Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“Curvature of Information Primordial primary quality informs all reality, interconnecting and providing everything with adequate apparatuses to operate within the secondary (formerly primary) and tertiary (previously secondary) qualities. Space, with the objects in it, is the information we receive as presented to our senses. For instance, we can measure the length, depth, and width of anything, thinking that we measured the actual space. However, we measured nothingness enveloped by “information,” which creates space or reality presented to our senses. The underlying reality of everything always stays the same: nothingness in the Web of Information. The “volume” of anything is nothingness. Whenever we measure something, we measure the message, information, or appearance (illusion) of space enveloping nothingness. Nothingness is the actual “volume” (space) of anything, and the appearance is immaterial information occupying it. All the void “touched” by the Primordial Being and its “Force” is “contaminated” and cannot be treated as pure nothingness. The curvature of space is one of the consequences of this “programming.” We live in the Web of Information, which we experience as the “material” Universe. The Universe is the Web of Information. The curvature of space is, in fact, the curvature of information, not of space or matter. This reality, which is information, provides us with data about its qualities, properties, and features that we can analyze and measure. However, all that is an “illusion,” actually an objective reality, different from the reality we thought we lived in. Reality is a convention. Although our experience of reality may be the same despite the new knowledge, our understanding and concepts will most likely shift in ways unimagined before. The new understanding of reality requires and may cause a major paradigm shift, perhaps the largest one in the history of humankind. Unless obstructed by some natural cataclysmic events or wars, this paradigm shift may result in a new renaissance in society, science, and the arts like never before.”

“Zero is the only thing endlessness and multitude do not want to possess. Zero is the only eternity—eternal sleep, but endlessness, the Absolute, wants motion and life. Eternity is possible only beyond perpetuity. Duration implies the number, endlessness, and space. Only Zero enslaves every number, every endlessness, and space; only Zero enslaves (captures) perpetuity (duration). Only enslaved perpetuity can be an eternity, and eternity can only exist (be) in the present. Every past is measurable and reducible to a number, and so is every future; only the present has no number. The only number of the present is Zero, and Zero is the “end of life.” Therefore, there is no life in the present, although it is the only life if we think from the point of view of life.”

“THE BEING Being (God) is finite. Only a finite being can exist. That which exists must be finite. That which does not exist is “infinite” potential. The potential is potential existence. That which may exist already exists in a different form. The infinite potential is the ability of the Being always to be new. Nothingness exists in the form of nonexistence. Existence of nonexistence exists. Infinity of the finite is the secret of existence. The very finiteness of God leads to infinity. The finiteness of God is absolute. (The Finiteness of God is Zero.) The finitude of God hides infinity (potential).”

“Only (the) Nothing can be infinite because the Nothing has no beginning, end, or limit. Nothing can fill in Nothingness. Only Something with its properties (and features) can enrich itself or accept features and properties, yet Nothingness is without any features or properties. The featureless “nature” of Nothingness is its uppermost value and “asset”’ because the Being, in the pursuit of creation and creating (recreating), needs precisely this featureless feature of Nothingness, its most potent Force, which is the lack of any force, the forceless force.”

“The only way for interaction and mutual influence between nothing and something is through the activity of the One we have chosen to call Something. This Something “colors” nothingness with its own colors. This Something envelopes Nothingness. Regardless of how strange it sounds, Nothingness is never full, not even a bit. The Immaterial Being envelops the Nothingness in the form of a “material” Being, the Universe, yet all the happenings of the Something (the Being, Universe) are immaterial “forces” transformed from its primordial stage based on the principles of interaction between the primary, secondary and tertiary qualities.”

“The underlying reality is the illusion of space, energy, and matter. All we see is nothingness, untouched by the happening of the Being. Since nothingness cannot be curved, what we experience as the curvature of space is the curvature of the Being presented to us as energy and matter, yet immaterial. But, “immaterial substance” (Universal Mind), although immaterial, is still something. This something has the potential to appear as material in the modalities of transformation of the Universal Mind. That is the creative potential of the Universal Mind to secure its creation and, more importantly, the meaning stemming from the creative power of the Ultimate Source.”

