ANNOTATIONS TO PEP COLOMER, THINKER
What I have to do is reach the limit; this is what I want to achieve.
Ernst Wiechert, 1976 
Since reality is the priority, not Mankind.
Pep Colomer, 1985 
In the process of knowledge of the human being, one day someone pointed out, before the stupor of the others, that the planet was not the centre of the universe, that it was a satellite of the Sun, and even later, that the Sun was not even in a specific part of the universe, neither here nor there, but that it was in a place of nowhere.
This fact, our current cosmological dislocation (or awareness of dislocation), is palpable regarding cosmology, and is calmly assumed or unconsciously ignored by the population. Nevertheless, from this fact the population has not yet (?) taken ontological consequences. In other words, in what refers to being and the origin of being, and to the consciential reality with which the being values the reality that they perceive through the senses. We want to say that this change or process of taking practical, palpable consequences since the German idealists and romanticists, is much slower than the cosmological change that comes from pure science, despite being a direct consequence. The individual, each one, still lives in the belief of exterior space, of its truth of reality, and its cause-effect appearance, and its passing in a space-time, to which we are literally stuck. Something, however, has changed: the transcendent aspect of reality has faded into the cultural imagination, and we have replaced it with a very weak long-term materialism, incapable of the myth necessary to generate an effective and consistent model of life. In fact, today’s being, of now, has not even thought about what is transcendental. Despite the unsubstantial fashion of orientalism in the West, neither the Occident nor the Orient practice, exactly, a transcendental society. Quite the opposite. We live, reside, in an apparent world, but we do not believe in it to the letter. The truth is that reality does not need to be denied, since it imposes itself on us. It does not need to be denied, but neither is it worth believing in, given that, whatever they say, it is indemonstrable.
Poets (and Colomer had the soul of a poet) are specialists in rummaging symbolically in this cosmic, that is metaphysical, dislocation. Poets are not capable of throwing in the towel, and whether they like it or not, society deposits in them, without knowing it, the unanswerable metaphysical question. It is a fact that nobody says and which nobody asks or determines, but it happens. Pep Colomer, despite wanting to be a painter, it could be said he was the person in charge in Girona, during his life, of the metaphysical problem, just like Macedonio Fernández was the meta-physicist of the neighbourhood, there, in his Buenos Aires. And that’s how it should be, because it is good that this work falls on an individual who has time, all the time in the world. The shopkeeper or banker cannot do metaphysics. But Pep Colomer can. And although he painted very many paintings looking for “the painting”, in the obsessive way of Mallarmé looking for “the poem”, Colomer could not avoid writing, writing what he knew, which was quite a lot, and profound, and new. And although he did not find the painting (probably because the painting cannot say metaphysics), he did find the text. Finding the text is not something that happens every day. Only those who seek it find it, not even in other spheres, like Pep Colomer. But sometimes they reach it. It came to Pep Colomer late in life, very late. In a disordered way, perhaps not very well organised, restless, but it reached him. And he called it Real-lògica, una filosofia pel dos mil (“Real-logic, a philosophy for two thousand”). We do not know if the people from his city or his country have been aware of it. Probably not. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the text exists, it was produced one day in a place and we can read it, we must read it and annotate meticulously, because it should be publicised, and to cast over it the light that all thought requires. And it should be said sufficiently. For those that will come. Although they do not realise it. But Pep Colomer spoke to them, to the new men of two thousand. Because he saw things that had to be said. The first thing, which for the future must be very well learnt, is the lesson of the solitude of the human being amidst generalised, cosmic and metaphysical ignorance; since private knowledge, however prosperous it appears to us now, dazzled by technology, is something very small before the question, the big question, that demands from us “profound and radical changes”.  What are these changes? What does Pep Colomer want to say to us?
Pep Colomer finished his text on the 30th of December 1990, and had probably begun it some ten years before. He was eighty-three years old. It is, therefore, the text of a life. Since then four days have passed. Its validity is full.
Before responding to the questions we have formulated, we should draw up a series of considerations, as we understand it, to conveniently frame the reflective work of Pep Colomer and to be able to discover its value.
He was born in the first years of the 20th century, on the 3rd of December 1907, and died on the 7th of November 1994. He therefore lived for eighty-six years. The date of his document is, as we have seen, the 30th of December 1990. This life that flows into this text has not only been long, but is also framed in a difficult and harsh historical period, which separates his life, like many people of his generation, into two stages. Until 1939, and from 1939. At the age of 32, Pep Colomer received a tough blow that so many other people received, which cut short, as well as many lives, a series of healthy and well-directed intellectual and artistic careers. The country was left orphaned, for long decades, of very worthy people, many because they died, and many others, as in his case, because they took refuge in an inner exile, in silence. One just has to look at his activity in Girona from before the war (see the chronology, volume I, pages 14-26) to realise this. He formed part of a group of young people who carried modern times to the city of the Onyar river, and despite the fact that he devoted himself professionally to decoration, artistically he was a painter, and, in those times, what is today known as a cultural activist.
We should say that all of this, as for others, was not easy for him, since his family situation, if on the one hand was comfortable, was on the other hand religious and conservative, and from there emerged a relative family marginality and a dreadful relationship with his father. In other words, as from his decision to devote himself to the visual arts, from a very young age, he wanted to embark on a personal and free path. Therefore, we must think that the liberating effort of that youth of his was buried with the defeat of 1939, and despite the fact that, thanks to the family, to be precise, the armed conflict was not overwhelming for him, since he was excused from going to fight on the front and from military service, the political and religious commotion engulfed him. The mediocrity of the world around him during the following forty years he would withstand in silence. Married in 1940, his life was formal outwardly and profound inwardly. When he returns to public activity, around 1976, he is almost an old man, and the people who surround him and to whom he attends and even acts as guide are thirty years younger. This fact, in any case, is not new. There are many creative artists who have not received any recognition until they have been discovered by a younger generation. Many times it is the fault of the poet or creator or painter, who has lived reclusively. But also one of the main causes is the very characteristics of the work of the author. Some works are slow. A new wise man from Girona was needed (since he, by his own decision, did not want to leave the city except for a long stay in Barcelona), a freshly baked intellectual, in order for Pep Colomer to come out of his ostracism and appear, oddly, as a maestro, both in terms of painting and in his way of thinking about painting and life. Neither, however, were or are still fully understood, to a large extent due to his own attitude, which must have seemed to many people as hermetic, or elitist, depending on which social or ideological sector criticised him. It was, in fact, both things, because the depth of Pep Colomer, as we see, is resolved in a modern mystic that was not, nor still is, recognisable in the current philosophical and artistic discourse. Neither is it concerned with the social discourse but only in what concerns the individual and their ethical criteria, from what emerges everything else.
Because he was a man, as is often said, of profound intuitions. What we do not know is if these intuitions were natural in him or reached him as a result of the forced silence during the long Francoist night. Because he could have left, gone into exile, escaped. However, in a very similar way to the strictly metaphysical authors, he did not move from his place, as if he did not need to, as if not moving was a way of life. This led to obvious ostracism and provincialism, at least until the fall of the regime. We do not know up to what point he did not want to or could not, but everything seems to indicate that he did not want to leave Girona, and although he did, it did not go well for him, and he had to return. This not moving, however, is category, because it is in the contemplation of the immediate environment that suits knowledge and being able to know what suits. Was he lacking reading matter, information? Everything seems to point to the fact that he was, but it is also true that he had enough to position himself and his thought. On the other hand, we can suppose a character not sufficiently active in this aspect, so that in his philosophical formation one notes clear gaps, although he, who had no intention of being a philosopher, resolved them creatively and, above all, personally, inventing his own working, conceptual, terminology, which makes his work, on the one hand, very personal, and on the other hand, quite complex to work out exactly what the real meaning that he gives each term is. Another question is his way of using syntax and punctuation, normally in a way that transcribes the thought itself, according to sequences of consecutive orations, but separated by full stops. The way of writing and the terminology, then, add a certain epistemological difficulty to the reading of the two texts and to the fragments or schematic notes as a whole that he has left us.
But, in fact, Colomer, as a writer, began in full maturity, since he always considered himself as a painter. This is the other problem for his literary exegesis, inasmuch as he did not achieve it as a painter, but finally did so as a thinker, in other words, formulating a fully advanced existential, ethical and metaphysical vision. Nevertheless, it is by no means normal for a painter to write well. And if they write, they bring with them a pictorial way of writing. In Colomer’s case, the writing seems to be a final note that he leaves to clarify and explain the pictorial work. This, however, is not the reality. He hardly mentions painting at all. He talks of dreams, therapy, change, leaving be, etc.
Those that knew him knew of his pictorial ambition, which was so great that in fact he hardly painted, because one canvas after another was disregarded, covered, corrected, abandoned and painted again, achieving some extraordinary thicknesses of paint; in contrast, it must be said, the result was not achieved. The painting did not appear anywhere, Painting things disappeared, but painting ideas were not set. When he finally achieved an exhibition worthy of the word, around 1986, he repeatedly excused himself for the paintings, since they were not what he had wanted to do. What did he want to do then? It seems he was seeking metaphysical painting, that which remains a terrible oxymoron, because painting is existence and metaphysics, inexistence. He then conceives a whole theory of colours, and the parts of the painting, and the composition, but the concept, in the painting, does not appear. What he senses, or already knows, and wants to say, he does not let the brush say it. So he writes and explains the basic theories, the ten conditions, as he calls them, with which the total work must be put together… Finally he recognises, in an interview with Francesc Carbonell, on the 21st of December 1988, that “painting, I will never move forward”. 
