Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“The pursuit of truth (which must imply God, among other things) must lead to God if it exists. Nothing can be beyond the truth. If God is the ultimate principle, then this principle is the truth itself. The truth is independent and indifferent to the name or word we use to describe it, whether it be the Ultimate Source of Everything or God. If we look at God in this way, God equals the truth. But what spoils or may spoil our inquiry about God or truth, regardless of our sincerity, is not God or the truth itself but our distorted knowledge of both. (Also, the problem of language.)”

“The statement that either God is the ultimate cause of the Universe or that the Universe appeared from nothing contains falsity because there is a third modality, which is that the Universe may have created itself. But, if the Universe has created itself, it had existed before its creation. If it existed before, what would be the difference between this Being and God, or would it mean that this Being is something we traditionally have chosen to call God? If there was Something, the Being, before the world's creation, the Being was uncreated. This uncreated Being is traditionally called God. The uncreated Being is the source of all creation, with the help of emptiness or absolute void. In that case, the Universe itself would be the Self-Creator, its own God.”

“If we try to answer the questions relating to God, 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.”

“The statement that either God is the ultimate cause of the Universe or that the Universe appeared from nothing contains falsity because there is a third modality, which is that the Universe may have created itself. But, if the Universe has created itself, it had existed before its creation. If it existed before, what would be the difference between this Being and God, or would it mean that this Being is something we traditionally have chosen to call God?”

“The Absolute can only create and recreate itself if it transforms into something “less absolute.” This “less” absolute Being manifested through many beings is not only the Absolute's creation or recreation but is also its only life. In absolute Oneness, there is no real life. Division is the source of life. The secret to life is plurality. Oneness without plurality loses meaning. Plurality in Oneness is the source of meaning and purpose.”

“Considering all these elements, the context and frame from which we try to think or place ideas become more extensive and cannot be easily simplified to fit the purpose of a "winning" argument or idea. For example, the concept of intelligent design is, in a strict sense, a religious concept, but must it be strictly religious? To answer this, we must first ask what intelligent design is. And then, what may this design be from a metaphysical point of view, from the point of view of creation or recreation? How much do our particular human ideas about design enslave us, and can we even think about the design outside of our strictly human context and place it in an extraordinary context of the Absolute, God, existence, essence, matter, and Universe?”

“The Difference between Zero and Nothing Even in the primordial “form,” there is a difference between the Being and the Nonbeing. Even if the Being is asleep and inactive, in the primordial form, it is still something as a potential. Although Zero is nothing in a way, Zero is not absolute nothing as real nothing is. At this absolute “point,” the Being is Zero, and Nothing is just Nothing. Zero is not nothing. Zero is the point between nothing and something (Everything). Zero is a tunnel, a passage, a bridge, a wormhole between the Being and the Nonbeing, infinity and finiteness, eternity and time, existence and nonexistence. Although zero has the potential capacity for infinity and eternity, it is still the end point of the Being and the Nonbeing when they meet. The first point, the appearance point, of coming into the material Being is Zero. Zero is the last point, the disappearance point, of coming out of the material Being. The zero point is the point of absolute density. Everything comes into material existence through it. Everything comes out of a material existence through it. The “point” where the primordial Being and Nonbeing meet to create is the zero point of creation. Nothing is just nothing. Nothingness (emptiness), or absolute void, is Nothing. At its absolute point, the Primordial Being, the Ultimate Source (God) beyond creation and creating, when it is almost equal to nothingness, is, actually, Zero. Zero is the “point” where material and immaterial meet. The last possible “point” of “physical energy” or “matter,” in any form, on the micro or macro level, is the Zero “point.” Beyond this Zero “point” is nothingness.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“There is nothing beyond the Absolute. There can be no purpose, meaning, or hope if there is nothing beyond it. Purpose, meaning, and hope can only exist in relativity. Without relativity, these terms or states have no meaning. Relationships create purpose, meaning, and hope. Whenever or wherever there is a relationship, it means there is something beyond, something more significant to hope for, something to pursue and build meaning and hope through that pursuit.”

“God belongs equally to believers and atheists, but believers “authorized” the right to the word God and its meaning. Agnostics and atheists got caught on it, although they would like to know the truth, too. Since God is the truth, atheists did not realize this yet. Once they realize it, they will become believers because they believe in truth and God is Truth. However, this does not mean that the Christian God or the God of Islam is the truth, but that the truth itself is God. The majority of believers, atheists, and agnostics would instead like to know or accept the truth rather than a stolen idea of God and lies (although many of them conceived with good intentions) presented as truth.”

