“Nosological” Man: “We” (Kitawo/Akitalibutan) and Heidegger’s Concept of

“Care,” “Solicitude” and “Death”

By Noni Carabuena

Introduction

In the first part of this paper, it will tackle about the

foundation of “Nosological” man as “Nothing.” This will open a

perspective about the ultimate “foundation” of man as “We” that

will go further from the stance of Western thought. The second

portion of this paper will explicate the existence of “tawo” as

man on the concept of “care” and “solicitude.” This will situate

the reality of “things” and existence of “Being-with-others.”

This part will explain why Dasein couldn’t attain its

“authenticity,” and why is there “We” in man? The third chapter

as the central point of this paper will discuss about

“instancing” of “Nosological” man and the possibility of Dasein

towards its “authenticity” through the idea of nothing as its

ground towards “Nothing.” In this part, it will explore the

possibility regarding the totality of Being by becoming first as

non-Being that will clearly indicate the idea of the beyond of

the “beyond,” nothing towards “Nothing.” On the fourth section of1

this work, it will argue about the conception of consciousness as

world, its sameness and relativity. In this chapter, it will

emphasize the thought of “I am We are World-consciousness” as

“Akitalibutan,” leading towards deeper understanding of “kitawo”

in the world. And on the last chapter, it will indicate the

climax of man as “We” are “One” as “Nothing-Everything.” It will

underline the significance of “We” in relation to the “I” that

will stress out the importance of one another. It will also

entertain the notion of inseparable “I-We-World” in regards with

the “We” as a central point. And it will go back to the reality

of concrete world in order to apply the concept of “We” towards

the idea of singularity and plurality. And this paper will

conclude with an affirmation of regarding man’s foundational

journey as “Nothing” to nothing to something and “instancing”

“Nothing.”

Chapter I

1. “Nosological” Man and “Ontological” Man

A. “Nosological” Man founded on “Nothing”

2

One of the basic concepts regarding man in Western

Philosophy is centred on the “nihilistic” point of view which

originates its essence and existence.1 The “nothingness” meant

here is about the “emptiness” that represents the idea of a

“vacuum.” The “nothingness” of nothing explicates the “absence”

of every being out of their being “there.” However, on the other

side of the idea of “nothing,” there is a notion of the “beyond”

that captures the ultimate peak of man, that is “Nothing.” This

“Nothing” is “far” from the realm of anything else including the

grasp of understanding because to understand is only possible

with existence. It represents the concept of “static freezing”

point or the getting out of existence per se. 2 If we will try to

examine the whole idea of “Nothing,” we will end up to the

“ungraspable” and “staticity” of its “non-existence.”

“Ungraspable” in a sense that even the capacity of the mind to

understand cannot capture “It.”

1 Das Nicht nichtet (The Nothing nothings). A Western (particularly German) philosophical concept that says that “nothing cannot be but nothing.”

2 Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr., “We”: “Nosology” of Communion (Jaro, IloiloCity, Philippines: St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary Publications, 2009), 64. Hereafter, WE.

3

“The ‘journey’ of ‘Nosological’ man ‘starts’ in

‘Nothing,’ ‘producing’ the condition of possibility of something

– the nothing – out of nothing the something….”3 The very

foundation of man starts with “Nothing” which fundamentally

indicates its being “Nosological” towards the nothing to

something (worldly existence) and going back “again”4 to

“Nothing.” It elucidates the ground of the “awareness” of its

“Fullness” through its “Nothingness” that will lead the man to

its ‘‘Nothing-All” or an “All-Nothing” man.5 This will “open” a

new “paradigm” of an “unknown (?)” idea of man’s origin that will

give a contemporary concept of man’s ultimate “Possibility,” the

“Nothingness” of man.

B. Man founded on nothing to something (ontological)

Ontology has for its object being as existingand its categories. It is the study ofentities and reality. It focuses onfoundations of reality and, thus, it isfoundational philosophy. It asks questionsabout being, substance, existence, essence,identity, physical objects, properties,accidents and universals. It classifies

3 Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr., “Nosological’’ Man (Part2) (Unpublished work,2015), 5. Hereafter, Nosological Man 2.

4 ”again” here indicates the “journey” or the “instancing” of man from itsessence and existence going to “Nothing”

5 Nosological Man 2, 5.

4

objects into concrete, abstract, existent,nonexistent, real, ideal, independent anddependent. Thus, it has different types suchas formal (and material/regional),descriptive and formalized ontologies.6

In Western philosophy, the basic foundation of man is based

on the egoistic, solipsistic and ontological point of view or its

“I-ness” that originates from nothing. The starting point of

everything in man is in the “I” which will bring us to the idea

of “nothing” as the basis. Nothing as a “vacuum” becomes the

starting ground of existence of being, for the “emptiness” of

nothing there is something. The something here becomes the

reality of existence where it is bounded in space and time. It

was all made possible by the “consciousness” who perceives it

because it will become the determiner of something that exists.

