E039. A whim from the get-go.
There is a "bad sector" in language and philosophy—an undefinable, ever-collapsing, yet ever-erecting realm—and that is "nothing" and "everything." Before proceeding, it is necessary to clarify that "nothing" and "everything" are not normative or value-judgmental adjectives, but purely descriptive and designative terms.
For instance, if you open a door, the room inside might be completely empty. There is no "room itself." There is no null set to begin with. In another instance, the doorway is completely filled, making it not a door but a wall. Again, there is no null set to begin with. The problem of the absolute void and "everything" is that they are undefinable precisely because they are indistinguishable. You cannot configure them.
Thence, Buddha would say it is Sunyata (and Nagarjuna would follow or slap); Hinduism would say Atman is Brahman (Tat Tvam Asi - so show me the money); a Zen Koan would say they are "shit"; Wittgenstein would say,"Well, you should not say it," and later on change his words to "whatever." Plato would hide the fact that they are completely indistinguishable and claim that his Idea is the idea of truth—well, in this case, we have done extensive analysis to prove that it is merely his personal projection (like ejaculation while watching retinal light). Lacan would also add some words, and Laclau would say they are empty signifiers like Xenu. Finally, Lao Tzu would say, "If you can name it, it is not quite it."
They are all speaking about the same thing: that you cannot quite neatly differentiate absolute everything from absolute nothing. Voila, the former constitutes the latter, and the latter constitutes the former. It has been the merry-go-round of philosophy ever since the ice age or the dawn of the Holocene.
If you want to make an earthly earning with it, you can either:
- Claim that it exists (Plato),
- Claim that Brahman is Atman and say, "so give me money" (Hinduism), or
- Go with the Chalcedonian answer (unconfused, unchangeable, etc.).
Irfan—the Khomeini’s subject, the confusion of the self with Allah, yet another attempt at indifferentiation—would arrive at an answer similar to Rumi's. So, say it or without saying it, that is about it. Don’t get tricked by it. If you confuse it with an affirmative scamming mindset, you can earn a lot. Confuse it with narcissistic narcotics for the poor, uneducated, and wounded people, and they will crash themselves like 9/11.
But is it beautiful? Yet another moral problem, a constitutive one. Let everyone have their own answer for it, and I am saying goodbye.
Om, Osho, Gassho, they are magnetic field of saying f-you.
Hello, nice to see you, have a good day. I love you.