“An agnostic does not want to succumb to a religious heritage without proof supported by science. An agnostic is guided more by rational thinking than by emotions and religious sentiments that may or may not exist in him or her. This fight, or dilemma, in every one of us, is a fight between a believer and an atheist. Many believers are, perhaps, agnostics to some extent. They know they don’t know the truth and will never find it, but they still believe (credo quia absurdum). Faith and agnosticism do not necessarily exclude each other, as it is usually perceived, and are compatible.”

“All major philosophers are “right” to a greater or lesser extent. It’s not merely a matter of right and wrong but of improving thought and discoveries that lead to a clearer understanding of the world. Every major philosopher provided a bit of understanding that clarified the crucial problems, even for those who objected to the ideas of the same philosophers.”

“Opponents of the particular ideas of past philosophers may be equally indebted, to a larger or lesser extent, to the very same philosophers they oppose as those they agree with. One thing is sure—there is no complete agreement or disagreement, nor can there be one, with any of the philosophers. (Complete agreement can be expected only within purely religious thought based on the dogmas of nominal religions.)”

“What do we do by following these words or rules, laws, prophets and their revelations, and religions? We only believe in those who uttered and wrote these words and revelations. However, we do not know if there were any revelations in the first place or even if they were “real” to become the measures or expressions of truth or God automatically. There is nothing beyond this secret except our belief not in God but in the people (so-called prophets).”

“These practices persisted for thousands of years, and it is a logical consequence that our real idea about God, or our idea about “real God,” necessarily became so distorted that we cannot talk about this idea or concept with almost any certainty. In this manner, we can never know if we talk about the same thing and mean the same thing unless we speak to people with the same opinions and way of thinking (followers).”

“Einstein wrote that “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” but we have to remember that Einstein talks about the “cosmic religious feeling,” which is very different from the religious feeling exercised within the official religions. He explains, “[h]ow can a cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, art and science's most important function is to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.” … “I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research.” … “A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours, the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.” … “You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific mind without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religiosity of the naïve man.”

“If we accept that intelligent design is not necessarily what we think it is, or if we enrich the word (term) design to contain additional meaning in extraordinary contexts or ideas about God and creation, we may understand that design may be the design without designing, that the creation may be creation without creating in the way we see it and understand it. We admit that there can be no design without designing and no creation without creating, but what is to be created or designed in the absolute? If the Absolute is the “highest” form of “existence,” then it must be, at the same time, absolute perfection. If there is absolute perfection, what creation can match the existing perfection? We must agree that no possible outcome of the Absolute can be more perfect than the Absolute itself. Absolute itself is perfection; otherwise, it would not be absolute.”

“If the creation of the world needed to be perfect (absolutely perfect), then why create (design) to arrive at the same point of the Absolute, which would be pure idleness, an idle walk from one perfection to another or from nothing to another nothing? If the purpose of creating is not only in creating but more in existing, and not only in existing per se but in meaningful and purposeful existing, then this creating or creation must first and foremost accommodate its purpose rather than perfection itself. Its perfection must be valued and measured by and through its purpose and meaning rather than by pure perfection. Measure through purpose makes us see the deeper importance and meaning in the lack of ordinary perfection. Perfection and absolute goodness (benevolence) are not necessarily as we see them and would like to see them. When we measure ideals through purpose, the idea, function, and manifestation of perfection and purpose become more pronounced, although subtly.”

“If absolute perfection is an idle walk from one point to another, which is no walk at all, then there is no existence and no life. If we come from this postulate and premise, the existence and life, as we see it, must be, conditionally speaking, “less perfect.” This less-perfect world (existence) is possible only through creation or recreation (“design”). But this creation is not possible without recreation. There is nothing to start from except the Absolute itself—Being and Nonbeing (Something and Nothing). There is nothing to hope for outside this realm. Nothing can be created from nothing if the Being does not create it. Regardless of how omnipotent it is, the Being cannot create anything except out of itself. Even creation out of itself would not be the real creation but recreation because the created being would still be the same (although modified).”

“Now we come to the idea of ex nihilo. We do not know anything about the world before the Big Bang, which could mean that the world came from nothing. But if we ask religious people, nothing can be created out of nothing. But if nothing comes out of nothing, the creation must be the “Child” of existing something, which must be God. If even God cannot create something out of nothing, it must create the world (universe) out of itself. If this creation is the creation out of itself, then it cannot inherently be different from the so-called “creator.” If it cannot be inherently different from the creator, then this creation cannot be precisely called creation but recreation. But even this recreation is impossible without the Nothing. In this sense, there is a creation (partially) out of nothing (ex nihilo) because the real creating force is the Absolute and not only a God or a Universal Mind. The Universal Mind creates and procreates with the help of Nothingness and not solely from nothingness because ex nihilo nihil fit—from nothing, nothing comes to be.”

