“Critical Existentialism” combines: (1) an existential stance—defining the human and other existents by their manifest formative functions within the system, without positing interiors; and (2) epistemic criticality—accepting only what holds in the commons, with public sources governed by Integrative Rationality and private sources clarified by Existential Critique before any use. Thus it anchors responsibility and the meaning of action within manifest, testable limits.

Epistemic Integration is the principle that opens the way for humans to benefit from all sources of knowledge, both common and private, so that none is excluded. The absence of one reduces the ability to comprehend reality and undermines human existential purpose. Integration does not mean random mixing; it means using each source within its proper field, under strict methods of validation that ensure reliable epistemic outcomes.

A neutral descriptor for approaching things at their first formative level beyond matter, without importing metaphysical disputes. Used to mark baseline, pre-natural registers such as: Existential Function, Existential Mission, Existential Value, and Existential Rights.

Existential Critique is the mechanism for dealing with private knowledge sources (religion, mystical insight, specialized science) that cannot be directly assessed by Takamolya Rationality. Its function is not to produce new certainty but to filter these inputs by a single criterion: what is compatible with Takamolya Rationality is accepted as a possibility, and what contradicts it is rejected. Thus, it serves as a tool of critique and filtering — not to prove truth, but to prevent irrational inputs from entering the epistemic system. It complements Takamolya Rationality: the latter builds common knowledge, while Existential Critique protects it from distortion.

The “Existential Function” is the formative functional position an existent occupies within the system—what it in fact does—according to its structural properties, distinguishing features, and relations to other existents. Just as science discovers physical laws, it also discerns the roles of things in the system as observable, testable phenomena. For the human in particular, we determine the formative role from the features that set him apart from other existents (without importing social or political readings). The term does not assume an ultimate teleology nor probe interiors; it fixes the manifest role drawn from reality. From this fixation we derive the Existential Rights that preserve and enable the function, becoming a criterion for organizing knowledge and institutions and distinguishing what serves the function from what distorts it.

“Existential Khilafah” describes the human’s formative functional role as indicated by the manifest world: a being of awareness, reason, will, and the ability to learn and innovate, responsible for coordinating his impact on nature and society in accord with observed regularities. This role is understood within Manifest Wisdom and in reference to the Existential Function and Mission, secured by the Existential Rights as enabling conditions. At the general explanatory level it operates within the Takamolya Cosmological Vision, which reads the unity of laws and regularity tawhidically within the manifest, without doctrinal interiors.

The “Existential Mission” asserts that the human has an original task in this cosmos, built on two pillars: (1) the human’s formative distinctiveness—capacity to learn from accumulated knowledge, to create, and to fashion the self by free will with reason, affect, awareness, logical primitives, and senses; and (2) the wisdom and intentionality of existence—accepting that the cosmos is not arbitrary, hence the human has a role to undertake. Accordingly, each individual traces a personal path and fashions his truth by free action, drawing on the knowledge available in his era.

“Existential Value” is the original estimation of a person’s standing as tasked with a formative mission, shown in two aspects: prior—an endowed worth by virtue of being designated for an existential mission with no discrimination beyond shared humanity; and posterior—a worth attained in proportion to what one actually fulfills through a free path. It has a horizontal extension (not limited to worldly phase) and a vertical axiological depth (effects not limited to material outcomes). Hence, obstructing a person from performing the mission is a deprivation of existential value.

The word 'Foundational' describes everything built directly upon existential rights as a fixed basis.
It is used in contexts such as 'Foundational Council,' 'Foundational State,' and 'Foundational Method.'
It means standing above circumstantial politics, setting the first rules that protect human dignity, rights, and existential functions.

“Foundational Individuality” affirms the human as a distinct individual able to learn from accumulated knowledge, create, and self-fashion, and as bearer of a unique existential mission for which he traces a free path. It neither levels the individual with the collective nor elevates him over it; it rejects dissolving him into the whole or confiscating his decision. One is measured by what one accomplishes, not by others’ success. This requires guarding independence and responsibility and preventing any domination that disables the mission.

Foundational Sciences are not a conventional academic field, but a comprehensive scientific paradigm representing a transformative shift in the trajectory of human thought. They do not merely add another theory, but rebuild the relationship between knowledge and existence, setting new priorities for humankind grounded in existential rights and the cosmic function of the individual.

This paradigm rests on four major pillars:

Integrative Epistemic Framework: Organizing the relationship between sources of knowledge on the basis of the human common ground and achieving epistemic integration.

Integrative Rationality: A shared analytical tool—universal and neutral.

Integrative Scientific Method: Developing robust, productive, and operationally applicable human sciences.

Foundational Method: A scientific breakthrough that translates existential rights into just normative systems.

Through these pillars, Foundational Sciences enable individuals and nations to transform their cultural or intellectual projects into civilizational projects that can be shared globally. They provide a framework that balances philosophical depth, scientific rigor, and institutional application. Their value lies in being a qualitative contribution that surpasses previous intellectual projects, for they not only describe or critique, but propose practical tools for building a common language of justice, freedom, and human dignity—opening a new civilizational horizon in contemporary scientific inquiry.

Foundationalism is a new scientific and methodological field, not reducible to philosophy, religion, or ideology.
As a science: it is embodied in the Foundational Sciences, which include the Integrative Epistemic Framework, the Integrative Scientific Method, and the Foundational Method.
As tools: it is activated through Integrative Rationality, Existential Critique, Existential Rights, and Foundational Engineering.
As a political stance: it means 'supra-political,' establishing the first rules of systems and authorities on the basis of shared existential rights, not power balances.
Its core is re-founding legitimacy and standards through existential rights, making it a universal reference for building civilization.

