Everything and nothingness. Юрий Михайлович Низовцев

adequate display of the reality in own consciousness, and a lot of things he is forced to be taking on trust, and a lot of things to be testing in practice at random.

      Therefore those correct solutions, which the person finds, is difficult to call as the ultimate truth, they are rather the result of his experience, experience of prior generations, its own ingenuity, its ability to produce some general, to develop new theories, to deduce regularities on the basis of which he can produce new experiments, drawing other conclusions, and etc. But all this doesn't give exhaustive and final knowledge of a subject.

      Indeed, this definition can reflect only aspiration of human intelligence to cognition of things. The intelligence of the person is feeble, his life is short, and the real world is infinitely various. Some established patterns during cognition, flow of life are changed by others; new relationships, communications emerge.

      At this the world of the human relations is more complex and unstable, than the physical world. All achievements of human thought don't lead to elimination of dissociation of certain individuals and different peoples.

      The nature shows the force periodically, incomparable with human, easily breaking any human construction, as and the person, despite a present technical equipment of mankind.

      Therefore the doubt appears in many minds: are there any comprehensive, full or absolute truths generally, time nothing can make the person happy, his life the infinite and cloudless and, at the same time, meaningful?

      And indeed, we can operate by concept of absolute truth only concerning such banal statements as Volga flows into the Caspian Sea, and even then – in frames of the current life, when there are still seas and life itself.

      The deepening of scientists in the microcosm, in space exploration doesn't explain the appearance of the live in this world, appearance of self-consciousness in the humanoid, more precisely, the appearance of the being which can understand itself in any way.

      Therefore the definition of truth as full and exhaustive knowledge about such complex organized system of the world, believing such truth by absolute, absurdly on several reasons.

      In particular, it is impossible to exhaust knowledge, inasmuch process of cognition so vast in the relations even only the Universe known to us is boundless. Besides that, process of cognition by the person is limited by five sense organs and opportunities of his cogitative apparatus.

      Besides, there are also other measurements which, in principle, are unavailable to neither sensations of the person, nor his analytical skills. And generally, beingness, opened by consciousness in interaction with it, all the time changes, and these changes are irreversible. Changes of consciousness, from which depends quality of beingness, manifested by consciousness, are unpredictable and often arbitrary. If the absolute, more precisely, the fundamental truth nevertheless exists, it should be defined in another way – without binding to pansophy, which is impossible and senseless.

      As for objectivity of truth, this concept is interpreted by materialists, for example, in the person of Lenin V. I. so: "… can human ideas have a content that don't depend on a subject, that doesn't depend either on a human being, or on humanity?" [1, chapter 2.4]; "For the materialist, sensations are images of the sole and ultimate objective reality, – ultimate not in the sense that it has already explored to the end, but in the sense that there is not and can't be other" [1, chapter 2.4].

      Certainly, for the person and mankind objectivity of truth is manifested in existence of stars, planets, the person and his civilization; it is difficult to argue with this fact so how all this exists apart his will, and for example it is difficult "to force down" the Sun from an orbit, as well as to cancel all chemical and physical processes in a world and in an organism of the person.

      However the person is only temporal expression of consciousness in the world created by consciousness. Each personal consciousness through the person creates "the present" or own time, the direct surrounding, own life which, naturally, depends on this personal consciousness, but single consciousness participates hidden in this process. It forms through the organs of sensations of the person "now" of the person, i.e. that what is manifested before him.

      We will mark also that there is nothing surprising in it so how each individual consciousness in a holographic projection is the single consciousness, and vice versa, but each individual consciousness in the form of living being, i.e. – in beingness, is personified temporarily by means of blocking of the direct connection from its side with single consciousness. Single consciousness also forms a holographic projection of the eternal and infinite Uniform, the derivative of which is beingness.

      Therefore for consciousness beingness is" the creation" of own "hands" from own considerations or form-building abilities, but on the basis of the passive from Uniform.

      Thus such beingness can't be independent from consciousness; at the same time it depends from Uniform and can't exist without it, but each personal consciousness in coexistence (life) with own carrier owing to a temporal alienation from single consciousness with own side "falls" in objectively existing (independent of it) the world with the objects which are moving in space and being in time, and among objects of this world there are also similar individual consciousnesses in the form of living beings which anyway are forced to contact with each other, forming communities of this or that type depending on a level of their development.

      At this, for each individual consciousness the distant external world in the form of the Universe, stars, oceans and all that consciousness in own carrier doesn't see directly or it is incapable to sense of all these objects, certainly, is an objective world though it is formed by single consciousness which represents also each individual consciousness; but any individual consciousness in human life, and in any living being, "is cut off" from single consciousness and therefore even own "now" it forms by means of single consciousness on the basis of the specific sense organs the living being.

      It is clear from here that the appearing close world, or a surrounding of each person, his "now" too is not dependent directly from individual consciousness; any individual consciousness "accepts" a surrounding as it is, or as this world is manifested, although "now" of each individual consciousness is formed on the basis of sensations of the person, but the individual consciousness in the person "does" the own surrounding partly subordinate of itself only in the activities. Actually, for this purpose the world is "given" to each individual consciousness in the person. Otherwise, without this base, it would be senseless to speak about development of consciousness within the available environment.

      So that this difference in dependences and independence of the world from the person, communication of the world with the person through sensations should mark and not to declare unequivocally about secondariness of consciousness, about exclusivity of the objective reality which is reflected in our sensations as it has done Lenin V. I. or to declare, as it has done Mach and Avenarius, about coincidence of consciousness (sensations) and matter.

      The active (consciousness) can't be as secondary in relation to lifeless objects, or to the things, which are not capable to be reproduced, to the things which are not have a genome as well as the reality can't be exclusive, sole – the reality for each living being is its own and this reality is "scooped" by consciousness of each living being by means of the sense organs, which it has, directly from boundless Uniform with the hidden help of the single consciousness, to correspond to each living being, species which there can be a set.

      Nietzsche, apparently, has understood, more precisely, he intuitively has felt this difficult ratio of things and consciousness (sensations). He, in particular, disagreed that correspondence of language (the thinking tool) of external and internal reality is truth: "What such word? It is transmission by sounds of the first irritation. But to do the inference from irritation of nerves to the reason lying out of us there is already a result of false and inadmissible application of provision on the base. If only truth was a decisive condition in case of an origin of language, and collecting designations of subjects, people were satisfied only certainty, – then thus we could tell that: "the stone is solid" as though the word "solid" designates something absolute, but not our absolutely subjective sensation!" [2, p. 3].

      As for Avenarius in his opposition to an objective truth (which is denied by him) of value of cognition by the principle of the smallest expenditure of forces: "If