Quotessence
Home / Authors / Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

Poet

Filter quotes by topic

Famous Dejan Stojanovic Quotes

“To hear never-heard sounds, To see never-seen colors and shapes, To try to understand the imperceptible Power pervading the world; To fly and find pure ethereal substances That are not of matter But of that invisible soul pervading reality. To hear another soul and to whisper to another soul; To be a lantern in the darkness Or an umbrella in a stormy day; To feel much more than know. To be the eyes of an eagle, slope of a mountain; To be a wave understanding the influence of the moon; To be a tree and read the memory of the leaves; To be an insignificant pedestrian on the streets Of crazy cities watching, watching, and watching. To be a smile on the face of a woman And shine in her memory As a moment saved without planning.”

“Tunnel from the absolute realm into the relative realm of the world and vice versa. Without one, there is no other. This point could also be the nucleus of a black hole at the point of its absolute density where everything sank into One without any space. That is the Zero point. This point is the gateway to new life. At this point, a black hole either “explodes” or disappears.”

“A dimension is a measure of something wrongly used as the property or feature of something, but space itself is not, in its essence, what we think it is. We imagine space, conceptually and linguistically, as something solid and conditionally emptiness if this emptiness is within something tangible as matter. In this way, all we measure is the measure of a shape that we see in the way we see it, not how it is. We can also measure distances between the shapes. This is how we form our idea of space. Even if there was no absolute vacuum, what gives space or dimensions to anything we measure or see as space in the “material universe” is this void or nothingness. We experience and measure all the physical qualities of reality, but they are only “coordinates” or informational, immaterial skeletons of Reality appearing in the forms we experience as “physical.” We measure this very void for, without it, space or our idea of space is impossible.”

“We still can insist that space is what we say because nothing, or an absolute vacuum, is not space. Then, we must prove how space can exist without this nothing or absolute vacuum. But we cannot prove that space is possible without nothing. Since we cannot prove that there is space or curvature of space without nothing, we will establish the opposite: without the absolute vacuum, the Nothing (void, emptiness), there is no space. When we become convinced that there can be no space without the Nothing or an absolute vacuum, we must answer precisely what space is and how it becomes space. The only actual space is nothing or an absolute vacuum; we have already stated that this space cannot be curved.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“In actuality, reality is an illusion. If it were not an illusion, to some degree, it would be the “God” itself, the realization, Oneneness without the beginning or end. That would end everything because everything would transform into its primordial state of Nothingness. Ultimate reality, or Nothingness, is therefore without purpose. The purpose is created by altering the Ultimate Reality (noumenon) into the world of plurality, so the plurality itself is an “illusion” that secures purpose. Without this illusion, there is no reality in an absolute sense. The road to reality is an illusion. Thanks to this illusion, there is existence in a broader sense. Limitations are the source of movement. Without separations and limits, there would be no movement but only frozen Oneness.”

“For Schopenhauer, there is only one underlying reality; for Kant, there are things in themselves as a plurality. The difference is singularity against plurality (diversity). But this difference may be only on the surface, for it is hard to imagine that Kant thought of noumenon (if equated to a thing in itself) as of plurality, but rather that things in themselves are not differentiated in the noumenon as they are in the world of phenomena for these phenomena are only particular, phenomenal manifestations of the One—Noumenon (although this may not be the case with Plato). Let’s think deeper about Plato’s idea of noumenon. We may conclude that, although on a superficial level, noumenon may contain plurality, when we look deeper, we may conclude that Plato’s noumenon is singularity too. Regardless of the description and explanation in the Republic, Plato’s noumenon is or may be the undifferentiated One. The idea that the world we see and the things in it are only the shadows of an underlying reality or noumena does not necessarily mean that all these things have their literal equivalents in the noumenon. In the end, there seems to be less difference between Plato’s forms (ideas) and Kant’s things in themselves than it looks like on the surface. Still, noumenon, although being a singularity, being the One and universal underlying reality, contains plurality as a potential.”

“The only measure of the Absolute is the Absolute itself. Absolute is an immeasurable mind. Since everything, regardless of being dispersed into relativity and plurality, is part of the absolute mind, then everything intrinsically possesses a part of its nature. Regardless of everything possessing a part of the absolute mind, not everything has a mind that is aware of itself. There is a hierarchy in the world of plurality. The dispersed reality of the Absolute is not based on the human understanding of matter, energy, thoughts, feelings and emotions, laws of nature, qualities, and levels of awareness.”

“Philosophers and scientists throughout the ages have been concerned with these questions. Still, the question is not only about posing the question but also about posing the right question and understanding the meaning of words and language. The right questions and good reasoning often lead to the correct answers, but we are dealing with how and when we establish the right concepts. Have we ever? How far are the concepts, beyond our words and language, from the intrinsic nature of what we try to describe and comprehend?”