Common presential self-evidences accessible to all, such as awareness of one’s existence, consciousness, and free will (excluding pain, as it cannot be verified by others).

“Human Common Ground” here does not mean humanity in the moral sense, but rather the epistemic foundation shared by all: rules of reasoning and universally accessible sources such as direct sensory data, logic, and general experience. What depends on private sources (like religion or mystical insight) may be accepted by some but rejected by others, and thus lacks universality. The human common ground is therefore the neutral base from which everyone can begin without exception.

A non-visible level of wisdom concerning the intended meaning of a thing’s existence and its arrangement in the cosmos; it is not uncovered by observation, experiment, and shared inference, but is known by revelation (the Maker’s message). Manifest wisdom, by contrast, is attained through common methods.

“Manifest Wisdom” concerns the visible world as established by observation, experimental repeatability, and logical discipline—not by esoteric assumptions. Its subject matter is natural laws and formative properties that are testable; within it one reads the formative role/task of each existent according to its position and observed relations in the system. Boundaries: it does not treat final purposes, which belong to interiors; it does not presuppose contact with the Maker to specify ends; it commits to what the manifest shows; it does not posit binding ‘social laws’—social patterns are soft, shifting descriptions (from the ‘soft sciences’) that may be noted descriptively but do not found principles; and it does not import private sources unless first clarified by Existential Critique and translated into the common language. Outputs feed testable models in nature and inform the determination of the Existential Function within the manifest.

An operation carried out exclusively with what is available to every human being (reason, sense perception, presential knowledge). Personal mental stock and prior beliefs are set aside, while adhering to common steps of verification (disciplined observation, repeatable experimentation, controlled inference) to overcome the veil’s effect on understanding.

When Basirah is a necessary component for engaging with revelation, mystical unveiling, or specialized knowledge, it is subjected to a methodological filter: systematic doubt, critical isolation, re-evaluation of inherited assumptions, and breaking bias. Only what does not conflict with what is established by reason, sense perception, and presential knowledge—and can be formulated in a verifiable language—is integrated.

A general criterion of acceptance grounded in evidence that can be repeated, independently verified, and logically consistent—while explicitly acknowledging margins of error and updating results when stronger data arise. It differs from subjective or doctrinal certainty and is used to measure the validity of generalizing what comes from outside public accessibility.

Reached by some people due to specific circumstances or specialized engagement. To generalize their content universally, it is required that they do not conflict with what is established by public accessibility, that they are reformulated in a verifiable language, and that unverifiable aspects remain suspended.

Takamolya is the civilizational face of the Foundational Project.
It is neither abstract philosophy nor forced unity, but an open civilizational project that uses Foundationalist tools to produce applicable models.
At the epistemic level: embodied in the Integrative Epistemic Framework.
At the methodological level: in Integrative Rationality.
At the civilizational level: it offers a human model that balances the individual and the collective, matter and meaning, without erasing cultural or religious diversity.
Takamolya is therefore the unifying vision that gives the project its global civilizational character.

A scientific, tawhidi worldview that studies the visible reality—its natural regularities, formative properties, and testable interrelations—and interprets it as a unified fabric; from the unity of system and laws it infers a tawhidi reading within the shared scientific frame, remaining at the manifest layer without delving into interiors or doctrinal specifics.

The Takamolya Epistemic Framework is the theoretical structure that rebuilds the relationship between knowledge sources by assigning independent methods of validation to each. It neither conflates nor excludes; rather, it provides mechanisms that allow us to distinguish between what is certain and what is hypothetical. Information from any source is therefore understood in its real weight: certain if it fulfills its own criteria, or filtered/rejected if it does not. This framework lays the foundation for overcoming epistemic distortions and building precise functional knowledge and achieving epistemic integration.

Takamolya Rationality is a cognitive tool that can only be understood after diagnosing the problem of biased perspectives (basirah). Basirah is inherently non-neutral and distorts vision. Takamolya Rationality functions as an alternative lens, capable of suspending such biases and rebuilding perception on the basis of universally shared sources of certainty (senses, reason, and general human experience). It generates a neutral analytical language, usable in cross-cultural discussions to build a common epistemic ground.

A philosophical vision that organizes the human relation to knowledge sources by classifying them into public (reason, experiment, presential knowledge) and private (revelation, unveiling, specialized science). The public are governed by Integrative Rationality to control what is common and verifiable; experimental science keeps its independence and is complemented by Integrative Experimental Science, which widens the tools of observation and testing within the human commons. Private sources are routed through Existential Critique for clarification before any use. Takamolya Wisdom links laws and manifest patterns to their manifest functional meanings as rationally inferred from shared facts, without crossing into esoteric interiors; thus it guides the rebuilding of society and institutions around the Existential Function and the Existential Rights.

Basirah is indispensable for daily life, as it is the interpretive lens through which humans process information based on stored knowledge, culture, science, and experience. Yet this stock is not all accurate; it influences perception and makes it biased and limited to a certain angle — hence the term “veil of basirah.” Humans cannot live without basirah, but they need Existential Critique to filter its distortions, and occasionally Integrative Rationality to suspend it completely when engaging in universally shared inquiry.