“What we experience as Space is the most beautiful “illusion” filled with Nothingness. When we say Nothingness cannot be partially or fully full, we mean the opposite: only the Being may be full, not only partially but wholly full. The wholeness, fullness of the Being, comes from Nothingness. Without Nothing, Something is without the volume. Without volume, there is no “space.”

“Dimension, or something that has an extent, cannot be infinite like previously described nothingness. If this were possible, there would be two “infinities”—the infinity of the “Absolute” (God) and the Infinity of Nothingness. These two principles would not function in correlation and influence one another (servitude and dominance) as active and passive principles. As two absolute infinities, these principles would function as the active (or passive, with no difference) principle in both cases. Such a relationship would only lead to mutual annihilation, not coexistence and influence. These worlds would become so different that this absolute difference would merge and convert them into the same principle, regardless of how paradoxical this may sound. But this would be the death of both, and death is not possible in either case.”

“Since it is possible to imagine either one or the other concept theoretically, it is impossible to defend this “concept” even theoretically or as a hypothesis. Infinity is only a potential, not an actuality. The Being and Nothingness are “finite” as actualities and infinite as potential. Nothingness cannot have any potential per se, yet the Being cannot exercise its potential without the Nothingness with no potential. The lack of any potential of the One feeds the potential of the Other. The power of Nothingness is equally “forceful” as the power of the Being. Without Nothingness's “forceless” force, there would be no force of the Being or the possibility to exercise its power in creating the World (the Universe). Absolute passivity of Nonbeing is equally vital as the activity or dominance of the Being.”

“Being is finite, and only something “nonexistent” can offer infinity to the finitude of the Being. Being and Nonbeing are the alpha and omega of existence. They negate each other and support each other. They fight with each other and make love to each other. The result is a Living Being, a Living World. The lack of one is the death of the other. Without the absoluteness of nothingness, there is no absoluteness of the Being. The absoluteness of one is equal to the absoluteness of the other. The Being and Nonbeing, without the World or plurality, become one, and this Oneness is the negation of both or the transformation of both into nothingness without the attribute of absoluteness (the Nothing cannot be anything else except nothing).”

“Conditional absoluteness of the Being is, at the same time, proof of its relativity and the relativity of its antipode. This very relationship makes them relative. Absolute itself unites the Being and the Nonbeing. Lovemaking of the Being and Nonbeing results in the World’s birth. The world is relative because it comprises two “absolute entities”—Being and Nonbeing. It would not be able to exist without the Nonbeing as it would not be able to exist without the Being.”

“The power of the Being is not in its infinity, which is already “accomplished” in its finitude, but rather in its life. Its task is not to impress itself with its omnipotence and power but to preserve life. Its only purpose is life, and its only glory is manifested and represented by life. Being is a Phoenix and Sisyphus. The Nonbeing is Atlas holding the whole Universe on the “shoulders” of nothingness.”

“The One always remains the One. The division is appearance. The division and the life or existence of many is a phenomenon. One or Onenennes is Noumenon. Oneness is always present in plurality. Oneness is an underlying reality or Noumenon in action. For example, a universe like ours may have its birth and death, appearance and disappearance, while the universe as a totality, the sum of all, may still exist. In that case, Carlo Rovelli may be right in saying that “there is no such thing as a real void, one that is completely empty” (physicists have a consensus about this). Still, no universe, regardless of its size, can encompass nothingness or emptiness in its totality. All “space” beyond, not confined or affected in any way by any universe, is a real void. We cannot talk about a real void within the Universe, but beyond it, there is such a thing as a real void.”

“The other question is whether we agree about the terminology or if we need to adjust our language to the reality to be more precise. We would have to define different terms precisely in all their meanings and varieties. We cannot talk about the “real void” if we do not explain what a real void is. Only when we define the terms precisely can we use them freely, knowing that we will be as clear as possible and that others will understand us correctly; otherwise, there will always be room for misunderstanding.”

“Real Void is in the space yet unaffected by the made “space.” Although it is nothingness, the void provides volume to the Being to create space. Whatever we see and experience as space is a real void, regardless of how strange or absurd it sounds. As we experience it, the appearance of space envelopes void with its information and laws, offering information about the curvature of itself (the Being), not the void, yet the real void is always there and is “indestructible,” unchangeable, unaffected, and uncurved.”

