Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Dejan Stojanovic

Quote by Dejan Stojanovic

“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.”

Quote by Dejan Stojanovic

Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

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

“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.”

UniverseCosmosDejan StojanovicAbsoluteUniversal Mind
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

“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.”

UniverseCosmosDejan StojanovicAbsoluteUniversal MindUltimate Being
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

“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.”

IdeasUniverseHarmonyDejan StojanovicAbsdolute
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

“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?”

PhilosophyUniverseCreationDejan StojanovicAbsoluteUniversal MindMotion
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

“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.”

GodUniverseDejan StojanovicAbsoluteUniversal Mind
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

“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.”

GodUniverseConceptsDejan StojanovicAbsoluteUniversal MindOrigin Of Matter
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

“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.”

GodUniverseDejan StojanovicAbsoluteUniversal Mind
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image

“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.”

GodUniverseDejan StojanovicAbsoluteUniversal Mind
Book:ABSOLUTE
Create image