[1] Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (1927) Human existence (Dasein) is possible as a constant reference to the past, in the present, in order to detect patterns for building the future.

“Temporality temporalizes as a future which makes present in the process of having been”

[2] Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason (1781) “Synthesis in general is … the mere effect of the imagination, of a blind though indispensable function of the soul, without which we would have no cognition at all, but of which we are seldom even conscious.”

[3] Aristotle, “Metaphysics” (4th century BC) "Actuality, then, is the existence of a thing not in the way which we express by 'potentially'; we say that potentially, for instance, a statue of Hermes is in the block of wood and the half-line is in the whole, because it might be separated out, and we call even the man who is not studying a man of science, if he is capable of studying; the thing that stands in contrast to each of these exists actually. Our meaning can be seen in the particular cases by induction, and we must not seek a definition of everything but be content to grasp the analogy, that it is as that which is building is to that which is capable of building, and the waking to the sleeping, and that which is seeing to that which has its eyes shut but has sight, and that which has been shaped out of the matter to the matter, and that which has been wrought up to the unwrought. Let actuality be defined by one member of this antithesis, and the potential by the other." (Metaphysics, 1048a30-1048b5) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820) “What is rational is actual; and what is actual is rational.” (S. 7, 24; R. 20)

[4] Baruch Spinoza, Ethics (1677) “Definition I. By that which is 'self-caused' I mean that of which the essence involves existence, or that of which the nature is only conceivable as existent.

...

Definition III. By 'substance' I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.”

Imagination becomes self-caused, causa sui that doesn’t need a physical world to generate the new.

[5] Aristotle, Categories (4th century BC) “Substance, in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance, the individual man or horse. But in a secondary sense those things are called substances within which, as species, the primary substances are included; also those which, as genera, include the species. For instance, the individual man is included in the species 'man', and the genus to which the species belongs is 'animal'; these, therefore-that is to say, the species 'man' and the genus 'animal,-are termed secondary substances.” Abstractions, the result of abstracting, are secondary substances.

[6] Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) “I shall then suppose, not that God who is supremely good and the fountain of truth, but some evil genius not less powerful than deceitful, has employed his whole energies in deceiving me; I shall consider that the heavens, the earth, colours, figures, sound, and all other external things are nought but the illusions and dreams of which this genius has availed himself in order to lay traps for my credulity; I shall consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, nor any senses, yet falsely believing myself to possess all these things; I shall remain obstinately attached to this idea, and if by this means it is not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of any truth, I may at least do what is in my power [i.e. suspend my judgment], and with firm purpose avoid giving credence to any false thing, or being imposed upon by this arch deceiver, however powerful and deceptive he may be. But this task is a laborious one, and insensibly a certain lassitude leads me into the course of my ordinary life. And just as a captive who in sleep enjoys an imaginary liberty, when he begins to suspect that his liberty is but a dream, fears to awaken, and conspires with these agreeable illusions that the deception may be prolonged, so insensibly of my own accord I fall back into my former opinions, and I dread awakening from this slumber, lest the laborious wakefulness which would follow the tranquillity of this repose should have to be spent not in daylight, but in the excessive darkness of the difficulties which have just been discussed.”

[7] Carl Gustav Jung, Jahrbuch fur psychoanalytische und psychopathologische Forschungen (1913) "Libido should be the name for the energy which manifests itself in the life process and which is perceived subjectively as striving and desire." Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation (1818) “... this world is, on the one side, entirely representation, just as, on the other, it is entirely will. But a reality that is neither of these two, but an object in itself (into which also Kant’s thing-in-itself has unfortunately degenerated in his hands), is the phantom of a dream, and its acceptance is an ignis fatuus in philosophy.” Schopenhauer draws an analogy between man and the world: “What is this world of perception besides being my representation? Is that of which I am conscious only as representation just the same as my own body, of which I am doubly conscious, on the one hand as representation, on the other as will!” “He would then also call the inner, to him incomprehensible, nature of those manifestations and actions of his body a force, a quality, or a character, just as he pleased, but he would have no further insight into it. All this, however, is not the case; on the contrary, the answer to the riddle is given to the subject of knowledge appearing as individual, and this answer is given in the word Will. This and this alone gives him the key to his own phenomenon, reveals to him the significance and shows him the inner mechanism of his being, his actions, his movements. To the subject of knowing, who appears as an individual only through his identity with the body, this body is given in two entirely different ways. It is given in intelligent perception as representation, as an object among objects, liable to the laws of these objects. But it is also given in quite a different way, namely as what is known immediately to everyone, and is denoted by the word will. Every true act of his will is also at once and inevitably a movement of his body; he cannot actually will the act without at “the bond of causality; they do not stand in the relation of cause and effect, but are one and the same thing, though given in two entirely different ways, first quite directly, and then in perception for the understanding.”

