been noticed, and which will be in a way a mystery for thenext time period. The deep existence being the ultimate reality,there will be nothing beyond it and when we are familiar withthe orthosenses, as we are now with the elementary particles,the mystery of the orthosenses will only be an unknown waitingfor a behaviour model of the informatter which, one way or another,should be subject to experimental validation. It is the author'sbelief that with the rise of a structural-phenomenological science,the classical methods of immediate experimental validation of theories and concepts will give way to some indirect methods whichwill become familiar and methodologically acceptable to the scientist.No attempt was made - nor could be made in the present state whenthe available knowledge is insufficient in this respect - to modelthe actual way in which the informatter behaves so as to generateorthosenses. This would be untimely before the beginnings of astructural-phenomenological science. For the time being, the assumption on the orthosenses is philosophically justified in the mannerof the structural-phenomenological thought. In this respect, thesebooks are only an outline of ontology.

On the Author's Ontologyiv