Heirs to Still Being or Having? - A Being is Immobility (Stillness)

Index de l'article

A Being is Immobility (Stillness)

To be, is to be fulcrum, to create a universe in which I is in the centre, immobile, the fulcrum of a periphery in motion. Of course, this immobility is relative. I am only immobile in the universe of which I am the center. Like Russian dolls, there is an infinity of beings. Each being is the immobile center of its own universe, which itself is part of other universes. Therefore, all beings are mobile with respect to the immobile Is at the center of these larger universes, etc. As immobility is a fulcrum’s essential nature, all fulcra are relatively immobile. The only absolutely immobile fulcrum is the Creator of the entire universe, the Fulcrum of fulcra.

Furthermore, to be is to create pairs, the first of which is me/not-me. Therefore, all creations are relative, and exist only in relation to their opposite. In each pair, opposites exist through to their relationship to each other, and are constantly seeking reciprocal equilibrium. The creation of the logical pair me/not-me leads to the creation of other associated logical pairs: center/periphery, immobility/movement, cause/effect, expansion/retraction, etc.

From Immobility to Movement

To be, is to declare oneself different or separate, i.e. to go through a process of individuation. But how does an entity know that this is so, that is to say that it continues to be? Or, in other words, how does an entity experience the state of being? Such knowledge requires the existence of a system that enables the difference between me and not-me to be established, to be preserved, to be felt continuously. The membrane gives the cell a material barrier. However, although this barrier does indeed separate (consciousness once more…) an interior space from an exterior space, and provide individual cells with a physical boundary, it does not enable the cell to experience itself, to feel that it exists. In effect, the membrane provides the structure of existence, but not yet the function.

The actual sensation of existence is born from an exchange with the external environment. Indeed, the me/not-me duality creates an influx/efflux duality. As the efflux cannot be infinite, it must at some point reverse, giving rise to the influx which then seeks to balance the difference in potential between me and the external environment. However, when the returning influx is about to balance out this difference in potential, the need to exist or to feel existence recreates the efflux towards the external environment. This is how the alternation between efflux and influx, is born, in an attempt to reach an impossible balance.

Richard Moss expresses the same phenomenon differently: “In fact, it is impossible to become conscious of something without, at first, being separate from it. Think for a moment of the wind. If you are moving at the speed of the wind you cannot feel it. To become conscious of the wind you must resist it, push against it. This is what the ego is: the “I” that pushes against the All. It is a closing down of unobstructed intimacy with Existence, so that, paradoxically, we can begin to become conscious of Existence. Ego is born out of contrast; it requires being separate; it requires interaction. It gives birth to self-will and the first discernment: yes or no. And, it can be threatened.” (Moss, 1995, 17). Thus, there dwells in living systems an eternal duality between melting into and resisting, between going towards and folding back.