In one of the letters written to the Infeld group in Warsaw Einstein wrote:
"A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."

  
     Foundations in Ontology

========================================================
PRECIS OF RD. EXTERNAL FOUNDATIONS IN ONTOLOGY.
========================================================   
In EXTERNAL FOUNDATIONS IN PHYSICS we have described the
basic element of RD, the Dichotomy.  
However, as described there, Dichotomy lacks the 
justification of its existence, and of its existential 
structures. We shall try here to fill in this lacuna and 
to supply its ontological foundation.  

Reader familiar with rudiments of Philosophy will notice 
the kinship of our concepts with those of the Philosophy 
of Existence, which considers human existence as the 
central point of its investigations and which was always 
present throughout the history, from Socrates and Plato 
through Augustin (as opposed to Thomas), Pascal, Descartes, 
Kirkegaard, Jaspers to Heidegger and Sartre.
In particular, with Heidegger and Sartre, we consider 
Temporality as the basic structure of Existence.

Temporality has three aspects: Present, Past and Future.

Past is the domain of our "Object", which is a contingent 
Datum inaccessible to any intervention and change. We 
coincide here exactly with Sartre's "En soi" and Heidegger's 
"Wesen", which he described with one of the best sounding 
phrases of Philosophy: "Wesen ist was gewesen ist". 
Objective order is deterministic, based upon effective 
cause related to its effect.  

Future is the domain of our "Subject" which, as Heidegger's 
"Dasein" and Sartre's "Pour-soi" has the nature of "Project". 
Subjective order is teleological, based upon causa finalis 
related to its goal. 

Present is the domain of our "Awareness", which has some 
similarity with Heidegger's "Gegenwart" and Sartre's 
"Conscience (de) soi" or "Cogito prereflexif".  

RD sees Awareness as ontological foundation of Situation 
(Subject/Object) and, via Situation, of whole UH. As such, 
it transcends the scope of UH. It appears "as such", 
without any polar counterpart, i.e. in terms of RD as an 
Absolute.  We shall consider it as the Absolute Foundation 
of RD and as the unique Absolute recognized by RD.

Nevertheless, even a fundamental Absolute stays absolute 
and by virtue of the  Generalized Principle of Relativity                 
we cannot formulate any meaningful proposition about 
Awareness, including its definition. Accepting it as the 
unique Absolute we postulate that it is obvious "as such": 
I think, feel, see only upon the background of my Awareness 
of thinking, feeling, seeing. 

However, if Awareness as Absolute escapes all determinate 
symbolic, linguistic formulations, its essential obviousness 
makes it directly accessible to the Imaginary and, like 
"Conscience (de) soi" or ZEN, it may be illustrated with
examples, allegories and parables, such as the following 
Steersman allegory:  

Steersman steers his vessel watching the river through 
the only window facing the back. He sees the river unwind 
itself backwards as the vessel advances. He recognizes 
himself and his own error in the wake of his ship pointing
dangerously towards a bank. He corrects it with a 
counter-steer knowing that if the river is about to make 
a turn, this correction may crash the boat against the 
opposite bank. Luckily, his experience encompasses whirls, 
counter-currents, reflected waves and other precursory 
patterns announcing approaching turns, gorges and rapids. 
This experience, supported by the belief that it applies 
to the river ahead as well as it applied to it behind, 
helps him to steer with the future course of the river 
revealed to the eyes of his mind. 

Let us resume:
 
1.Subject is not object.
2.Subject founds object, i.e. is identical with object.
3.Being identical with object, subject is not identical 
  with itself.
 
2. and 3. mean respectively: identity of oppositions and 
non-identity with itself. Traditional Logic applied at 
this level would conclude that human situation is a 
series of contradictions, a paradox. By extension it 
would decree that whole human universe of discourse is 
paradoxical and, consequently, does not exist.
 
It would not be the first time that a deductive aprioristic 
theory disagrees with experience. Who is right in such 
cases, the theory, or the experience?
 
Hegel, informed that astronomical observations contradict 
his aprioristic model, that reality disagrees with his views 
answered: "So much the worse for the reality".
 
Should we likewise say "So much the worse for human reality"?
 
We would have to, if, instead of RD, we considered 
traditional Logic as the founding discipline of cognition. 
Indeed in a Universe of Discourse UL founded upon 
traditional Logic there is no place for human existence, 
nor, indeed for the human being at all.
 
Theories and ideologies claiming to be founded in UL lead 
invariably to sterile, stubborn dogmatism in science 
(eg. Theory of Ether) and to inhuman, cruel discrimination 
in social practice (Inquisition, Nazism, Gulag, etc.).  
========================================================