[8] Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (1932) “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. … The distinction of friend and enemy denotes the utmost degree of intensity of a union or separation, of an association or dissociation. It can exist theoretically and practically, without having simultaneously to draw upon all those moral, aesthetic, economic, or other distinctions. The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously deter- mined general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third party.” Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) “And be there never so great a Multitude; yet if their actions be directed according to their particular judgements, and particular appetites, they can expect thereby no defence, nor protection, neither against a Common enemy, nor against the injuries of one another. For being distracted in opinions concerning the best use and application of their strength, they do not help, but hinder one another; and reduce their strength by mutual opposition to nothing: whereby they are easily, not onely subdued by a very few that agree together; but also when there is no common enemy, they make warre upon each other, for their particular interests. For if we could suppose a great Multitude of men to consent in the observation of Justice, and other Lawes of Nature, without a common Power to keep them all in awe; we might as well suppose all Mankind to do the same; and then there neither would be no need to be any Civil Government, or Commonwealth at all; because there would be Peace without subjection.

And That Continually. Nor is it enough for the security, which men desire should last all the time of their life, that they be governed, and directed by one judgement, for a limited time; as in one Battell, or one Warre. For though they obtain a Victory by their unanimous endeavour against a foreign enemy; yet afterwards, when either they have no common enemy, or he that by one part is held for an enemy, is by another part held for a friend, they must needs by the difference of their interests dissolve, and fall again into a Warre amongst themselves.”

[9] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) “Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind … From Equality Proceeds Diffidence … From Diffidence Warre … Out Of Civil States, There Is Always Warre Of Every One Against Everyone Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For WARRE, consisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of Time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; as it is in the nature of Weather. For as the nature of Foule weather, lyeth not in a shower or two of rain; but in an inclination thereto of many daны together: So the nature of War, consisteth not in actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is PEACE.

The Incommodities Of Such A War. Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

In Such A Warre, Nothing Is Unjust. To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. Force, and Fraud, are in warren the two Cardinal virtues. ...

The Passions That Incline Men To Peace. The Passions that incline men to Peace, are Fear of Death; Desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a Hope by their Industry to obtain them. And Reason suggested convenient Articles of Peace, upon which men may be drawn to agreement.”

[10] Samuel Phillips Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations? (1993) “World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be?the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years. It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”

[11] Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace (1795) “a war of extermination, in which the simultaneous annihilation of both parties and with it of all right as well can occur, would let perpetual peace come about only in the vast graveyard of the human race.” “…reason, from the throne of the highest morally legislative power, delivers an absolute condemnation of war as a procedure for determining rights and, on the contrary, makes a condition of peace, which cannot be instituted or assured without a pact of nations among themselves, a direct duty; so there must be a league of a special kind, which can be called a pacific league (foedus pacificum), and what would distinguish it from a peace paa (pactum pacis) is that the latter seeks to end only one war whereas the former seeks to end all war forever. This league does not look to acquiring any power of a state but only to preserving and securing the freedom of a state itself and of other states in league with it, but without there being any need for them to subject themselves to public laws and coercion under them (as people in a state of nature must do). The practicability (objective reality) of this idea of a federalism that should gradually extend over all states and so lead to perpetual peace can be shown.”

[12] George Berkeley, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710) To exist means “to be perceived" or "Esse est percipi". To exist means to have digital attention. “I think an intuitive Knowledge may be obtained of this, by any one that shall attend to what is meant by the Term Exist when applied to sensible Things. The Table I write on, I say, exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my Study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that if I was in my Study I might perceive it, or that some other Spirit actually does perceive it. There was an Odor, that is, it was smelled; There was a Sound, that is to say, it was heard; a Colour or Figure, and it was perceived by Sight or Touch. This is all that I can understand by these and the like Expressions. For as to what is said of the absolute Existence of unthinking Things without any relation to their being perceived, that seems perfectly unintelligible. Their Esse is Percipi, nor is it possible they should have any Existence, out of the Minds or thinking Things which perceive them.”

