Allism: The Absolute All, Subjectivization, and Fulfilment

Abstract

Allism begins with a simple metaphysical claim: reality has no exterior. The Absolute All is not a container filled with independently constituted things. It is the whole field of actuality, coherent possibility, relation, perspective, experience, and whatever can be experienced. Human beings are neither detached fragments of that whole nor appearances that disappear under analysis. Each person is a real first-person localisation through which the All is lived as one body, one biography, one place, one time, and one stream of experience.The subjectivization hypothesis names this localisation. It addresses a question that remains obscure in both reductive and non-dual accounts: how can an all-inclusive reality be given as this experience - here, now, and as mine - without placing the subject outside the reality it experiences? Allism answers that local limitation concerns access rather than ontological source. Time orders the availability of configurations to a perspective. Matter is a stable and intersubjectively coordinated mode of access. The body gives subjectivity a public address. Desire gives local experience direction.The paper adds a further thesis: the All should be understood through a verb as well as a noun. The phrase the All fulfils itself does not imply that the All begins deficient and later becomes whole. It means that what is complete in being becomes determinate, embodied, and lived through local subjectivizations. Fulfilment changes access, participation, and expression; it adds nothing to the extent of the All. Manifestation is one purposive form of this fulfilment.Version 1.2 strengthens the account of decision and fruit. In operative unity, a completed decision does not merely designate a future result and await confirmation from a second authority. It constitutes the fruit as the determinate content of one completed act of the All. Formally, D(G) implies O*(G): where G is coherent and ethically well-formed, the decision concerning G and the ontologically constituted fruit are inseparable. There are not two fruits. The same fruit can be described in two modes: as constituted in the complete act and as locally disclosed in embodied experience. Decision is the sole ontological verdict concerning whether the fruit belongs to the act; category-matched evidence is the sole empirical verdict concerning whether that fruit is locally available.This distinction changes the role of the unknown transition function K. K does not approve the decision, create the fruit, or decide whether it is. It describes the still-unknown dynamics by which the constituted fruit becomes disclosed through time, bodies, actions, relations, institutions, fields, and other conditions. These locally available media are called vessels. A vessel is not necessarily the mechanism. A bodily command, a real interaction, an ordinary action, or the passage of time can be the nearest local participation in an execution whose full dynamics remain unknown. Neural implementation may be an interface without exhausting the causal process.The resulting model differs from the law of assumption. It requires no sustained mood, performed certainty, imaginary possession, or compulsory maintenance of an end-state. Imagination may specify; emotion may modulate; neither constitutes the ontological verdict. Doubt is not a rival metaphysical agent. The present world reports the current state of disclosure, but it is not a court empowered to reverse the decision.Allism remains anti-solipsistic and empirically disciplined. Other persons are real subjectivizations, and relational fruit includes their voluntary participation. A physical, relational, financial, or institutional claim cannot be reported as locally fulfilled without evidence in that category. Failure of disclosure within a pre-specified interval revises the relevant bridge hypothesis, operator, or model of K; it is not retroactively blamed on insufficient faith. A formal sketch, objections, and a research programme are included.