“If God is perfect, from a religious point of view, why would creation be needed? Why create a world which is inherently less perfect than the creator itself? Why not create Paradise immediately and avoid original sin and eternal torment in Hell? Paradise is a more peaceful and ideal place. Why challenge and tempt a human being so much? Why provoke a potential rebellion by the “Devil?” Is it the boredom of God? Is it creating solely for creating? Or is it the creation in the pursuit of purpose and meaning? What higher purpose and meaning is there if not perfection itself? Following our already elaborated ideas, we should not view this purpose from the point of perfection. Still, the point of existence and life, for even a perfect God, is dead and nonexistent at absolute perfection. Absolute perfection obliterates existence.”

“Perfection” of existence is in its plurality and its “imperfection.” Existence contains the whole purpose in a constant, eternal pursuit of perfection. In this pursuit, the mode, motives, and, above all, meaning are found. Even if there were a possibility for perfect particularities within the realm of existence (world, universe), this perfection would still undermine the higher perfection achieved through evolution. The perfection of particularities would undermine the absolute potential of the Absolute for infinity. The world must be “perfect” (or “imperfect”) not only concerning the Absolute and not only concerning the particular realities but also proportionately perfect (or imperfect) concerning its potential and the potential of the Absolute concerning eternity and infinity.”

“The Absolute can exercise its potential only through non-accidental accidents or chances. Chance, although almost accidental, is not accidental. In a predetermined world, chances would not be possible. Even if chances existed, they would only be appearances of chances and not real chances. In a world (universe) established based on its full potential, chance is compatible with determinism. This almost absurd statement becomes logical if observed from the point of view of the potential of the Absolute, which is predetermined. Absolute is not only absolute but also capable of infinity by exercising its infinite potential.”

“Only emptiness and nothingness can provide space to the world; chance is the uniting force of the Being and the Nonbeing. If we view evolution in this context, evolution, as selection, is no longer a random selection or Herbert Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” but the survival of existence itself. Whatever survives is thanks not only through combinations and recombination of some otherwise self-organized dead matter, self-powered peculiarly through an infinite series of accidents, but rather through an infinite series of predetermined chances. Determinism is based more on chance than on determination. A determined chance is not a chance, strictly speaking. This chance is not chaotic and random. The chance is more orderly than a lack of chance. The chance gives rise to a more deterministic world regarding purpose, meaning, and destiny. Destiny is the purpose of determination. But destiny, as all else discussed, is not necessarily determined. What is determined is that there should be existence, purpose, and meaning. From the point of view of purpose and meaning, the best possible existence is the existence responsible for its own becoming through chance.”

“If chance is less accidental than we think and the world is less self-governed, the outcome is also the same for believers and non-believers. All arguments and counterarguments become worthless because of existence's vastness and paradoxical nature or the universe itself. Under such a scenario, all views or counterarguments would fit equally on either side.”

“What is natural selection? Do organisms develop due to an environment, or does the environment only trigger the potential to evolve in almost endless ways? What determines the survival of the fittest? How are the fittest organisms or animals formed? How can the first fittest animal be formed, and based on what? How can anybody, or anything, become stronger or better than anybody else or anything else, from the same material, under the same conditions? (Is fitness already there?)”

“COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT The First Cause Argument The real problem with the first cause argument is not if God or anything else needed a cause but if the first cause is necessary for anything. If the Ultimate Being, or Absolute, always existed, nothing else exists or can exist outside of it except a transformation, “creation,” or recreation within the Absolute. Absolute Being is not the first cause of the world. We must agree with Russel that the world is without a cause. The view that the Absolute (in someone’s eyes, God) is without a cause does not mean that the world had a different, specific cause. The world is the Absolute itself or emanation of it. The world is the life of the Absolute (or God, but not a God from religious books), not something “different” from the Absolute. Therefore, neither the Absolute, God, Nothingness, nor the Universe need a cause because they are all the Absolute itself. Absolute is the causeless cause operating within itself. The world is a manifestation of the Absolute and its celebration, lovemaking between the Being and Nonbeing in the form of the cosmic fireworks for the hidden eyes of the Absolute. The World is a causeless cause's transformation, creation, or Recreation. The Nothingness and the Being or Something are eternal and, therefore, are without a cause. The real question for atheists is how something can appear out of nothing at some point. Believing that something can come out from nothing is way less believable than the idea that there is an eternal Being that does not need a cause. We may call it whatever name we choose, but it is not necessarily incompatible with science. The limitations of science and its limited outreach cannot serve as proof against the eternal source of everything. Limitations are only proof of the level of science at some point. There is no absolute knowledge, and we can say, with almost absolute certainty, that humans cannot acquire absolute knowledge. Even if this were possible, humans would no longer be humans but be something else.”