Here there is a deep contradiction between his art, what he has chosen, and his being, the soul that he has. This is how it seems from outside. He, however, works on an idea, a thought through which “the things that are good are not explained, they are demonstrated”. It surely must be so, and this we understand as a foundation of his written or life discourse, but from it one cannot capture the realisation of a visual work that for its mere construction and contemplation makes the Meaning emerge that he sought so much and on which his thought was based. The consideration that he was and wanted to be a painter, but a painter in a way that he could not be. This does not take away any value from the painting he finally produced, and the pictorial value of many of his works is well recognised, and even enough to consider Pep Colomer as a painter, and also as a theoretician and thinker of the form and value of the painting, light, colour and composition in the painting, elements to which he dedicated texts which, as a whole, provide us with a solid and necessary work, in the context of the time and place where he undertook it. In fact, just as he was encouraged as a young man by Josep Aguilera, along with the Íntims group, around who he himself started up and learnt, and who also separated from him, a large part of Girona’s painters both before and after the war, and until very late on in his life. As a painter, either in favour of or against, Pep Colomer was, in Girona, a real reference.
He was and wanted to be a painter. But the painting, despite himself, was not enough for him. With the perspective that time offered, he was able to venture the hypothesis that, in fact, he did not manage to become a painter. He lacked paint, and had too much thought. The fact is he was something else, that can be defined by saying he was a mystic. This is because he had, and we do not know as from when, another “presence” (a favourite word of his) which took him beyond, even much more beyond, so far, that it led him to a higher understanding of formal, specific art, of painting, that came from a global vision of existing, a vision that wanted to hold, to say, in the painting, but which escaped from him all over, since his way of contemplating was not only formal but was also essentially of ethical and metaphysical order, that is, a contemplation of All. Pep Colomer achieved, at the end of his life, the human state in which the conscience sees itself and sees the outside world in itself as something else, which fits and can be thought about objectively, and not only subjectively. He felt the surprise of being, an essential experience of the conscience to transcend his inclusion and existence in reality, and passing from a childlike human state to an adult human state, in which reality is understood in itself, simply, and not from myself. The experience is felt, as open comprehension and a daily way of life, by very few people. Almost never by philosophers or intellectuals, but by poets or thinkers, when they really poetise or think. Colomer achieved an open comprehension of the world by himself. This is the metaphysical state, this is the change that he felt, and, necessarily, wanted to explain in his writings, as much as he could and the way he could, the profound and radical change regarding the form of living we find announced in the introduction of his Filosofia pel dos mil (“Philosophy for two-thousand”).
This mystic experience, however, is new, just as he feels and sees it; new for everyone, and we only find it in a few thinkers, in part pre-announced in Heidegger, already at the end of his life, and also in the loud Nietzschean cry, or intensely experienced by Pessoa, or explained by the Argentinian Macedonio Fernández, also expressed by the apocryphal words of Machado, or sensed by Wittgenstein at the end of his Tractatus. None of these authors, however, are found among the books of Pep Colomer. We know that he was a reader of the Count of Keyserling, a German exponent of orientalism, with which he coincides in some feelings, and he was also a great reader of Freud and, even more so, Jung, on whom he bases all his therapy, and probably had contact with the books of Carlos de Castaneda, widely preached in the seventies, and with the learning of the Indian Don Juan Matus, where the concept of impeccability appears, or we are aware of his preference for that which he called the metaphysical novel, and for a text by Ernst Wiechert, Das Einfache Leben (“The simple life”), written in 1939, which he read in Spanish much later, where the concept of the end of knowledge appears, the need to revise it all over again. Here and there (referencing exactly all the influences of Pep Colomer would represent the work of a doctoral thesis) converge a handful of ethical-metaphysical presentments and actualisations that, through his own intuition, obsessed Pep Colomer. And the thought he produces, alongside the authors mentioned, is a modern vision only possible after millenniums of mythical-religious reality, and after the formidable work of deconstruction of this mythical reality by Science, and essentially, Einsteinian physics and, later on, Quantum physics, knowledge of which Pep Colomer also, precariously, wanted to approach, such as Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Here and there appear notes, quotes, underlined photocopies, argued with question marks and questions… It is the work of a thinker. Nothing is indifferent to him, everything leads him to reflection, everything is an aspect of it. One gets the feeling that Pep Colomer worked without any plan, nourishing himself with what he found along the way, while his inner forge gradually shaped the pieces of what he would end up saying.
There is, therefore, within Pep Colomer, a total current future, which is something really difficult. This merit of his, of a thinker, he achieved, nevertheless, very late on in life, and what he could express orally was little, and usually misunderstood. In the end, however, with great difficulty, he was able to write. And this text tells us all we need to know to be able to gauge the value and meaning of his problem with painting, his life attitude, his work and his arguments in a small society in a small city in a small country, and not because being small is synonymous with lack of worth, but for all the absences of the events and days in which he had to live. Today, however, we have and hold these writings, and it is time they had an audience beyond which he was able to reach, so that the inner work of Pep Colomer is not lost in oblivion, but that, complementarily (a very personal word) to other thinkers, also thoroughly necessary, we understand the form of his knowledge—which we should not see as totally original, but certainly formulated by himself—, and serves us, those of us without this excessive hypermodernity, against which only clear thought and a responsible attitude can have any relevance. And this is what Pep Colomer wanted to leave us with.
A philosophy for two-thousand
We should recall that Pep Colomer wrote two books. The first, written in Catalan but self-edited in Spanish in Girona, in October 1982, has the title Una terápia real-lógica (A real-logic therapy), where he essentially deals with the oneiric question, and not following Freud, but often in a reverse way the methods of the Viennese, and in contrast, coming closer to Carl Jung, although also going further, especially because Colomer totally denied the existence of the unconscious, but above all the way of interpreting the symbology of dreams.  The book also contains a graphotherapy, with many examples of signatures and their pertinent characterological interpretation. We also know that he was elaborating a physiognomy, dedicated to the interpretation of character through facial traits. Pep Colomer even tried, briefly, to establish himself on his own as a therapist. The book, consequently, contains many errata and orthographic errors, and also introduces us to the very special use that Colomer made of syntax. If the first errata are understandable due to type of publication, the syntactic use, on the other hand, brings us towards an expressive need of the contents itself, since the attempt to explain something metaphysical, similarly to mystics, involves a series of expressive problems, because one tries to speak of what is unnameable. The way of speaking, therefore, is often forced because, let’s be clear, we are not before literary writing, but writing about the meaning that for the author things have, and this being the case, the forced way of Pep Colomer’s writing seems justified.
This first book already takes us into his thought, in this case based on the idea that psychological conflicts come from a Problem of Personal Disorder—the use of conceptual capital letters is common in Colomer’s writing—due to the regular negligence of individuals in their self-exigency and their desire for Comprehension. We are, he says, “inattentive and unwanted, in an illusory situation, exalted or repressed, since we do not have the Attention of feeling to assume the Reality with an Alert and available Attitude”. Here we have, in essence, the approach of his ethical and existential vision. Dreams, in reality, would be nothing more than a tool of our being to “Complement, rebalance it, the disorder of wakefulness, the product of that which the fact of living does not tolerate—at any time—that Attention stops working”.  Thus, inattentive, we lose Health. But dreams are “direct messengers of unnoticed Reality”, and we awaken, according to Colomer, just at the moment in which the dream has said what it had to say.  This idea makes us think about the obsession of Miquel Bauçà, the hermit of Ensanche, with filming dreams. It also has a lot to do with the appraisals of Don Juan, the Yaqui Indian, in relation to the importance of dreaming and having dreams, as states of existential comprehension. For Macedonio Fernández, life is, really, a dream, that is an unreality that is real or a real unreality. 
The question we could ask ourselves is this: if we were able to see them awake, would they have any meaning? Since if the work of the conscience is involuntary, what use is it to the conscience that which it does not understand and which it produces in its own core involuntarily? The question of dreams, as we know, has been and is prolific in interpretations. Machado, in the way of Heraclites, thinks that being awake (alert, in Colomerian language) is what matters, and that the dream is nothing essential. In any case, for Pep Colomer dreams carry out a process of objectivisation in the task if being to accept what is and what is not, according to his thesis of what is appropriate to accept objectively what it is. Approaching the concept or rather, vision, of what it is, we could ask ourselves, mischievously, what should be that which the majority of us, for being subjective and inattentive, accept as real and good, but which in reality is nothing more than pure illusion, shadows of oneself. Why does that which seems to be me, each one of us, not as real as that which, at another moment, I see in another way? Here lies the main problem when verifying an objectivist or descriptive metaphysical position, since this represents a practically incommunicable perception of reality (“what is”), given that nothing can lead to verifying such an affirmation if it is not comprehensive sympathy. In other words, this question that Colomer poses, what it is, offers a laic mystical vision, a state of depersonalisation of the subject through transcendence of itself towards the All, which appears to him as an absolute Presence (and absolutely inexplicable, by the way). This is the same approach we find in Macedonio Fernández, to give the more defined case of modern, non-idealist and purely descriptivist metaphysics.
