The Absence of the Opposite

A: I am what I have been. 

B: I am not what I have been. 

C: I am both. Ha!

D: I am neither. 

E: I am something else. 

F: I am me. 

G: I am I. 

H: I am. 

For further reflection: When you say “am,” do you hear a statement of totality, or do you hear a grasp at essence?

The Absence of the Opposite

Forenote: This writing features heavy use of italics. It is an explosion of italics, especially compared to how Blake usually writes. He does this, because the italic alters the common usage of the word to show that he is specifically using that word. In this case, because he is dealing with a mix of heightened language, regular language, philosophical language, and plain language, the italicized words have helped me to organize the ideas, compare words, and make sure he is using the specific word he wants to use. 

“The Absence of the Opposite” appeared

The Absence of the Opposite appeared nearby and wished to be professed. May either it receive its wish through me or through another. 

The Experiment

Suppose there were three objects, A, B, and C, a direction-giver, D, and a receiver, E. Let A and B be variables understood by E as existing in realm R1, for the most part, and C a variable understood by E as existing in realm R2, for the most part. D has given directions to E locally in R1. These directions include A, but not B. E, who is unclear as to the definitions of A and B, interacts with B instead of A. E clarifies that A is A and not B and B is B and not A. Would it make sense at any point in this experiment, with the information given, for D to say to E, A is not C? No. It is the unknown distinction between A and B which requires D to enter the idea of negative essences to E (that is that and not this; this is this and not that). What sense would it make if, in this situation, D says to E, “A is A and not C?” 

By definition, C is not in R1, so there already is a negative essence introduced into the experiment. And, C was not given in D’s directions, so there already is a statement of the negative in what D says. The observation I am trying to make is that, in E’s mindspace, from the moment the directions are given, there is not even a consideration of C, which does exist at all for E. One suggestion from nihilism is that in order for D to accurately define A, he would have to recognize A as A, and he would also have recognize A as not anything which is not A. But anyone with a human brain can testify that this does not occur. We do not look at things and run infinite calculations of what the thing is not to reach what it is. In the logical experience of D, the negation of C is not included. For D, there was never anything that assured C was not in R1, and this assumption could not have been made by D. 

Example: 

E, on a past occasion: “I’ve seen garbage disposals and garbage cans in kitchens, in houses.”

E, on a separate, past, occasion, “I know eagles to be birds which soar through the air and inhabit nature.”

D gives directions to E with regards to things in the kitchen. 

E “forgets” or “misremembers” what is a garbage disposal and what is a garbage can. He moves to one instead of the other. 

D clarifies, “No, not the garbage can, the garbage disposal. That is the garbage can, not the garbage disposal. This is the garbage disposal, not the garbage can." In this instance, D uses the idea of negative delineation to clarify what is. 

The shedding of nihilist binary

One suggestion we can glimpse from nihilistic philosophy is that what is is defined by what it is not. However, this does not seem to do justice to the truth of how people enter and exit situations, like the one in this experiment. It would not make sense to say that E enters the kitchen, thinking, “all the things in here are what they are, in part due to that, there is no eagle” here. This would make sense for E to think if he’s already seen an eagle in a kitchen, and is in part expecting, or cautious, of seeing one. However, in the cases in which E has not experienced the possibility of an eagle in a kitchen, he would not be inclined to even imagine the possibility. Here, there is a connection to deception, as we see in Othello by Shakespeare and in The Father by August Strindberg. In these stories, a male character is seduced by the idea that their wife is not cheating on them, and to understand the statement “my wife is not cheating on me” means connecting it to its hypothetical, logical negation: “my wife is not not cheating on me,” or “my wife is cheating on me.” To believe that “my wife is not cheating on me,” means to inherently consider the idea that “my wife is cheating on me.” However, notice, in these cases, that the idea comes from external stimuli. There must have been an originator to see the possibility that Desdemona is unfaithful to Othello, in order to even conjure up the idea that “she is not unfaithful.” The biggest force which convinces Othello that she is having an affair, is Iago, and more specifically, Iago’s suggestions that she is not having an affair. He is the one who sees an ideal situation where Desdemona is being unfaithful, then introduces the idea that she is not unfaithful. For Othello to successfully counteract this, he would have to pinpoint Iago as the source of this negative story, and realize, through this logic, that, given the truth of Desdemona’s faithfulness, as it is established in the play, it is only Iago himself who could have imagined such a world where “Desdemona is unfaithful.”As with the eagle: the only way for E to recognize that there is no eagle is to have been introduced to the idea that there is no eagle by someone or by some experience which would have made him understand the possibility of there being an eagle. 

