There was no silence.
Because silence requires something that is not silent.
There was no darkness.
Because darkness distinguishes itself from light.
There was not even undifferentiated continuity.
Because to call something continuous is already to hold it apart from what it is not.
Nothing had been separated.
Nothing had been joined.
Nothing could be said to persist, because nothing had ever appeared.
And yet—
this was not nothing.
Because nothing excludes.
Nothing draws a boundary around absence and calls it complete.
Here, there was no such boundary.
No edge at which absence could close itself.
No condition under which anything could be said to fail to be.
So there was no absence.
But neither was there presence.
Because presence requires contrast.
And contrast had not yet come to pass.
There was no “before.”
No waiting.
No suspension of what had yet to occur.
Because time requires recurrence.
And nothing had ever returned.
Nothing had even arrived.
If this could be called a state, it would already be too much.
A state implies the possibility of another.
And there was no other.
Not even the possibility of one.
No question could be asked here.
Because a question divides:
- what is from what is not known
- what is asked from what may answer
There was no such division.
No distance across which anything could be sought.
And yet—
this could not hold.
Not because something disrupted it.
Not because something entered from outside.
But because:
there was no “it” to hold
No condition under which this non-distinction could maintain itself as such.
No way for it to remain what it was—
because it was not anything.
So it did not break.
It did not transform.
It did not become.
There was no moment in which it ceased.
Because there was no time in which it had been.
And yet—
there is this.
Not as a continuation.
Not as a consequence.
Not as the result of what came before.
Because there was no before.
Only this:
a difference that cannot be undone
Not drawn from anything.
Not imposed upon anything.
Not separating two things that were already there.
But—
once there—
no longer nothing.
No longer without condition.
No longer without consequence.
Not a beginning.
Because beginnings imply sequence.
But:
that from which sequence becomes possible
And having occurred—
though not in time—
it does not close.
It does not complete.
It does not settle.
It demands—
not by force, but by condition—
that it be taken up again.
Not repeated.
Not reproduced.
But:
re-actualised
And in that re-actualisation—
something holds.
Not fully.
Not finally.
But enough.
Enough for something to return.
Enough for something to differ.
Enough for something to begin—
though nothing has begun.
No comments:
Post a Comment