[13] Having accepted the idea of the evolution of the biosphere, V. I. Vernadsky also changed his viewpoint upon the technological activities of the mankind. He came to consider them as a law governed evolutionary stage in the development of the biosphere. He believed in the strength of the human reason and supposed that the team scientific thought will overcome the negative results of the technogenesis and will secure, in future, the rational transformation (and not annihilation) of the natural components of the biosphere, for a maximum satisfaction of the material and spiritual demands of the mankind which is growing quantitatively. This future evolutionary state of the biosphere of the Earth was designated by V. I. Vernadsky “noosphere”, the sphere of reason (the term introduced as early as in 1922 by a French philosopher and mathematician Edouard Le Roy). "One may give a picture of the evolution of the biosphere beginning from the Algonkian, more clearly from the Cambrian, during 500-800 million years. Not once the biosphere turned into a new evolutionary state; new geological manifestations, never having existed before, emerged. For example, in the Cambrian, when large organisms with calcareous skeletons originated, or in the Tertiary (perhaps in the Late Cretaceous), 15-80 million years ago, when our forests and steppes formed and when big mammalians came into existence. We are living now (during the past 10-20 thousand years) in an analogous period when man, having elaborated the scientific thought in his social environment, creates a new geological force in the biosphere, previously absent there. The biosphere has been turned or is rather turning into a new evolutionary state—the noosphere—is being conversed by the scientific thought of the social mankind." "We can clearly see that this is the beginning of a spontaneous movement, the beginning of a natural phenomenon that cannot be broken off by any accidents in the human history. Here, perhaps for the first time, the relation of the historical processes to the palaeontological history of the manifestation of becomes so vividly evident. This process of the by man is conditioned by the course of the history of the scientific thought and tied up with the communication rate, with the achievements in the transport technology, with the possibilities of momentary thought transmission, due to which it may be discussed all over the Earth at the same time. The struggle against this main historical trend makes even its radical adversaries to subdue to it. The state formations ideologically denying the principles of equality and unity of all persons try to stop spontaneous manifestations of these principles by all means, but there is no doubt that these utopian dreams can be soundly put into life. This will inevitably happen in the course of time, for the creation of the noosphere out of the biosphere is a natural phenomenon, basically deeper and more powerful than the human history. It demands the manifestation of the humanity as a single whole, which is its necessary premise. This is a new stage in the history of the planet which does not permit us to use its historical past for comparison without some correction. For this stage creates something essentially new in the history of the Earth and not of the humanity alone. It is for the first time that a man had recognized himself as an inhabitant of the planet and may (and must) think and act from another viewpoint—not solely from that of a separate personality, family, or kin, state, union of states, but also from the planetary point of view. Like all living beings, man cannot think and act from the planetary aspect except in the realm of life, in the biosphere, a certain Earth envelope with which man is inseparably connected, and out of which he cannot go. Man’s existence is a function of the biosphere. He bears the latter with him everywhere. And he changes it inevitably, regularly, incessantly." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man (1955) “Our picture is of mankind labouring under the impulsion of an obscure instinct, so as to break out through its narrow point of emergence and submerge the earth; of thought becoming number so as to conquer all habitable space, taking precedence over all other forms of life; of mind, in other words, deploying and convoluting the layers of noosphere. This effort at multiplication and organic expansion is, for him who can see, the summing up and final expression of human pre-history and history, from the earliest beginnings down to present day.” “The universe is necessarily homogeneous in its nature and dimensions. Would it still be so if the loops of its spiral lost one jot or tittle of their degree of reality or consistence in ascending ever higher? The still unnamed Thing which the gradual combination of individuals, peoples and races will bring into existence, must needs be supra-physical, not infra-physical, if it is to be coherent with the rest. Deeper than the common act in which it expresses itself, more important than the common power of action from which it emerges by a sort of self-birth, lies reality itself, constituted by the living reunion of reflective particles. And what does that amount to if not (and it is quite credible) that the stuff of the universe, by becoming thinking, has not yet completed its evolutionary cycle, and that we are therefore moving towards some new critical point that lies ahead. In spite of its organic links, whose existence has everywhere become apparent to us, the biosphere has so far been no more than a network of divergent lines, free at their extremities. By effect of reflection and the recoils it involves, the loose ends have been tied up, and the noosphere tends to constitute a single closed system in which each element sees, feels, desires, and suffers for itself the same things as all the others at the same time. We are faced with a harmonised collectivity of consciousnesses equivalent to a sort of super-consciousness. The idea is that of the earth not only becoming covered by myriads of grains of thought, but becoming enclosed in a single thinking envelope so as to form, functionally, no more than a single vast grain of thought on the sidereal scale, the plurality of individual reflections grouping themselves together and reinforcing one another in the act of a single unanimous reflection.”

[14] Plato, Philebus (4th century BC): “Socrates:

Shall we not say that our body has a soul?

Protarchus:

Clearly we shall.

Socrates:

Where did it get it, Protarchus, unless the body of the universe had a soul, since that body has the same elements as ours, only in every way superior?

Protarchus:

Clearly it could get it from no other source.” Plato, Timaeus (4th century BC): “Thus He spake, and once more into the former bowl, wherein He had blended and mixed the Soul of the Universe, He poured the residue of the previous material, mixing it in somewhat the same manner, yet no longer with a uniform and invariable purity, but second and third in degree of purity. And when He had compounded the whole He divided it into souls equal in number to the stars, and each several soul He assigned to one star, and setting them each as it were in a chariot He showed them the nature of the Universe, and declared unto them the laws of destiny…” Plotinus, Enneads (c. AD 270) “...it is the identical soul that is present everywhere, the one complete thing, multi-present at the one moment: there is no longer question of a soul that is a part against a soul that is an all- especially where an identical power is present” “...one soul the source of all; those others, as a many founded in that one, are, on the analogy of the Intellectual-Principle, at once divided and undivided; that Soul which abides in the Supreme is the one expression or Logos of the Intellectual-Principle, and from it spring other Reason-Principles, partial but immaterial, exactly as in the differentiation of the Supreme.”