It was said in the last part that this word was enough. We asked why it was not OK to simply repeat the word. But there is no why to it. Because it is

THE END OF THE UNIVERSE, PART X

submited by

Style Pass

2021-09-23 00:30:03

It was said in the last part that this word was enough. We asked why it was not OK to simply repeat the word. But there is no why to it. Because it is OK to simply repeat emptiness.

‘In a way everyone knows everything’, writes Duras. But this is too literary. What we know for certain is that everyone knows emptiness (everything).

The hesitation of the ‘in a way’ in literature and philosophy is not discretion but lack of openness to emptiness emptiness emptiness. (It is lack of practice.)

We know what emptiness is because all words are emptiness. Once we know that the being of everything is emptiness, including heaven and immortality, we know what all words are going to mean in advance. (Emptiness.)

This last move is more than radical. It is more than radical in a way that dissolves the whole of artistic plasticity and thought and the sciences including mathematics: it is more than radical because once we move into repetition of emptiness, quality does not count.

That is, in great art or in great science ‘quality’ (which also implies ‘technical precision’) is supposed to be a pure value placed over mere ‘quantity’. But once we have emptiness, we have emptiness as the only thing that counts, so all that counts is its repetition.