“Regarding the old question of the mind-body relationship, the concepts related to this topic have changed from ancient times, and the difference between body and mind is more evident to us today than it was to ancient man. What changed? Was this development a result of growth in understanding or a simple paradigm shift? Is a paradigm shift always connected to growth and better understanding or not? All paradigm shifts must rely on concepts. These concepts are established based on ideas. All ideas could be better. There is a perennial fight among people about ideas, among other things. Since ideas are not easily measurable, they can be established and, based on them, the rule, regardless of their true merit. Ideas, irrespective of their intrinsic value and truth, can become the inherent values of society and may even become the “truth” itself.”

“To reach the truth, it must be at the absolute level. But does the absolute truth exist, and what does it mean? Do ideas represent truths? To what extent do ideas represent truths? These questions mostly relate to society and abstract or concrete questions concerning ethics, aesthetics, psychology, philosophy, and religion. Exact sciences are based on and governed by different standards and concepts of truth or ideas about the truth. Regardless of this dichotomy, it is only a dichotomy on the surface. Deep down, the absolute truth is at the equidistance from all these essential points, or all approaches, regardless of their origin (based on purely theoretical thought or conclusion resulting from an experiment), provided that all these approaches have equal merit based on the intrinsic value of any particular endeavor or approach.”

“Dimension gains its value only when something is already measured. Before we measured it, we did not know its dimensions. In this sense, we cannot say that space has dimensions but that specific quantitative values can be measured. Here, too, we come in contact with the idea of the concept, where the concept goes astray from an idea or truth in proportion to its linguistic separation from the rule or its original idea of the very words and their meanings. The linguistic purpose of the word dimension, originally, was to represent the measure of some of the features, or all, of space and not to be the very feature or property of space or of that to which the measure, dimension, is applied, or of that which it sustains.”

“The question is, the measure of what do dimensions represent? What is space? If we measure the length, width, or height of anything, we measure what is presented to us, through senses, as shape. Every visible shape in nature and, most likely, invisible too, is, for the most part, emptiness or nothing. That which we measure does not exist in a higher reality but is emptiness. That which gives a quantitative value to space is emptiness, not matter. If we could expel emptiness from space, it would lose length, width, and height. We measure emptiness, not matter, and emptiness is not dimensional; there is nothing to measure; it is the same everywhere. Something must exist to be measured.”

“The Reality (Universe, objects, matter, space) we measure is the Reality created by the Primary Quality of the Ultimate Source. When we measure the secondary quality (formerly primary), we are convinced it is as material as it appears. Yet, it is the reality programmed to be perceived as such by tertiary qualities (formerly secondary). Regardless of this “wrong” opinion or “perception,” Reality is not less real than we thought it was. It appears to be as it is, regardless of our views and acquired knowledge about it. We can and should adjust our worldview accordingly, but that does not affect us adversely. The change of perception should not necessarily be a drastic or detrimental worldview change. Quite to the contrary, this change shall boost progress and better align us with the cosmic organism we are part of. There is no reason to doubt or question reality, but we have to get used to a new, changed idea or understanding of reality since reality is not what we thought it was. Matter is not what we thought it was. Space is not what we thought it was. Our Reality is the Ultimate Web of Information. Whenever we measure something, we measure the information, the program, not space or matter per se. The only volume of Reality comes from Void.”

“Energy is the world-born phenomenon, the world that puts itself in motion and flies into space by receiving space into itself. From this point of view or the point of view of the Theory of Relativity, matter is indeed condensed energy. But, from the Absolute, or the Theory of the Absolute, both energy and matter are the dissolved forms of the primordial world of the Absolute. Therefore, energy is the “dissolved” Absolute, and matter is the formation of “energy” into objects of the multitude of the Absolute, which transforms from oneness and singularity into plurality (although oneness is never lost).”

“What is the Absolute? Absolute can only be the absolute knowledge, thought, mind, immaterial “substance,” the absolute “brain” (spirit) that contains an infinite programming ability and potential for absolute plurality through chance. Since human beings are limited, although much more advanced than other animals, they cannot understand inconceivable and invisible spaces by experience, experiment, or evidence, far exceeding their perceptive and sensory abilities. Even if they were at a higher level of evolution, humans would be unsure if they found the final truths and complete knowledge. However, if they free themselves from dogmas—religious, political, and others—human beings can count on a higher degree of understanding and closer touch with the world.”

“If there is only one primordial Being “in” the Nothing, there is no relationship between this Being and anything else, and all this void is equal to zero or infinity. But, if there is an appearance of a “different” something, the Universe, the “material” Being “in” the Nothing, there is a relationship between the two entities, and anything in and between them is space. On the other hand, since these universes are pluralities, there is already established space inside them due to the plurality and distances they cause.”

“Although the Nothing is nothing, of and for itself, it is not nothing when interacting with the Being. This interaction activates the passive feature, void as a potential for space, of the Nothing through relationships, and it provides the medium, space, for its division and expansion into existence. In this way, the Nonbeing creates the Being partially but equally important. On the other hand, the Being transforms nothingness from nothing into real space.”

