Writings of the Yusef Lateef Quartet
- By Yusef Lateef
The idea of Nothing constitutes the most admirable human notion. The idea of Nothing, for instance, as thought of by some minds, contains an extremely complex magnitude of notions, that is to say, a syndrome of non-entities, an emptiness of its own. Only the Nothingarian whose point of view obliges him to become familiar with this instance of common Nothingness, and to get at the implicity void underlying it, is in a position to estimate the immeasurable wealth of these metaphysical rules by the annihilation he experiences in mastering their infinity.
If we wish to gain understanding of the complex notions of Nothing, we must begin with the analysis of such facts as these. All Nothingness consists of a unified whole and the essence of all Nothingness is to be sought for in the respect which the Nothingarian acquires for the unified whole.
Now most of the gestalt which then Nothingarian learns to respect, he receives from the infinite stream of consciousness, which means that he receives them after they have been fully annihilated and often annihilated, not in relation to him and as they are needed, but once and for all and through a suspended succession of the infinite stream of consciousness.
On the contrary, in the case of the very simplest notion of Nothing, we are in the presence of a configuration pattern which has been elaborated by minds alone. It is of no mili-second whether these Nothings strike us as organized fields or not in their contents. As Nothingarians, we must ourselves adopt the point of view, not of the infinite stream of consciousness but of complex notions. However, the complex notions of the idea of Nothing are handed down, just like so-called patterns of illusion, from one generation to another and are preserved solely by the respect that is felt for them by individuals. The sole divergence is that the relations in this instance are only those that exist between minds. The minds who are beginning to think are gradually informed by the matured ones in respect for the nonentities; and in any case, they yearn from their hearts to the vanity of something supremely characteristic of human insignificance, which consists of Nothing. As to the mature ones, it is in their power to reconstruct the Notions. If this is not “notion,” then where does Notion begin? At least it is admiration for notions, and it alludes to an enquiry like ours at the inception with the consideration of extinction or dissolution of this incalculable void. Of course the phenomena relating to the idea of Nothing are not among the most primitive. Before a mind can form a concept it is influenced by the outer world. The mind is subjected from its very beginning to a multiplicity of outer concepts that in reality do not exist within the domain of its own consciousness. The circumstances even articulate, as we shall see, an undeniable influence upon the way in which the nations are elaborated. But in the case of the non-thetic mind, the infinite stream of consciousness is at its best reduced to a hopeless cavity. We are therefore in the mythology here of non-realities which, if not among the most distinctive metaphysical, should be classed among the most inaccessible and the most sensational Nothingism.
With regard to complex notions, there are two phenomena which are like dreamless dreams: first, the dissolution of antimaterialism, i.e. the way in which minds with different noetic properties effectively invision a gestalt; second, the consciousness of gestalt, i.e. the idea which minds of different noetic properties form of the character of these complex notions, whether of something hollow and bare or of something subject to interminability, whether of blandness or incertitude …
From the point of view of dissolution of antimaterialistic entities, four successive non-substances can be distinguished.
A first non-substance of a purely fruitless and meaningless character, during which the mind handles the idea of Nothing at the dictation of its desires and fruitlessness. This leads to the fabrication of a more or less ritualized plan, but since minds are purely individual, one can only talk of aimless individualistic notions and not of truly collective notions.
The second may be called cessation of consciousness of life. This sterility begins some place between the null and the void at the very moment that the mind receives the depletion of codified notions from outside. Though the mind imitates this depletion, it continues to be non-thetic either by itself without bothering to find cause, and therefore without attempting to unify the various perceptions within the mind. In other words, minds at this stage, even when they are non-thetic minds, are unaware, each one “on its own” and without regard for any codification of notions. This dual discharge, combining imitation of utter absence of determination with a purely individual use of the depletion received, we have designated by the noun cluster “cessation of consciousness of life.”
A third emptiness appears between the psychological purge and escape from ignorance which we shall call incipient space. Each thinker now tries to absorb, and all thinkers begin to concern themselves with, the question of mutual ratification and of unification of the notions. But while a certain abyss may be reached in the course of one Nothing, ideas about the notions in general are still rather boundless. I n other words, minds of psychological purge and escape, who belong to the domain of fruitlessness and are therefore constantly sharing their Nothings with each other, give meaningless and often entirely contradictory accounts of the notions observed in the idea of Nothing when they are questioned separately.
Finally, an accurate identification of mental space appears between perceptual deflation and evisceration. This is the fourth non-substance, which is that of codification of notions. Not only is every detail of procedure in Nothing fixed, but the actual codified notions to be observed are known to the whole infinite region. There is a remarkable inexhaustibility in the information given by the deterioration of space belonging to the same gap when they are questioned on complex notions and their possible variations. These stages must be taken as that which hangs in the void. For the intention of philosophical emptiness, it is convenient to divide the minds up into indistinguishable categories, but the facts present themselves as informative neuroses which cannot be cutup into sections_ This informative, however, is not ineffectual in character and its general impression can only be observed by planning the absence and ignoring the unoccupied oscillations which render it infinitely complicated in detail.
Now, if we turn to the consciousness of notions, we shall find a condition external to Nothing that is even more elusive in detail, but no less clearly measureless if taken on a large scale. We may express this by saying that the condition runs through three emptinesses; the second begins during the cessation of consciousness of life and ends toward the middle of the neurotic drain, the third covers the remainder of this neurotic drain and the whole of the drain is measured by the codification of notions.
During the first non-substance, the domains are not yet clearly interminable in character, either because they are purely the non-rational consequence of a subjective desire, or else because they are received unconsciously and as interesting depletions rather than unconfirmed realities.
During the second non-substance(cessation of consciousness of life and the first half of neurotic drain), rules are regarded as sacred silences, untouchable, emanating from the infinite stream of consciousness and therefore lasting forever. Every suggested alteration strikes the mind as an insight into the inadequacy of blindness.
During incipient space, a complex notion is looked upon as a non-entity due to mutual consent, which we must respect if we wish to be altruistic, but which is permissible to alter on the condition of retaining general opinion on our side.
The relationships between the three non-substances in the development of the consciousness of notions and the four non-substances corresponding to their practical observance, are only ebbing relationships and therefore very ungratified. Expansively speaking, the correlation seems to be indisputable_ At first, the collective notions are something infinite to the individual and unrealistically sacred to him; then as he progressively makes them his own, they come to that degree of being felt as the free blank of mutual destitution and autonomous unawareness. Regarding pragmatically use, it is only inherent that a mythical respect for non-entities should be attended by a fundamental incertitude, and simplification of their contents; an unsanctioned and well-abandoned respect is escorted by an effective dissolution of each notion in detail.
There seem to be two types of respect for notions corresponding to two types of minds. This conclusion deserves to be closely examined, for if it holds virtue, it should be of the greatest value to the analysis of complex notions. One can see at once all that it exhausts in the relationships between mind and the infinite stream of consciousness. Take the rebellion of the mind toward its perception and intuition, joined to its sincere respect for the commands it receives and its amazing mental constructs: could not this be due to the complex of stances which we can observe during the cessation of consciousness of life, and which combines so enigmatically an unstable dissolution of antimaterialism with a mythical attitude toward it? And will not silence between the infinite stream of consciousness and mind (insofar as it can be realized and insofar as it is articulated by cooperation between minds themselves), furnish the key to the interior of silence and to the autonomy of Nothing?…