Therefore, whoever has not come out of their subjectivity
through transcendent work of the conscience has no way of being alert and
sharp, and is completely incapable of seeing what it is. Pep Colomer believes
that dream therapy must serve precisely for this. Because the dream, he tells
us, with a certain terminological imprecision, is not a symbol, but means “the
objective reality that the very individual does not see in themselves”. As a result, if they read
the dream correctly, the individual can understand what they do not know or are
aware of when awake. For Colomer, anyone with an “intuitive, aware attitude”
can interpret dreams.  He then gives numerous examples (the most extensive part of
this first book), which, at the end of the day, are equally symbolic readings,
however much Colomer sees them as objective. In any case, to be able to read
them, we must unavoidably recur to symbols
—that this use is more objective than that of Freud or Jung is another question—. Colomer proposes a whole series of analogic objectives; for example, a hole means the entrance to a personal conflict, or a bed is the evocation of the commitment to another. He clarifies for us, nevertheless, that the analogies are variable for each person; that everything depends on the eye of the therapist. According to him, if we know how to come out of ourselves, Reality will always be helping us, and dreams are objectified Reality that must be understood, since it promotes “the Compensatory Balance of a situation that tends to be dealt with as Insufficient or Excessive”.  It should be said that the interpretation he offers of specific examples, refuting these same examples employed by Freud, seems suggestive and truthful. In other words, that once stated the already indicated general principle, everything is a problem of the interpretive eye.
According to Colomer, there is a wide range of dreams, from the simple that is repeated, to the noumenon, warning or confirmative. It is these latter factors that the therapist must deal with, in accordance with the perspective that one must always have an aware attitude to be able to obtain the merit. But these concepts we find repeatedly dealt with in the following text, La comprensió real-lògica (“Real-logic comprehension”), which is, as it happens, the nucleus of his work. We do not have the capacity here to discern the veracity or otherwise of Pep Colomer’s therapeutic approach, but it serves us as an entrance into his world and his way of seeing the world.
In a more or less disordered way, Pep Colomer presents a second book, published in 1991, in a simple self-edition, this time without imprint, with the title La comprensió real-lògica: una filosofia pel dos mil (“Real-logic comprehension: a philosophy for two-thousand”), which contains the manuscript completed on the 30th of December 1990, when he was nearly 83. The text is irregular, with a series of unclearly differentiated sections, with inclusions of a new therapy, this time not dedicated to dreams, but to the individual in general, and another chapter and sample of signatures of his graphology. In any case, these sections, before the “Definitive conclusions”, do no more than apply and go deeper therapeutically into his ethical-metaphysical ideas as a whole.
Enric Ansesa points out that “perhaps the more intense Colomer is the thinker”, and adds: “As I understand, he is a painter in a stage of breaking away, a breaking away that may never happen.”  Arnau Puig goes further when he states that “he was a person that debated with himself about knowing the meaning of the world, who sought the explanation through words, and when these seemed too empty […] then tried to recover its meaning looking for it in […] painting. Pep Colomer, therefore, also painted”. 
Francesc Miralles comments: “It was then—as from 1940—when he began a solitary activity in which his painting was the summary of his theories and reflections, not exactly plastic, but cosmological”, and later states: “Perhaps it is this, the theoretician-thinker, the most intense Colomer: a Colomer who delved into science, physics, into humanistic aspects, existentialism, into the oriental world. And he established an ordering principle of everything.” 
Enric Ansesa, in another article, clarifies: “Colomer, as a painter, should be understood in the way the Chinese define a painter: thinker, poet and calligrapher.”  As we see, all those around him in his final years coincide in seeing him more as a thinker than a painter.
We should add that, around 1980, he had a small cerebral injury that affected the “graphomotor constructive praxis (intelligibly also called competence in drawing)”, from which he recovered satisfactorily, although at certain times he was unable to work pictorially.  We do not know to what extent the illness affected his decision to write, pushing his whole state of visions and sensations and trying to say, not only in completing a painting, but also in his own conceptual discourse. Whatever it was, Pep Colomer set about writing, the result being that all the quotes referred to have a bearing on the value beyond the painting and his feeling and knowledge, which he ends up defining in the text we have available to comment on, following the order in which he wrote it, in order to show his development. As we said, an accompanied reading.
On page 3 he asserts that the book is necessary because it coincides with “never attended-to imperatives”, which share a “revision and profound and radical changes” in that which is fundamental in our lives, since “Man is the great unknown”, in terms of not understanding reality.
This is the important announcement of a change of existential paradigm, which he proposes to formulate, which means a radical investment in the perception and experience of reality. For example: it is not about knowing, but understanding; not of being, but letting be; not of believing, but of being attentive; not of acting, but of being available; not of saying, but of feeling; not of asking for, but of being self-demanding; not of being subjective, but of being objective…
This investment, in many cases orientalised, but not at all applied in the West, means needing to understand reality as an absolute (nothing is beyond), and the I also as an absolute (nothing exists beyond the information of the sensations of the I), from what comes the Comprehension of the Absolute Reality of the I, without more meaning. This way of seeing things represents the burial of all Platonism, which in fact has been the great task, since Kant, of western philosophy, until nothing or almost nothing remains.  But this nothing is a lot, because it is real, and not fanciful.
In other words, everything that exists (for each one) is everything that is, and this vision is a state of conscience and consciousness, so that it would be appropriate that from now we would rule our existential act (this is perfectly observable now in our society of two-thousand; the problem is that it has not meant a new ethic, as Pep Colomer believes it should, but only a blind materialism, an autarchy of the senses without importance, but also without meaning). If we apply this vision, we realise how we have until now been living in a world of appearances, imaginations and illusions, a subjective world. And it is very important to leave this, towards an objective consciousness of the world (not necessarily scientific, because “science is also subjectivity, although objectified by Reason and the Logic of Reason”, but, in metaphysics, reason is a lesser element).
And the first thing to do is to realise what is and what is not (this is an epistemological problem of the first order, as we have already observed). In order to realise, we must have a personal attitude, an attitude that could not be attained if there is not an asceticism of the body and soul (a task of purification and cleaning and control), within the perspective of which living is a state and process of contemplation (“letting be”), in which the individual must experience and draw each thing and done as a work of art, the work of art of life of each one, through which one must be alert and attentive. If this is the case, then living, the personal life, reveals and adopts a meaning, that of the total fulfilment of my I, which is unique and unrepeatable.  If we do not do it in this way, we will continue to be lost, childish, ill and mistaken.
This whole approach, which here we have presented as an advance summary, he develops in the following sections of the book. On page 5 he notes six quotes that he calls “Axioms”, taken from very diverse authors and traditions. I feel it important to highlight the last one, which shows us the raison d’être of metaphysics, “the unavoidable presence of some problems” (E. Nicol, Mexico). And he adds: “The main task in philosophy is dealing with a problem. Once achieved, the solution falls almost by itself: like ripe fruit.”
What, then, is this problem?
In poetic form (the only two poetic texts I know of by Colomer are this one and one dedicated to Miquel Martí i Pol), almost in a pre-Socratic way, the author puts forward the problem, which he breaks down in the following way.
In the before and after of existence there is a real void that is pure enigma (which is how Colomer describes the mystery of existence, purely the only mystery there is). Nevertheless, life detects, can detect, the presence of the existence of everything, which is clear in the conscience as that which is an absolute spherical order (since everything is in relation to a unique centre, the sensitive I), which should live in a way that does not culminate again in the void (that is, importance must be given to life itself through the task of contemplation and attitude), through which, however, one must have the vocation necessary in the form of conscience that wants to understand and accede to the soul, which is nothing other than that which shapes meaning if the person, as a being, has acted correctly with their available attitude, in that that occurs to them and they understand is a “merit”, an unsought merit, but found.  The “Meaning, then, according to how we interpret it is the very task of being of the being making the effort to be more and be better” (my italics), later not in any way, as until now, but in the way in which we will explain in the following chapters.
Colomer, in consequence, does not make the meaning of existence emerge in the creator beyond, in God, nor does he attend to any rationalist or scientific explanation, but rather places the value of existence in the exact spot that each one will know how to locate according to how they have undertaken their task of living (my italics). Because existence is not something to know (to know how, when, why, from where, etc.), but through understanding in its absolute enigma, which is unsolvable. Understanding an unsolvable enigma clearly means understanding its quality of unsolvable enigma, mystically.
As a result Pep Colomer does not offer us anything metaphysical, which he states as not possible, but an ethic (which comes, however, from a special existential perception, of which there is nothing more than what there is, which is indeed metaphysical, which the reality perceived by me is everything).
So what you do and how you do it, and nothing else, will give you the value and explanation of your existence, will be your meaning, if you have been awake and available and have been responsible, and have not imagined anything that was not, since what it is, it is apart from what we imagine it to be, radically and absolutely.  This law, we interpret, is higher and should be seen. And if you see it (conscience) and you allow yourself to be taken by the real objective (and not allow yourself to be taken by the unreal subjective), then you will be given the plenitude, and your death, says Colomer, will not have been useless, since you are no longer the being (yours, or is there a being? He is not clear) more conscious and less illusory. In other words, you have undertaken an ethical task, an impeccable one. (With metaphysical consequences, that is, revealing in part, the enigma? He does not say it. But he thinks it. He will say later on).
Here is hidden, unavoidably for almost everyone who has tried metaphysics, part of Pep Colomer’s idealism. At the end of the day, this ethic rounds off the being, and through this work of perfection, the being someday will return to everything and culminate in it. Living, then, has a meaning, the perfecting of the being in order to go beyond. That this transcendence is not explained or deified does in no way weaken its own transcending direction, since in some way the effort and exigency must be justified. Ethics, however, if they are ethical, do not need any justification. This metaphysical appreciation, the consequence of the perfecting of the being, only remains, however, stated weakly in some parts of the text. It must be made clear, in any case, that in metaphysics any positive appreciation or positive conclusion must always be idealist, because otherwise it cannot eventually have any form, and constantly a void.
The strength of Pep Colomer’s text is, essentially, ethical, an ethic of the being, whose base is a strong optical correction, in the way of being of the being.
