Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Dejan Stojanovic

Quote by Dejan Stojanovic

“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.”

Quote by Dejan Stojanovic

Work

ABSOLUTE

Browse quotes and source details for this work. more

Author

Dejan Stojanovic
Dejan Stojanovic

Dejan Stojanovic, born on March 11, 1959, is a Serbian poet known for his profound emotions and unique style in his poetry, which has won the hearts of readers worldwide. more

You May Also Like

“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.”