“The Argument from Design Based on Russell's treatment of this argument, we assume that Russel expected that the world's creation, by design, had to be perfect. But, as with all other arguments, we must establish what design and perfection mean. If we do not clearly define what design is and what perfection is, we are applying our judgments to something either undefined or loosely defined. Evolutionary theory, be it Darwin’s theory, cannot be proof of a bad design of the world. Anomalies or shortages in the world are not proof of a bad design. Imperfections are needed in the world and serve a higher purpose. Let’s say that God if he existed, wanted to create the perfect world. This perfect world would be sterile. In the perfect world, there would be no cosmic hierarchies, lows, and highs, enough friction to sustain life as something whose purpose is not to be made perfect from the beginning but to seek perfection, to make “progress” in myriad ways toward the main purpose which is life itself. Life, by definition, is not perfect. Perfect life is not a real life. The purpose of design is not to predict a Ku Klux Klan or the fascists and eliminate them from the design before any creation but to put the “engine” of the vast Universe in motion, to enable the world to seek its paths freely, without a God playing dice. That is where determinism and free will come together to create a sensible world. Design does not mean playing dice, nor necessarily creating something new, but the creator offers himself an exit to exist in an ever-new world, a new form with meaning. We also may say that in the Universe or Omniverse, beyond our knowledge, there can be not only thirty-six (to make a comparison with dice) but a googolplex of universes (dice), and the possibility for combinations is infinite. “Impossibility to prove God” is not proof that God does not exist. Russel would argue that the burden of proof is on the person making a claim, but the world itself is proof of God’s existence. The solution to this enigma is to recognize that the world is God. The problem is not belief or disbelief, first cause, natural law or good or bad design, or any other argument for the existence or against the existence of God; the problem is in our understanding and consensus about the idea of what God is. Argumentation or proof can never be shifted to only one side. Something so obvious as the world does not need proof but understanding that the world is also, in its deepest nature, God itself. We can fight as long as we want, but if we fight from different positions for the sake of different positions, we are not going anywhere. God is not the same for the theist or the deist. Christian God is so far from Spinoza’s idea about God. The majority of people who are atheists today are atheists more in revolt against nominal, official religions and not necessarily in revolt against God if this God was better defined or approached from an angle unaffected by religions.”

“We cannot say that what we don’t understand about the universe or what we do not know about the universe does not exist. Our ignorance about the myriad of unknown and outstanding issues does not mean that these issues are teapots orbiting the sun or dragons or spirits hiding in our garages, apartments, or homes. There is only one home we all inhabit. That home is this universe, this world we live in. We learned much about our home but constantly pursued discoveries and new knowledge to bring us closer to the stars and the core of everything. That core of everything that we all crave hides beyond our cognitive abilities and shifts away again and again, regardless of our progress and discoveries. Are we closer to the truth today than Plato was almost 2,500 years ago?”

“According to St. Augustine of Hippo (354—430), “The highest good, than which there is no higher, is God … And consequently, if He alone is unchangeable, all things that He has made, because He has made them out of nothing, are changeable.” Augustine also used the idea of logoi spermatikoi in the context of seminal reasons (rationes seminales, Latin from the Greek λόγοι σπερματικοὶ or logoi spermatikoi), or “seedlike principles,” “causal principles.” Based on this theory, God created the world by inseminating the void with seed. Other Christian thinkers accepted the idea, including Justin Martyr (100—165), Athenagoras of Athens (133—190), Tertullian (155—220), Gregory of Nyssa (335—395), Bonaventure (1221—1274), Albertus Magnus (1200—1280), and Roger Bacon (1219/20—1292).”

“Life has no meaning without the past and future; the present, without the past and the future, is the frozen moment. We all fight for the present, but if anything exists in time, that is the past and the future. Is it possible to measure the present? How long does it last? The present second is not the present: before we think about it, it becomes the future; when we think about it, it becomes the past, and the future becomes the past in the exact second. (This is a good argument about particles and waves since we cannot determine a particle’s exact position and momentum.) What time is there in the present? Only the Absolute is in the absolute present because the absolute present is timeless and spaceless. The present is eternity, and eternity is nothing.”

“There is no time and space. Motion is a Sisyphus’ stone, and space is emptiness, which is nothing. Zero enslaves the space within itself, leaving emptiness without space out of itself. Zero frees the space from the condensed idea, offering the emptiness to spread within the compressed mind. The enslavement of emptiness is the birth of space. Freedom of emptiness is her slavery. Emptiness becomes the slave and the master; obeying God, the vacuum gives him birth, in a way, by providing space for plurality, but simultaneously enlivens itself.”