“Existential understanding is a worked-out understanding of

the ontological structures of existence, that is, of what it is

to be Dasein.”7 The implication of this kind of idea focuses on

the existential point of view which “limits” the possibility of

man as a being “We”. The problem of existence as something

6 Raul Corazzon, Theory and History of Ontology, (in www.ontology.com).7 Hubert L. Dreyfus, Being-in-the-World A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time

(Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 1991), 20.

5

“inauthentic” becomes a hindrance to accept the reality of “care”

and “solicitude” towards the “We.” Thus, being ontological man,

must go “beyond” itself in order to “allow” and “let be” itself

to reveal an eye opener towards the “concept” of “We.”

C. “We” as man and “I” as man

Before anything else, the meaning of “We” is not a

pronoun that we commonly understand but it is more of the verb in

the imperative mood – a command to remember and become the

original ground of everything, to be “We.” 8 “It” is not also an

essence or existence but a “non-existence” and “non-essence.”9

Thinking outside the reality of Western thought, the

notion of “We” represents the “very” origin and hindmost

foundation of man. The “We-ness” of man stands as the primordial

ground of its existence in the “world.” Without the “We,” the “I-

ness” of man will be left unresolved and unclear. The implication

of “We” in this perception is the leeway to understand fully the

entire purpose of “we” which is “to be We!” in the real sense.

8 WE, 80. 9 WE, 76.

6

However, on the side of Western thought where the “I”

becomes the basic framework of all existence, this idea will

repudiate the conception of the “We.” Why? Because the western

mind believes that the “I” is the ground of all existence

(ontological), and the issue here is all about existence which

will somehow create an “egologic” mentality in a way that it

focuses only on the being-in-itself (distinction of I from

another I) and not on the other “We”.10 Because of the

“undetermined” future of death, the only way to “terminate” this

particular idea is to associate the “I” with existence, which if

we will analyse it deeply, the path is toward “solipsistic”

reality, in a manner that the question of its being will remain a

“mystery.” If the “I” is purely the “I” without the acceptance of

the “we,” the “I” will remain “blurred” and “uncertain” because

of the absence of point of reference. How can the “I” make sure

of its “I-ness” without another “I”? How can the “I” becomes an

“I” without other “Is” or in short the “we”? Thus, the

inseparable reality of I-we relationship must be highly accepted

10 WE, 72.

7

in order to develop a kind of commonality of “worlds” towards the

“world” to the “We.”

Chapter II

2. “Tawo” as man on “Care” and “Solicitude”

A. The “hereness” and “thereness” of “tawo” as point of

reference of “kitawo”

When “I” encounters another “I,” it manifests space where

the “here” and “there” are becoming possible, and it shows a

motion that tells about the movement of a before and an after.11 The

emphasis of a before and an after indicates the flow of time wherein

it shows the presence of time - which speaks about the

temporality of the world. This will explicate the entrance of

“thereness” and “hereness” of “tawo” in the world (“timed-world”)

for it shows presence of “spacial” reality. But in order to know

the “there-ness” and “here-ness” of “tawo,” it must have another

“tawo” that will really signify the space of the two movements as

11 WE, 39.

8

point of reference between them. The being “here” of the “tawo”

will remain questionable without the presence of another pole of

existence. For example, I will declare my being-here but the

problem is, how can I declare my “here-ness” if there is no

“there-ness” of the other “tawo?” Thus, the “I’’ will only become

possible through the presence of another “I” that will lead

itself to think of the “I” as another “tawo” that will eventually

create a sphere of “ako and ikaw” are “tawo” and both of us are

“kita-tawo” in the same sphere of existence. It will highlight

not only the “I” that exists but the “kita-tawo-in-the-world”

where it will possibly lead the “tawo” to think about the concept

of the “kita-tawo” as its basic framework of its existence-in-

the-world.

The notion of “kita-tawo” will only become possible if there

is an “acceptance”12 and “communion” between the two existing

entity (my being “tawo” is the same as his that will develop a

“kita-tawo” consciousness). It requires other idea of another

“tawo” so that it will not be prone to error and “solipsism.”13

12 “acceptance” means an understanding that there is really “others” besides “I’s” existence that will lead to the idea of “we” and towards “We”.

13 “Solipsism” is the metaphysical view that my mind alone exists, it isthe only reality; and that all things other than my mind exist only as the

9

The “kita-tawo” will be commonly understood under the realm of

many “Is” which thoroughly indicates the common ground of

experience leading towards a deeper understanding of “kita-tawo”

in general.