And, it would not make sense for D, either, to say, “no, that garbage disposal is not an eagle,” unless E has already expressed some weird assumption that it was, which is barely a possibility in this example, since the eagle is not in the kitchen. 

Note that, in this example, out of A, B, and C, or out of the garbage disposal, the garbage can, and the eagle, none of them are necessarily opposites to each other. This is perhaps approaching that elusive existence which I call the “absence of the opposite.” [It is worth noting that, if E is taught by D with a strong impression that one is the garbage disposal and not the garbage can, and the other is the garbage disposal and not the garbage can, then E might develop an understanding of them as opposites, due to the nature of how he was taught. This would change when E comes into contact with a third item that he needs to understand as not being the garbage can. If a thing is not one other thing, the idea of the opposite can implant itself. But if a thing is not two other things, then the idea of the opposite is called into question]. 

In this example, if D’s directions call the local variable A with regards to time and space (ex: “E, to achieve this goal in this time, turn on A after doing X and before doing Y.”), then substituting A for B or C does not make a logical opposite. However, they are contradictory. For example, if E must “interact with A in order to follow the directions” then if E “interacts with B instead of A,” E cannot progress, or E has contradicted the direction given to him. This example attempts to bring out the nuanced relationship of being and nothingness. 

Thus far, it seems that, in the realm of humans undergoing experience, what is and what is not are not neatly linked. So, I propose an alternate hypothesis. Perhaps, instead of: 

P: I am what I am and not what I am not. 

Or, 

I am not what I am and am what I am not.   

Or, 

(Both, or something piecewise of the two)

It is: 

Q: I am from nothing, I am, and there is no “not me.” 

Now to investigate this idea. The “not me”s are visions of other entities' perceptions of me being “not me.” This is the philosophy which Oscar interacts with in Farewell (by writer).  In Farewell, this philosophy which Oscar incorporates into his worldview is put against the philosophy of “you are what you are, and there is a ‘not you’ threatening to become you” which is observable in the behaviors of Eamonn, Niall, Claire, and Adam. This is something which Oscar understands not to be true, because he knows, “there is no ‘not me’.” However, to convince others of this is like Socrates preaching to his persecutors, and this is where Oscar’s “battle” comes in. He could find the courage to argue and convince others of the surety which he has in his existence, or he could rescind himself to floating in between these “not me”s which people view him as. Furthermore, it is important to note that in Farewell, one of the illusory “not-me”s is that Oscar is a “writer.” This is an essential observation in motivating the dramatic struggle of the characters in the play. 

Perhaps, the absence of the opposite can be best summed up in the construction: I am from nothing, I am, and there is no “not me.” 

However, one can note that in this construction, there are two “negatities” (a word I am using having read some of Sartre’s Being and Nothingness): the first being “nothing,” and the second being “no ‘not me.’” How can the “absence of the opposite” be summed up in a phrase that included negatities? Let us address these two negatities in turn.

