Quotessence
Home / Books / ABSOLUTE

ABSOLUTE

Book by Dejan Stojanovic · 50 quotes · Dejan Stojanovic, Absolute, Universe

Filter quotes by topic

ABSOLUTE Quotes

“If the highest possible degree of truth is obtained through the highest degree of genuine desire or will for truth, coupled with personal ability and genius, then the result must lead to some power. This power is the result of the will to truth, measured only by the truth, irrespective of personal interests, and as such, it equates to goodness. Therefore, goodness is the only source of real power (not actual power sold as power, though it may be abuse, trick, or anything else). The only source of the ability to find the real truths and decipher the actual state of the world is goodness. We can find the essence only in goodness because it is a channel through which the real essences travel (through which wisdom flows).”

“Any attempt to change reality is futile, but attempts to impose our views and definitions onto reality can be profitable. We often try to impose our ideas and descriptions, irrespective of their merits and correspondence to reality and facts. Then, we try to make reality fit our views and definitions instead of the opposite. At this point, truth and facts become irrelevant except our ideas about them (which can easily be a trick), and this is the highest level of dishonesty, intellectual and social. Often, this kind of thinking and this kind of practice lead to dogmatic thought and demagogy, which is a basis for all sorts of oppression and enslavement (of souls), either politically or religiously. This kind of thinking, in the fields of arts and sciences, leads to different types of manipulation, calculated to lower the standards to promote personal ideas or “qualities” that are not per the highest standards. If that is the case, the only way to establish (“legitimize”) qualities or merits of lesser value is by lowering the standards. If everything is possible and has a value, the point of discussion or interest shifts to the question of any particular value of anything, irrespective of its merits. In any field, the supreme qualities and their merits result from the highest standards, not some arbitrary judgment.”

“Only goodness can understand and measure the highest and the deepest truths because it is never satisfied with the sheer power of winning but only with the power of real power, the truth itself, represented in the best possible way. If the measure of power is not accurate, then that is an illusion or abuse of power, which can be measured and felt (unfortunately) by other humans but is not a real measure of real power.”

“The sheer will to power is corrupted not by power itself but by an undeserved power. Undeserved power is only possible through a compromised or corrupt will. Power doesn’t corrupt. Only an undue and excessive power corrupts. If we say that “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” we mean that the insatiable (“absolute”) appetite for power, irrespective of merits, corrupts. But the deserved power or the deserved absolute power, if even possible to imagine, would not be expressed or manifested as such because it would be an actual representation and manifestation of goodness, which is different and opposed to our view of real power.”

“The difference between love and will, although only formal, is fatal regarding the worldview or outlook of the philosopher in question. Everything must be joyous for the one coming from the principle of love, but for the one coming from the principle of will, as a blind force and strife, the world is less rosy and cheerful. This pessimism comes less from two inherently different models that would imply two different sets of rules (happiness, among other things) but more from the inability of the world to get rid of its will, which is to say, to commit suicide, to get rid of itself. In the case of love, this proposition is impossible because that is a joyous and lovely world. Still, in the case of blind will, the main characteristic of the world is existence at any cost, regardless of hardship, misery, and pain.”

“The measure of the quality of ideas or scientific achievements is their accuracy or exactness. The standard of value, or quality, in the field of art is the level of “pure beauty” (including intellectual power, wisdom, and ideas containing justified novelty) represented by the intrinsic value of a particular work of art (in its justifiable novelty). Even beauty is the measure, or one of the possible measures, of the realities and facts of life and existence. Even beauty has its dimensions and exactness. The sheer immeasurability of beauty is the measure of its infinite value. We cannot represent, describe, or define the factual state of beauty in a better way than by beauty itself.”

“Immaterial essence is the primary quality; its “material” appearance is the secondary quality (primary quality to Locke), while the sensations are tertiary. The primary quality is the absolute quality of the Being (present yet immaterial and invisible). The secondary quality is the world as unaware information (unaware “awareness”)—perception and awareness cause the tertiary quality. Secondary and tertiary qualities are the result and degrees of the living mind (immaterial essence) in action.”

“Since almost everything we see (or do not see) is a matter of “convention,” we can say that all we see is the result of our perception. The picture of “reality” and the world depends on our perception. Although we all see the same things (with slight differences measured in nuances), the same colors, and the same shapes, this does not change the fact that it all results from our perception. On the other hand, we are not the creators of our perceptions but the beneficiaries. The only difference we make is in the endless nuances and possibilities despite the limits of our perceptive powers.”

“One of the main philosophical problems has always been the dualism between mind and matter. Although logical and rather obvious, this dualism becomes less logical and evident if we break the limitations of our senses and habitual thinking. This paradigm has established itself as almost the absolute truth, but is it true that there is a definite difference between mind and matter, or is matter only a property of mind, a creation of mind?”

“Matter is a manifestation of a Universal Mind and not something inherently different from the mind. Accepting our limitations allows us to see and understand what matters. In ancient times, the difference between body and mind was less significant to ancient than modern man. In this way, we become more perceptible and tuned to higher frequencies that lead us to ever creating and self-recreating Mind through matter as its program of life.”

“The matter we see is not the matter that exists. The whole Universe is a vast transmitter of the ultimate message of life. Every being that participates in the game of life is a messenger, regardless of how minuscule it is. The whole Universe is a mental system. This system powers all that exists. Perception is an idea. Matter is an idea. There is nothing beyond thought, mind, spirit, or information.”

