Discussing universal & questioning is clearly not a simple matter.
I told you in one of my first article (only in French so far) that, for me, absolute could only be reached through questioning, that the question was the only “truth” shared by everyone, a pure interrogative absolute then. As soon as an attempt to answer is made, other possibilities are de facto excluded. When a proposition A is hold as the truth, then its contrary not-A becomes false. A and not-A will nonetheless both have their own followers, we’ll come back to that later on. Answers seen as truths are thus neither shared by everyone nor constant over time, contrary to the original question which could perhaps be ignored but certainly not disproved. Let’s take the “Is there a God?” question as an example. Answers to that are extremely various, only the question itself is shared by everyone. That’s what Sans Echo is about, the place where the questioning takes place.
The plot thickens here. Discussing the absolute, what a fabulous idea. Talking about questioning, fantastic. But as answering is making a choice that dismiss other possibilities held as true by others, it does move us away from any kind of universal. Yet, without even attempting to answer, what would the purpose of asking a question in the first place be? Here is the paradox: the process of building one’s truth through answering a question means de facto getting away from what the absolute was when no choice had been expressed. Being assertive and reaching for the universal are incompatible: a non-interrogative truth can’t be a universal one. Answers are nonetheless mandatory for the original question to convey any kind of sense at all, for it to be able to initiate reflection, to be developed, detailed and expanded. Without any answer, the raw questioning would admittedly be universal but remain purely contemplative and generate only emptiness. The answer might be relative but sets progress in motion.
Sans Echo thus features two series of articles that complement each other. The first one being about universal and questioning without any kind of answer apart from itself (having such a conception being in fact already some kind of answer… the quibble will be tackled later on) and the second one dealing with attempting to give answers, in order to allow some kind of progress. The latter will however always be handled with the questioning and the absolute in mind. If I, as Adam Vox, feel a specific emotion, if I undergo a reflection, I am the one experiencing it: this might speak to some people but won’t to many others. The goal I want to achieve is to always highlight the question and the universal behind the answer, no matter what this is about, should it be about philosophical thoughts or about cooking recipes. Have I have been thrilled by a TV episode and touched by the death of a character? Most people don’t give a damn about my feeling, so what would the universal behind this be? In every answer, reconnecting to some kind of universal.
In order to reach the universal and still make some progress, expanding the question and elucidating some answers. Focusing on the motion between them, for the absolute not to lead to pure emptiness but be a driving force instead, for the answer not to be falsely seen as universal but still contributes to it, as the question it comes from and it further generates are unraveled.
Translated from this article, apologies for language approximations