Nature is order. Humans, disorder (irresponsible). Reality is a whole, but we do not see it, and we become anxious wanting to know what, why, etc., thus reality and ourselves move separately. If we are not capable of reassuming reality, overcoming our profound individual subjectivity that makes us see with our eyes not what everything is, but what we believe or what we want it to be, in a childish way…, if we do not overcome the obstacle of the I (despite which, paradoxically, everything is I) through the comprehensive I, we will continue generating disorder, and living will be of no use. We will continue coexisting, without living in harmony, and confusing loving with possessing.
Meanwhile, reality is, as if it were a miracle, and we do not see it—here we must start to understand the base of knowledge of Pep Colomer is the mystical vision of reality, which is an individual experience that one has or does not have, and if you do not have it, everything that one deduces of having it loses meaning—. Mystical vision, in other words, outside of me from me, perceiving myself feeling the total unintelligibility of the presence of everything existing. If we see reality as it is, despite the fact that the enigma does not disappear, life acquires a new meaning and deserves to be lived. Since, on identifying ourselves comprehensively with what it is, the conscience opens up unlimitedly from the I towards the all, and begins a journey of previously unsuspected knowledge. Vacuity disappears, because in our base of being contemplative and comprehensive silence has been installed, which we previously fled from by making noise and talking. Because reality is silence.
The senses are only the tools of being. Sight, smell, hearing, touch, taste, are nothing without sensitivity, conscience and the attitude of the conscience, which one must open in availability, in the continual flow of life, and at the same time we must contemplate and let be.
We must follow knowledge without forcing it, but being alert to “notice the unity of us and of All as the Meaning of life. Experiencing it in its Plenitude. That of the prodigy of Being”.  Once the experience of the surprise of being has occurred, “in which everything is limited to being no more than the support (in raptures) of a supreme, unusual, inconceivable fulfilment, comes a profound path, alongside vegetative, neurotic life, ‘of getting by groping around’” with a life without object. Because in relation to the (absolute) problem of existence, Pep Colomer states, in Catalan style, we must know what we abide by, in other words, we cannot live half undocumented, without knowing what we are doing, without inner laws or order, which is what 99.9 per cent of people do. Simply, because it is not serious to be alive and living and not have any kind of self-consciousness or well-formed reflection.
Here we enter into the central chapter of the book. As we do not want to betray excessively the spirit of the text, we should warn the reader of two things: the text is not in any clear order, and neither do the thoughts have a systemisation (on the other hand not desirable or possible), and, in Colomer’s way of speaking, he continually uses the explanation retaken up, reformulated or literally repeated, enlarged and once again taken up and resumed… with short or long excursus that are resolved in new summaries, etc. The text, clearly, would have needed rewriting and re-elaborating, but we imagine that the difficulty itself of writing it, for someone who is not a writer, the old age in which he writes and the very contents of the text, essentially creative and interpretive, and in no way easy, would not allow him. We will thus put forward the ideas as a whole that seem clear to us and which define even more the thinking profile of Pep Colomer.
The first two paragraphs are almost totally unintelligible, but I believe that one can understand that the basic meaning of the attempt to “Understand the Origin of what Exists” is the absolute, from which can appear the being, which is relative. 
However, and this vision is essential, “in rigour […] it can be confirmed that only one Reality exists. That of each one, Yours. That which you live”.  Here is the key to his vision, which provides a large defining step of the turning point of knowledge which he gives us, leaving behind both the mythical vision and the idealist one, as well as the rationalist one, of human knowledge. He is not the only one, because all modern philosophy since Kant has worked to reach this point, and the contributions of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Renouvier, Wittgenstein, Benda, Heidegger, Sartre, Machado or Macedonio Fernández, to mention the metaphysicians, are a reality spoken and written very clearly, but of a common end, which remains stated in the affirmation of Pep Colomer. What is surprising is how Colomer, to a large extent unaware of these authors, reaches this far. We should be aware that the collaboration of ideas, as we have said, of the Count of Keyserling and School of Wisdom, but despite that the clarity and conciseness of his affirmation they are totally personal.
He also states very clearly that “we are no more than Centrality (awareness raising) of that which can be the Enigma”.  Everything, in the being, is itself and from itself. That which annuls the value of the exterior as a cause or explanation from outside (pure reception of the senses of the I, as we have indicated before) and of the language, precarious symbolism of the reality that the I feels. There is no exterior centre distant from the I: “It (can only) come from (centrality) itself to maintain the Unity of the All that sustains us.”  If everything is I, then, only by expanding the capacity of being of the I could the I fully understand and occur. Any other perspective will lead to error: “All therefore consists of promoting and expanding one’s Own Personal Centrality, in the Absolute sphere, Immanent, of the Sphericalised Significance.” Because “Reality is Absolute. And it is here where the Enigma lies”. Said another way, the mystery of being is impenetrable, since it is absolute. And everything that exists is subject to this law: “This being so, existing means maintaining oneself at permanent attention. In order not to lose contact with the Essential Meaning.” 
Colomer, therefore, takes apart all appearance or illusion, and asks us to act from the very sense of being of the being, in that only by making of existence itself in time a task of comprehensive, open and available attention (a work of art, he says), can we (because it will come given) find the meaning itself of this living. This effort has its meaning (it will be useless), and will culminate “Being transcended”.  At no time, however, does this transcendence indicate that it goes beyond the very I creator. Quite the opposite, the transcendence, according to my interpretation, lies in the maturing and enlargement of being itself thanks to its non-imaginary work, which comes from accepting oneself objectively and not subjectively; put another way, there is nothing more than what there is, but with what there is the being can and must live in the most attentive, responsible and conscious way possible (far, clearly, from any church or any dogma or any moral) for themselves. And this is their transcendence (later ethics, and nothing other than ethics, never metaphysics) within the framework of the incognoscible: “And this is how the Absolute occurs, in terms of the All.”
We must not cast off the apparent paradoxes of his discourse. It is, precisely, paradoxical thought (for example, everything is in me, but I must be objective), that is the basis of the real fact of the paradox of living (a dead life, a living death…), which Colomer must use, and anyone who enters this terrain, in order to send out meaning. The new perspective of Colomer, on being a simplification of the already existing one and a negation of the subjective imagination, leads things to a terrible and irreducible point, but very true: everything is in I and in me, and only on I and me do I depend, but at the same time I must be highly responsible for not falling into the chimera and, in contrast, be able to follow a clear, strong and powerful path in existence. In other words, just as Rilke pointed out, Colomer places us in “the most difficult”, because if one looks at such a vision it can become unbearable, just as the Rilkian vision of the angel is unbearable, but, and this is the value, only by withstanding this vision, being in this vision, can openness occur. Otherwise everything is blind appearance, drowning, weight, illness. And reality, indulged in fantasy in the being of every being, does not then ever order; therefore, says Colomer, the “All (existential-collective) must be revised”. 
This task of each person, in terms of being, must be a creative sense turned into art: “Everyone, then, will have to be an Artist of Life, […] in rigour, a question of strict Sensitivity. In which the being tries to detect what, with realisation they can be.” To undertake it requires “an impeccable Attitude that demands—indefectible—Merit itself”. 
We now have three basic concepts here: attitude, impeccability and merit, and one leads to the other, all forming the central axis of the Colomerian metaphysical ethic, or being consciential, in the manner of Macedonio Fernández. We come across these concepts later on in a more extended form, but if we look at the text closely, which is what we are doing, a surprising affirmation immediately appears before us, which reveals to us the disorder of the exhibition, since he states: “And this is All that can be done.”  It seemed that this would have to be the final sentence, and, however you looked at it, what was essential had already been said. We should take note of the capital letter of All, which includes all the action that can be done and everything in which it can be done, which is what determines the impossibility of the action being another, more imaginary, due to the iron law that makes us realise what there really is.
Colomer’s thoughts develop in periods that are associated in a way with what we could call quantic, in leaps, without a connected plot, so that it immediately retakes the finality (and at the same time starting point) of everything, which is the state of metaphysical conscience: “To eventually discover that the strict act of Being will always be—in itself—an inexpressible Prodigy.”  In effect, without this vision, de-producer and producer of reality, personal vision, unique, non-transferable and inexpressible (metaphysics cannot be said, but can be done…), the ontological perspective of Colomer is not within the reach of the reader.
From here, the text turns repeatedly on the axis of this vision and formula of being, using at some moments terminology that is not explained and difficult to interpret. We also come across the occasional paragraph that seems to have the syntax incomplete. 
He refers, among other observations, to the possibility of possible reincarnations due to the work of improvement of the being made through asceticism. It is an idea that, however, he does not repeat. He does, in contrast, return to the fact that existence must be exercised creatively and, he states, and this interests us more, the revelation of this vision is a pure ineffable fact that only “a very small, ridiculously small minority” can be aware of.  Pep Colomer’s elitist consideration could certainly have a base here, but we would be mistaken. The state of metaphysical conscience, if it is not produced in the majority of people, is due to their lack of attention, Colomer would tell us. In any case, it is a problem, we can add, because an ethic that is sustained on the confirmation of the general difficulty to accede to it comes from the consideration that it will not be applied, because it will not be reached. Pep Colomer does not speak to us of this problem, but we can sense it. Will the state of metaphysical conscience always be something of a visionary elite? Or will human times, in themselves, ensure that the whole population have access to it? I do not have the answer. Whatever the case, the reality, for now, is what Pep Colomer states.
The problem, he tells us, is of sensitivity, and without this sensitivity, what is visionary, perceptive (does one have this or is it taught?), of the presence of what is real does not occur. People are waylaid by desires, actions, fears, escapes, etc. We must abandon, he tells us, all kinds of impulsiveness.  We must have the feeling of false being, in order to feel the need of an attitude that must take us towards impeccability, without which all disorder emerges.
