Absolutism – The Absolute

 The most fundamental law of Nature is that there is no law: https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-nature-of-nature.html

This implies that even this is not the law. So, there is law(s), which again would mean there is this law which again would mean there is no law(s), and so on …..

The other way to put it is to say, Every Statement (in the State[ment]verse) has a Not-Statement, or Every statement has a ‘Not’.

The Absolute, the most fundamental is: Every Statement (in the State[ment]verse) has a Not-Statement, or Every statement has a ‘Not’.

So, the Absolute, the most/Ultimate/Absolute fundamental is the no-Absolute, no-most fundamental or Ultimate-fundamental. The Absolute, the most fundamental is that there is not Absolute, there is no Ultimate or most fundamental. The Absolute is Absolute, the Absolute is No-Absolute, the Absolute is [Absolute-No-Absolute], the Absolute is [[Absolute-No-Absolute]–[No–Absolute-No-Absolute]], the Absolute is [[[Absolute-No-Absolute]–[No–[Absolute-No-Absolute]]]], and so on …..

This all can be defined or represented or described by or called INDEFICEPTION or INFIDEFICEPTION.

So again, what this all is is that, the Absolute, the most fundamental is: Every Statement (in the State[ment]verse) has a Not-Statement, or Every statement has a ‘Not’.

[ Vsñu: Visnu (Vsñu) – Laxmi/Lakshmi (Sri/Shri): Krishna (Krisña) – Radha: For every Visnu there is Laxmi. They are same in some perspective, they are the ‘Not’ of each other in some. They are same – they are not]

The Absolute, the most fundamental is: STATE[MENT]VERSE

This implies even this Statement has a ‘Not’. So, not every statement has ‘Not’. So, there is no ‘Not’, or there is ‘Not’ of ‘Not’. Which again would mean that the ‘Not’ of this Statement has a ‘Not’, which is there is this Statement. Which again would mean there is ‘Not’ of this Statement i.e. there is no ‘this Statement’, or there isn’t such ‘Statement’, and there is, and so on …..

This is the Absolute, this is ‘Nothing’. This is Absolute/Ultimate Nothing. This is Everything. This is CONTRADICTION [Sanskrit: Virodhaabhaas ( विरोधाभास)]. This all can be summed to and be defined or described by or called INDEFICEPTION or INFIDEFICEPTION.

The Absolute cannot be defined, there is no Absolute, Nothing is Absolute, ‘Nothing’ is Absolute i.e. ‘Everything’ is Absolute. Absolute is Relative, Absolute is no Absolute.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more