on the cosmos
we use the word cosmos
because no other word can be received
intuited, known or reflected upon
by man.
cosmo or cosmos
it sets itself against chaos
chaos is disorder, cosmos order.
order, perhaps of things?
order, perhaps of space and time?
of the stars, the galaxies, of the planets?
the order of the procession of time
along that arrow that points in a single direction?
reflecting already from these first sentences
from these first concepts
we realise that the word cosmos
is reductive and detracting
it is, I would dare to say, insignificant too
for that which it wants to represent
for that which it wants to contain
for that which it wants to be
the substance of what it brings
in the phase of knowledge
for man's intelligence.
but, alas, no other word exists
closer to or more complying with
the concept we are trying to formulate
interpenetrate, understand
within the limits of human capacity.
not, of course, because human capacity
is poor and incapable
but because in its precise order
and therefore of cosmo-order, cosmos order,
human intelligence, human perception
can proceedmust proceed with tiny steps
along that path
that surely belongs to it, of advancement
but surely must be conquered
by the individual in his own progress.
if we had a word more fitting
to the concept we are dealing with
very few individuals would be able to understand
the realty inherent in this reflection
and in this comparison of will and of knowledge.
and so we come
not for the few but for the many who
aware of their own limits
aware of the acceptance of their efforts
in every sense and place of their own truth
want to reform themselves
they want to adapt themselves to a new light
to a perspective
other than that which the ordinary world has revealed
and declared and fought
to a different perspective
which the ordinary world affirms
and induces to uphold.
the cosmos, cosmoses
the universe, universes:
are they perhaps different words
that contain a concept
that is superimposable or opposable?
it would be well if the message stopped here
to leave the time necessary for those who listen to comprehend
what the listener means
what the listener sees
of superimposable or opposable,
sees in these words:
cosmos on one side
universe on the other.
take good care
that we do not counterpoint the cosmos
thus cosmos to chaos
but cosmos to the universe.
the universe is you who listens
the universe is those laws of nature
inside observable matter
inside known but invisible matter
that man with his intelligence
has managed to codify.
universe is you
with your biological, physiological laws that are subject to
that arrow of time
that points ever-forward
and from here universe:
one unique verse.
you who listen are at once
universe and cosmos.
universe in your factual being
universe in your being subject to time
universe in your proceeding precariously
but, for all that, in advanced movement.
universe for the constitution
of your form.
universe for the laws of physics
that govern the roots of your form
like the roots of that which you observe
apparently outside yourself.
universe is sound
universe is rain
universe is heat
universe is pleasure, universe is pain:
pleasure in its physical form
pain in its physical form.
universe is revelation
through the creativity
that is acted on matter.
universe is the relative procedure of time.
universe is all there is and all that can also be
calculated and defined in a carried-over calculation
repeated in will.
listening to these words
requires a personal effort
to try to enlarge in a subjective way
all that is intended by the word universe.
but why do we speak about universe
if the subject in question is cosmos?
because we can't talk about the container
if that which is contained by the container
even in a veiled manner
doesn't first appear to us.
the cosmos is that which contains all,
it is what contains all in this dimension
where a human being is the finishing line
of a subject programmed
to proceed from the human finishing line
to proceed beyond the human.
the cosmos is not absolute reality
absolute reality is God.
the cosmos is a manifestation of God.
the cosmos contains the pulsating morphogenic energy
of every expression expressed and to be expressed
of every emotion revealed and to be revealed
of every design realised and to be realised.
the man universe
is englobed by the heavenly universe
just as the heavenly universe is englobed by the cosmos
just as the cosmos is englobed by God.
defining the cosmos in words
does not bring clarification
of one's rational capacity.
intuition, perception
can help us understand reality different
as is always said,
from what we can rationally imagine
and from what we can visibly observe.
to speak of cosmos
is to speak of a reality still not well contained
by the human intellect.
even scientists
should they have to give a precise definition
of the difference between cosmos and universe
would not be able to satisfy
our need for definition.
so
do we perhaps have to stay in ignorance?
do we perhaps have to stay in loss?
do we have to tell ourselves that these thoughts
are uncontainable for us
or do we have to give life to a faith
that will take us bit by bit closer
to the concept, forbidden today, in its opening?
if there can be synthesis within human consciousness
synthesis has to be done by declaring that the cosmos contains
all those pulses
all those emotions
all that execution of thought
of work and deed that are revealed
that reverberate
in what you define as dense matter
known matter
matter within the calculations of physical science.
but every rule, every law
is not an end unto itself
and is not its own beginning
every rule, every law
comes “from” and points “to”.
this is the only description
that we can give to the word cosmos
not as human science intended
but as human intelligence should strive to understand.
man must not lose heart
from undertaking these arduous paths
seemingly difficult
even beyond opinion.
man must have the courage
albeit apparently imperceptibly
to proceed
with thoughts that challenge
the unimaginable
even if sustained by the limits of the imaginable.
I can only imagine
to overcome the imagination.
we must not be afraid to overcome
we must only fear what is called mental laziness.
physical laziness comes from mental laziness.
from physical laziness comes the lack of dedication to work:
work for oneself, work for others.
work for the environment that surrounds us.
work for a smile
work for consolation
work for acceptance
work for faith.
work also, surely, for the struggle:
struggle to survive
struggle not to succumb
struggle against improper temptations
struggle against subjugation
struggle against arrogance
struggle against injustices.
but take care that your fights
do not spring from personal interests
do not believe that you are exempt from error
even if your battles spring from
an altruistic impulse.
never can a human action
prescind from human limits.
but don't let yourself be held back by your errors
don't be conditioned by your limits.
if you feel there must be a struggle
push the struggle forward
go forward in the struggle
go forward with the struggle but with wisdom.
if your intentions are not of personal affirmation
you will understand, you will see lucidly
when to stop your struggle.
thus, we have conjugated the individual universe
with the galactic universe.
as we have collocated the particular
with the all, which is the cosmos.
you are summoned to bring your part of the research
into this teaching.
teaching
must prompt the need for research
it must lead to a need for knowledge.
for its law and nature
teaching cannot ever be exhaustive in itself.
the aim, the role of teaching
is for its exhortation
because if teaching was exhaustive in itself
it wouldn't be diversified
but non-diversified.
instead
each individual who receives the same teaching
is a unique and diversified individual
who expresses himself in his truth
truth of subject
where no-one is object
object is he who
temporarily
accepts others' truths.
I insist: temporarily.
because everyone is in his own single transition
of his unique personal truth.