Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“To state there is no need for a creator or God if there is no time is meaningless. Because the Absolute is beyond time and space as we know them. Absolute is the Source of time and space and, therefore, does not need time to create or recreate itself through the World. Such statements are not scientific; they are presuppositions and intellectual constructs that serve as fillers for the lack of accurate understanding or a fundamental theory explaining how reality, which is almost incomprehensible to the human mind, functions.”

“There are laws of nature. We may describe the laws of nature but still not wholly unravel and understand them to pronounce that scientific laws are equal to natural laws or that they are an absolute representation of natural laws. Scientific laws did not yet cover, describe, and explain all natural laws, mysteries, and secrets.”

“We cannot hide behind science nor talk in the name of science while proclaiming statements that are not scientific. Such statements are that there is no creator if there is no time. However, this is only a statement a scientist (Stephen Hawking) uses, not a scientific argument or fact with scientific validity. The same goes for the south of the South Pole because such a statement is a logical fallacy based on the presupposition that there is nothing south of the South Pole, meaning there is absolutely nothing beyond some point of the material World, which is only a presupposition and not a scientific or natural law. Such statements may sound like analytic or logical propositions. Still, these are not analytic or logical propositions but methods or tricks to cover up the loopholes of scientific knowledge and understanding with dogmatic statements.”

“Science is a human construct. Scientific laws are as valid as our understanding at any particular moment. Scientific laws are not absolute. Scientific laws wear human colors. Regardless of how close we got to the truth, the scientific laws are still not 100% accurate and complete. If we do not possess absolute truth, then scientific laws cannot be final, or they may be representative of the truth up to the level of our knowledge and understanding, not more.”

“There is a universal reservoir, the source of all knowledge, which is the same for the arts and sciences as for philosophy and religion. In a way, science is an art. In some ways, religion is philosophy because philosophy and religion often deal with the same questions—with the first and the final causes, among others. Religious people a priori “bet” on God, whereas philosophers may bet on God or not. The difference in approach toward God between religion and philosophy is that religion imposes and prescribes God, and philosophy offers the freedom of thought and choice. Religious prescriptions of God are not proof of faith or God’s existence, but rather the opposite—they prove that philosophy is more “religious” than religion because it doesn’t steal God from people but offers freedom.”

“Canonization, limitation, and reduction of God to a “few” sentences are inconceivable attempts to kill and expel God from people under the excuse that God is doing that. There is no weakness in science and language as instruments. There is no excuse. There is only human power and weakness. Understanding depends on the balance between human strengths and weaknesses.”

“The world was ready for greater discoveries two thousand years ago. (Heron of Alexandria is an excellent example of an inventor who invented the first steam engine, aeolipile.) There was a basis for it. Only the language to translate abstract ideas and symbols into the language of science was missing. The only obstacle to a human being is a human being himself. The only limitation comes from the inability to dream and pierce into the essence that permeates all that exists in the universe. There is the same law for a galaxy, for a man, and for an ant. Basic principles are the same everywhere; they never change and exist as long as the universe exists.”

“God is not absolute, and Nothingness is not absolute. If we come from these positions (postulates), we confront the inability of language to be precise. This inability reveals that the problem of understanding different phenomena is not so much in the phenomena themselves but in our failure to understand or present them linguistically in the best and most precise manner.”

“God, or to put it better, our idea of God, is a concept before anything else. The way God had been (mainly) understood throughout history leads to the idea of God as an entity beyond the world that creates the world and stays beyond the world but affects it. There is no proof for this, but the concept itself, by its nature, is a theoretical expression or view of a particular phenomenon. As such, applied to something invisible or tangible and visible, it is subject to change.”

“Many concepts and ideas become laws in time, like the laws of physics. In time, many of these same concepts lose validity in favor of new concepts that become new laws. These phenomena lead to the progress of science; otherwise, some concepts, which were previously laws, would always stay the same regardless of whether they were correct.”

“New concepts or laws would not be possible without the preceding concepts or laws. What we refuse today as incorrect is the basis for something we accept as correct tomorrow. Then the question arises—if the preceding concept was incorrect, how is it possible that the new concept, or law, that we think is correct can be based on the previous and rejected one? Something “incorrect” cannot be the basis for something correct. In this way, we conclude that even those laws (concepts) we reject today as incorrect contain the elements of a new law or concept or something that we think is correct or more correct. The world's universal nature cannot be wholly apprehended and observed by the human mind. All this happens while the laws stay the same; only our ideas and concepts about the laws change, not the laws or the truth (fact) itself.”