I am from the “will” that was; You are from the “will” that was; He is from the “will” that was; etc…

The first, “nothing,” in the sense that it is used here, is not referring to the absence of all that is. The conception of nothing asks for a different, local definition here. Perhaps “hypothetical” is a close meaning? As in, I am from the hypothetical, I am, and there is no “not me.” However, the hypothetical implicates some sort of subjective human creating the hypothetical, and it has been made clear to the writer that a hypothetical, if it is understood as a hypothetical, will not occur.  The hypothetical only really occurs when it is understood as not being a hypothetical, as being what is, what is in Fate’s spool, so to speak. So, hypothetical is perhaps not the best word for it. But, perhaps the opposite of hypothetical is a good term for it. The opposite of the hypothetical is not what is. The opposite of the hypothetical should be what will, which is connected to what is. 

Thus, could it be: I am from the “will,” I am, and there is no “not me.” This seems to be more sufficient. It should be noted that the pronoun is only an entry in the equivalence class. It is like a filling-in of a variable, in these reflections, at least. 

Now, there is the counter to this reasoning: hasn’t negation been used to reach the current position, since “will” was introduced as the opposite of hypothetical? This fosters a very crucial reflection, and that is that the opposite of a thing is not defined by not being the thing. As we showed before, what is not the thing can be contrary or contradictory. It can be unrelated; it can be separate; it can be unfathomable to even conceive the two in the same realm of language. The negation, the not, as professed by Sarte, is a nihilating force on what is. The opposite does not actually nihilate what is. As we have seen through too many superhero stories, the villain defines the hero; the hero defines the villain. They are “opposites,” and yet, they do not nihilate each other; they build each other up. Thus, I say the opposite of the hypothetical--the opposite of “could--” is not “could not,” for this is only a negative construction. I say the opposite of “could” is “will,” and they build each other up in an unending battle.   

How does one arrive at the opposite when one does not know the opposite? Firstly, by the nature of things, one must know the opposite with the thing. The superhero can only be understood as a superhero if there are bad guys it fights against. The light can only be understood as the light if there is darkness nearby by.  Without darkness, there is no light. And vice versa. Without bad guys, there is no superhero. And vice versa. Once the thing is known, the opposite is known. Thus, it is in getting to know the thing that the opposite is made known. Are all things opposit-able? Can a garbage can have an opposite? What is that thing which opposes the garbage can? Can there be said to have any? Perhaps, not. Some nouns seem to have opposites, some don’t. 

The negative construction is often superimposed on the construction of the opposite. For example, take color theory. In the most popular color wheel, Red is the “opposite” of green. However, we can also say that red is not green, and green is not red. But this “not” construction is a separate thing from the opposite. All opposites fulfill a “not-not” relation, but not all “not-not” relations fulfill the opposite. 

So, this phrase being constructed at this stage is thus: I am from the “will,” I am, and there is no “not me.” But as far as summing up the “absence of the opposite,” this is still an incomplete essence of thought. Before we move onto the next negative construction (the “not ‘not me’”), there is a particularity in the case of the “will.” How can I be from the “will” when the “will” hasn’t happened yet? One answer is that there was a “will,” and the “will” continues forth like the Greek Fate's spools. At one point, I was in the spool. In another, I was in the knit patchwork. Thus, perhaps it is more clarifying to say that: I am from the “will” that was. 

I am not “the phenomena of me,” you are not “the phenomena of you,” he is not “the phenomena of him,” etc.

Now it is time to address the second negative: the “not ‘not me.’” Recall the observations which led to this idea: in the experiment from earlier, E does not need to recognize the garbage can as not the eagle in order to understand that the garbage can is the garbage can. Thus, in E’s experience of the thing, the garbage can is not not the eagle. But, if asked if the garbage can was the eagle, E might conjure up an understanding that the garbage can is not the eagle, by comparing the two things which he has not compared before. It is in this way that “I am not not me.” To use logical operatives, this should translate to “I am me.” However, the language used here clearly does not follow the logical operatives. Since, we have that 

1. The garbage is not not the eagle (B is not not C).

2. The garbage is not the eagle (B is not C). 

(I.) and (II.) are both true. This breaks the assumptions of how a logical language should work. Thus, logicism does not satisfy the observations made here. 