B. The “existence-essence’’ of “tawo” on “Care”

“…Dasein always comes ‘too late’; for in so far as it does

this presupposing as an entity (otherwise this would be

impossible), it is, as an entity, already in the world.”14 This line

of text emphasises the already-being-there of Dasein in the

world, which ultimately to question its Being. If the Dasein will

make “earlier” presupposition, it is the “priori” character of

its state of Being as one whose kind of Being is care.15

In the realm of temporality (being in the world) of Dasein

(because of its entity in “time”), it will encounter a phenomenon

of “things” which will give itself an “anxiety” in regards to the

attainment of its (Dasein’s) “authenticity”. The existence of

“things” as an object of its existence will result its

thought of my mind. – T.Z. Lavine, From Socrates to Sartre the Philosophy Quest (NewYork: Bantam Books, 1984), 418.

14 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1962) 249. Hereafter, BT.

15 BT, 249.

10

“falleness,” which eventually become the problem of its “Being-

authentic.” “Concern is a character-of-being which Being-with

cannot have as its own, even though Being-with, like concern, is

a Being towards entities encountered within-the-world.”16 In this

particular situation, the difficulty of Dasein to become

“authentic” hinders itself to grasp the totality of its Being and

lead itself to search its wholeness. This quest of totality

brings the Dasein to be more engage to the entire phenomenon of

care. But the structure of care does not speak against the

possibility of Being-a-whole but is the condition for the possibility of

such an existentiell potentiality-for-Being.17 Moreover, the

Being-in-the-world can cause falleness and disclosedness which repeatedly

to go back again to the issue of its potentiality-for-Being as a whole,

both in its Being alongside the ‘world’ and its Being-with-

Others.18

The Dasein as “tawo-in-the-world” will now be experiencing a

negation of its Being-with in a complete sense. The everydayness

of “tawo-in-the-world-with-care” will continually give anxiety

16 BT, 157. 17 BT, 365.18 BT, 225.

11

“in-itself” where it shows being-present-at-hand of care. The

“undeniable” presence of the being-there of care is already in

the reality of the world. In this context of the existing reality

of care, this will give the “tawo-in-the-world” a perception to

accept the “given-ness” of care-in-the-world. The existence of

tree in there is a “given” reality already that needs to accept

because of its being a present-at-hand phenomenon.

Thus, the “tawo” has no choice but to accept the being-there

of “care-in-the-world” which can eventually give itself an idea

to accept also the existence of many “tawo-in-the-world.” The

being-“tawo” of the “tawo” will essentially more foundational

through many “tawo” because it will help itself to deeply clarify

the question of its being “tawo.” For example, the existence of

the “tawo” will be fundamentally “acceptable-in-itself” if there

is another tawo who will “affirm” its existence. The “tawo”

becomes a “tawo” because of the existence of many “tawo” which

can lead itself in a state of “we” as “kita-tawo” towards deeper

exploration of “kita-tawo-in-the-world.”

12

C. The “We” (Kitawo) in “tawo” on “Solicitude”

“[A]nxiousness as a state-of-mind is a way of Being-in-the-

world; that in the face of which we have anxiety is thrown Being-

in-the-world; that which we have anxiety about is our

potentiality-for-Being-in-the-world.”19 Being-with-others is a

concrete reality where Dasein experiences “anxiety.” This

“anxiety” signifies Dasein as factically existing in the world.20

It will hinder itself towards its “authenticity” because of the

“dwellings” or “encounters” they made along the way. It is a

“given” reality where the presence of others is already there

leading to be in the state of Being-with.

Going to the concept of “Kitawo” in “tawo,” the existence of

many “tawo” will further explain the “we” in “tawo” by the

presence of “anxiety” that binds them with one another. As the

“tawo” experiences the “anxiety” from another “tawo” or group of

“tawo,” it will concretely show the meaning of the actual

existence of “kita-tawo-in-the-world” leading towards the idea of

“Kitawo-in-tawo-in-the-world.” The “Kitawo-in-tawo-in-the-world” will serve as

19BT, 235.20 BT, 235.

13

a “jumping-board” to fully grasp the meaning of “Akitalibutan,”

for it will deeply define the “kita-tawo” as the determiner of

the world. Without the presence of “kita-tawo,” the world of

“tawo” will become solipsistic. The “kita-tawo” is the

constituter of the “tawo” because the “certainty” of being “tawo”

of the “tawo” can be found only in the “kita-tawo.”21

D. “We-Time” “in” man and man-and-others

The “We” in man indicates its being “Nosologic” because of

the “mystery” of its beginning as “We-Time-Nothingness” (it is the

“beyond” nothingness of meontology- “non-graspable” state of

“tawo”) and death as “instancing” to “Nothing-Everything.” This

“We-Time” “in” man has infinite possibilities for it “is not”

“what is” (essence) and “is” (existence), but it is a condition

for the possibility of “what is” and “is.”22 In the state of man-

in-the-world (something), this notion of “We-Time” “in” man is a

kind of an “innate” structure where it can be considered as its

“Nosologic” identity. It is a “given” Characteristic “in” man

where along the process of its existence in the world, it will

21 WE, 71.22 WE, 65.

14

become conscious of this “Possibility” “in” itself. In the “We-

Time” condition, the “I” will no longer distinguishable from

other “Is” because“It” is already “We.”

