The concept of zero has traditionally been associated with absence, nullity, or the suspension of being. Within relational monism, however, such an interpretation becomes untenable. A relational ontology cannot accommodate a state of non‑relation, for the field is constituted by relations and not by substances that may or may not be present. Consequently, the notion of a “zero‑field” collapses under the weight of its own contradiction.

Zero, within this framework, must be reconceived as a minimal positive amplitude of relational pulsation. It denotes not the cessation of the field but its lowest modal intensity. The field never descends into ontological nullity; it merely fluctuates across degrees of relational condensation. This interpretation aligns with the broader principle that nothingness possesses no ontological standing in a monistic system. The field is continuous, indivisible, and incapable of interruption.

The binary schema 0/1, when applied to relational monism, therefore requires reinterpretation. The “1” represents maximal relational density, whereas the “0” signifies the basal vibrational state of the same field. They are not opposites but variations of a single ontological continuum. The absence of duality is essential: relational monism rejects the metaphysical possibility of a state devoid of relation.

This reconceptualisation has significant implications for metaphysics, information theory, and the philosophy of physics. It suggests that pulsation, rather than binary switching, is the fundamental mode of ontological articulation. The field is never off; it is only more or less condensed. In this respect, relational monism converges with certain interpretations of the zero‑point field in quantum theory, where the lowest energy state remains irreducibly non‑zero.

The result is a metaphysics in which zero is not a void but a threshold of being, a minimal relational presence that sustains the continuity of the field. The binary code becomes a spectrum, and ontology becomes a study of intensities rather than categories.

The Cone of Sense: A Formal Phenomenological Model

The light cone in physics defines what can be causally reached. The cone of sense defines what can be phenomenologically disclosed. It is the boundary between what JA can grasp and what remains hidden. This cone is not psychological. It is structural: a geometry of relational accessibility.

1. The Axes of the Cone

The cone of sense is defined by four axes:

• Energy (E) — the temporal axis of disclosure.
• Direction (K) — the orientation of becoming.
• Value (W) — the evaluative axis of meaningfulness.
• Dynamism (D) — the momentum of relational movement.

These axes form a four‑dimensional phenomenological space.

2. The Boundary Condition

The boundary of the cone is defined by the phenomenological interval:

Inside the cone:

Outside the cone:

This is the formal condition for disclosive accessibility.

3. Interior of the Cone: The Realm of Disclosure

Inside the cone lies everything I/ME-locus can: understand, interpret, act upon, integrate into its becoming. This is the phenomenological “present”.

4. Exterior of the Cone: The Realm of Non‑Disclosure

Outside the cone lies what is: inaccessible, non‑meaningful, non‑actionable, non‑disclosable. This is not non‑existent. It is simply not revealed.

5. The Cone and Crack

When the crack occurs: energy collapses, direction becomes undefined, value becomes flat, dynamism disappears. The cone shrinks. Disclosure becomes minimal. This is the phenomenological analogue of causal isolation.

6. Expansion of the Cone

The cone expands when: energy rises, direction clarifies, value intensifies, dynamism increases. This is the phenomenological analogue of gaining causal reach.

7. The Cone as Ethical Structure

Because value is one of the axes, the cone of sense is inherently ethical. Ethics is not a set of rules. It is the structure of what can be disclosed as meaningful.

8. A Formal Ontology of Disclosure

The cone of sense is the mathematical core of relational phenomenology. It defines: the limits of disclosure,  the structure of accessibility, the geometry of becoming. It is the phenomenological counterpart of the light cone.

The Phenomenological Minkowski Diagram: A Relational Geometry of Disclosure

The Minkowski diagram is one of the most elegant conceptual tools in modern physics. It shows how spacetime is structured, how observers differ, and how reality shifts with velocity and perspective. Yet the diagram’s deeper power lies not in physics alone, but in its structural logic: it reveals how perspective determines what is real.

A phenomenological reinterpretation of Minkowski’s geometry allows us to construct a parallel diagram for the relational field of I/ME-locus — the locus where the world discloses itself. This is not a metaphor. It is a structural isomorphism between two different orders of reality: physical spacetime and phenomenological disclosure.

1. The Axes of Phenomenological Spacetime

In Minkowski spacetime, the axes are time and space. In phenomenological spacetime, the axes are:

• Energy (E) — intensity of disclosure.
• Direction (K) — orientation of becoming.
• Value (W) — the sense of “rightness” or meaningfulness.
• Dynamism (D) — the momentum of becoming.

These four axes form a relational geometry. They are not properties of the world, but modes of disclosure within I/ME-locus.

2. The Phenomenological Interval

The Minkowski interval is:

The phenomenological interval is:

This interval measures the structure of disclosure. It is not a physical distance, but a relational one: the degree to which the world becomes present to I/ME-locus.

3. The Phenomenological Light Cone: The Cone of Sense

The light cone defines causal accessibility. The phenomenological cone defines disclosive accessibility. Inside the cone lies what I/ME-locus can meaningfully grasp, interpret, or act upon. Outside the cone lies what is currently inaccessible — not because it does not exist, but because it is not disclosed. The cone of sense is shaped by: the energy of disclosure, the direction of attention, the value‑structure of the moment, the dynamism of becoming.