“There is a world beyond the world, the primordial Being, which I call the Universal Mind. This world is independent of its creation, yet its creation depends on it. Still, in its metaphysical “form,” the Being loses its purpose without creating or recreating. The Being must create to keep itself alive. Without creating, it is dead. Creating is not only the source of the Universe but also the source of the continuous life of the Being through myriad forms. The life of the Primordial Being is dependent on its creation and vice versa. The life of one depends on the life of the other, although they always, in a way, stay the same. The Creator is its creation, and its Creation is the Creator. The Universe, or the World, depends on the Primordial Being, the Universal Mind. Yet, it is conditionally independent in creating the always new Self, a new World (ultimately the source of free will).”

“INFINITY IS IN THE INFINITE REBIRTHS OF THE UNIVERSE Every possible universe is different from all the rest. No new or reborn universe will be the same as the one before. The accidental nature of these rebirths shows how free will functions from the beginning of anything. It also shows that the world, which doesn’t only copy itself, is more interesting. The immaterial Primordial Being transforms itself in countless, infinite ways, allowing even the functioning and possible satisfaction of ethical laws on the absolute level. On the level of its potential, we may say that the world is “perfect,” yet we cannot foresee this perfection. Potentially, everything is part of everything else, and we can strive for the highest possible perfection in due “time.” The pain of one is the pain of all; the guilt of one is the guilt of all; the king is a bum at the same time. Every element makes the World and is the World. Everything is God, and the World is God. In this sense, everybody and everything is God. No bill will be unpaid. Justice and ethics of the Universe go beyond the human, Earthly concept of justice and ethics. Even Nietzsche’s idea of eternal recurrence, if it existed in reality, would not negatively affect the potential of the Absolute because of its absolute capacity to absorb, transform, and integrate all forms of life into its new manifestations and cycles.”

“Philosophy may be sometimes hard to grasp, but it is profoundly meaningful. Mudding the waters under the pretense of doing something meaningful and great is meaningless. Language is one of the best tools of expression, but also one of the best tools to deceive, manipulate, and lead others astray. It is sometimes hard to differentiate between the two and recognize the game of deceit and manipulation. It usually happens when we need to figure out our real prowess and use the language not for real communication or expression but for personal gain, academically, or in any other way that may benefit us.”

“We may also think that, regardless of how insufficient our language or knowledge is, we can still arrive at conclusions stemming from something more profound than the knowledge or language but only expressed by language. If language (as we understand it) were an absolute instrument of thought, there would be no different languages but only one universal language of thought. Since this is not the case, we can express the same thought in different languages with different signs and sounds.”

“Let's agree that spoken language is not an absolute instrument of thought. Still, we must agree that language, as such, serves the profound purpose of communication primarily (on a fundamental level) and some other, more sublime purposes (great works of literature and philosophy, for instance). The primary purpose of language, as one of the phenomena of existence, must be analyzed as a phenomenon with its existence and essence. Only when defined with the highest degree of accuracy, can its essence be applied to existence as the totality and the world.”

“The argument from poor design in its strict and simplest sense means that the World (Universe) and everything in it is not perfect. To better understand and answer this argument, it is essential to know that the world and everything in it were neither made nor came into being to be perfect as we understand perfection. With the more “perfect” design (to use this term for the argument), conditionally speaking, evolution would either not be possible or would be limited in proportion to its potential.”

“The perfect world is contradictio in adjecto. A perfect world is not a world anymore. A perfect world is a dead world. The perfect world contradicts existence. A perfect world, as a multitude, is impossible. A plurality implies meaning and cannot and should not be perfect. Perfect can only be One, but the perfect One is equal to its opposite, which is nothingness. The world, in its plurality, equals life. “Imperfection” secures meaning and purpose in life. In a perfect world, there would be no purpose and meaning. Perfection is only the goal and not the way or mode of the Universe. By becoming perfect, the world becomes nothing since only nothing is perfect. If the Universe were perfect, it would not be the world as we see it but “God” itself. Evolution (as atheists see it) would not be possible in the perfect world because such a world would already be perfect, which would imply that the highest point of “evolution” had already been achieved. Absolute perfection negates any evolution, except if we imagine retrolution (to coin a word), moving backward.”

“The idea of evolution, proving itself before our eyes at every moment, is even less compatible with the simplistic notion of design. Anything designed is static in a way. On the other hand, if design predicts evolution, then evolution must be a crucial part of the design, but what kind of evolution? If design predetermines evolution itself, then evolution must develop as planned and only in one way; otherwise, there would be no possibility for chance or free will.”

“To celebrate the world would be the most honorable task. If the World is the work of God or emanation of God, this celebration would be the celebration of both the World and God at the same time. This God is not the God from religious books. No book can claim God, and no people hiding behind holy books can be God’s representatives on Earth and be its sole interpreters and definers. The church needs thorough transformation. The church's task is not to claim or steal God but to promote and celebrate life in its purest form.”

“Why creation? Why creating? Is it not better to be perfect and absolute at the pinnacle of itself? We think it is not, as we tried to prove in the preceding pages, and it is not precisely because of perfection and absoluteness. The absolute perfection of the absolute is its death penalty, as we have already stated. Absolute of itself and for itself (without plurality) is nothing.”

“The biggest problem is not faith itself but the appropriation of faith by any particular religion or group, claiming to have the right (implicitly) to God. It is acquired through disputable knowledge and merely through “revelations” presented as truth. If only for this implicit claim, religions must be under constant scrutiny because such claims are not only logically false but are intellectually dishonest and immoral, regardless of the original intentions of their proponents. (Nonetheless, such ideas may have served an essential purpose, ethically and inspirationally, at the time of their making and for the particular people.)”