Hugo Deen

​ Consider true statement A: Occupying a land already inhabited and calling it your own because you believe you are chosen by God and that is what He wants you to do, can only be described as terrorism, extremism and supremacism.   Now consider World A: If statement A is true, it would be true for all of us since we are all equal. In other words, no one has the right to use their religion as a justification to violate humanity’s security and a people’s sovereignty. Now consider World B: If statement A is not true, it would not be true for all of us since we are all equal. In other words, we all have the right to use our religion as a justification to violate humanity’s security and a people’s sovereignty. Now consider World C: If statement A is true for most, but not true for some, it would mean we are not equal. In other words, only some of us have the right to use religion as a justification to violate humanity’s security and a people’s sovereignty.  Now consider question A:...

​ There is no known without the knower. There is no knower without the known. They are one in identity. That is our immediate experience. And yet knower and known are distinctions.  Distinctions that seem very real. Is it because we are constantly in transition between knower and known, and knower and unknown?  And so is this experience of not knowing, also an experience of the ontological priority of the knower? That is to say, the knower never fails to persist, even in degrees of ignorance. Is it because the knower only needs itself to be known?  And here we seemingly return to where we started.  There is no known without the knower. There is no knower without the known. Except we now have the unity between knower and known not solely as mutual dependencies, but rather as an ontological priority that determines the intensity of knowing.  Our experience will testify to this. We know ourselves at a greater intensity than we know another.  And so, this move ...

​ If there are no fixed subjects in reality, one would expect there to be a seamless continuity of motion. Is this precisely what hierarchical dimensional perspectives reveal? That every perception is the direction of our motion? This is of course our experience—change  in time. And perhaps even more, this change, this motion, is fundamentally either forwards or backwards. Not backwards in time, backwards in motion. For instance, consider the direction of motion when it is slightly skewed off its linear path. Motion will be caught in an infinite loop. Now consider the direction of motion that is perfectly linear. Motion could theoretically move infinitely forwards or infinitely backwards. Now consider the hierarchy of perception. We find the greater its depth, the greater the scope of motion.  Yet we also find that the depth of perception is the result of linear direction replicated and stacked. In other words, is heightened perception the direction of motion? And are we the o...

​ The rock can be known by the knower, but the knower cannot be known by the rock.  So which is fundamental, where does primacy reside, materiality or the immaterial knower? Let’s start with materiality. How would we ultimately know if materiality is the fundamental reality, if the knower is an accidental emergent immaterial illusion? Is this not an exemplar of the ultimate performative contradiction?  To deny, yet rely, on the very thing informing us about the reality of the world?  Is it not also strange that the fundamental reality is ignorant of its own primacy?  And perhaps even more strange is that the rock would be superior to the knower because the rock enjoys the primacy of pure materiality whereas the knower’s ‘reality’ is dismissed due to its immateriality (?). This seems impossible to comprehend, how materiality, which does not and cannot know, is simultaneously responsible for this immaterial realm of knower and known.  It seems impossible because t...

​ If we perceive reality through a keyhole, what would that mean? It would mean our perception of reality is limited. It would mean, everything we believed to be reality, could in fact be a distortion of it. What if there were a key? A key that unlocks our perception. A key that avoids our perceptions from being distorted.  If there were such a key, it would need to be perceived. It would also need to be obvious, as our perceptions are limited. Yet, how can that which is obvious, not be found?  Perhaps it is so obvious, it is hidden?  Reality itself?  Yet what is that? 

​ Views of Earth’s landscapes will do something to everyone.  It will make you stop for just a moment, and in that moment, the noise of life will be muted by the sense of awe. That is why everyone wants that house with the view.  In fact the house with any view is preferred to the house without. The dream however is for the house to be *in* the view.  For some, it is not so that the house is also viewed. Rather, it is so that the house is closer to the view. Ideally, so close that one is able to live in the view.  For others however, they want to be seen in the view.  It is almost as though, the residents of the house want to possess the view for themselves. Of course, the view itself cannot be owned.  The view belongs to whoever sees it, from the eagle in the sky, to the ant on the ground, to the house on the hill, the view is always shared. Is reality not the same?  Everyone wants their view of it. Everyone wants to be seen with it.  Everyone wa...

​ If there was a worldview that could avoid any hint of arbitrariness, or brute contingency, that would be pretty cool. Where would you start?  Essence, or Existence? Fortunately, we do not need to start from scratch ourselves.  Great minds of the past have already opened a treasure trove of enquiry into the most fundamental aspects of reality.  For instance, why is it, we cannot point to existence without pointing to an essence?  Which would be primary?  Perhaps the one responsible for its meaning?  Essence. If so, the external world would be instantiations of essences.  For instance, the human would be an instantiation of ‘humanity’.  Yet what are the minimum prerequisites for an external reality?  It would need to be outside the mind, that is, it would need to be external from the mind.  It would also need to be identified, that is, individuated.  So if essences are the primary reality, it needs to exist externally and individual...

​ The potency of the seed is able to actualise because within it, there is a blue print, an act of knowledge. A map of its actualisation. The key to its revolution. The guide to its ascension. Potency saw the horizon. It had no choice. Ascension was its freedom. When the conditions were there. When the balance was right. It followed its purpose.  From beginning to end.  And it saw the fruits. The same fruits we now eat. The same seeds we now plant.  So that we can eat it, again. And so, is there a map for the restless soul? It seems, if a seed can have a map, perhaps a restless could have one too? Or perhaps, for the restless soul, the story of the seed—is the seed.  Perhaps then, the world is the seed, an illustration of meaning—that is the seed. Yet how would the restless soul read this map? Determine its meaning? Perhaps it doesn’t. At least not in its entirety. That is not a fair task for the restless soul. The restless soul is restless for a reason.  For th...

​ Is thought itself recipient in nature? The content of a thought can be true, and it can be false, the thought excludes neither, so thought must be receptive. If a thought is receptive, something has been sent. Something true, and something false. Something true is being sent, but from where? Something false is being sent, but from where? If thought is receptive, does it reside in potency? It must, as potency cannot actualise without first having a receptivity to actualisation Is this the clue? Something false sent, can only mean its origin is unactualised, that is potency. Something true sent, can only mean its origin is actualised, that is act. In thought, there is truth, in truth there is actualisation.  In thought, there is falsehood, in falsehood there is potentiality. Yet, if the receptivity itself is true, then potency is true. Yet how can potency be true, if only the actualised is true? Perhaps because its unification is true. The unification with Pure Act itself. And what...

Could the tension between actuality and potentiality give rise to every dialectic, including its harmonious resolution, a balance in which the light of reality always reflects its reality? And could it be true, that this story is being told right in front of our eyes? Consider the emanation of Pure Act. This first emanation is pure act through another. Here there is a primordial potency, it would be the most fundamental ‘two’, from which all others follow. It would also be, the most fundamental story, from which all others follow. What is this fundamental story? The story of Pure Act and potency. And what is the message? Perfect submission, is perfect actualisation. Submission to what?  The Authority of potency.  If not? Your authority will be potency. What then? Imbalance. What then? Disaster.  If this is the fundamental story, should it be told, in everything? In every emotion and thought? In every film? In every ideology? In every sunrise?  Should it be told, in t...