If we define Being
in the universal sense
as the principle of manifestation,
and at the same time
as comprising in itself
the totality of possibilities of all manifestation,
we must say that Being is not infinite
because it does not coincide with total Possibility;
and all the more so because Being,
as the principle of manifestation,
although it does indeed
comprise all the possibilities of manifestation,
does so only insofar
as they are actually manifested.
Outside of Being,
therefore, are all the rest,
that is
all the possibilities of non-manifestation,
as well as the possibilities of manifestation themselves
insofar as they are in the unmanifested state;
and included among these is Being itself,
which cannot belong to manifestation
since it is the principle thereof,
and in consequence is itself unmanifested.
For want of any other term,
we are obliged
to designate all that is thus outside and beyond Being
as “Non-Being”,
but for us this negative term
is in no way synonym for ‘nothingness’.
What I have done here is put line breaks into a quote from Rene Guenon. I did that because I memorized these words. I memorized these words so I could recite them at my leisure. I wanted to do that because I experienced these words as Poetry. Poetry in my experience is a mode of apprehension. This raises the question; Is Philosophy also, among other things, a mode of Apprehension?
My route to poetry was facilitated in large part by the words I found in Philosophy. Here is a piece of Poetry by Immanuel Kant that I memorized.
Philosophy may be said to contain the principles of the rational cognition that concepts afford us of things, not merely as with logic the principles of the form of thought in general, and thus interpreted the course usually adopted of dividing it into theoretical and practical is perfectly sound. But this makes imperative a specific distinction of the part of the concepts by which the principles of this rational cognition get their object assigned to them. For if the concepts are not distinct, they fail to justify a division which always presupposes that the principles belonging to the rational cognition of the several parts of the science in question are themselves mutually exclusive.
This is from the start of the Critique of Judgement. It marks Kant out as the supreme Poet of his age. This is exquisite. Words cannot describe how beautiful it is. Reciting speech like this has the effect of enabling one to inhabit the feeling of performing real speech. I think that it is the feeling that is the definitive thing. One comes to know what it feels like to say something and after that one can at times, recognize the feeling in ones own transcriptions of the unconscious life.
I think there was a time when Poetry was the standard mode of expression for all people in all domains - Art - Science - Philosophy - and daily life. This is a sense of our being that we have lost over the millenia.
Here is a brief note I made about Poetry;
Today, we have an impression that some people think that poetry is something other than ordinary speech. These persons who have impressed us thus in their utterances, seem to think that, Poetry is or has to be something more than or extraneous or superior to - ordinary speech. Some people appear to think of Poetry as sort of the opposite of what it is, which is speech in its purest and most efficient and economical form in relation to the meaning intended - hence ordinary.
Poetry is nothing special. It is not ‘Life with Brass Knobs on’ or, any special accommodation, disposition or state of being; It is not something decorative supererogatory, intentional or elaborative or revelatory that one ‘does’ on purpose, at the time, it is not something that one pretends to, on top of merely being ordinary. There is no ‘Poetic’ mode, no fanciful state of insightful apprehensions. Rather there is a removal - an exclusion of all artifice, personal interest, fantasy, self-conscious awareness and aspiration.
Vitality, Pleasure, attention, enthusiasm, communication, content (Being at the time), life; These are the muscles and the blood of memory. Poetry is merely anything that anybody says that one remembers. It is what you need to hear. All of human memory is Poetry. Poetry is a mode of apprehension. In this sense then, Poets do not exist as they are or have been commonly imagined. They never have.
But does not this sense also apply to Philosophy? What use is Philosophy if we cannot remember it? Are not the great Philosophers Poets?
Can we say that Philosophy is anything that anybody says that a body remembers?