“Nothing in the world can be absolute except the Absolute itself. Everything else is contained and exists in relations. Relations can exist only through the division of the Absolute or God. Since no part is absolute, then no part can completely understand (including the human mind) or comprehend the whole of the Absolute. Understanding the “final” laws leads toward the end. If humans understood and empowered themselves with the knowledge of these laws, they would cease to be humans and become what they sought to find or understand. In that way, humans become either God or nothing. The ultimate beauty is the evolution of the world. Evolution in the animal world (individual species) can be horizontal without major changes. Still, in the development of humans, it can be pretty vertical (thanks to awareness and brain power). Regardless of the vertical evolution of humans as biological beings, this is still only evolution, and evolution is only possible if something new is acquired, for the lack of final knowledge, about the final causes and the ultimate essence of being.”

“That which we never question is the concept itself. But what is a concept? Is it necessary to put the idea of a concept itself, or the law, under the magnifying glass to better understand it because a concept is only a word or term it expresses? Even the concept itself, as an idea or term, can be a matter of discussion or scientific, philosophical, artistic, or religious discourse. Consequently, we may discover that something that slowed down the development of ideas and their formulations or understanding of laws is the impossibility of breaking up with concepts or paradigms that became a priori truths.”

“God is a concept more than anything else. The idea of God or about God, as it functions in religions, doesn’t deal with reality but with presuppositions based on revelations. Revelation, in itself, is arbitrary and can result from hallucination, among other things, which does not exclude the possibility that even hallucination may lead to some ways of truth.”

“From the point of established religions, God is conceptually the source of the world, something that creates the world but stays beyond the world as something absolute that influences the world. Not only is God understood in this way, but it is also appropriated in the main monotheistic religions. Therefore, from the standpoint of official religions, it is much more important to claim God understood in this manner and establish the right to God than the God itself (accurate idea and concept of God). That is how this strange ownership functions and obtains “legitimacy.”

“Divine Hiddenness Argument against God’s Existence Divine Hiddenness does not necessarily mean that the Ultimate Being hides; it instead means that our human powers are limited. The natural laws were secret (and still are) to the people before they learned to decipher them slowly. We may say that Newton's laws deciphered and formulated were hidden up to that point not because they were hiding per se but because our abilities were not on par with the laws of physics, which we have thought were “hidden.” It is a poor argument to use hiddenness as a legitimate argument against God or against anything else, of which, at some point, we do not have a proper or complete understanding. Hiddenness by itself is not proof that God does not exist. By using that logic, we may say that mosquitos are not aware of the existence of human beings. The argument that they are very “aware,” in some sense while sucking the blood of humans would not be sufficient because they are not aware of who and what human beings are. Certainly, microorganisms, without any desire to compare human beings with microorganisms, are not aware of the existence of human beings. What if animals used an argument, if they could, that there is no evidence that there are many galaxies in the Universe, or if any other animal could have used that argument? Would that be proof that other galaxies do not exist? On what basis are we sure that we possess the ability to experience God directly if it existed (although the world is one of the faces of God)? I am not trying to compare human beings to other animals or diminish human abilities. Still, I would like to emphasize that, regardless of how advanced we are, we may still be as distant from God, or more, as some animals are from us. To rely only on evidence is to limit the science, not to be scientific. What is scientific in limiting science to the frame that fits our capacity for understanding, learning, and comprehension instead of fitting the frame of reality and the truth? To be precise, we would need to redefine or make the idea of God more precise. Maybe God is not what we think it is. What if the World itself is God? What if the World, regardless of its beginning and end, is still a consequence of an eternal Being without a beginning and end? What if the world and matter as we know it are only the modes of the Universal Eternal Being from which everything originates and to which everything returns? Matter is not what we think it is. God is not what religious books say. Nobody has the right to God, a title to God. No prophet can tell other people that he (or she) speaks the word of God. Humans do the things done in the name of God in their name, not the name of God. Their hiding behind God is a form of manipulation, demagogy, and control of others.”