Man-and-others is situated in the existential reality where

man is distinguishable or identifiable from other man. It is a

state where man can consciously think of his “what is” (essence)

and “is” (existence). “The ontologically relevant result of our

analysis of Being-with is the insight that the ‘subject

character’ of one’s own Dasein and that of Others is to be

defined existentially…”23 The ground of all beings-in-the-world

can be determined in an existential phenomenon, encountering what

they are and what they do. As the man identify its body from

another body, it will become aware of their distinction and

differences from one another. The man will create a dealing-with-

each-other in the world and with entities within the world which

eventually dispersed themselves into manifold ways of concern.24

Thus, the disclosure and explication of man regarding others will

become his preliminary and accompanying theme as it will go along to

“know” more about itself. Man-and-others is a notion to man as it23 BT, 163.24 BT, 95.

15

will continuously explore the “other” side of its Being-towards-

death.

Chapter III

3. “Instancing” of “Nosological” Man and “Becoming” of “Ontological” Man

A. “Becoming” towards “Authenticity”(Death) and

“Instancing” towards “Nothing”

As the man undergo the process of existence towards its end,

the situation of its ensuing “condition” after death is left

“hanging” and “questionable.” Such questions like, what is “in”

“there” after death? Am I still conscious of my Being after I

die? Can I still encounter different entities “in” “there?”

Different kinds of questions are still under the realm of

“possibility” and still “unanswerable”. No one knows what is “in”

“there?” The play of various possibilities constantly open the

consciousness of man towards its ultimate end.

a. The “outstanding” and “not-yet” of Dasein

16

“…in Dasein there is always something still outstanding, which, as a

potentiality-for-Being for Dasein itself, has not yet become

‘actual.’”25 As long as the Dasein exists, it will continuously

experience the reality of its “not-yet.” This particular

perspective shows the “something unsettled” regarding the

“wholeness” of Dasein. The “not-yet” explicates the potentiality-of-

Being of Dasein towards its end – which is constantly an

outstanding.26 It is in the situation wherein the “lacking” “in”

itself must be filled up. It signifies the missing of its totality as

a whole in relation to its existence in the world. “But as soon

as Dasein ‘exists’ in such a way that absolutely nothing more is

still outstanding in it, then it has already for this very reason

become “no-longer-Being-there” [Nicht-mehr-da-sein].”27 This will

indicate the incapacity of Dasein to reach its “wholeness” while it

is still an entity. It will lose its Being-in-the-world, to “no-

longer-Being-there,” if it will gain its “wholeness” in an

absolute sense.

25 BT, 279. – “something still outstanding” came from the verb “ausstehen”and the noun “Ausstand” (these words are ordinarily used in German to apply toa debt or a bank deposit which, from the point of view of the lender or depositor, has not yet repaid to him, liquidated, or withdrawn)

26 BT, 286.27 BT, 280.

17

b. “No-longer-Being-there” of Dasein

In this concept, the “no-longer-Being-there” means the no-

longer-Dasein of the Dasein which will draw to its Being-no-

longer-in-the-world. The change-over of an entity from Dasein’s

existence-in-the-world going to no-longer-Dasein will create a

dilemma towards its “entity.” Neither it will only be the same

Being nor just a Being-just-present-at-hand-and-no-more (it is

“more” lifeless” material Thing).

Heidegger’s enquiry regarding Dasein’s “no-longer-Being-

there” presupposes the idea of Being-just-present-at-hand-and-no-

more of a corporeal Thing which we encounter.28 It is a kind of

“non-existential” part of Dasein’s “Being-ness” where its Being-

in-the-world becomes a Being-alongside. But still it is a Being in

the highest sense. This ultimate perception of Dasein in the

state of death widens the very scope of its Being which offers a

concept of dying as a possibility-of-Being towards its death that

belongs to his Being.29

c. The confrontation of nothing from “death” towards “Being-authentic”

28 BT, 281.29 BT, 283.

18

“Absolutizing our horizon of disclosure andso misconstruing our world of beings asconstituting the totality of what there is,locked into two-dimensionality of taking the‘globe of Being’ to be a flat, illuminateddisk, were we take its other ‘side’ to be anabsolute – an ‘empty’, a completely‘privative-negative’-‘nothing.’” 30

The emphasis of this idea will directly create a series of

possibilities in regards to the searching of “authenticity” of

Dasein. By thinking of its potentiality-of-Being in Being-in-the-

world, it will open a new perspective of the “beyond” – outside

the domain of existential reality, the nothing. This idea will

become an entrance to deeply explore the other side of non-

existence and non-relation, the idea of nothingness.

d. Something and nothing

The idea of an “authentic” man grounded on the notion of

Being-alone-in-death will theoretically develop a thought of

“beyond” existence – the non-existence leading towards the idea of

nothing. The non-existence will not anymore cover the reality or

“existence” and “essence” that will lead to a deeper

understanding of beyond-death. It will directly go back to the

30Julian Young, Heidegger’s Later Philosophy, (Cambridge University Press, 2002)68. Hereafter, HLP.

