to top

Imaginary Journeys

One good way of explaining the Nullity is to say that it is the fate that befalls us when we spin-doctor reality so that it conforms to the way we want it to be. As soon as we do this we get trapped in a meaningless world that we can’t seem to be meaningless, a terminally uncreative world that we can’t see to be uncreative. This is not a good thing to do, therefore! Another good way (which is actually the same way) of explaining the Nullity is to say that it is the result of us imposing our will on the world so as to create a certain specific situation. When we control all the parameters then we create the Null World – creating the meaning that that a situation or the world in general has (and controlling the physical particularities of that system or of the world in general) are the same thing, in other worlds. It’s all control, it’s all about us enforcing our will.



Physical controlling is only a small part of the picture however – the ultimate form of control is where we get to say what things mean, where we get to say what reality means. Even if we find ourselves in a situation where we would think that we don’t have any control at all we can still control the meaning of what’s going on for us – which is to say, we can still judge what’s going on. ‘Judging’ is how we control. No matter what’s happening we can always evaluate it in accordance with our own viewpoint, our own angle, and once we have judged or evaluated our situation this judgement / evaluation becomes a reality for us. It becomes the final word on the matter, so to speak. We make our own version of reality with our judgments and, no matter what these judgments may be, the outcome is always the same – we end up creating the Nullity.



Obviously enough, if I create some sort of private world based on my evaluations, based on the forceful enactment of my unexamined prejudices, then that world is going to be a meaningless one. It’s not true, it’s only true because I say that it is, because I have decided, however involuntarily, to see the world in this entirely arbitrary way. I can do this for sure – I can do it all the time in fact – but the price I pay is that I have become trapped (as we have said) in a meaningless world but I cannot see to be meaningless. This is what playing games is all about, of course. No matter which way we look at this, therefore, this is a prohibitively high price to pay for what we want – it simply isn’t worth paying, not by any stretch of the imagination. In traditional religious times, it might be said that we are selling our souls to the Devil for the sake of some supposed benefit that is to come our way. We have sold our birthright for a mess of pottage. This isn’t a deal therefore, it’s an outright swindle…



What we’re actually saying here – if we were to cut to the chase – is that what we get out of this ‘deal that isn’t really a deal at all’ is the bestowal of this thing called ‘personal will’, which we might define by saying that it is the will or volition that comes out of the idea of ourselves, the mental construct of ourselves. Personal will (our controlling) comes out of our idea of ourselves and – in addition – our mental construct of ourselves gets to continue existing as a ‘going concern’ as a result of it being (apparently) able to control, of it being (apparently) able to exert or enact personal w-ll. This is ‘the package’, this is how the Extrinsic Self comes into being, paradoxical as this may sound.



When we say that the self-concept only gets to continue existing (as it seems) as a result of it apparently being able to control, or of it being apparently able to exert personal will, this little word ‘apparently’ is crucially significant – it isn’t real controlling (not that there is such a thing!) that we’re talking about here because the outcome we are controlling for only gets realised at the price of us incurring the equal and opposite outcome, which is how the Nullity gets to be the Nullity. It wouldn’t be the Nullity otherwise! We can enact our personal will in a way therefore, but it is a strictly limited way. We can enact our PW (which is very important for us to do (or rather seem to do, as we said earlier) but only in as much as the ultimate result of us doing this is the perfect reversal – a bit later on – of what we actually wanted to achieve as a result of us exerting our will. We’re achieving the result we wanted, and we’re also achieving the reversal of what we wanted. It’s good news and it’s bad news. The enactment of our PW always results in us ‘travelling around in circles’ in other words, which means of course that our ‘will’, our ‘volition’, is actually an illusion.



The existence of my personal will is an illusion it is true, but it is a necessary illusion if I am to continue believing in the viability of the self-construct, if I am going to be able to continue acting out of this apparent basis (which is very much what I do want to do). My whole existence depends on this, after all. What this comes down to is the business of ‘opposite blindness’, as JG Bennett calls it, is that when we ‘chase after a positive’ we can’t see that we are at the same time chasing after the corresponding negative. This blindness (or this ‘one-sidedness’, as Jung calls it) is what allows for the apparent existence of the self-concept. This is of course why we can say that the Nullity is ‘a meaningless world that we can’t see to be so’ – if the Nullity were to reveal itself as being wholly redundant then this would be synonymous with us not being able to believe in ourselves anymore. We’re told to ‘believe in ourselves’ but in this case we wouldn’t be able to! For the self, the Nullity is not the Nullity, but rather it is ‘a field of possibilities’, both of the advantageous and the disadvantageous type. It is the fact – therefore – that the self perceives the Nullity not to be the Nullity that it can continue to believe in the illusion of its existence.