“The lack of understanding and some consensus about the question of God shows the fanaticism of both religious people and atheists who have become atheists more because of hate toward religion than because of “hatred” toward God. Therefore, they cannot understand the difference between God and religion. Curt Gödel (1906—1978) noted, '[I am] against religions but not against religion.' Without intermediaries and 'holy books,' real religion is the desire to reconnect (religio) to the Ultimate Source.”

“Greek atomists Leucippus, his pupil Democritus, and other metaphysicians knew that the world was not how people saw and perceived it. If they understood atoms even then, the indivisible particles, not modern new atoms, we must believe that they understood much more. If they knew that every sense and sensation is a convention, they could have understood that space and time are conventions, too. Regardless of not thoroughly understanding or elaborating on these concepts, they understood that the world must be something different from what is experienced by the senses or how the senses understand it. If Everything is by a convention of senses, then senses can represent things differently; that is why the eye watches, not the ear. If Everything is a convention, then Everything we experience by senses must be relative.”

“Maybe Democritus did not understand that matter, as a convention or the world of atoms that makes the whole Universe, including our brain, which “rules” the senses and cognition, is the same convention. However, an atom is a convention. The World is a Convention of the Absolute. The conventions must be relative; only the Absolute is unconventional, but only by and through conventions are the world and life possible.”

“Absolute” velocity happens when the primary quality of all existence or the Universal Mind shows its power in action, being everywhere simultaneously, not only faster than the speed of light but at the absolute speed, that means omnipresence. On this level, time is absolute, and there is no relativity. Relativity of time is possible within the “visible” realm of reality and not in the manifestation (action) of the primary quality of a Universal Mind, which functions within the realm of Zero, securing omnipresence in the always-present time. Relativity of time is possible only if there are the past and the future, not the present. The present is Zero, and Zero is absolute.”

“Absolute is infinitesimal, almost nonexistent “materially.” It is smaller than any conceivable shape or object, smaller than a quark, not even the size of the Planck length. In its volume, every divided world and Everything inhabited by emptiness is “bigger” than the Absolute. But only this nothing, emptiness, makes the life of the Absolute possible. If the One is undivided, it is without motion; the power becomes a weakness because it is without an exit.”

“In diluted reality, the whole world is the same; the micro-dimension is the same everywhere; the macro dimension is the illusion of the senses and eyes. Macro-shapes exist, but only as of the sum, not as inherently different. The basis of every star and every galaxy is the same—antimatter or dark matter and dark energy hide similar or opposite laws in themselves. However, although they are similar or opposite to the visible ones, they are based on the same laws of the bigger or smaller “particles,” shapes, and masses. The same principles are everywhere, from the visible to the invisible world or in the world incomprehensible or beyond the cognitive ability of humans.”

“The idea of the Absolute implies perfection. Absolute is impossible if it is not perfect. Nevertheless, is it possible to conceive anything perfect? Everything that exists has shortcomings. Even if we imagine something as perfect, it cannot be absolute perfection. It does not capture the whole and can only exist in relation to other phenomena. The world is exposed to change at any moment and does not function as an absolute perfection but as a flaw, evolution, and development.”

“Heaven and Hell We can turn the picture of the world to mean that hell is not in the other world but here. We can further turn it around to suggest that if there is any punishment in hell, then this world is the place of that punishment where we pay the price, not for previous sins but the price of life, the experience of life. Our very existence is the “primordial sin,” and we are sinless sinners.”

“If there were no motion, not only would all objects stop but disappear. Motion is vital to energy and matter; it is their life, their l'énergie spirituelle, to use Bergson’s term. To put it simply, no motion, no mass. Motion equals mass, in a way. Concentration and “quantity” of motion from the micro to the macro level equals the quantity of mass. The bigger the total output of motion from the micro point to the measured point, the bigger the mass. The whole family of the Universe (Omniverse) is kept alive and together owing to the primordial Universal immaterial Source—Ultimate Force feeding motion and the whole of the Universe and existence with its underlying force—Ultimate Reality and the basis of Everything.”

“We have to ensure we understand what existence is and what an I is in the context of an accepted consensus about these terms and definitions. Our reasoning and arguments may be correct if we know more deeply what existence or an I is. The most important thing is to go beyond words or literal expressions to catch the real intentions of philosophers and thinkers rather than to catch potential linguistic errors. We may temporarily win arguments and make personal gains if we only pursue linguistic errors. Still, we would produce confusion and lead the sincere search for scientific or philosophical discoveries astray.”