What does he mean by impeccability? This is a concept we also come across in the books of Carlos Castaneda, a North American anthropologist of Peruvian origin who entered into contact with the Mexican Indian Don Juan, in the nineteen-sixties, initiating him in self-control, and especially the depersonalisation and objectification of the I, a method that makes you capable of profoundly understanding, and even embodying in them, in absolutely everything, by interiorising the distinct beings, reaching a total degree of comprehension of reality or realities, in this case, since what we see is unsubstantial appearance. With the help of some substances extracted from the Mexican desert, the apprentice, Castaneda, embarks on an initiation rite that provides many considerations and subtleties of the feeling of being and of their conscience, which, finally, will have to be liberated, if understood only rationally. One of the essential concepts ends up being the impeccable state of oneself, the state of inactive consciousness and undistorted from reality, non-subjectivised, which fully affects behaviour, which one maintains in a strict, severe attention, about which one is and one is not. Translated, it involves an ethical concept, which asks the being to be ruled by profoundness of the conscience. Let us not concern ourselves with whether Colomer took Castaneda’s word or that of anyone else, but the association of values in terms by Pep Colomer seems to fit this definition. Thus, according to him, we must be impeccable, an essential element that provides both the attitude and the asceticism necessary to obtain the merit. Said another way, impeccability allows us to have the attitude, which is attention and forewarning regarding everything (and all things as part of everything), in relation to the order and disorder that reality offers. This attitude is directed at capturing the real order of things, and not allowing ourselves to be taken (“diverted”) towards disorder, which is done accepting asceticism: “Renouncement and contention, in disinterested role at the service of the best”, from the interest in understanding everything, since everything is related.  Disorder only appears when order is unattended, and so that this does not happen we need the attitude and asceticism. If one lives this way, then the merit emerges, that is, what happens to us is what we deserve as a result of our attentive work (one might think that the merit is also negative, but Colomer does not speak of this; there is only a positive merit, the rest is disorder). And in the case in which we are mistaken, that we fail in our impeccability, “Reality often provides the opportunity to do things well”, on the condition we abstain from acting through the subjective way and we work from principle with availability and honesty, he points out. 
And the way of merit responds to leaving do. Every pressurised search, all blind obstinacy, would lead us to the error. We do not need to want to know, we only need to be attentive. The responses will gradually come as merits, if we have impeccably objectified. And he states: “The Realised Being: that which, Conscious, will limit themselves to adapting in strict imperative of Meaning and of Creative, Religious (in the sense of religar, retying each thing with the Whole) Instance. Assuming the Integral Order experiencing it calmly; Impeccable and Available at the service of the Supreme fulfilment.” 
Since reality is not only matter (science) or spirit (religion), but matter with spirit and materialised spirit, and only the real-logical attitude relates it all in the way it is, a “Unity of Total non-fissionable”.  But only perceived from the centre of oneself, for who the rest is “somewhat ensuing […]. Destined to be considered (accepted, rejected or, even better, adapted) at the level of feeling at one with oneself”.  In consequence, and deep down, everything lies in our capacity to feel, in the process of our own conscience to accept, discern and understand the data of our feeling.
This philosophy, he tells us, must be “that which corresponds to the Second Millennium that approaches (we imagine he was referring to the millennium of two-thousand, which in reality is the third millennium, according to the Christian calendar), in which “everything tends and is promoted to maintain a supreme Activity. Which in the end has no Meaning in any aspect”.  We can see that the “supreme Activity” is this new, central, role of the conscience of the I, a new stage or existential point of view that, despite everything, paradoxically, has no meaning whatsoever. Indeed, all this work of being, the labour of being (ethics) of the being, is marked only in the demand for impeccability which has made him see, has finally seen, in his own conscience. But the existential sea is and will be an enigma. Precisely, the fact of not knowing, in no way, is the step of main cause that bases or provokes the new consciential attitude, neither imaginary nor fanciful. If “what I am” cannot respond, and Colomer states that it cannot, the only work remaining for us is “what I have to do”. If this work, by merit, ends up providing a response to what I am, it is not something that should concern us or that we should consider as an objective, however much here and there Pep Colomer states an overcoming of the enigma if we maintain the correct attitude. This is merely an intuition of Colomer. He does not see or know how something like this will happen. It is a desire that it is so (deep down, resisting not knowing in its totality). So we do not know how existence will end, but we do know, Colomer tells us, what its main cause is: that reality is and occurs at every moment, in apparent continuous transformation, because the “Conditions and Structure of the Origin” seem to have lived unaltered. 
This thought leads him to a certain pessimism, since the problem has always existed and “it is not seen as feasible, in any aspect”, that “the Human being embarks on a decisive, radical revision to transform their way of living into a decisive improvement”.  The only thing we can do, then, is personal work, individual to individual. He denies, as we see, the regenerationist collective movements, since it seems he had little faith in humanity. This work leads to the individual who undertakes it in isolation, in incomprehension and even in rejection. The creative individual (because it is a work of personal creation) must work and continue alone although hopeful. Because we should uproot ourselves from the instinctive spirit. And although in science and technology we have moved on a lot, we have not done so regarding the enigma of reality. The need to find a meaning in being is not realised.  Therefore, collectively, we are off course, within an illusory, alienating process. Put another way, nobody follows his vision. And he asks himself: “In this situation, what meaning does living together have?” Everything is routine, power of just a few, inattention and destruction of many. We confuse “Meaningness” (the real content) with the contingent conditions that determine it in terms of appearance. Because we do not notice the reality “in terms of Presence or Sensation” (meaning everything returns to the beginning, to the necessary state of metaphysical consciousness, without which the renewal process does not exist). 
From this moment on, the text follows a repeated commentary of the concepts dealt with until now. Also from this perspective, it tackles general and social themes, such as education, art, love or the relationship between parents and children, making statements as current as the one that follows: “To educate Children, we would have to begin by educating the Parents” in the terms of the liberating attitude which he had mentioned.  He eventually states that it is lucky that existence, reality, is an enigma, since if it was not, and he shows it just as it is shown today, there would be no rules or meaning that substantiates or would merit it—but the idea is not clarified, and we are left an unclear meaning from this statement…—. The idea is completely contradictory, but is in line with the moments in which Pep Colomer, the pessimist, wants to become optimistic and hopeful again. Stating, however, that if the reality we have just as it is now, were not an enigma, then it would be even more precarious, because we would not be obliged to undertake the work of the conscience, the result of an absurd logic, because if it were not an enigma, it would not be thus, just as it is now, and if it is thus it is because it is an enigma, and there is no way of saying that it would be better or worse. We understand that he wants to point out the value of this enigma, since it requires of us this hoped-for improvement that he proposes, and that without enigma there is no need for this work. The only problem is that, without enigma, we cannot imagine absolutely anything. And this is the enigma. Pep Colomer’s reflection, therefore, as I see it, is in vain. Because he declares: he hopes “when the Being encounters a basis in Merit itself which pushes him to realise the—exceptional—prodigy that everything is an Enigma, indeed, but hopeful”. 
I think that here Pep Colomer is diverted from his own work of impeccability, in the reiterated attempt of making an enigma-overcoming the enigma synthesis, as if he was resisting—and he must have resisted in his inner self—his own severe vision of reality. Because the fact that the ethic depends, in its ethical being, on a hope, contradicts, in my opinion, this very ethic, which to be must be and that is, like a mandate of the conscience, without any other transcendence. Colomer ventures, in another paragraph, that a stage of calm and silence will come (in contrast with the here and now) “essentially directed at accepting and Comprehending”. “With which the World—Existing—(reducing) will perhaps be extinguished. Until ending everything, as regards Mankind. And another distinct stage will begin, within the Absolute, infinite, unforeseeable sphere.”  We do not know how to comment on this work in terms of the future that Pep Colomer undertakes here. It is not clear the being as a species would be extinguished, or this current form of being of the being, which by accepted comprehension of all will pass to another state (a supra-human one?).
We should underline, however, the idea of Health that we find later on, in which the (Being must get used to not counting more than With Themselves”, since “the possibilities of genuine ordering and recovery, necessary, are already found by nature contained in the Organism itself. And the question consists of nothing more than knowing how to use them to the suitable extent and time”. What is surprising is the identity of position regarding Macedonio Fernández, the thinker from Buenos Aires who died in 1952, who carried out this therapy really and effectively throughout his life, without ever taking any medicine, and even dying without a diagnosis. We do not know up to what point Pep Colomer practices such self-curing, but the idea is clear: Health is a whole, interior and exterior, and comes from oneself, and only oneself can cure.
The book becomes denser and stretches out with a series of brief visions, such as a very personal description of the concept of sphericity, from which we do not venture to determine the meaning. He immediately embarks on the idea of reincarnation about which, he says, we should not think, but know that, on dying, our consciential work is “an integrating factor of existence that is renewed”, which is enough to “urge us (while we are) and maintain us alert in the creative instance”. 
He introduces in the same way the concept of complementation, which he will use abundantly in his therapy, through which everything, in opposition, tends, if you let it be, towards balance by complementation. Time, on the other hand, does not exist, since everything is only experience belonging to the present. He also devotes a section to love and sex, which must move at the same time in the terms indicated, which would deepen the sensitivity and plenitude with which they must be experienced.
This part of the text ends summarising his thesis and insisting on the sphericity in which everything exists, as well as indicating the points of the sphere where quality and pace are found: conscience (centre), manifestation (periphery), virtuality (back), effectiveness (front), condition (left), determination (right), spirit (above) and matter (below).  And he states: “And that, strictly, there is no other species of Reality that is not Spherical. This being the case, the assimilation of the Elements and aspects found in all Spheres are made up of end up being simply the Essential. In other words, essential SUPREME Knowledge.” 
