Response to the Texts of Certain Authors
Stefan Bolea,
Juan Luis Toribio Vazquez,
Andrea Lehner,
Michael Allen Gillespie,
James Tartaglia, Arran Gare and others
If we start from Nietsche’s nihilism, which is not only nihilism but also genesis in its same/different instants/moment, we can observe that there is no nihilism without its genesis and vice versa. In Nietsche, genesis brings another or another kind of God and another or another kind of human being, whom he calls the Superman, just as our death, the death of any content or body, does not annihilate the content or body but only transforms it according to A. Lavoisier’s principle, in its particular or generalized form. Together with its nihilism also comes the appearance or genesis of that nihilism as another or another kind of genesis and nihilism of any content or body, as the case may be.
Kant has his own nihilism, even if he forgets that God is the very genesis of nature and of the world in its “imperfect” perfection, of its infinite and unlimited everlastingness and eternity, as the case may be. Saying, in a limited manner, that everything begins and ends with God means, as significance, appearance and disappearance in an entirely human manner. Considering that he and the entire theistic world recognize the infinite and unlimited of Nature, of Uniqueness, or of God, as well as our own, that of any content or body, as existence within and beyond our death or existence as equal or identical.
If we were to take into consideration this understanding of the significance of nihilism without genesis, rest assured that either Uniqueness and uniquenesses, God and His gods, would not have existed, or they would have disappeared long ago, just as the nature that we are and within which we exist would not have existed or would have disappeared long ago. In the same/different instant/moment in which we would disregard, annul, or trample upon A. Lavoisier’s principle, in its particular or general form, regardless of the situation, nature, or organization of nature.
Ordinary people have understood, as significance, the principle of perfect nature, simultaneously and dialectically, together with their “imperfect” nature, since the beginning. On the one hand, through theism, which believes in “life beyond us,” “everlasting,” or in its genesis/nihilism. Not only genesis, nor only nihilism. On the other hand, through Buddhist religions, which believe that death is merely a passage from our human or humanoid life to our life as nature in all its general or particular variants. Human or humanoid nature, nature as situation, reality, Uniqueness with its uniquenesses, God and His gods, etc., which we are and of which we are part.
We must free ourselves from the limits of our own conventions, not by eliminating them, but by extrapolating them within human or humanoid limits, or even beyond them, as metaphors of any content or body, etc. We should use the paradox and perfection of nature for our benefit, specifying the nature of the understandings as significance, but especially the landmarks, situations, and systems of reference against which we compare or relate the projections of our spiritual philosophies.
Within the context of the simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional definition of any philosophy as:
“the totality of the projections of nature, in any of its variants, within the spirit, mind, and reasons of any content or body, including human or humanoid, etc.”
We can observe, relatively easily, that there are no limits, even though every content or body, entity/universe, or object/phenomenon is limited. There are no limits, or no limits as the perfection of nature beyond landmarks, situations, and systems of reference, and limitation as the “imperfection” of the contents and bodies of nature, compared, comparatively considered, or related to landmarks, situations, and systems of reference.
In other words, nature in itself is perfect beyond landmarks, situations, and systems of reference, with contraries that do not “cancel each other out”; any content or body is its “imperfection” as nature, atoms, molecules, plants, animals, human or humanoid, compared, comparatively considered, or related to landmarks, situations, and systems of reference, within their limits as a situation.
Understanding, as significance of simultaneous/dialectical and unconventional nihilism and genesis is simple if we remember that everything is relative, even though the totality of these relatives is an absolute of theirs and vice versa. Uniqueness or God is absolute, which justifies the fact that Their units and gods, any content or body, etc., are the totality of the relatives of these absolutes. Just as the mathematical unit is the absolute of its multiples and submultiples, each of us, any content or body, etc., is the absolute of the parts and sequences that compose us for as much space/time as we exist or it exists.
We must free our own conventions, not deny or exclude them, freedom being possible only through other and still other conventions and their specific conditions of existence.
I shall give a single example, although there are many, infinite and unlimited examples. Cases of indeterminacy in mathematics become determinate only by specifying their nature.
That is:
zero × infinity = indeterminate
or
0 × ∞ = indeterminate.
Not because it is indeterminate, but only because we do not specify their nature. Thus, if we write:
zero₁ × infinity₁ = determinate = 1₁
or
0₁ × ∞₁ = 1₁ = determinate.
It is absurd or “impossible” to believe or to say that grinding a stone infinitely much and infinitely finely leads to obtaining dust or powder of a nature different from that of the respective stone. If, through some procedure, we manage to reconstruct the stone from that dust, we certainly cannot obtain anything other than the respective stone.
Likewise, the infinite division of the unit, which can be anything —a quantum, atom, molecule, human being, planet, etc.—leads to infinitely small sequences of that respective unit. Those divisions, amplified by the same infinity specific to that respective unit, can lead only to that respective unit, regardless of the situation, nature, or organization.
This reconstruction is conventionally valid or determinate in the limited case of contraries that “cancel each other out.” Beyond them, where and when contraries do not “cancel each other out,” the reconstruction can no longer be identical, constant, or invariable as well-defined entities, under the conditions of A. Lavoisier’s generalized principle. For this reason, our children are not us, while the world and nature are always another or another kind of world and nature, even if they have an apparently identical, infinite, and unlimited pattern or DNA.
Dear colleagues,
Your conventions are interesting and useful, just as every science or religion has its interesting and useful conventions. Nevertheless, with full responsibility, we must take into consideration not only one side of the contraries that “cancel each other out” as absurd or “impossible,” but also the contraries that do not “cancel each other out,” according to A. Lavoisier’s simple and generalized principle, presented by us in other works.
All the more must we consider both faces of the coin or of the moon, as well as their infinite and unlimited inner/outer universe, even if we cannot encompass, know, or define it now or ever. In the opposite or contrary case, it is as if we were discussing the mathematical unit without its opposite and contrary, or our death without the life that we have lived and vice versa, or without our existence as a part or sequence of Nature, Uniqueness, or God, etc.
Perhaps, in our case, we can discuss or analyze nihilism without its genesis and vice versa, or, further, we can discuss interdisciplinarity with its contraries that “cancel each other out,” even though it does not exist. We cannot, however, discuss interdisciplinarity in the mathematical cases of the contraries that “cancel each other out”—1, 0, −1—nor in the human or humanoid cases of life with its birth/death dialectic, which, taken further as extrapolation or metaphor, become genesis/nihilism, not only genesis or only nihilism, separately.
Let us not deceive ourselves, looking only at the visible side of the moon or of the coin, just as we must not limit ourselves solely to the absurdity and “impossibility” of our conventions based on contraries that “cancel each other out,” their interdisciplinarity, association, or duality, etc. In doing so, we deny or limit our own principles, as in the case of A. Lavoisier’s principle, of becoming and transformation, of perfection and “imperfection,” etc., through the limits of our own conventions and their conditions of existence.
Only the philosophy of nature, “Philonature,” can harmonize as normality all these understandings as significance, contraries that both do and do not “cancel each other out,” mathematics with religion or probability with parapsychology, alchemy with chemistry, astrology with astronomy or astrophysics, etc.
Beyond all these, it can harmonize birth with our death or, further, genesis with its nihilism, considering their dialectical and unconventional simultaneity—limited association, duality, multilaterality, or merely interdisciplinarity, etc.—of sequences and parts, as the case may be.
Păroiu Tudor, 20.07.2026