“Absolute is always the same, yet always new. Its sameness is the source of its variety. Its sameness and oneness (singularity) make it omnipotent and rejuvenating. Its infinite age makes it infinitely young. It cannot be born or die, but it can live. The ultimate exit of the Absolute is life. Its meaning is life, not absoluteness. It already possesses absoluteness, but its absoluteness is its biggest enemy if it becomes satisfied with it because it transforms it into nothingness. It must fight against its absoluteness to gain the absolute value of life, which, although relative, provides meaning and purpose.”

“We can almost be sure of two poles of the Absolute—Being and Nonbeing. Being, as I understand it, can be equated with the Universal Mind (Ultimate Mind) or God, provided we use the term God following this philosophy and not following its general use (as in religions), where this term serves the ideas, desires, and dogmas of the people who claimed to speak a word of God (and not to fit reality).”

“We can be sure that the fifth element (idea) was immaterial for Plato and Aristotle, who used the term aether. The fifth element (Latin: quinta esentia) differs from the other four elements (Earth, Water, Fire, and Air). When we look at aether, from the perspective of our philosophy, as the main principle before the formation of the world, as a potential (in posse), during its actualization (in esse), and as the underlying Being or reality of all the existence, then this term can be equated with God or, conditionally, with the Universal Mind. A posse ad esse is the transformation from the potential of the Universal Mind to its actualization as the Universe.”

“Although the Being (Universal Mind) is not material, it does not mean that we cannot, conditionally, call this Mind an immaterial “substance.” This clarification is important to understand how an immaterial entity can transform into something we experience as material. Whatever we perceive and experience through our senses is based on conventions from secondary qualities of the world (as described by Locke, Berkeley, David Hume, and others). Perhaps our most admirable ability is primarily based on an “illusion.” Without this illusion, the world would not only be a sad place but a place without purpose. The whole truth and the beauty of the world lie hidden in this illusion. Our Reality is an illusion, and we shall reinvestigate the word illusion. Without illusion, there is no reality. If illusion is the source of our reality, we shall redefine illusion.”

“Why not accept this illusion in all its glory and as it is: real that cannot be more real regardless of all the “tricks” we think it pulled on us? Without all the devices and “instruments” the Universal Mind or the Being “pulled off” to “create reality,” we would not be able to experience all the beauty, glory, and miracles of existence. This illusion is the noblest thing reality can do for us. We must accept that we are real regardless of our awareness of what constitutes reality. Our knowledge does not make us less real. Our awareness shall not create more distance between us and the world. Quiet to the contrary, our awareness shall be a bridge for a fuller life and connection to the Ultimate source from which everything originates. This Source is not only the source of Everything but also the Source of peace and bliss. Even on an individual level, this realization leads to a better connection with oneself in light of the ultimate Oneness of Everything. Oneness is bliss in peace and peace in bliss.”

“Infinity does not exist in actuality. Infinity is only the potential of a Universal Mind. Since it is immaterial and not a slave to the space-time continuum and its properties, it is not dimensional and can be finite and infinite simultaneously. Since time and space have no meaning in the absolute state of a Universal Mind, then its finitude or infinity is almost irrelevant and of no importance.”

“Infinity is a mathematical, spatial, and temporal impossibility except as a concept. It is absurd if understood as an actuality (the universe, the world). Even if we try to imagine the infinity of the Universal Mind as “actuality” playing out all its potential simultaneously, that is impossible because infinity is both theoretically and practically unreachable.”

“The Universal Mind saves its uttermost purpose and meaning more through its potential than its actuality. Actuality can be one and many. All these real and potential actualities are limited, and their finitude will eventually make them disappear. Through its potential for infinity, the Universal Mind can exercise, not only simultaneously but perpetually, innumerable and always different (although based on the same laws) manifestations of becoming.”

“Although the Universal Mind is a Being, it is not concerned with becoming because it already is. Since the purpose and meaning of the Being, Universal Mind, as it is in its absolute state, is lost, it must either transform itself or produce from itself the world as we see, perceive, and experience it. This process, purpose, or true meaning may be called the rejuvenating process of the Ultimate Being by always becoming new through rebirths (in different ways following the potential) ad infinitum.”