This allows us to say very clearly what exactly this ‘deal with the Devil’ is all about – the deal that we are being offered seems very attractive to us when we’re in the terminally blinkered position of being identified with the self because there would seem to be all these wonderful possibilities in store for us. There would seem to be the possibility of us ‘winning at the game’ and of course this all seems pretty wonderful. In order for us to see these possibilities in all their wonderful attractiveness (and believe that we can realise them for ourselves) we first have to agree to look at the world through the eyes of the Extrinsic Self however. This is, we might say, ‘the condition’. If we accept this condition then we do indeed get to believe in all of these great possibilities. We experience very great attraction to these possibilities and because of this very great attraction we strive as hard as we can to secure them and this is the first part of the deal.



It is the second part of the deal that causes all the trouble. In the first part it seems that we’re getting exactly what we wanted – we get to see the Nullity as not being the Nullity, we get to see the attractive possibilities as being real and as being actually realisable. We have obtained the convincing appearance of potentiality and this is exciting, this is generative of a great deal of euphoria. It’s as ‘good as real’ in this respect – we really believe that we’re going to pocket the prize, and our pockets are tingling with excitement. Although we have obtained the benefit of ‘not being able to see Nullity to be the Nullity – which means we believe in the power or potency of our controlling – it still is the Nullity all the same and so our controlling isn’t powerful or potent at all. Our controlling isn’t ‘controlling’ at all; there’s actually no such thing as controlling. We think we are in control (or at least that we have the ability to control) but that’s just a trick of the analogy the trick of the Null World, as we started off this discussion by saying. That’s just a convenient illusion that has been provided for us (convenient only in one very limited respect that is) but otherwise outside of this there isn’t any convenience at all. Outside of the narrow illusion the Nullity isn’t ‘convenient’ in the least!



When I buy into the illusion of seeing convenience where there isn’t any then my arbitrary point of view ceases to be visible becomes invisible to me as such; it isn’t visible to me as an APOV because I have assumed it, because I have taken it for granted, I can’t see it, and neither can I see that I can’t see it. When I identify with the APOV everything only gets to exist in relation to the arbitrary but unquestionable mental yardstick that is the fixed VP; what makes sense to me only makes sense in relation to this yardstick and because I can neither see the yardstick (nor see that it is essentially arbitrary) I can’t see that what makes sense to me actually doesn’t make any sense at all. The meaningfulness of the world I live in ceases to be meaningful once I see that ‘world’ for what it is. This is the ‘act of forgetting’ that creates the self-centric world’ – I have forgotten that there are other viewpoints (any viewpoints other than the arbitrary or unreal one that I have assumed) and it is this act of forgetting that creates the positive or defined world.



It is this forgetting that results in us being tethered but also being unable to see that we are tethered, therefore. Being constitutionally unable to see that we are tethered (because we have identified with the grim wooden post that we are tethered to) means that the only type of movement that makes sense to us (or that can make sense to us) is ‘movement that exists in relation to the arbitrarily fixed viewpoint that we can’t see to be only arbitrary’. This isn’t real movement at all therefore, as we keep saying – it’s false movement, it’s illusory movement. We’re not actually getting anywhere – we can’t get anywhere no matter what you might think to the contrary because we don’t ever leave our arbitrary mental yardstick behind. We don’t want to leave it behind; that’s the very last thing we want to do, but the PRICE we pay for this reluctance to leave our made-up reference point behind is that all our journeys from this point on are only going to be imaginary ones.









  • Alain

    Nullity or may we say ‘null point’?
    As such a/the null point is a point of absolute nullity, similar to ‘black holes’, where everything gets to be suck in and destroy. When we are caught up by this ‘black hole’, there is nothing one can do, control is impossible, and the more we want out, the more the vortex is pulling us in. It literally destroys everything and meaning in its path.