So then, what is the meaning of “I am not ‘not me.’” Is it a negative statement? Let us first address the meaning of ‘not me.’ We grant that there are possible “not me”s being produced in the minds of other individuals, and perhaps some being produced in my own  mind through logical extrapolation on stimuli and experience. However, as we observed in the case of Othello and The Father, these negatities are sourced from an originator who sees the positivity, like Iago. Thus, the “not me” can be tied to a “me” which an originator witnesses or imagines. The witnessed “not me” and the “me” are wound up in one another, and they can be integrated into a phenomena of me from the other. Then the phrase updates to I am not “me,” where me is defined as versions of me which originators pinpoint me as, so as to say, I am “not that.” It is equivalent to saying: I am not all that which others say about me. Or, I am not all that which has been conjured up in imaginations about me. Or, I am not the phenomena that involve me. This seems to be like an affirmation, but it is still put in the negative. The original thought before writing this down was in the positive, and in writing, the writer relegated it to the negative, and now the writer tries to save the “absence of the opposite” into its essence again. That is the purpose of this work. 

Now: I am from the “will” that was, I am, and I am not “me.” Or, to be clearer, “I am from the “will” that was, I am, and I am not “the phenomena of me.” 

I am with the Spirit of Deceit, you are with the Spirit of Deceit, he is with the Spirit of Deceit, etc.

There is one last reduction to go, so to speak. One last knob to turn on the stove to boil out the negatities that have clouded the thought. “I am not ‘the phenomena of me.’” Well, if we apply the reasoning which we have already used, we can posit that there must be an originator to the “phenomena of me.” And it cannot be the originators of specific cases of phenomena of me, as in, another individual who experiences me--the origin must be something which witnesses all phenomena of me to occur across everyone who experiences one.  It must be an entity which sees all the phenomena of me, and an entity which can conceive of my being not ‘the phenomena of me.’ One may start by looking at myself. Can I be that entity? This does not seem plausible, because human individuals have a tendency not to see all the phenomena which they engender in the world. In a scene in Camus’s The Stranger, in which Monsieur Mersault meets an odd lady in a restaurant and follows her, out of curiosity, down the street, before losing her. This is the only time in the novel that this lady is mentioned, and it is an ephemeral, unrelated experience to the rest of the events in the book. Aspects like these are why one could say that the novel is “absurdist.” However, what makes people say this is not that the experience is absurd, but it is because they expect a certain level of integrative completion to a novel, such that at every step of the way their intellects feel nicely couched within another intellect at work. So, when this other intellect at work purposefully embraces the unexplainable, the odd, and the ephemeral, a reader might feel as though they’ve been shortchanged, then be in love with that feeling as though it was meant to happen, then call the novel “absurd.” 

Now, in this blip from Camus’s novel, this woman probably has no idea of the role she played in Mersault’s experience, whatever that role is. She knows the facts: she was a stranger who sat down at his table, behaved uniquely to herself, then walked away into the night and was not recognized again by Mersault the narrator. But, it seems implausible that she consciously understood what her phenomena was, in the way that it seems implausible that, in New York City, all those hustle-bustle people understand what phenomena they create for the hundreds of strangers they pass by everyday. It’s an overload of information!

The point is to say that it does not seem plausible that we, humans, can be the arbiters of our own phenomena. This is where “man in atheism” gets tripped up. The “man in atheism” thinks that he is the arbiter of his own phenomena, and thus he experiences the intense pressure that comes with it, and the immense confusion that comes when forces outside his control sends it into directions he never could have conceived before. And for a time, he has an experience which he can reasonably interpret as being the result of him arbitering his own phenomena; however, he interprets the result as having been arbitered by himself, and there is no way to prove that the “arbitering” actually took place. And by listening to disgruntled people on the train, at school, at work, etc. it becomes clear that those people who understand themselves to be the arbiters of their own phenomena are constantly having to suppress the uncontrollable (I suspect there is a connection between the uncontrollable and the Divine). This is a great task and leads to great cognitive dissonance, behavioral tags, an aura of tension, and usually some sort of release of tension on those around them. A witticist who is reading this paragraph might like to say, “are you saying that control freaks are the biggest atheists?” And to this, I’d say, the biggest atheists are control freaks. 