19

idea of something to nothing. If there is something, there is

nothing also. That will simply tell about the no-longer-Dasein as

nothing because when it is in the state of Being-in-the-world, it

represents its Being-something. The more “somethingness” asserts

its “somethingness” it confirms its nothingness.31 Thus, if we

will try to reflect this specific idea, we will be exploring the

other-side-Being of Dasein itself, the ‘realm’ of nothingness.

e. Nothingness as “alone” in “Authenticity”

The “revelation” of nothing out of something creates a leeway

to explore deeply the journey of Dasein in relation to its “whole”

structure. In order to fully grasp the “wholeness” of Dasein’s

Being, it must be open to the possibility of nothing. Dasein’s

incapacity to experience death will ideally construct a perception

of nothingness. How? In the case wherein Dasein is no-longer-

Dasein and Being-no-longer-in-the-world, the ontological

structure of its Being will turn into meontological (nothing)

concept because of the absence of actual experience. Although the

paradox of its “authenticity” creates a perception about the

31 Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr., Nothingness of Something (Unpublished work, 2010), 12.

20

totality of its being through death, but if it will go further from

the realm of its Being, it can possibly discover a new hypothesis of

its entire Being through nothing. The shift of its being something

to its being nothing will ultimately open a new interpretation of

its “fullness.” Dasein’s going-out-of-the-world in the sense of

dying will presuppose non-existence because of its absence in his

body. Therefore, if there is no existence-in-the-world, there is

nothing, for existence happens only in the realm of something.

Now, the body as dead will represent its materiality, while the

going-out-of-the-world will characterize its Being-nothing

towards its “authenticity.”

f. Nothing (“flow”) to “instancing” to “Nothing” (“Freeze”/ “Unflow”)

Being in the state of nothing, the notion of non-existence,

non-Being and non-relation will ultimately become a ‘truth’

because existence and relation happens only in the demesne of

space and time. This nothing will open the field of meontology.32

It is the study or science of non-being or un-being; of what lies

32 See, Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr., “Nosology” as “Me-Meontology” (Unpublishedwork, 2013), 3-4.

21

beyond Being; a kind of non-ontological metaphysics.33 The

possibility of something (the world of Being) is made possible by

nothing. “…nothing is the ground of something because it is

nothing that conditions something – out of nothing, something.”34

The emptiness or absence of something indicates the idea of

nothing, for nothing will become impossible if there is

something. Thus, the non-something will ultimately procure the

idea of nothing (“flow”). But in nothing, there is still a “flow”

of “another” time (an abstract time) and “empty” space (makes the

past, present and future possible) which emphasizes the

“presentation” of its nothingness. It is a “phenomenon” that

emphasizes the totality of “absence” and “emptiness.”

However, if we will try to analyse it deeply, the nothing

has a “movement” which made possible by “another” time and

“empty” space, and if we will go beyond to the idea of its

“movement,” we will discover the concept of the “Unmoved.” The

“Unmoved” shows the “Static” “Reality” where no one can grasp

including the reality of our understanding. Our incapacity to be33 Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr., “Nosology” as “Me-Meontology” (Unpublished

work, 2013), 3.34 Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr., “Nothing” “Somethings”: “Nihilensic Nosology”

(Unpublished work, 2011), 12. Hereafter, Nihilensic Nosology.

22

“There” hinders us to capture the wholeness of Its “Essence.”

This will give us the point of the “Ungrasp,” “Static” and

“Unmoved” “Nothing.” Even our cognitive thinking cannot entirely

“grasp” its “Nothingness,” because thinking is just an object of

thought originated in our existence. Thus, to say “Nothing” means

to say ____________. The “idea” of “Nothing” will give us the

line of understanding regarding man’s foundation as “Nosological”

“We-man” and “Nothing-man.” It is a “beyond” of the beyond of the

reality of existence. By “thinking” “Nothing” is the same as

“thingking” “We” in the “perfect” sense.

In the “instancing” towards “Nothing,” there are no other

possibilities to consider because it is already “beyond”

nothingness, the “Unmoved.” It indicates the “whole” structure of

man which is “innate” or a “given” in him. It is an “acceptable”

in man because there is no thinking required in order to fully

understand his being “Nothing.”