“What is existence? Existence is any state of the Being. Matter as it is, unaware of itself, exists regardless of “not” knowing that it exists. Still, as a part of a larger whole, any particle of matter contains information that serves that particle's specific purpose and the whole's purpose. Only nothing is not existence. But, without Nothing, existence would not be possible, so the Nothing is an essential part of existence. Still, we may say that only existing with some awareness is worth living.”

“We believe that Descartes was more interested in proving existence per se than his existence based on his identity or thought of his identity. He was interested in existence and thought per se, and an I is an accidental consequence of something that exists. I could be anything and could be an illusion. That is not the point. The point is that this I, regardless of how delusional or even if it were an illusion, is still something that can think He thinks, proving that “He” is, regardless of whether he is an illusion. Even an illusion is an existence. To be an illusion is to be, too.”

“We cannot be sure we know what reality is. We must find out what reality is. The majority of what we see is an illusion. The foundation of reality is our illusions about it, regardless of how paradoxical this sounds. Reality is an illusion, which does not make it any less real or valuable. In this reality, there is no Cartesian dualism since the underlying reality of everything is a Universal Mind. Matter is just a construct of the Universal Mind and is a valuable illusion; it is more useful and realistic if we know this.”

“For existence, it is not necessary that something must be “real” in our sense of the word but that it exists. Anything that exists, be it an “illusion,” is existence. Anything that can think about this existence, and this “reality” or “illusion,” can identify with it, which confirms its existence regardless of how distorted it is—the existence itself, the thinking, and then I thinking the thinking. That “I,” whatever it may be, which is doing the thinking, even if it is “not” Descartes, exists. That is the whole point. It does not matter who is doing the thinking. What matters is that the being capable of recognizing this thinking, irrespective of who is doing the thinking, confirms its “own” (whatever it may be) existence; otherwise, it would not be able to be wrong, deceived, or anything else. All that thinks or believes it thinks exists. I think I am an I and exist even if I am not an I. Existence is independent of personality. Not everything that exists thinks. Nonthinking does not necessarily equate to nonexisting. But all that exists is powered by the Universal Mind. We can solve this problem by identifying thought with existence based on our idea that everything is a “thought” (information) and part of the Universal Mind. Even if my thought, strictly speaking, is not mine—if “I” am the thought or information, “I” at least exists as a thought or information (regardless of who or what an I is). But what about thinking and unthinking thoughts? If my assertion that there is no fundamental dualism between mind and body (matter) is correct and if matter is only a manifestation (as it appears to the senses) of the Universal Mind, then the question is how this mind produces (or can have) unthinking thoughts. If the world is a product of a Mind, then its sole nature and purpose must contain the idea of possibility through development and evolution. The material world is only possible through variety in total diversity, universality, and infinity (as a potential). This variety implies order, and this order means hierarchy.”

“Suppose the Universe is understood, first and above all, like life. This life must have its logic (not necessarily human logic), which feeds this purpose, and that is the preservation of life and its meaning, in its universal connotation, as it is and not as we necessarily see it or would like to see it. Although everything is not based only on thought but is the thought itself, this still does not mean that everything that came into existence, as we see it, must be aware of its existence or the thought feeding it. If there is no real matter (other than matter as we perceive it through senses), then even “matter,” unaware of itself, is only a manifestation of a mind expressed through something unaware of itself yet serving an essential purpose in the whole structure of the world (as a manifestation). If the world itself is the Universal Mind's primary purpose, then this world is the only subject, one living organism, to the very Being (Ultimate Mind) that feeds it and sustains it. If it is one organism, it becomes easier to understand why it can be or contain thinking and unthinking “thoughts.” If we analyzed a human organism biologically or in any other way, part by part, without taking it as a whole, we would soon find out that none of these parts, taken separately, would be aware of anything, either of existence or thinking; not even any part of the brain. What is a thinking thing, a thinking thought, a personality, or an I? We can hardly find anything in the Universe that does not contain information in one way or another, irrespective of its awareness or unawareness of itself, because there is a law to be found everywhere, from atoms to galaxies. These laws are information (“thoughts”). Even if the information is a program, there is still a “thought” powering it. We would have to separate the thought, as it is usually understood, to understand the thought as an instruction, the way to the way. If we acknowledge thought in this manner as a function of a living mind, then this thought has different levels of manifestation and expression. If we understand the Universal Mind (Being) this way, we know that the mind (thought) becomes its matter. The mind (thought) is the medium and matter. The mind becomes its material. Awareness or unawareness hides the purpose of every particular mode (thing) with its specific function and purpose. The purpose of every single mode is not awareness on every level but to serve the higher modes it is a part of. Without these particularities and modes, no awareness is possible in the actual Universe, which means that unaware information is the ultimate source of awareness and that awareness itself is impossible without these (lower) modes (unawareness). However, lower modes are possible without awareness.”