So, we are still at an impasse. Where is that entity that witnesses all the phenomena of me in order to profess that there is a negation to it? A lazy answer would be God. This may be correct; although, if God Himself were sentient, He would be disappointed if we delivered such a plain answer as in writing down the word of his name. He sees through the word and into the action. Here, there is something else at play. So, we must properly investigate this question. And perhaps, if the answer is God, which I suspect it is approximate to, then it cannot be the whole of God, for God cannot be defined, so it must be an aspect of God, and what that aspect is is up to investigation. 

Perhaps the Truth is another answer. Let us briefly, and locally, define the “Truth.” The Truth does not only relate to reality; it can also relate to hearsay and opinions. It is the truth that Mary is sitting at the table. And if there is some sort of simulation (which seems to be the hit paranoia of the modern age) which suggests that Mary is not actually sitting at the table, because we are in some sort of unreal simulation, then we must recognize that the hypothetical of this simulation does not ensure its existence, and that the only thing which would actually make me investigate or believe in this simulation is if I witnessed evidence which drove me towards it, without having already made up my mind that the simulation was existent or something I wanted to find as existent. Moving on from this banal point. If someone once thought that the movie was bad, then it is true that they once thought the movie was bad. If someone felt love, it is true that they felt love. These types of things, which are not “observable” can be logged as true within the realm of human experiences. 

A friend once told me about not being able to trust her thoughts and her experiences. And this is a very grave notion. To this I say: The individual may not know if their thought is true, but they know that it is true that they had the thought. And one can dangle the threat of an infinite regression over this line of reasoning: “Well, can’t you question what makes it true that it is true that they had the thought?” To this, it is important to consider that there are certain realms of human experience which cannot be held to infinite regressions. This is a matter for later. But there are certain zones of human communication and understanding which delve deeper than this sort of thinking. For example, participating in an activity, undergoing a process alone or with a group, being in a ritual, etc. These sorts of things acquaint humanity with this transcendent and non-rhetorical, and even non-logical, form of communication. This type of experience, this Dasein, if you will, closes the loop on the infinite regression, and can allow for the truth of the existence of what one has undergone. To explore this more, see Confucianism. Or, see your local community center. 

Back to the Truth. Upon further consideration, there is not much to say against the Truth for being this entity. But upon further further consideration, there is an issue. As with Iago in Othello, we noticed Iago’s ability to say or conceptualize the “not.” He saw the possibility of Desdemona’s being unfaithful, and professed its negative: that she was not being unfaithful. And in The Father, Laura understands the possibility of her being unfaithful, and professes the negative of being unfaithful. Can the Truth conceptualize and profess the “not?” 

At last, the answer has arrived, and in the form of the Spirit of Deceit. The term is capitalized not to be childish and mystical, but because there is ample evidence throughout literature and history to point towards a common theme: this can be understood, in a Christian sense, to be Satan. It is not a person; it works through situations and through people. It affects people through others, and yet it leaves the others blameless. It works in the mind and yet leaves the mind untouched. It is a contemporary of Truth, as in, it sees all Truth, but it is able to profess its negative. It is able to profess Truth and not Truth at any time it wants. This is the Spirit of Deceit. I have met with this Spirit many times in my headspace, and I have approached defining him in my writings previously. Although, like a Deity, he cannot be defined. If It is to be understood as the entity which answers this question, then the phrase, I am not “the phenomena of me” is one which this Spirit is the most likely to profess. As with the case of integrating the “not me” and the possible “me” into the category of “phenomena of me” which lies in the perceptions of subjects which are not myself, we can look at this problem similarly. 