This long, winding and reiterated discourse ends, of which we do not know how to clearly evaluate the meaning of this situation of sphericity of elements and aspects, which although comprehensible in its placement, we do not see necessarily related to the consciential-ethical process that he has been formulating previously. There is something, therefore, that we have not been able to understand enough, since he considers its assimilation as “supreme” knowledge…
In the “The real-logic application” section, following the development of his first book, A real-logic therapy, he makes an analysis of the illness as disorder, to which one should apply, logically, all the preceding concepts, which re-establish the order. Obviously, we do not aim to enter into this terrain, but we will rescue from this chapter some concepts and confirmations that complete the previous work.
On page 65 he states that the highest intelligence (creative-transcendent) lies in comprehension and not knowledge, understood as the possibility of accumulated wisdom. This oriental connection of Pep Colomer (which on some Hindu points and ways leads to radical non-action) is found spread around the basis of all his thought, but in the way that Jung pointed out that we must accept orientalism, as real knowledge but which we must evaluate and use from another root, that of our western knowledge, more rational, active and scientific. I think that in this case it complies with Jung’s mandate. There is no easy terminology in Pep Colomer, loaned from Taoism, which seems to be the most common place of his oriental apprenticeship. In Colomer everything is of an appropriation and personal search, and also, therefore of a personal definition. It is obvious, for those who want to be strict, that the analogies and similarities in this field, that is, metaphysics, may be and usually are many. Paul Valéry said that “the people who ’think’ are beings that move, with blindfolded eyes, within this small room of the human Mind—and in this game of metaphysical blind man’s buff, we crash into each other—, and they push simply because they move, and because the space is very small. It is a space for a dozen words”.  I think that this quotation from Valéry is quite eloquent of what I want to say. In this game of blind man’s buff, Pep Colomer approaches it in a very personal way. Here and there he coincides with this and that spiritualist current or author of a more or less metaphysical profile and it seems obvious that this is neither coincidence nor is it possible to avoid. In this field, and following the Valerian simile, what matters is where you place the words and in which direction you point and, above all, how you define the perimeter of this room. In the same way as is confirmed that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato (until yesterday, because today even Pep Colomer is spruced up by idealism, however much he is tempted by it…), vaguely metaphysical spiritualism (metaphysics is not taken seriously until Macedonio Fernández says it in 1929 in No toda es vigila la de los ojos abiertos) has always been an oriental current, and Christianity itself comes from oriental currents, all impregnated with the mystical pathos. Therefore, the debate around Colomer’s influences is sterile. He formulates his own thesis, and defines it. This is his value. What interests him is verifying the correct appropriation and use of tradition, and with these tools, see what type of creation has been undertaken. I believe that it can be said, with all the shortages inherent in the period, stage in life and personal training, that the work of Pep Colomer is a clear contribution (by the definition and systemisation) to a general western metaphysicist current already present in romanticism, particularly German, the failure of which feeds Nihilism, which would be the general current from the mid-19th century and throughout the 20th century, of western metaphysics, before theology, and now appearing in the void. It has stood out many times throughout this period, all with the need to report on, to see clearly, or as Pep Colomer says, to know what to abide by. As Charles Péguy pointed out, I have to see what I see. We are in this task: look at what one sees, do not interpret, take the veil off the imagination, sit down beside yourself, and look well, not with innocence (impossible), but with correction, with objectivity, Machado would say, and see what you see, nothing else, what there is. In consequence, for Colomer intelligence is not accumulated knowledge, but understanding the phenomenon.
On page 67 he explains to us the necessary process of personal solitude in order to arrive at this understanding. The capacity to free oneself from imbalance or disorder through personal asceticism (“noting down the Tensions of the Periphery from the Centre”) “it seems to be the Destiny, struggle, and also the Drama, that each one—I myself—will have chosen. That of the inevitable, progressive, Personal solitude. Much more necessary, intense, radical, all, paradoxically, in a more open, communicative, available way, occurs”. Let us look at the paradox he points out at the end: solitude increases as availability increases, since the understanding increases, and understanding leads to solitude, which allows great availability… It involves a path of personal mysticism, which is essential in order to achieve with real knowledge one’s own reality and that of others, outside. This means that the journey into one’s inner self is that which in the end enables us to free ourselves from the exterior, not depend on it, and it is that very lack of dependence on it that enables us to be open and available to this exterior. Colomer does not ignore, however, the resistance of each person to do this difficult task of renouncing themselves apparently to be able to find themselves fully. The world of humans is overturned in the exterior appearance, and today, intensely and almost without remedy. Colomer’s voice, like others, is an island, the message in a bottle.
On page 70, in one of his many personalisations, he says: “And that is how I am, producing myself in an inner world of hopeful experience and permanent prodigy. Exciting and painful at the same time; due to the miracle that occurs at every moment, transcending itself and revealing itself in the fabulous Presence of life and of things, taking them in, contemplating them; simply letting them be.” The summary of his being in the world is clear and sharp. We should also understand where Colomer places himself: before the continuous surprise of being in reality totally felt and contemplated, what Macedonio Fernández calls “the evidential Siesta”, or the afternoon rest, of All before the eyes, the full evidence of reality happening, what Pep Colomer calls Presence, with nothing hidden, all in sight, with the Mystery (Fernández) Enigma (Colomer) enveloping absolutely everything, impenetrably. Because this is what it is: what there is. Here is where we are doing descriptive metaphysics, not imaginative, the metaphysics of what there is. Colomer is, therefore, rigorous. He does not invent or project. He just feels, and this feeling (which is in no way logical, it is a vision) is joy and pain at the same time, meaning and paradox, real and unreal, true and false, good and bad, etc. So I have learnt in a single act the profound metaphysical paradox of being in existence (since existence can never be thought of if it is not through the being, and even then, each individual being), that, being, does not know what or how it is. But once one has completely understood this vision within oneself, then we are no longer alone, because the Presence is continuous: “Our Solitude stops being isolated. We suddenly find ourselves connected again to the Total Presence.” Metaphorically he indicates that “every specific being is made up like an island within the sea of existence”.  Thus it is essential that every being (I, individual) accepts reality just as it is, since it will depend on the degree to which each being feels more integrated or more separated from what exists of the parallel degree of existential neurosis, and, therefore, of disorder and illness. The distance between our vision-sensation of reality and reality will be the measurement of our health and/or our illness. Later the wise man, I add, is never ill, although they may perfectly be perplexed, sad and content all at once.
Finally, on page 76 he makes several considerations about love, of which we should highlight the idea that, in this field, self-exigency “will lead us to also Love a Work of Art”, from the conscience of difference as complementation. Here I think Colomer risks a great deal, firstly because the question of love implies the other, which may exist or not, or exist above the other which is not the one we make exist. And if we refer to love in a couple, with the male-female roles, we should warn that everything Colomer says is a male mysticism, from the male point of view. The metaphysical situation of the female is not often very interested in this type of vision, and is much more rooted in the earth and in the practice of survival. Perhaps as an ideal future, in a future humanity of emancipated beings of many atavisms, someone might also think of complimentarity as a form of love, although this is exactly what Machado wants to say with his cordial Christ, and with his fraternity. Clearly however, here, we refer much more to an infertile rather than procreative humanity. In terms of biological reality, we must be, I believe, more prudent. In any case, the arrow of complimentarity in difference that Pep Colomer fires, is fired, and both the male and female, given the current changes, need to find personal and ethical forms to undertake their inner and outer lives. And this is, in the long run, one of the most important social tasks that remain to be done in this historic period.
In the last section, “Therapeutic regulation”, before “Graphotherapy”, we find the most illuminating formulation of Pep Colomer, as I see it, despite the fact that we come across it already in the chapter devoted to therapy. Thus, on page 90 he states: “Since Reality is the priority, not Man.”
Machado had already stated that reality, in a world of imaginations, is revolutionary. In fact, the change of paradigm is this (and rationalism and science also have a great deal to do with it): if before it was Mythos, and then Theos and after it was Man and Reason, now metaphysics is what is Real. We do not intend to approach a thesis that does not concern us here, but it does occur to us that Colomer, we suppose involuntarily, found the exact formulation of the change of paradigm that his thought involved (and of other contemporaries of his). If we were to make an approximate diagram of the different consciential cultural stages of the human lineage, we would not be far out if we said that in the origin the most things were the gods, since reality was divine, and the being child-like, daring to be. Then came God, the important one, and the being, his child, in his reality. Later came Man, the important one, in a divine reality, but increasingly governed by man, until God disappears, and in place of God nothing is placed. That is when man comes across total reality, and he, who thought to be decisive, is no more than a phenomenon of reality, that he cannot even judge beyond the self-same I of each being. He only knows he exists in what exists. Later, an ontological investment has occurred, since the metaphysical reference is increasingly located in a distinct place, and if what now occurs is that reality is the priority, it is because the previous references have been shown to be metaphysically inane, irrelevant, and what remains, naked and vulgar, is reality, its presence constant. A spherical reality, because it surrounds us everywhere (the above/heaven and below/earth or hell has now ended), everything is in sight (so many years seeking the one, and it was in front of us all the time, as Machado says), and if we are, everything is, and if we are not, nothing is. Pure descriptive. Any other affirmation, as Macedonio Fernández already stated, is pure imagination, a superfluity.
We could believe that at this point Pep Colomer is right, and in this investment, or rather in the fact, of being capable of seeing it and saying it, lies the high value of his testimony. Because what we have said is still not, by a long stretch, a general and popular vision. Very many people would deny it. Very many people, however, experience it perfectly without realising it.