When we think of “Nothing,” thinking “freezes”and it is not thinking anymore. It can only be“instancing.” When thinking “freezes” and cannot“flow” then thinking does not work anymore buthas to give way to “instancing” (a “standing in”)of “Nothing.” “Nothing” cannot be an object of

23

thought because it is not thinking that is“proper” act for “Nothing.” It is “instancing.”35

Therefore, when man dies it will directly presuppose its

“instancing” towards “Nothing.” This will conceptualize the idea

of “Nothing-man” that will apodictically explicate his being a

“Nosological” man. The perfect structure of man is “We-Time-

Nothingness” that will guarantee its fullness from the “Beginning-

Nothing” until back “again” to “Nothing.”

B. “Nothing” “in” man

The ‘knowing’ of man who he is will definitely cover the

“reality” of “beyond” existence, the nothing, and the beyond of

the “beyond,” which is ultimately the “Nothing.” The “Nothing”

“in” man implies the wholeness of its entire structure. As the man

realizes that he is a something, he should essentially realize

also that he is nothing, and out of that nothing, there will be

the “unmoved” or “ungraspable” concept of “Nothing.” Man on its

completeness is a totally “Nothing,” for it is through “Nothing”

that he becomes nothing which makes him as something and as death

comes, he is “instancing” “Nothing.” The cycle of man’s life

35 Nihilensic Nosology, 1.

24

revolves on “Nothing” because it is where the “Fullness” of its

being a man lies. Thus, the “Nothing” “in” man emphasizes the

“given” structure within him which totally completes the

“essence” of its “Nosologicality.”

C. “Nosological” man as a Primordial “We”

Going beyond the idea of being (something) and non-being

(nothing) will finally lead us to the “idea” of “Nosological” man

as “We-Nothing.” “Nosological” man as “We-Nothing” explains the

“ungraspable” or the “given-ness” of its structure in relation to

its “Totality” as man. The “Completeness” of its foundation lies

on its “We-ness.” For it is through “It” that man can attain its

“Perfection.” Moreover, if we will analyse deeply the idea of

“Nothing,” it will bring us to the concept of Primordial “We.”

How? Looking from the perspective of the “We,” we become one on

“It” and we cannot distinguish from one another because

distinction happens only in the realm of something, an

existential concept.36 In existence there is a clear distinction,

but in “Nothing” no one is distinct from one another because of

the no “non-being” concept. Finally, the Primordial “We” develops36 Nosological Man 2, 4.

25

a “Foundation” “in” man which defines its being “We.” This will

become a “perception” about the “very” basis of man as “We” and

not an “I” precisely. And this will “reveal” the essence of man

in his existence that he is a “We” in the truest sense. Because

in “We,” everything is possible.

Chapter IV

4. “Consciousness” as “World” and “consciousness-in-the-world”

A. The “sameness” of world and consciousness

Without the world, there is no “consciousness.” Without the

consciousness, there is no world. Consciousness makes the world

possible through perceiving the world as world, and the world

becomes the product of consciousness. The world precisely becomes

a world because of the consciousness who is conscious of its

being a world. “Whatever we are conscious of (consciousness

included) is the world – our world.”37 Thus, our consciousness

makes our world as “we are-world.” Our world makes us also “we”

because we are the ones who are conscious of its being a world.

Consciousness as World will give us the idea of our being a “we-

37 WE, 41.

26

world.” We are the world which made possible of our being

conscious of its worldliness.38

B. Consciousness as a subject of Being-in-the-world

(Western Approach)

Consciousness as part of the Dasein’s existence makes itself

as the subject of the reality by way of knowing. It links with

the problem whether reality is independent of consciousness. This

will imply the importance of consciousness in terms of grasping

the “Real” in connection to the problem of external world. “…the

analysis of Reality is possible only on the basis of our having

appropriate access to the Real.”39 This will indicate that

consciousness is the way to access to the Real. Because without

consciousness, there is no knowing that will happen which

ultimately makes itself the subject of reality and its Being-in-

the-world. Thus, consciousness as the source of knowing will

really carry the sense of its being the subject-in-the-world.

C. “I Am We Are-World-Consciousness” as “Akitalibutan”

38 WE, 41.39 BT, 246.

27

“I Am We Are-World-Consciousness” is a sort of communal

consciousness of the world which makes the notion of “I Am We Are-

World” possible. “We-World” makes the personal communal world as

an objective world. Why? Because the only world that we are

conscious of is the personal communal world.40 This personal

communal world as “I Am We Are-World” will thoroughly create an idea

of “Akitalibutan” wherein the “I” who’s conscious of the world will

link itself to the “we” in order to have a sense of “certainty”

