Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic 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 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.”

“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.)”

“DETERMINISM AND PROBABILITY We may understand determinism as “the thesis that there is at any instant exactly one physically possible future” (Van Inwagen, 1983, used by Dennet in his Edinburgh University lecture). But, a theory, or a thesis, must be based on our concepts, knowledge, and understanding of reality. Our very concepts, understanding, and conclusions about reality may be only partially correct or accidental since there is not enough knowledge (not to mention evidence) to support the particular theory or thesis. In light of these ideas, it would not only be more economical but also prudent and wise to consider the reality out and beyond the customary spectrum and, by doing this, to come to conclusions or theories that would more significantly, possibly more accurately, reflect not only our ideas but the reality itself as it could be, beyond established and accepted paradigms, and, ideally, reflect the reality as it is. In that way, we would provide the ground (or possible grounds, or open the possibility) for defining the actual reality in a more tangible or, ideally, more accurate and useful manner than defining ideas and concepts based on theories, which may very well be, more or less, futile attempts to define the indefinable, depending on the degree of accuracy of any single approach. Dennett uses the example of quantum physics to prove that “at any instant, there are many possible futures, and they are completely undetermined.” Once the organism of the Universe is in motion, its destiny is determined to a large extent. This destiny will be different if the same Universe starts motion (walk, experience, life) at any other “moment.” Every destiny of every new Universe or revival is different. That is the potential of the Absolute. This potential or its variations are not known even by the omnipotent intellect or God. Even an “intellect, which knew all the forces that animate Nature at any given moment,” could not know precisely how its potential “materialized” in every new birth, revival, and cycle.”

“God and the idea of God have obsessed philosophers since the beginning of philosophy. For any serious philosophical inquiry, it is essential to establish precise prerequisites and rules if we want to get the desired results or get close to them. If the subjects or the terms we use are not precisely defined, we may shift in different directions, not knowing that the result we get is different from what we wanted, or we may move, more or less, within the realm of logical fallacies.”

“Before we start pondering about God, we have to set up the philosophical, logical, and linguistic frame within which we investigate the idea of God. If we do not define our ideas about God, we can hardly accomplish what we want, regardless of our desires. Our ideas about God are not God. Our ideas about God cannot create God. Our ideas about God are just that—ideas.”

“In religions, the idea often takes the subject's place. The idea becomes the subject itself. Since this is impossible, human words are used as the words of “God,” which serves as “proof” that God said them. In this way, human words, sold as God’s words, cannot be questioned and are “proof” of God’s existence. That’s the idea that takes the place of the subject. Everything would be easier if this were the only problem relating to God and philosophical inquiries about God. The problem is much more complicated because wherever we turn, we either find logical fallacies, misusage of language, or inadequate comparisons to try to make a statement, to try to oppose and deny the other side's argument and prove the “truth,” which usually turns out only to be our “truth,” our view and not the objective truth. We can find this among believers, atheists, and agnostics when the idea avoids or bypasses the subject in a real sense.”

“Since God is not a subject of which we can have tangible evidence through direct experience, or at least, we think there is no clear and direct experience, and we are mainly dealing with our ideas about God and not God himself. Based on our thoughts, God can be many different things to different people. In Judeo-Christian, theistic tradition, God is the creator of the world from nothing—creatio ex nihilo. In this view, God is not its creation.”

“When we ask somebody if they believe in God, we expect them to believe or not in what we think our idea of God is. But what if God is not what we think it is? Many believe that some undetectable higher Force they do not understand governs the Universe. This kind of belief is more rational because there is something they believe in, but religious books do not describe it.”

“God is not what our idea of “It” is. There is no religious book that offers a satisfying picture of God. Nevertheless, if we think of God as a force, even atheists may agree (if not now, then perhaps in the future) that there is a unifying force in everything. That force is the Absolute, whereas the Being responsible for creating motion, energy, and “material world” is the force we may call God, the Ultimate Being, Ultimate Force, or Universal Mind (Spirit). Still, the world is not only the product of its creator but is the creator itself in a different mode of existence.”

“According to Plotinus (c. 204/5—270 CE), God is Intelligence or Mind (Nous), and the world is created out of God (ex deo) and not from nothing (ex nihilo). “The power of the One is to provide a foundation (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents. The foundation provided by the One is intelligence. The location in which the cosmos takes objective shape and determinate, physical, form is the soul.” … “The being of intelligence is thought, and the thought of intelligence is Being.” … “No idea is different from intelligence but is itself intelligence.” Plotinus accepted the Stoic’s idea of logoi spermatikoi; for him, logoi spermatikoi is a bridge between the soul and the material.”

“Thomas Aquinas (1225—1274) states that God is a simple being. Although God is eternal, a material world, Universe, is not eternal. For Aquinas, God’s existence is his essence, the basis of Divine simplicity. For anything else, there is a distinction between existence and essence. Aquinas defined his five arguments for the existence of God in his book Summa Theologica: 1. The First Way: Motion. (The argument from "first mover.") 2. The Second Way: Efficient Cause. (The argument from universal causation.) 3. The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity. (The argument from contingency). 4. The Fourth Way: Gradation. (The argument from degree.) 5. The Fifth Way: Design. (The argument from final cause or ends [Teleological argument].)”

“Spinoza’s (1632—1677) Ethics starts with a clear framework, explanation, and definition of his terms. In that way, the philosophical inquiry becomes more accessible and precise for a reader or interpreter to understand and grasp. When Spinoza, in his definitions, uses the term substance, we understand that it is God. But when the term substance reappears under point III and then again under VI, which treats God, we must question why. For Spinoza, there is substance and substance. What is the difference between the substance under III and VI? We would say that, according to Spinoza, the ultimate, infinite substance is God, and everything formed is of the same substance. If that is the case, all substance is God or Nature. If all substance is God, then the question is, why separate substance from substance? Spinoza wanted to highlight the difference between the infinite substance of the ultimate Being, God, and the substance that makes Nature in all its forms. But nature, or anything in nature, is substance “which is in itself and is conceived through itself and does not need another “thing” to form it.” Nature is just a manifestation or mode of God or Substance. Substance (substantia) is not a new term and has been used since Aristotle, if not earlier. Perhaps the substance is interchangeable with terms like arche, aether …. fifth element, proton archon (first principle), Plotinus’ Divine mind (nous), or intelligence. Here are Spinoza’s definitions: Of God DEFINITIONS I. By cause of itself I understand that whose essence involves existence, or that whose nature cannot be conceived unless existing. II. That thing is called finite in its own kind (in suo genere) which can be limited by another thing of the same nature. For example, a body is called finite because we always conceive another which is greater. So a thought is limited by another thought; but a body is not limited by a thought, nor a thought by a body. III. By substance I understand that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; in other words, that the conception of which does not need, the conception of another thing from which it must be formed. IV. By attribute I understand that which the intellect perceives of substance as constituting its essence. V. By mode I understand the modifications of substance, or that which is in another thing through which also it is conceived. VI. By God I understand Being absolutely infinite, that is to say, substance consisting of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.”

“We must reevaluate and enrich the idea of God to encompass all inquiries, including scientific and philosophical, to fit reality and the truth instead of serving our more or less sophisticated but still poor or poorly presented and imposed ideas. This enriched idea of God is not only the ultimate goal but an ultimate reality we shall strive to understand fully or get closer to.”