“Even if an I is an illusion, we cannot deny the existence of that illusion. Reality is an “illusion,” which is not less tangible for being an illusion. If it were not an illusion, it would not have been possible as this kind of “reality.” Different, or substantially different, reality would lose its purpose. The purpose of reality is not perfection or reality per se but the voyage toward perfection and reality with meaning.”

“Through the process of “materialization,” the Universal Source “inseminates” and “fertilizes” emptiness (original void) in the love-making cosmic hug between the Universal Source and Emptiness. Reality, even the one we can experience to some extent, is mind-boggling. There could be up to 2 trillion galaxies in our Universe only and up to 200 sextillion (200 billion trillion) stars.”

“In the magnificent and complex web of information in the Universe, everything affects everything else. It is “programmed” in ways that the objects of “physical” reality have some properties and features that affect tertiary qualities in a way that tertiary qualities recognize them with all their features. Depending on the level of tertiary qualities and dispersion, all the feelings, measures, weight of objects, pain, and anything we can imagine will be recognized and felt by tertiary qualities as a direct impact, effect, and consequence of secondary qualities in a literal sense. For instance, people would feel and be able to measure the weight of a physical object and all the rest and be able to feel pain, among other things, as if the whole energy and matter and all their properties and effects were real and not the “programmed” product of the immaterial Universal Source (Mind). Even after the “creation” of the world as we see it, it is still immaterial. Yet, we perceive its qualities and properties based on the “program,” which dictates our reaction to secondary (originally primary) qualities of the world.”

“Even if imagined matter existed independently but did not function as we described, there would only be dead matter. Matter, “artificially” made by the Universal Source, is still immaterial but is more real than if matter existed on its own, irrespective of the Universal Source or its impact. All we experience as energy and matter is immaterial information from the Ultimate Source of all Reality, without which there would be only absolute Nothingness.”

“The phenomenal world is only a different domain of the noumenal world. It is the “intention” of the noumenal to become, on some level, phenomenal. Although from the perspective of the phenomenal, noumenal seems to be metaphysical and transcendent, from the perspective of the noumenal, phenomenal is immanent. Regardless of not having direct immaterial access to the noumenal, through our experience of the phenomenal, we experience the noumenal at the same time.”

“In my system of thought, noumenal is the immaterial oneness or singularity, and the phenomenal is “material” plurality. Kant thought that the merging of phenomena and noumena transforms everything into appearances and that this would be the artificial way or “illegitimate” way to experience noumena. Since the created world is an “illusion” (conditionally speaking), everything stays noumena. Still, on the superficial level of the made reality, we experience the hierarchies and degrees of the qualities of the new reality.”

“The new “reality” requires different experiences and imposes other instruments of experience. The World beyond “new reality” does not require sensory experience. Universal Mind (we can equate it with Noumenon) is still the underlying reality, hypostasis of all, and our experience of “reality,” or phenomenal, is, at the same time, the experience of the noumenal, but on the minuscule level. This ability of the noumenal to transform into phenomenal is the secret of existence, life, purpose, and meaning. We may say that, without appearances or phenomena, noumenal loses meaning.”

“The things in themselves (or the thing in itself) do not exist in the noumenal realm; they are only the potential of noumenal. The Noumenal exercises its potential in the phenomenal realm. There is no way to experience a thing in itself because appearances are not direct reflections or copies of ideal forms/ideas nor the appearances of things in themselves, but the expressions of the noumenal through phenomenal. Appearances do not have the corresponding reality of the things in themselves in the noumenal but are the products of the absolute potential of the noumenal.”

“This absolute potential possesses potential for unlimited variations. The possibility for variations is infinite. The infinite potential and possibility in its total capacity are unknown even to the Noumenon itself, and that is probably the main secret and beauty of existence, of the noumenal and of phenomenal, the main secret of the Being capable of becoming and capable of just being the Being in all its glory and potential.”

“When we use the word illusion, we mean something is not real in a broader sense. Yet, how do we define reality and illusion? Does reality depend on our senses, understanding, and definitions or on what it is objectively? Why would our senses, “definitions,” and “understanding,” or lack of it, not be reality irrespective of our idea of reality? What constitutes reality? Who decides what reality is? Would it not be logical that whatever exists is real? Even if something does not exist, we can imagine the reality of nonexistence. If everything that exists is real, we can only talk about the degrees or levels of reality without denying reality to something we do not understand. Our lack of understanding shall not be an obstacle to reality but a motivator to try harder and get closer to the most “real” of what is possible.”

“Only the world of Oneness and Unity (Singularity) is a universal reality without hierarchies. Still, the World of plurality and dispersed Oneness is the world of hierarchies, orders, degrees of life, understanding, and evolution. In a World of total Oneness, there is no evolution. Evolution and real life are only possible when they become less “real,” when something leads to something else, when something seeks something else, when something is bigger than something else, and when we crave and desire. The purpose of reality is life. The real way of life is motion. Without motion, there is no life. What secures the motion, whether matter is real or a product of a Universal Mind, is less important than the ultimate purpose of it all, and the ultimate purpose is to preserve life and meaning against nothingness.”