“Is our idea about the Universe formed around what we think and know about the Universe, or is it based on what the Universe is as it is? We cannot know everything about the Universe either way. Still, we can sharpen our ideas and make them, to the highest possible degree, reflect the real Universe as it is and not only reflect our perception of the Universe. The more our ideas harmonize with what the Universe is, the more accurate this reflection will be.”

“From the standard view of the main religions, God created the Universe. Based on this standard, the Universe is material, but the Creator is immaterial. On the other hand, we can imagine that the Universe has always existed, and if that were the case, there was no creator to create it; “it simply is” (Bertrand Russell). We certainly know that the Universe, regardless of whether it was created by God or not (always existing without a cause), is evolving. The Universe is not static. The Universe is the source, the cause, and an inexhaustible reservoir of energy, possibilities, and life. Although it sounds paradoxical, the Universe is “physical” and non-physical. As such, it contains metaphysics in its very Being. The physical feature of the Universe is only an expression of its metaphysical, "ethereal," nonphysical nature (the Kantian being-in-itself); physics is its appearance, and metaphysics is its essence. (The appearance is in motion, yet the essence is static. Motion [in the classical “physical” sense] is possible in the world of physics and impossible in metaphysics [immaterial world].) Based on our perceptions and beliefs, the starting point cannot change the nature of the Universe. Created or uncreated, the Universe is. The Universe would never be different, regardless of our point of view; only our ideas about the Universe may change. The more important question is whether our concept of the Universe would be different if we changed our starting position. Could the Universe potentially be different depending on these two starting points? Either way, if God created it or it always existed in one form or another, the Universe may show and possess the same qualities, in which case this dichotomy would not be substantially important, except formally. The third idea could imply God in the Universe (not in the strict sense of Spinoza's pantheism) and the Universe in God. What does this mean? It means that the Universe is, in either case, a manifestation of something that has always existed. If something never existed, it would not be able to come into Being. Absolute nothingness cannot give birth to anything, either God or the Universe. If this were the case, then Nothingness would be the first cause. If God is the first cause and source of everything, then based on this logic, God would be nothing because God came from nothing. On the other hand, if the Universe came from nothing, the Universe would be nothing. Only nothing can come from nothing. Nothing is incapable of creating or making anything. Therefore, the question of who created God or who created the Universe is, at best, counterproductive and sterile. From this hypothetical point of view, it would not matter if God created the Universe. If God or the Universe always existed in some way or another, the critical question would be whether there is any difference between God, understood in this way, and the Universe. For if God always existed, what would make it so distinctly and inherently different from the Universe? Or if the Universe always existed, what would make it inherently different from God?”

“Based on our perceptions and beliefs, the starting point cannot change the nature of the Universe. Created or uncreated, the Universe is. The Universe would never be different, regardless of our point of view; only our ideas about the Universe may change. The more important question is whether our concept of the Universe would be different if we changed our starting position. Could the Universe potentially be different depending on these two starting points? Either way, if God created it or it always existed in one form or another, the Universe may show and possess the same qualities, in which case this dichotomy would not be substantially important, except formally. The third idea could imply God in the Universe (not in the strict sense of Spinoza's pantheism) and the Universe in God. What does this mean? It means that the Universe is, in either case, a manifestation of something that has always existed. If something never existed, it would not be able to come into Being. Absolute nothingness cannot give birth to anything, either God or the Universe. If this were the case, then Nothingness would be the first cause. If God is the first cause and source of everything, then based on this logic, God would be nothing because God came from nothing. On the other hand, if the Universe came from nothing, the Universe would be nothing. Only nothing can come from nothing. Nothing is incapable of creating or making anything. Therefore, the question of who created God or who created the Universe is, at best, counterproductive and sterile.”

“If we try to answer these questions, we will again be faced more with our inherited ideas about the Universe and God than with the reality and essence these terms should represent. Therefore, we should try to enrich and redefine these and many other terms we use. We, human beings, decided that the word (term, idea) God means, and should mean, something inherently different from the Universe. We also decided that the Universe means and should mean something different from God. But, if we, somewhat arbitrarily, determined not only the destiny of these terms and ideas but, based on them, our very conception and perception of what these ideas and terms are supposed to represent, one may ask how much closer these ideas and reasoning have brought us to the truth.”