If we go back a little in the text, to page 80, we will find the explanation that Colomer gives that that this has happened. According to him, since the First World War
the human species has been sinking in the wait for a deep Crisis of Vital Dissatisfaction, generally unsuspected. Mainly due to the fact of occurring camouflaged, unnoticed, after the spectacular transformation that with the advent of Science and Technology has imposed a spectacular change on a way of life that remained unaltered since time immemorial; that which was sustained in a certain resigned conformism with limitations at all levels.
In other words, the new register of hidden, unnoticed progress, he says, is a twofold problem, the active exaltation of being, in which one believes they are capable of everything, and the opposite, the depression that causes dissatisfaction which leads to the verification that this lack of limits is false, because the limit, clearly, is what there is, since there is nothing more than what there is (a very Catalan metaphysical expression, which Josep Pla would have probably subscribed to fully). Pessoa, through Álvaro de Campos, already explained in his Ultimatum, in the same way as Colomer, that the stimuli of sensitivity that the modern individual receives are superior in their capacity and rhythm of adaptation, through which we are humanly overwhelmed.  Industrialisation, consumerism, psychic instability, illness, says Pep Colomer. From here comes the need for real-logical therapy, which returns our own limit to us and does not let us, through attitude and asceticism, indulge in pipe dreams, since it forces us into a growing objectivity.
He later repeats everything that he has pointed out regarding therapy in his first book, insisting on the false existence of the Unconscious, which in reality is “pure and simple Unnoticed Reality”. The text is lengthened in schematic valuations of the real-logic application, which concludes with a final affirmation: “Understanding that, in terms of Plenitude, the simplest—necessarily—must be the most difficult. But also, at the same time, the most Transcendental.”
This affirmation runs completely parallel to that pointed out by Rainer Maria Rilke at the end of his Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge, and in general throughout his entire poetic work: we should remain in the maximum open simplicity. That is, in the most difficult, since only in this paradox do we find the transcendence for the being. And without ever waiting for anything, no addition, no prize for the work of contemplating from the I, the Centre, says Colomer, pending the experiences that never stop occurring if we remain Impeccable, if not the very ethical state of being. Colomer would probably agree if we add the thesis of Don Juan: to be free, maximally free before the Mystery.
Ten more pages complete the book, after the section devoted to Graphotherapy, which we will not comment on. Ten pages, not only as a summary, but also adding some ideas. The first, that science is not a priority, although necessary, since its applications cannot supplant comprehension, which is what science must establish, not the other way round. The second, “that Living does not go, despite not knowing where it leads”. Therefore, “it is this that Man […] should understand; merely the Possibility (the Option of Being) available with Existence to transform itself into Spirit”. This part, which deals with the connection of everything with the all, is, he says, that which forgets science, and only with this attitude it is “like an enigma […] it may be dealt with, without aiming to change its approach, beginning in the Void to assume the All”.  Here Colomer places himself fully in ontology, since he believes that, without this initial correct approach, everything leads to an error. And it seems clear to him that we live, as Émile Cioran says, in the error, that which (and here comes the third idea) “leads us to suspect—I think it is clear—that the Existence we experience needs to be revised”. We must revise society, the family and the person, starting with the latter, since it is the base, of the ethical mode we have explained up to now. Once the person has the correct attitude, then it would be advisable “to Invalidate […] the Matrimonial unit and procreation of the sons as a leading mission; social indispensable”. The relationship between the sexes will have to be serious, broad, free and responsible, and the creation of children will be a “natural result”, controlled by the very process of the conscience of the individual, who will only procreate with beings that will be able to enjoy responsible creative freedom, with which the social body will stop being ill and full of undesired beings or acts intempestively, and competitiveness will disappear, favour the external existence of a vocation “while it maximises the Option of Being”. 
We do not need to comment of the extreme idealism of this social version through natural free creation of children controlled by the very responsibility of the individuals. What this means, and Pep Colomer does not say so, is the overcoming of the instinctive animal state of people, which is normally much higher than their artificial, rational and scientific education. It represents the conquest of a state of human consciousness. It is not that we must renounce it as an objective, but Colomer knew very well where we are, how far we are. Another idea, that we find on page 127, says that the “Comprehension of Creativity (far from being an attribute of a ridiculous ’elitist’ minority) should be placed at a level of generalised application”. Neither do we have to renounce this objective, but we should be concerned that something like this, just for representing an attack on the political or economic power by the possibility of a society of free, creative and comprehensive individuals, it must be long-term. We should rather think that these objectives of Pep Colomer, in the case of being, will be by total decantation of existing itself, in the same way that some centuries ago a laic and nihilist society like ours would have seemed utopian; just like now an existentially comprehensive society may seem utopian to us. Time, like water when it is retained in excess, ends up bursting “for not having a way out”, as the Spanish poet Garcilaso said of the spirits of love retained within the body. At the same time, in the confusion of existence, all is time, and nothing is ever the same as itself. One can think, therefore, of a comprehensive society; one can also think the other way, and of its limit, destroyed. In any case, Colomer gives us the idea and the way, and, in these times, it is a lot to have an idea and a way.
“What it is about is Feeling (cooperating) guided by Intuition. The rest will come on its own.”  And thus we justify life itself and surpass all limitations; we will accede to new levels of Reality “we will enter into the Pure Reality of Presence”. We have self-assigned “an indemonstrable importance; excessive at all levels”, separating us from objective reality. “We should avoid confusing Reality with the phenomena that it carries. Those of Life, for example. At all levels.” 
To sum up, there is no other way to begin in Wisdom and assume Comprehension than that which imposes Starting by the Pure Beginning. That state in which nothing has yet been determined, and only from that—by successive connections—one integrates into the “What is Real […]. It is the decisive, sufficient Basis […]. With which one will achieve a spectacular simplification and generalised efficiency that will bring the strict “Order” naturally, responsible at all levels. And Life—Personal or Collective—, must obligatorily be seen to be Creative and Diverse in all aspects. 
The date of the 30th of December 1990 closes the text.
Evaluation and commentary on the text by Pep Colomer
Pep Colomer, like Pessoa, is a feeler. He belongs, through experience and personal searching, to the relatively short list of metaphysical artists that the 20th century has produced, as a particular characteristic of that century in its anxious search for lost identity, by which I mean lost during the 20th century. It has been precisely the notorious lack of metaphysical perspective that has channelled this titanic search of modernity, orphan of almost everything except itself, which is the harsh reality of life. Men and women, artists, thinkers, who have fled like the plague from appearance that has fallen over them (to replace the old fallen appearance) and from the totalising scientific spirit (not science), whether in its rationalist branch or its intuitionist side. They are people who have believed nothing, and have wanted to think for themselves; people who have been on an inner/outer journey in order to dig deep, as Pep Colomer has said, in other words to find, in the experience that it turns out is life, something essential, clean, clear, definitive, although this meant that the clear, clean and definitive was nothing, and unsurpassable limit. Needless to say perhaps the failure as ontologists has occurred in all of them, in some way unforeseen (who in metaphysics does not foresee failure can end up making a Prophet of some invention or other, which is the antithesis of rigorous metaphysics), has brought them to quite a few shared visions (no ideas, concepts or logical postulates, and even less so rational systems or scientific equations), a large part of which Pep Colomer describes in his brief existential essay, for example:
1. PRESENT: All is present, in time, and present, before you. And this is all there is.
2. THE I: outer reality only exists as sensitive reality of the I of the individual, of each individual uniquely for them, and the perception of the I is unique and total, absolute. And this is all there is (there is no external cause or entity or objective substance or identity, however much appearance-wise it may seem to us. If I am not, there is nothing. The way in which this happens, including the very causal fecundation of the I by other I’s, is not a biochemical mystery, but rather a metaphysical mystery (Why is it thus and not another way?). We should, therefore, stop doing and being, says Colomer.
3. THE MYSTERY: reality from the I is impenetrable. An enigma, says Colomer. Neither myth nor science can solve ontology. Literally, we do not know anything. Nor will we know. And all the serious problems of reality are metaphysical problems, later unsolvable.
4. ETHOS: the individual, in total cosmic solitude (or in the elements, as I understand it), only has himself, and only has one task to do in himself: ethos, the principle of behaviour that he has to give order and meaning, for himself, in his living. Pep Colomer calls it impeccability. This means never lying, or never lying about what it is. In terms of Don Juan, do everything you have to do, and still a little more.
5. SOLITUDE: we must assume this solitude by necessity. We will not improve as individuals or, therefore, as society, in anything, if we do not adopt this metaphysical conscience, if we do not enter into a state of metaphysical conscience, self-conscience and responsible. The great collective ideas, mythical or social, are no longer of use. What is important is the individual, the conscience of the individual. But of an individual not aware of themselves, subjectively, but aware of what they see, objectively, and no other thing imagined or desired. Solitude must be ethical.
6. HEALTH: health is a state of balance of the self-conscious I, and not a question of medicines. Health is a total state of the individual, and illness, physical and psychic, come from personal imbalance, from illusory error in the exterior. The cure is above all through oneself.
7. CONSCIENCE: the only tool of the individual in order not to be an animal is his conscience. It does not matter that we do not know where, how or when, or who or why (what we are and everything existing). The conscience is, and it is our duty to make it work, enlarging it as much as we can.
8. MYSTICS: the conscience, in order to work well, must reach a state of metaphysical conscience, and this state must have a basis of mystical vision, in that the I, before physical reality, realises its totality and of the totality that surrounds it, and, in consequence, stops imagining and becomes devoted to understanding what it is and what there is, as Pep Colomer says. Non-transcendental existential laic mysticism. Nothing to do with religious mysticism.
