Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Dejan Stojanovic

Quote by Dejan Stojanovic

“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.”

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

“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.”