“Regardless of how Descartes formulated his argument, his primary focus was to prove that something is thinking. That something doing the thinking exists irrespective of the idea of yesterday or tomorrow and irrespective of the possible change. At the same point, if something is aware of anything, it means that something exists; otherwise, it would not be possible for it (whatever it may be) to be aware of anything. It does not matter if awareness is right or wrong or what it represents, but awareness is proof of existence. Still, things that are unaware of themselves may exist. Only the Nothing does not exist. Whatever we can qualify or imagine as something exists. Thinking is proof of itself (the thinking), not the self. The thinking itself is the “self” (thinking “self”), existence irrespective of the uncertainty of personality and the self-awareness or unawareness of certainty or its own identity or delusion about it. The thinking itself exists, regardless of the self and who thinks.”

“The main conclusion is that the self in the cogito ergo sum argument is less important than it may look like at first sight. We cannot be sure about the whole concept of reality, not to mention the self. If the entire reality we experience, including energy and mass, is the “program” of the Universal Mind, what can we say about the individual self? The whole purpose of “reality in plurality” is existence, and the “self” (or an idea of self and ego) is the result of existence and not of the self itself. When doubting the self, Descartes' emphasis, although he used the word I, was not literally on the self but on that which thinks, whomever or whatever, at any moment; otherwise, there would be no thinking in the first place. It may only be thinking that thinks. The doubt was not if his self or ego, or his idea about them, was real or imaginary but on thinking as such, irrespective of personality. The individual self can in no way predate existence, regardless of what that existence is. Existence presupposes the self and thinking—be it illusory or not.”

“The attempts to refute the cogito ergo sum argument based on the idea of the self are useless and futile because the primary purpose of the argument was to prove the existence as a phenomenon and not necessarily the particular transitory, or potentially illusory, self. Descartes wanted to show and prove that existence is universally the “self” itself (in a more profound sense) and that it is beyond any doubt, regardless of the sense of self, a particular self, or I. That which provides the basis for the “thinking” or the “self“ or the “I” exists, be it reality or illusion, with no difference. There could be no effect caused by something if there were nothing in the first place. That is a contradictio in adjecto.”

“The real fight is the fight of facts among the facts, not the fight of ideas among ideas or theories among theories. More precisely, only those ideas and approaches, or only those qualities and values that represent the facts and the truth in the best possible way, have the merits that entitle them, to a larger or lesser extent, to the very same facts or truths, proportionately to their value. Since there is no absolute entitlement to the facts or truths, there can be only the entitlement, to a larger or lesser extent, to the acceptance of the values represented by particular ideas, theories, or works of art, depending on their intrinsic values that depict the facts and truths of existence and life itself in the best possible manner and with the highest level of accuracy or beauty in the arts.”

“God is, first and foremost, an idea. Nobody has the right to God, to claim God, even though people throughout ages claimed it, and probably always will be, by religion. But this God is only a stolen God, made in the human's image (the image of the human race), wearing the colors of his creators and not his own. This God wears not the colors of truth but of deceit. Deceitful simplicity is neither simplicity, truth, nor God. A stolen God is not God at all because it is, above all, an instrument of a human being in the service of a human being and not of God.”

“Atheists got so trapped that they forgot that God is not necessarily what religious books say. We have to redefine the word God to encompass everything. If God is the Creator of everything, then God is Everything. If God is Everything, then God is the truth. Why not believe in truth and refuse the partial truths sold as truth? The truth does not care about human-biased decisions and their fights or who first claimed the truth.”