9. NOTHING IS GIVEN: against the old belief of an ex-nihilo creation, or the new one of a beginning of exploding energy, the world, existence and the being are something given, which appear and disappear at the pace that each individual moves at, and is, finally, inapprehensible and unintelligible. It is while we feel it, and is not if we do not feel it.
10. EVERYTHING AND THE PARTS: everything that the being perceives as I, which is everything, they perceive at the same time as both contradictory and complementary, both related and independent, both causal and apparent. The task of the being’s spirit (the greater will of the conscience, its yearning desire greater than matter) is to reach the comprehension of the complementariness of everything with All. An infinite task, if you like, but ethical work.
We could even, certainly, extend these ten points, but in essence they are formulated in the essay of Pep Colomer, and are recognisable in the majority of authors of modern metaphysics. And although some of these points coincide with the oldest mandates of oriental wisdom, the perspective from where they have reached, and from where Pep Colomer reaches, is western, that is, from Greek rationalism and dialectics, and from the fall of theology in the West. On the other hand, the Orient renounces real and practical life, whereas the mandate of the metaphysical conscience is, in contrast, a mandate in the here and now, real and present, material (not materialist, however). Ethics is not a dream of mystical unity, or Buddhist patience, but a demand to act of the being in each moment of their real activity. And the mystical vision is not a uniting and unitary, religious, vision with all, to blend in with it, but a negative, nihilistic vision of the impossible union of the conscious I with all, a question from which arises the ethical mandate. Now is not the time to establish an East-West differentiation, but it should be pointed out, and not just in passing, in order not to give credence to false western mysticism, in relation to what is being said here, and neither to those who have fallen into the excesses of rationalism, who did not dismiss Colomer’s work as pure religious orientalism.
We should state, however, that Pep Colomer does not fall into either the general nihilism of the West or into ontological pessimism, or into the absurd. His work is a hopeful thinking-feeling, even though he makes it difficult to communicate, and totally individual. But he asserts several times that the work of the conscience, of impeccability, must result in an improvement in the being, not only in what is specific person, but also in the species, and, therefore, with social, family, sexual and amorous derivations… Whatever his philosophical references are, however, which we have already briefly mentioned at the beginning, Pep Colomer’s work is personal and creative. It does have a metaphysics, since it could not have one, and he sees this, and says it; in contrast, he has an existential method based on the failure of metaphysics (Enigma is) of an ethical outlook and of mystical basis, with which, nevertheless, he hopes to be able to overcome the metaphysics (he is hopeful, despite the evidence).
And that is all one can do, he says. 
Which is a lot, a great deal. We should add, in any case, that his unsurpassable vision of the absolute is contradictory, and the meaning that he says arises from the correct individual attitude. We have come to do something, he points out, but at the same time “the strict act of Being will be forever—for oneself—now an inexpressible prodigy”. We should think that Colomer is not a nihilist, but a vitalist mystic, confident and ahead of his time, visionary, and for this reason the he devotes part of his message to trying to open a door into the absolute. And this door is the ethic, that of the ethic. And to find that door we must follow an equation (since everything, he tells us, although seen, is “equationed”—“complementaried”, we could say—according to a term that he probably takes from the readings of the Count of Keyserling, but which also reveals a scientific and rational soul in Pep Colomer), an equation in three stages:
(a) If there is not Anything, it is All (and the opposite) = Pure Beginning. All is Presence which must be left to do.
(b) Existence must be contemplated in four complementary levels:
Uniqueness (the immanent is One absolute) = Reality.
Duality (the conscious being) = Being.
Trilogy (the action that enables 1 and 2) = Being.
Quadrature (Transcendent Presence) = of Nothing / of All.
Which can be read in reverse: from nothing emerges the action which creates the being which is reality. Or from the right: reality makes the being feel action being between nothing and all.
(c) The ethic, “the Regulation-available Attitude” (religious), that means:
What is Simple = What is Impeccable = What is Objective = What is Deserved.
Thus, if we place ourselves in the pure beginning, and we know the quadrature of reality, and apply the correct attitude, it will come to us given, without doing anything that we have not done until now, the meaning, and perhaps the solution or overcoming of the enigma.
Finally he asks the reader not to ever take it lightly, because it deals with “undertaking a rigorous revision of the meaning of existence itself in terms of objectivity”. 
And this is all there is. Which is quite a lot, and is a great deal, and depending on your point of view, too much. But this is how it has been for Pep Colomer, real, necessary, appropriate. We do not know if Pep Colomer was a painter. But that he tried to do ontology and ethics is clear, obvious and brave. From what he tells us, that each one takes or places. A general system of his Real-logic, his Therapy, his ten Conditions for painting and form, his Graphology and Characterology have not yet been dealt with, and it is the task of whoever wants to take it on. For the moment, his real and logical ontology-ethic remains, we hope, explained for the future and for future generations. And in fact it is the essential and current that Pep Colomer, finally, reached. And as Antonio Machado, metaphysician, said: “Whoever wants to listen, then listen, and whoever wants to understand, then understand.”
 Ernst Wiechert, La vida sencilla (Barcelona: Plaza & Janés, 1976), 285.
 Pep Colomer, La comprensió real-lògica: una filosofia pel dos mil (Girona: [the author] 1991), 90. In the quotes of texts by Pep Colomer we have respected the vocabulary and syntax of the originals.
 Colomer, Una filosofia, 3.
Carbonell, “Recull de textos filosòfics d’en Pep Colomer”, in Pep
Enric Ansesa et al. (Girona: Museu d’Art, 1996), 39.
 Colomer, Una terápia real-lógica: deducible de los mensajes de los sueños y del sentido de la escritura personal (Girona: [the author] 1982).
 Ib., 34.
 Ib., 37-39.
 This is a profuse subject, which we cannot deal with here. From the common dream, going through the visionary dream, or the therapeutic dream, life as a dream, or life as a state of dreaming over another life the same as living in a state of dreaming, we have a very complex historical referentiality. Colomer, like all metaphysicists, wanted to place dreams in the space of a greater meaning. Probably, on this question, the most profound work, from the existential point of view, is that narrated by Castaneda, from the experiences with Don Juan. Colomer knew, at least, of three of the four main books by Castaneda: Viaje a Ixtlan. Las lecciones de Don Juan (Buenos Aires: FCE, 1975); Relatos de Poder (Buenos Aires: FCE, 1976), and Les enseignements d’un sorcier yaqui (Paris: Gallimard, 1971). See also Macedonio Fernández, No toda es vigilia la de los ojos abiertos (Buenos Aires: Corregidor, 1928).
 Colomer, Una terápia, 53.
 Ib., 83.
 Enric Ansesa, “Aproximació a Pep Colomer; l’home i l’obra”, in Pep Colomer (pintura), (Girona: Ajuntament, 1991), 6.
 Arnau Puig, “Un apropament a Pep Colomer”, in Pep Colomer (1907-1994), 9.
 Francesc Miralles, “Josep Colomer, des de la discreció”, in Pep Colomer (1907-1994), 15.
 Ansesa, “Josep Colomer després de l’eclipse”, in Pep Colomer (1907-1994), 17.
 Joaquim Jubert, “Pep Colomer: penúltima etapa (1980-1994)”, in Pep Colomer (1907-1994), 27.
 Colomer has fully captured the crisis of idealism and dialectic rationalism, which has killed philosophy, just as Plato instituted it. In this sense, Colomer is totally modern.
 A precarious, personal and purely ethical meaning (that is, relational regarding behaviour, oneself and others); that nobody looks for the Meaning that, for example, religions or other seekers of Absolute Transcendence promise.
 The spherical order is natural in all existential formulations opposed to directional order or movement, which is what we have in the idea of progress and time. In fact, current globalisation represents the change towards a spherical order, where everything is interrelated.
 Here we have a serious epistemological problem, which Macedonio Fernández also posed, which is if everything that there is, is nothing more than what I feel, what difference is there between objectivity and subjectivity? How can the perception of “what is” exist, objectively, not fanciful, if “what is” only “I” can see? Perhaps the answer lies in the imagination, that faculty of being that takes it beyond what is. And nevertheless, without imagination, we could not “see” many things. The paradox is insurmountable.
 Colomer, Una filosofia, 14.
 Ib., 17.
 Ib., 17-18.
 Ib., 18.
 Ib., 19.
 Ib., 20.
 Ib., third paragraph of page 21.
 Ib., 22.
 Ib., 23.
 Ib., 26.
 Ib., 27.
 Ib., 28.
 Ib., 29.
 Ib., 30.
 About the present and the origin, there is a great work, very little known, by Jean Gebser, from the 1940s, titled precisely Origen y Presente (Vilaür: Atalanta, 2011), which reflects on the changes of the conscience, from the magical era, though the mythical, the rational and the present, or consciential, where he states that everything essential is already found in the origin. We do not know if Pep Colomer was aware of the ideas of Gebser, even through other authors.
 Colomer, Una filosofia, 32.
 Ib., 33.
 Ib., 35.
 Ib., 40.
 Ib., 41.
 Ib., 42.
 Ib., 48.
 The similarity between Colomer’s outline and the drawing that Don Juan offers Carlos Castenada about the qualities of being is curious, and also includes a location, in this case in the body. See Castaneda, Relatos de poder, 130-131.
 Colomer, Una filosofia, 55.
 Paul Valéry, Cahiers (Paris: Gallimard, 2007), 84. Translation by author.
 Colomer, Una filosofia, 72-73.
 Fernando Pessoa [Álvaro de Campos, pseud.], “Ultimátum”, Revista Portugal Futurista, 1917.
 Colomer, Una filosofia, 122-23.
 Ib., 124-25.
 Ib., 128.
 Ib., 129.
 Ib., 130.
 Ib., 20.
 Colomer, typed manuscript, Colomer Collection.