4. The Line of Disclosure

Just as every physical object has a world‑line, I/ME-locus has a line of disclosure: a trajectory through the relational field. This line is shaped by: openness, relational contact, movement, the absence or presence of crack. The line of disclosure is the phenomenological analogue of the world‑line.

5. Transformations of I/ME-locus

Lorentz transformations change the axes of spacetime. Transformations of I/ME-locus change the axes of disclosure. When I/ME-locus shifts: its energy changes, its direction changes, its value‑structure changes, its dynamism changes. The world does not change — the disclosure of the world changes.

6. A New Geometry of Being

The phenomenological Minkowski diagram is a geometry of relational becoming. It shows that:  disclosure is structured, perspective determines reality, I/ME-locus is the locus of relational spacetime, energy is the temporal axis of phenomenology, direction, value, and dynamism are its spatial axes. This diagram is the foundation of a new ontology: the ontology of relational disclosure.

A philosophical tribute to Lewis Carroll

There are books that do not merely tell a story but open a fissure in reality. Alice in Wonderland belongs to that rare category: it is not a fairy tale but a subtle revelation of relational structure, in which the world is not a collection of things but a web of tensions, shifts, condensations, and sudden fractures of meaning. Carroll — ostensibly a mathematician and logician — created one of the most exquisite literary testimonies to the idea that reality is dialogue rather than monologue.

In this sense, Alice is closer to philosophy than fantasy. Perhaps even: closer to theology than children’s literature.

1. Wonderland as a space of relational revelation

In Wonderland nothing is stable, nothing is “once and for all”, nothing exists as a substance. Everything is movement, displacement, response. Alice does not encounter objects — she encounters relations, which momentarily take the shape of characters, animals, objects, sentences, paradoxes.

It is a world in which:

• meaning arises from context,
• identity is fluid,
• logic is dialogical,
• and every encounter is a revelation — not in the religious sense, but in the ontological one.

Carroll shows that reality is not a fixed stage but a continuous becoming, in which every form is a temporary condensation of relations. This is precisely the intuition of relational monism: being is not a thing but a movement between.

2. Alice as a figure of consciousness passing through a fracture

Alice is not a heroine in the classical sense. She is consciousness experiencing the fracture between the familiar and the unpredictable. Her journey is a metaphor for crossing a relational threshold — the moment in which established categories cease to function and new ones begin to emerge.

In this sense, Alice becomes:

• a figure of initiation,
• a figure of transformation,
• a figure of the fissure of the self,
• a figure of condensed meaning, appearing only when old forms collapse before one’s eyes.

Carroll, much like Dickens in his most luminous passages, captures that delicate boundary between childhood innocence and adult awareness, between absurdity and revelation, between humour and metaphysics.

3. Absurdity as a philosophical instrument

Absurdity in Alice is not a joke. It is a philosophical method. Carroll wields it like a surgeon’s scalpel, exposing the arbitrariness of our categories, the rigidity of our concepts, the fragility of our definitions.

Absurdity:

• breaks habitual structures,
• opens space for new relations,
• reveals that meaning is not given but created,
• shows that logic is dialogue rather than mechanism.

In this sense, absurdity becomes a form of revelation: it demonstrates that the world exceeds our concepts and that relations are richer than our models.

4. Condensations in relations: how meaning emerges

Relational monism holds that meaning does not exist “in itself”. Meaning is a condensation — a momentary gathering of tensions between the self and the world. In Alice, these condensations appear everywhere: in the conversation with the Cheshire Cat, in the nonsensical questions of the Hatter, in the peculiar logic of the Queen of Hearts.

Each scene is:

• a temporary knot of relations,
• a revelation of structural tensions,
• a microscopic fracture through which truth glimmers.

Carroll shows that meaning is not stable — it is an event. And an event is always relational.

5. Alice as a parable of Revelation

Although Alice is not a religious text, one may read it as a parable of Revelation — not in the theological sense, but in the ontological one. Revelation is the moment in which the world discloses its relational nature. It is the instant when the fracture becomes visible and the condensation of the self is questioned.

Revelation in Alice:

• is not dogma,
• is not doctrine,
• is not truth “from above”,
• but a relational experience that transforms consciousness.

In this sense, Carroll is one of the gentlest philosophers of relation — hidden beneath the mask of mathematician, logician, and writer for children.

6. A tribute to Carroll: philosophy disguised as a fairy tale

Lewis Carroll created a work that can be read in countless ways. Yet in the light of relational monism, Alice becomes something more: a map of a relational world, in which being is movement, meaning is event, and consciousness is a journey through fractures.

This is why Alice resonates so deeply with dialogical philosophy. It is a tale about the fact that the world is not a monolith but a conversation. And conversation — like every relation — is unpredictable, absurd, beautiful, and revelatory.

Carroll, much like Dickens, knew how to blend tenderness with irony, metaphysics with humour, depth with lightness. And for that reason his work remains one of the most profound literary witnesses to the idea that reality is relation.