    We make use of contra-buffers in order to avoid being swallowed by this vortex which is ultimately a point of absolute negation. And thus the need for control and to hang-on to our representations and fables. I would also think that some ‘psychosis’ have this vortex as their roots; to me it has something to do with truth itself or groundlessness . You see, if groundlessness is truth, for some, that truth will wants to be heard. Groundlessness implies ‘without ground’ or support; having absolutely nothing to stand on or under; it is the end of existence and meaning in itself, for even meanings gest to be reduce to ashes. One cannot make any version of ‘reality’, as all those versions, one after the other one gets to be annihilated. One may see this for a while as being/living in a meaningless world, but may or may not ‘bring’ you to a meaningful world without any objects or support; you are and this independently of any support, ground, objects, quantity or qualia.

    In regard to intrinsic and extrinsic ‘self’, I have a little and quite simple experience I would like to suggest; What is the color of your eyes? Most of us would say blue, brown, gray, etc., all those are extrinsic ‘answers’, by which I mean that it in order to say this, one must see from the outside looking in (others/memory) and/or by making use of a mirror which is the same as looking from without. Now what are your eyes colors from within? Do the experiment, from within or intrinsically what are your eyes color? Try to see/observe rigorously/objectively what color are those eyes from within, without any recourse to any outside ‘tool’. Are they colorless? Is this the right answer? Not really sure, for from within I don’t even see ‘eyes’ and cannot rigorously/objectively observe those eyes. From within those eyes are invisibles, I rather make use of the word ‘transparency’ itself, a quite discrete groundless transparency. From within, it has no-form and yet a world/forms appears.

    I think, but I am not quite sure about this, is that ‘self’ has something to do with ‘seeing’ from the outside, it is seen from the outside looking in and build itself progressively this way. I would also think (but I am still not quite sure) that when we think about self, we hit the wrong target; the from without target. And as we shoot at the target, we hit it all the time, but since we are hitting the ‘wrong’ target, we never actually hit it, all the while we never miss it also. It is very complicated, so much so that I have never been able to untangle all the knots, paradox, ambiguities and subtlety about this whole thing, but still work on it every day without much success.

    Self with a capital S, or groundlessness has no form, so don’t spend your precious time trying to grasp this Self, it is without characteristics or attributes. It is also very funny, for nothing is not it, there is no such things as a something or someone residing outside ‘it’. Not two is a decent (although not perfect) way of ‘describing’ this Self, for it is a oneness, a single unitary dynamism, a single ‘agency’ (The Single Agency) that contains no plurality. As I come and go, I always stay at home, for there is nowhere else than home.

    Although I am not a fan, I think it is Gurdjieff who said ‘man cannot do, does not do’, controls or not (my addition), and I tend to agree with this statement, man cannot do, never has done anything. Only ‘he’ does. How are we going to understand this? Not two; no plurality in the doing, talking, listening, only one and always the same one. Of course it is not easy to understand, for it appears as two, a me and a you, a you doing all the talking and a me who listens. (in my case it’s the opposite, I talk way too much). The ambiguity is that it appears as two (or plurality) but is actually always the same one, the same agency who is doing all the doing, talking, listening. And so, as I walk, I walk without walking, talk without talking, and yet there is talking, walking. Those days, I even write without writing. And please don’t ask me to try to explain this.

    Now, let us go back to control, will, and intent; his will, his intent, thy will be done, his ‘control’, the French way of saying this is a little different; ‘Que sa (or ta) volonté soit faite’ as if it says something such as ‘ let thy will be done’, I am not sure about this, but it does not matter, for the entire universe is already his will, his being, his knowing, which in the eyes is called seeing, in the ear is called hearing, etc., His being, his knowing. Unfortunately and quite fortunately we have to make use of the word ‘he, his, thy’, for it is on one side unfortunate we have to make use of he, his, thy, as if outside of oneself; he, not oneself. But on the other side it is not ‘self’ and so what better word do we have? He as not self (small s/person/personal) and yet ‘Self/thy’. And so it is groundless Self-will without self-will.

    Problem is that it is very much personal and impersonal at the same time, nothing is more intimate than ‘Self’, and nothing is so remotely far away from ‘it’ as this personal self. And even that is not ok, for even self is Self, as nothing reside outside this Self.
    Told you it is complicated…

    February 6, 2022 at 11:48 am Reply
  • Artur Piper

    I managef to get only a glimpse of what I think you meant in this article. The concept of nullity couldnt be more uncleat. Are you talking about your own experiences in this world or are you basing yourself in some sort of academic concepts (that is, is Nullity a cocept you pulled out of your ass or not)?

    Kind regards,

    February 11, 2022 at 3:34 pm Reply

Leave a Comment