and can eventually avoid the idea of “solipsism.” “The ‘we’ (the

point of objectivity) ‘links’ the [‘I’] to the world as

objective.”41 The “I” can finally attain its being stable in

relation to its consciousness to the world. The “kita” in

“Akitalibutan” will now become the central point of objectivity of

the world. The world will surely become senseless if there is no

“we,” as the essence of its worldliness, because its being world

lies on the consciousness of the “we.” Thus, the “I am” world

(consciousness of “I” to the world) will be grounded in the “we

are” in order to reach the “truthfulness” of its idea of the

world. In this context, the “I am” and the “we are” will become

40 WE, 41.41 WE, 89.

28

one as “I am we are” (“Akita”). The “I am we are” is conscious of

the world that makes itself as “I am we are-world” or

“Akitalibutan.” “[The] ‘Akita’ (I am we are) is the condition for

the possibility of akalibutan (I am world) making it kitalibutan (we

are world).”42 The “akalibutan” and “kitalibutan” will now truly

become “Akitalibutan” by being conscious of it that will directly

lead to a personal communal objective world consciousness.

Chapter V

5. “We” are “One” as “Nothing-Everything”: “I can’t live without We”

In an existential point of view, “we” is composed of many

“Is” that are distinct from each other. Many “Is” give the

possibility to the “we” in order to create a commonality of

experience and consciousness. In this particular situation, the

reality creates various distinctions that will differentiate one

“I” from the other. However, in “Nosological” foundation of man,

the man as “I” is no longer an “I” but a “We.” In the “realm” of

“We,” every “Is” will become “One” in a view that “Nosological”

42 WE, 89.

29

man goes “beyond” from its physical reality, wherein everyone is

distinguishable from each other. The emphasis of “We” in “Nothing-

Everything” is directed towards the fullness of “Nosological” man.

The capacity of man to become “Everything” is thoroughly founded

out of his “Nothingness.” His attainment of his “Fullness” can be

determined through his being a “Nothing-Everything.” “With

‘Nosological’ man as ‘Nothing,’ ‘Everything’ is possible for

him.”43

A. The “impossibility” of the “I” without the “We”

“We” as the ultimate “Foundation” of man will surely cover

and capture the sense of “I” as Being because it goes beyond of

the “beyond.” In concrete phenomenon, a man can individually live

without the help of others. He can eat alone, drink alone, and

can extremely survive without the aid of others. But in a deeper

sense, all his actions, consciousness, and any other

characteristics can be fundamentally identified because of the

influence of others. For example, the clothes he wears, the food

he eats, etc. Thus, the “I” cannot live alone, but he has the

capacity to deny all those possessions by neglecting all those43 Nosological Man 2, 5.

30

things. However, in the side of man as being “Nosological.” He

cannot totally escape his structure as “We” for it is already a

“given-thing” in his “Nosologicality.” Therefore, the “I” becomes

impossible without the “We” because “It” is the very “origin” of

his being an “I” in the world.

B. Inseparable “I-We-World”

Unlike from the worldly existence, the “I-We-World” is

considered as an inseparable “reality” where there is no

distinction, differences, and otherness. This “phenomenon” of “I-

We-World” signifies the Unity, Communion and Oneness of its entire

structure. In spite of its being “One,” the pivotal, the crucial

ground, the essential basis of the concept is the “We.”44 The

central point of “We” is to eliminate the “ego-based” structure

of existence in the world. Although, the “We” is quite hypothetical

in relation to the existential reality, but “It” will serve as

the foundation of “egoistic” phenomenon. The “World” meant here is

interrelated to the consciousness which is aware of its being a

world. “The world is world because of consciousness.”45

44 WE, 87. 45 WE, 41.

31

Furthermore, if we will try to separate the “I,” “We” and

“World,” we will be left hanging because the three are

interconnected with each other; for without the presence of each

other, their existence might become impossible and undetermined.

Although, the “I” and “We” can live without the world but

emphasis of the world is in the consciousness itself. Thus, the

concept of “I,” “We,” and “World” can essentially contribute

towards the significance of each other. For example, in order the

“I” to avoid the threat of solipsism, it must consider the

existence of others and the world. It will become conceivable if

it is in the domain of the “We.” The “We” becomes the constituter of

the “I” although later the “I” in its drive for independence and

freedom postulates that it is the constituter of everything, all

for the “I.”46 In worldly existence, the “We” will become

impossible without the presence of many “Is.” However, the two

persons might not become aware of their selves without the world

where consciousness of the world happened and realized. But this

doesn’t mean that the world is the subject of their existence,

instead it is a “place” where everyone (entities) has a

46 WE, 71.

32

consciousness. Moreover, the effect of the inseparable reality of

“I-We-World” is directed towards the attainment of objective world

where the common ground is in the “We.” Thus, the emphasis of “I-

We-World” can ultimately give meaning to everything.