“Once we have established our ideas and definitions, the main underlying question is whether our goal has been more in preserving and fighting for the preservation of our concepts and already established ideas as they are or in finding out if they represent the truth as it is and ought to be and not only as it is defined, arbitrarily declared, proclaimed or prescribed? If we get rid of all dogmas and established paradigms, we can conclude that what we seek must be the truth itself, regardless of how well or to what degree it would fit our views, concepts, and beliefs.”

“We must notice that religious thought, for instance, as presented by their most elaborate, learned, and sophisticated proponents, regardless of the grasp and superb philosophical knowledge (St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are extraordinary examples), did not, even with the best efforts to fight dogma and go from strictly philosophical positions, try to conceive God as something different from God as presented in Christianity or the Bible. A similar situation exists with the other predominant monotheistic religion, Islam. Based on this logic, as a subject of philosophical inquiry, God became a priori a question of how to establish the right to God more than how to set the truth (the right to the truth) itself.”

“Everything singular can be conceived and, sooner or later, comprehended by thought. Everything that is not true has the potential to be disclosed as such—not accurate. However, in its totality, the final, absolute truth is beyond reach—it is hiding and shifting. Still, as perfection, the Absolute cannot be untrue because, in that case, it would not be perfection. Therefore, it must be perfect and true at the same time. It is possible to conceive the Absolute as the truth. In this sense, it is possible to conceive that Nothing is the truth.”

“Just of itself—nothing is nothing, but just of itself, something, even the biggest something or God, is nothing too. Nothing is uncreated and doesn’t need a creator. However, the world would not be possible without this uncreated Nothing, regardless of God’s “omnipotence.” Since God cannot create nothingness, its omnipotence is contingent upon nothingness. If omnipotence is contingent upon anything, it is not absolute omnipotence, even if this anything is nothing.”

“The world from nothing is impossible, and life from nonlife is impossible. The world was always here, in one way or another, and nothingness was always here. The World is the Universal Mind’s “program” of the Absolute that, by involving nothingness, becomes the Universe. However, the Universe still bears all that is known and unknown to us with the spark of life in it.”

“We mostly envision infinity as something beyond our reach and in outer space. However, if it existed, infinity would have to expand on a micro-level within something we may imagine as the inner space. If we say it this way, infinity cannot be only outside; it must also be “inside” with no end to the material universe anywhere in outer space and on its micro-level. It also means that, if we simplify the idea, the tiniest particles, quarks, “strings,” or waves, would be larger, compared to what they contain within themselves, than the visible Universe in comparison to us.”

“Senses make perceptions possible with feelings, emotions, and thoughts in humans. From an earthly point of view, senses empower the higher levels of life, conditionally speaking. However, what empowers the world is the possibility of and for relationships. If the absolute world is ultimate and one, relations are not possible. Any division of oneness is, in a way, the opposite of the absolute. The Absolute must stay intact to be absolute, but the Absolute is “dead” at the point of its absoluteness, which is Zero. Absolute nothingness is dead at the Zero point of its absoluteness. The absolute Being (God) is “dead” at the point of its absoluteness, which is Zero. The whole Triad of the Absolute, with its components of God and Nothingness, is Zero if it is only the Absolute without established relations within itself.”

“Everything in nature coexists with something else. Our perceptions come from relations. We must see and perceive what we experience in specific ways; slight differences don’t count. What we see is not a matter of choice for the most part—to see the world, to feel heat, cold, and fear. All that exists has its frequency and structure within a larger structure. Since there is a connection between everything, the existence of one depends on the effect it makes on another in a very peculiar way. This effect is more of a result when the impacted one is the source of life and existence for the One that initially caused and produced it all.”

“Schopenhauer’s will can be “equated” to the categorical imperative of the idea (reason), which is the will. Without the will, the idea is dead. If the idea is the essence of the Being, then the will is its manifestation as existence. Only through the categorical will of the essence (ultimate universal idea) is existence possible.”