In the quest for the absoluteness,
the true beginning..

“if there is a precondition that does not require a precondition,
and is thus irrelevant of having to have a beginning or reasons
to exist, what could it be?”

if we consider two conditions for the answer,

1. it exists without a cause. that is, it has always existed.
2. there was nothing to begin with, not even emptiness.

we can say,

from 1., we therefore exist.
from 2., we do not know we exist.

say,
it is beyond our limit to prove between the two,

but decide to continue on the quest with what
power remains on us.

that is,
if we begin with our additional knowledge

that we can prove something is true or not,
but cannot prove its existence,

we can say,
we can prove something happened,

but cannot prove whether that taking place
has to take place in order to happen.

from this, separating truthfulness from existence
by means of denial,

self-denial is derived as an inherent pre-condition
for what we see to exist or not exist.

by taking the route that our existence
cannot be proved,

we came to meet the underlying precondition of
‘denial’ which holds true for that route.

then, is ‘denial’ the true absolute precondition
that we’ve been searching so far?

but then, if we ask a little differently,
“is it a term that is defined by itself?”

since, from the question of,
“the precondition without a precondition”,

what is assumed is the absoluteness of being
defined by itself solely,

and, as ‘denial’ is a term not defined by itself alone,
it cannot be said to be absolute in nature.

however, if we take a more careful look,

‘denial’,
by being a term not absolute by nature,

it is effectively denying its absoluteness of
being an absolute precondition,

which the very act of this self-denial
holds true to its definition,

from which derived is its absoluteness.

therefore, although ‘denial’ is not absolute by
definition, it is self-sufficient in what it does,

and thus can be said is absolute,
though not absolute to begin with.

this observation leads us to the conclusion that

absoluteness, or the beginning without a cause,
need not in fact be absolute.

and, if it is something not absolute,
our question holds invalid,

and the quest becomes irrelevant
to seek the answer to.

looking back, our question of the quest for
absoluteness presented us with two routes.

one, of which the answer to holds true
for the existence of absoluteness,

the other, though denying such existence
also turns out to hold true.

which leads us to a conclusion
that is both true and untrue,

as well as the existence of both
absolute and not absolute.

what can we make out of this conclusion,
then?

I’d like to say,

if we began with a purpose,
so much blessed are we.

but, even if there were no such divine intervention,
our little conclusion is showing,

how incomplete the beginning,
how complete can our ways be.

both probably might hold true,
of which we are very fortunate

as we can hope the better for our future,
thanks to our two very good reasons.

by this point, a phrase glimmers from
one distant memory,

“It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me”
– Batman Begins

Maybe, the true beginning begins from what we do,
not where we came from.

Or, blessed are we to be given such glory.

Mong-ju Jung, 2014.08.30, on a blessed day.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Mong-ju Jung’s story.