C. “Unity” of “I’s” as “We” towards “Akitalibutan”

In existential reality of the world, every man seems to be

divided from each other. There is no unity among individuals who

are living in one concrete world. Misunderstanding and

misinterpretations are happening along the domain of the question

“what is the world?” Is it a world? Or worlds? It signifies the

root of many doubts and confusions in terms of understanding the

self and others.47 These particular instances might be the

originating cause of all rebellions and disunions between

persons, races and cultures. Moreover, the underlying concept of

unity and communion are not possibly applicable to all because of

these stated problems. There is something wrong within our

foundation as human beings. That would be the problem of the

worlds in the world. The word worlds is intertwined with47 WE, 3.

33

consciousness. Why? Because consciousness shapes the world, and

the world is where the consciousness is being shaped. Thus, this

analysis would give us the idea the “we are the world.” “…

Consciousness of the world is at the same time consciousness as

world. The consciousness that is conscious of the world is the

world itself – a self-consciousness.”48

Furthermore, the recent situation of the world is something

far from the communal or objective world because of the existence

of plurality and singularity. Objective will only become possible

if there are communion of perception by accepting others worlds.

Their perception of the world and the perception of an individual

person of the world could create a personal communal world.49 If

every person is aware of this personal communal world, there will

be a communion and acceptance of the “I am We are the World”

concept or “Akitalibutan.” “We” consciousness will truly lead

everyone to be aware that they are the one who create the “Our

World,” the “We – World.” Thus, by accepting the veracity of “We

– World,” it will directly link this to the idea regarding the

48 WE, 41. 49 See, Domingo Rafael A. Alimajen Jr., “We”: “Nosology” of Communion (Jaro,

Iloilo City, Philippines: St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary Publications, 2009), 41.

34

very foundation of man as “We,” the “Nosological” man. By

remembering the “We – World,” every man will become equal and

justice will now reign the whole complexity of humanity. The

acceptance and communion of one another will apodictically

clarified the sense of being as “We” – the original structure of

every man as a “Nosological” in the truest sense. Through the

communal awareness as “One World,” the “We-World,” everybody will

attain such happiness and peace that will gradually unite all man

as “Kitawo/Akitalibutan” towards “instancing” “We-Time-

Nothingness.”

Conclusion

Positively, this paper will end up with the affirmation

regarding man’s foundational journey as “Nothing” to nothing to

something and “instancing” “Nothing.” This will highlight the

idea that “Nosological” man is thoroughly founded on “Nothing.”

This particular idea will create a certain perspective that man’s

ultimate ground is the “Primordial” “We.” The “We” is innate in

35

man’s structure that will distinct itself from the “egoistic”

phenomenon of the Western thought.

The “We” as “Kitawo” in man explicate the identity of man as

“We” and not as “I” which will give itself an awareness of others

as “tawo” also like itself. In that particular condition, the

“tawo” will accept the “hereness” and “thereness” of that

particular “tawo” that will link themselves as “kitawo-in-the-

world.” It will simply imply the idea of “ikaw” and “ako” are

both “kitawo” who are existing, and later on will be “instancing”

towards “Kitawo” as the “main” point.

As the man “instancing” “Nothing” through death, it will

highlight the “Fullness” of man towards its “We-ness.” The

reality of death reveals the end point of the existence of Being-

in-the-world which will really give the possibility of the

beyond, nothingness (“flow”), and the “beyond” of the beyond,

“Nothingness” (“Unflow”). The “truth” within the realm of

nothingness will totally give a perception to the totality of

Being. Because Being is determined only through the ontological

sphere of existence. Nevertheless, the Being-ness of Being will

36

become non-Being in the horizon of nothingness. Along the course

of nothingness, there is still a movement that “flows.” However,

if we will try to analyse it deeply, we will discover that in

order to have a movement or “flow,” there must be a “Unmoved.”

And that “Unmoved” is the “Nothing” as the ultimate ground of

Being and non-Being. Thus, this conception will clarify the

“origin” of man as “We-Nothing-Time.” In that state of

clarification as the man exists in the world, it will become

aware of its “We” in itself that will dispose itself towards its

being “Nosological.” This will build a perspective that

everything is possible through the concept of “We.”

The “Nosological” man as “We-man” will utterly realizes that

its consciousness will become the leeway to be conscious of the

world where its consciousness will be formed also. Along the

domain of its being conscious of the world, it will encounter

other consciousness that will wholly contribute to form a

personal communal world towards the notion of “Kitawo” from

“Akitalibutan” as the basis. By being conscious of the world and

other consciousness, it will develop a sense wherein the “I-We-

37

World” are inseparable with each other. “We” as the focal point

will become the determiner of the “I” and the world.

Therefore, the ultimate foundation of man as “We-Time-

Nothingness” will clarify all the confusions and doubts about the

whole structure Being. This will resolve the problem of Dasein

regarding the quest for the “truth” after death, as well as the

problems of plurality and diversity of Beings in the world. By

considering the “real” identity of man as “Nosological,” it will

construct a perception about the concept of “Kitawo” as the key

towards the reality of Objective world, a “One-World” for all.

38