HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 5, 2005 If things have changed it is so because they could not remain as they were. And when things remained in their state it is because there could be no change or rather, things are as they are not and are not as they are. That is the motion of the static, or the solidity of continuity... The idea of God is a process or an event – and that can only be objectively irrelevant. The idea of God is only an event and refers to nothing absolute or, above our local dimension. It is just another moment in continuity in 'is'. I should be noted that when I ever mention 'event', 'process', or 'moment', I am not referring to an actual existence of entities which are in connection with each other and implying that there are thus actual gaps of nothingness that refer to the 'that' as not continuing as part of the entity, between separate entities. There is only the solid, infinite, static continuity in 'is'('being as such'). But perhaps, before we continue I should elucidate on the concept of the 'is'. I see it as a static, continuity, where this is in a condition of absence of will, and also without this description. It means nothing absolutely if we label it, because it has no absolute meaning - it merely happens. Every labelling is an event with an eventual cause. I said it is a static continuity. Static, because nothing can change or develop as everything is eventual or predetermined by events which lead to specific other events. It is also highly important that we apply the static quality to so- called self-consciousness as well. There is no 'gap' or space for things such as 'choices' or any kind of personal anticipation of being as such. There is no possibility of recoil from the fullness of 'is' to the effect that a part of continuity can loosen itself in order to assume the pose of objective contemplation. In the case of 'suicide', or the non-acceptance of life - it is tantamount any natural self-destructive (exploding) force that alters a specific arrangement of elements ('unique individual entity') or more correctly, the specific facticity of the intensity of a region in continuity. Nothing is absolutely possible as everything is implied in the static eventuality, though things are relatively possible to us as unknown and questioning 'parts' of the 'whole'. But then again, relativity as such does not exist, because the possibility or instance of relativity requires an absolute which would allow relativity's implementation or, meaning. That is, your judgement acts as having received a permission to judge, where this 'permission' is the reflection of a will to an absolute. The latter forms part of the one static, continuous 'is' or, infinity. Infinity is the eventual, static continuity which is our problem that cannot be 'viewed' from 'above'. Then, to explain what I mean by 'continuity' – continuity is the 'solid' condition of the 'is'. There are no 'gaps' of 'nothingness' in the continuous. Any recoil of some or other plenitude or, any kind of nothingness must be 'something' or, rather part of the continuous as we can be aware of it. There is no nothing, because it would imply that the 'is' in its continuity is contiguous to nothingness and thus acting like a growing entity inside nothingness. All is a happening in solid continuity. This 'willing' of which I speak is the very struggling from within Being towards overcoming its willing as such and to rise above and beyond all 'is'. It has always and is still endeavouring to become loose from it all in order to see itself without any definition in 'is'. At the same time it realizes in utter frustration that such an 'act' would additionally transcend itself into another 'willing'- it will continue as yet another solidity in an infinity of continuity. It simply can not 'escape' the escaping as such, nor the internal will to do so itself. There is no 'other' than 'this'. It is, my dear friend, like the horizon. The horizon is as such that it throws itself over itself in any viewers' approach of it. It is 'this' and no 'other' that we are not able to escape even if we 'do', because then the 'this' has merely continued. 'Infinite' is in infinite implication. That means that the idea of the 'infinite' is not a mere empty continuity. 'Infinity' as such implies its own 'substance' or 'processes'. It is everything, including our 'will' and all other 'things'. Infinity can never be without its implied content or process. Infinity is not an emptiness that needs the separate 'creation' of its content. It is its own content. Because any creator requires all-powerful content or process in order to fill an empty Infinite. And if this 'creator' was always there with all its power it implies that it is an Infinite itself in actual or eventual implication of the solid continuity. Now this infinite implication also means that every so-called entity or object into which we inquire we find incomplete in its essence. That is, when we divide it into smaller and smaller 'particles' we see that every time we have to account for the make-up of each one. And whether these 'parts/particles' are 'dimensions', 'waves', 'strings', or anything as such that goes by a definition, it always goes on into infinity. This 'Infinity' has no 'direction' or 'position' or any kind of meaning, besides that it happens/'is'. What is, perhaps, the most important here is the idea that we find in every investigated instance its own incompleteness or insufficiency to support its very essence, and that is due to the continuity that is solidly through the eternal 'is'. There are no room for any real definition or distinction in 'is'. Even our own observation of such 'distinctions' reveals the very continuity in 'showing' a ‘gap’. In instance of 'showing' or 'revealing' any 'being' or 'nothingness' is an implication of the complete solidity in continuity. So, what is it that determines the degree of ‘fitness’ of a theory? I suppose it's naturally the specific degree of convenience which lies in accepting a certain theory. Every individual's life is the experienced and censored in terms of fundamental principles. And aspects such as practical value; amusement; intellectual stimulation, etc., are some of the important determining factors for the selection of valuable theories. And what I think is maybe, the most determining of all, is the amount of resemblance which a theory bears towards the private suspicions in the minds of uncreative individuals concerning the 'truths' behind events and predicaments of every day life. And this brings us to the process in which the struggling author indulges himself in order to ensure the power and fit impact of his dynamite Theory. ------------ About the author Werner Reyneke: I am a 23 year old passionate writer/poet in my spare time and a computer programmer by proffession. Visit my website to see my first published book. I live in South Africa and have been published in a local newspaper (some poems in Haiku form) for the first time in February 2000. I have also been selected for publication in a VoicesNet Anthology (visit www.Voicesnet.org) and a Poetry.com (ILP Publishers) anthology called "Eternal Portraits"). Visit my website at: http://myweb.absa.co.za/wreyneke/Mybook.htm Email: wreyneke@absamail.co.za Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
