According to Sankara's nondualism, ...reality is that which is absent negation.

[Guest guest]

http://www.quantonics.com/Bergsons_Creative_Evolution_Topic_39.html#Ne

gation%20is%20Subjective

 

http://www.members.shaw.ca/jgfriesen/index.html

 

Where classical negation is Platonically/mathematically objectively

excluded-middle ideal (to negate an (innately) inanimate classical

object one need only place a minus sign in front of its classical

symbol), quantum negation is quantonic included-middle complementary

(negation of a (an intrinsically anihmatæ) quanton is its quantum

real complement: all other reality).

 

Most quotes verbatim Henri Louis Bergson, some paraphrased

 

" IT remains for us to examine in themselves two theoretical illusions

which we have frequently met with before, but whose consequences

rather than principle have hitherto concerned us. Such is the object

of the present chapter. It will afford us the opportunity of removing

certain objections, of clearing up certain misunderstandings, and,

above all, of defining more precisely, by contrasting it with others,

a philosophy which sees in duration the very stuff of reality.

 

" Matter or mind, reality has appeared to us as a perpetual becoming.

It makes itself or it unmakes itself, but it is never something made.

Such is the intuition that we have of mind when we draw aside the

veil which is interposed between our consciousness and ourselves.

This, also, is what our intellect and senses themselves would show us

of matter, if they could obtain a direct and disinterested idea of

it. But, preoccupied before everything with the necessities of

action, the intellect, like the senses, is limited to taking, at

intervals, views that are instantaneous and by that very fact

immobile of the becoming of matter. "

 

" Consciousness, being in its turn formed on the intellect, sees

clearly of the inner life what is already made, and only feels

confusedly the making. Thus, we pluck out of duration those moments

that interest us, and that we have gathered along its course. These

alone we retain. And we are right in so doing, while action only is

in question. But when, in speculating on the nature of the real, we

go on regarding it as our practical interest requires us to regard

it, we become unable to perceive the true evolution, the radical

becoming. Of becoming we perceive only states, of duration only

instants, and even when we speak of duration and of becoming, it is

of another thing that we are thinking. Such is the most striking of

the two illusions we wish to examine. It consists in supposing that

we can think the unstable by means of the stable, the moving by means

of the immobile.

 

" The other illusion is near akin to the first. It has the same

origin, being also due to the fact that we import into speculation a

procedure made for practice. All action aims at getting something

that we feel the want of, or at creating something that does not yet

exist. In this very special sense, it fills a void, and goes from the

empty to the full, from an absence to a presence, from the unreal to

the real. Now the unreality which is here in question is purely

relative to the direction in which our attention is engaged, for we

are immersed in realities and cannot pass out of them; only, if the

present reality is not the one we are seeking, we speak of the

absence of this sought-for reality wherever we find the presence of

another. We thus express what we have as a function of what we want.

This is quite legitimate in the sphere of action. "

(Our bold and color.)

 

From Dr J G Friesen:

 

" We go from absence to presence, from the void to the full, in virtue

of the fundamental illusion of our understanding. That is the error

of which we noticed one consequence in our last chapter. As we then

anticipated, we must come to close quarters with this error, and

finally grapple with it. We must face it in itself, in the radically

false conception which it implies of negation, of the void and of the

nought.(1)

 

" Philosophers have paid little attention to the idea of the nought.

And yet it is often the hidden spring, the invisible mover of

philosophical thinking. From the first awakening of reflection, it is

this that pushes to the fore, right under the eyes of consciousness,

the torturing problems, the questions that we cannot gaze at without

feeling giddy and bewildered. I have no sooner commenced to

philosophize than I ask myself why I exist; and when I take account

of the intimate connection in which I stand to the rest of the

universe, the difficulty is only pushed back, for I want to know why

the universe exists; and if I refer the universe to a Principle

immanent or transcendent that supports it or creates it, my thought

rests on this principle only a few moments, for the same problem

recurs, this time in its full breadth and generality: Whence comes

it, and how can it be understood, that anything exists? Even here, in

the present work, when matter has been defined as a kind of descent,

this descent as the interruption of a rise, this rise itself as a

growth, when finally a Principle of creation has been put at the base

of things, the same question springs up: How—why does this principle

exist rather than nothing? "

 

Spring forms

Fountains motion within

Winter wanes

Water to wine

ah! .................bob