The Spirit looks at the Truth and looks at not Truth. So then, how are we to “boil” this negativity out of the phrase? Perhaps it is in saying, I am not what the Spirit sees? But this is in the negative and inherently relates me to what the Spirit sees. Perhaps it is in saying, I am more than what the Spirit sees? This seems vague. Perhaps it is in saying, I am with this Spirit (the Devil, Satan, Fraud, etc.). This is a harrowing conclusion, but it seems that it is the proper result of the investigation launched thus far. Because, in order for me to conceptualize that “I am not ‘the phenomena of me,’” I must have been given this observation from that which is able to perceive ‘the phenomena of me,’ and this must be the Spirit of Deceit.

This aligns with an observation made earlier. Recall: “[The entity we are looking for] must be an aspect of God, and what that aspect is is up to investigation.” Well, the Spirit of Deceit, if it is to be alikened to Satan, is an aspect of God, if God is to be alikened to the Christian notion of God. For Satan is an aspect of God. He is an angel, yet a disgraced one, a fallen one. The Spirit of Deceit is the Fallen God.

So, we arrive at this: I am from the “will” that was, I am, and I am with the Spirit of Deceit.

Notice that by making this final step, the conclusion becomes a call to battle. It is no longer a passive statement about my being. It begs the question: what will I do, being, and what will I do, being with the Spirit of Deceit? 

Now, keep in mind that I have used the “I” thus far to offer an example of the structure of thought which can be applied to any entity. So... 

You are from the “will” that was, you are, and you are with the Spirit of Deceit.

We are from the “will” that was, we are, and we are with the Spirit of Deceit.

It is from the “will” that was, it is, and it is with the Spirit of Deceit. 

These are all isomorphic, as the un-capitalized pronouns in these reflections are more variables than indicators of a specific “who”[this could be proven more specifically, but I will leave that as an exercise to the reader].

The “man in schizophrenia” immediately responds, what am I to do? I’m with the Spirit of Deceit! To the “man in schizophrenic,” I say: you are with breath. You are with air. You are with the Universe. You are with the Spirit. You are with the Tao. You are with some sort of human sensory capacity. Being with X does not necessitate doing something about X. In fact, the Oedipean story, repeated throughout centuries, encapsulates what happens when you try to do something about what you are with. In another light, productivity, in the most divine sense of the word, can be understood as doing with what is with you. You do not have to do anything about breathing, because you are with your breath. And, you can act with, while being with breath. So, then, what is the point of the with? Here is the point of the with. There comes tests that challenge you and call you to exegise your Truth, your will, and/or your “absence of the opposite.” It is in these moments of trial when the duty arises to remember what you are with. For, we are individually soldiers in the army of Man’s greatest endeavor, and the onus on us is to recognize our with-ness when we are tempted to be seen as without-ness.

The “man in schizophrenia” may also say, but what of my neighbor? He is with the Spirit of Deceit! How can I trust him?  To this, it is important to consider there is no “how I can trust him;” we are not dealing with recipe books. Trust and honesty are possibile courses of actions between two people. They are practices. They are never given. It is never that having trust one moment necesitates trust in the next, or candor in one moment necesitates candor in the next. Trust, candor, sincerity, etc. are practices; they are actions of the spirit, and they are undertaken by everyone at some point or other. Thus, it is allowing the possibility of your neighbor to honest, and in allowing the possibility of your neighor to be dishonest, that you can find peace with them. Human interaction is not about forcing the virtuous space to come to fruition; it is about allowing the space for the other to choose trust or not; to open up or not; to be honest or not; etc. In allowing and accepting the free will of the other, and by acknowledging the great despair which this free will brings the other, you can become invested in their story, in what course of action they will take, in how they will navigate, and then, suddenly, there becomes a more central experience then trust: empathy.