How well can we impose our paradigm or hypotheses upon nature when we now know anti-gravity exists and Einstein's cosmological constant is just at the beginning of being integrated into a set of laws that cannot explain the fact of its existence? How can we continue to reject the reality of spirituality when all materiality and its laws are wrong and produce immoral constructs? Sartre addresses this long before the massive knowledge of quantum physics became instrumental to the computers and realities we now face.

"The source of this unfortunate approach is well known: as Whitehead said, a law begins by being a hypothesis and ends by becoming a 'fact'. When we say that the earth revolves, we do not feel as though we are stating a theory, or that we are relying on a system of knowledge; we feel that we are in the presence of the fact itself, which immediately eliminates us as knowing subjects in order to restore us to our 'nature' as objects of gravitation. For anyone with a realistic view of the world, knowledge therefore destroys itself in order to 'become the world', and this is true not only of philosophy but also of all scientific Knowledge. When dialectical materialism claims to establish a dialectic of Nature it does not present itself as an attempt at an extremely general synthesis of human knowledge, but rather as a mere ordering of the facts. And its claim to be concerned with the facts is not unjustified: when Engels speaks of the expansion of bodies or of electric current, he is indeed referring to the facts themselves - although these facts may undergo essential changes with the progress of science. This gigantic - and, as we shall see, abortive - attempt to allow the world to unfold itself by itself and to 'no one', we shall call 'external', or transcendental, dialectical materialism." (6)

Does Sartre actually think science and the hypotheses of the prevailing paradigm are an "abortion" of the potential of man and his creative soulful potential? We leave this thought in your mind. Be careful to allow knowledge not "to destroy itself" and you will admit that is one of many possibilities. In the process of evaluating the immanence of Divine spirit in all things and the multiplicity of the totalized universe you will alternately wax parallel and alternative until the absurdity of our KNOWing will seem elegantly if not eloquently amusing. But Harold Pinter will never reach my funny bone and Camus will still be left saying suicide is the only alternative to incorporation. But before total 'dis'-corporation into a void of pure rationality occurs let us revisit the absurdity of a unified transcendent field in the words of Sartre. Remember also, that truth is convergent, congruent (affinity applies) and growing, despite the Heisenbergian 'uncertainty' or 'observer' that Schr