The Power That Follows From Nothing: On Will, Selfhood, & the Secret Logic of Meaning

[KingCrimson]

Quote

"Velle non discitur." – Seneca
Will cannot be taught. It arises from nowhere. It is free.

This post is the fruit of many years of philosophical inquiry, psychedelic self-exploration, contemplation, and study of classical and German philosophical traditions. I'm sharing it here in the Actualized.org Forum not to preach or instruct, but to offer a deeply personal gesture—an attempt to articulate a dynamic I’ve seen animating not just thought and language, but Being itself. I hope something here touches the Will of someone else. That’s all.

A quick note: this was originally written in German, then translated and reworked with the help of Claude.ai. Some expressions may carry a Germanic structure or flavor. I’ve left certain German terms intact where they feel more precise.

This is a long and dense exploration. But if you've glimpsed the paradox of trying to explain what cannot be explained, or felt the strange recursive loop of trying to understand understanding, then you’ll feel right at home.

 

I. A Shift from Doubt to Wonder

For over 400 years, Western knowledge has been built on a singular engine: doubt. We ask: Can this be justified? Does this follow? Can it be measured? In this, we are the children of Descartes, Galileo, the Stoics. Our sciences, our ethics, even our notions of selfhood are built on the assumption that to exist is to be logically derivable from something else.

But there’s another path. A more ancient one. Plato says, "Philosophy begins in wonder" (thaumazein). Not in doubt. Not in rational proof. But in the bare astonishment that something is at all.

And what if this wonder—this sense of the miraculous, the paradoxical, the ungraspable—is not an emotion to be moved past, but a rigorous cognitive mode in its own right?

This, I believe, is the forgotten foundation beneath all foundations.

 

II. Every Act of Definition is Self-Defining

Take the act of defining something. Let’s say a table.

You might define it by its parts: a flat surface with legs. Or by its function: something you place things on. But notice what’s happening:

In the very act of defining the table, you’re also defining what it means to define.

If you emphasize components, you're treating definition as analytic decomposition.

If you emphasize function, you're treating definition as teleological or pragmatic.

So, in the very act of saying what something is, you are recursively enacting what defining itself means.

This recursive dynamic—where the act of determination defines itself—is what I call the Rubicon step. Every act of defining crosses an invisible threshold. It doesn’t just point outward to its object—it curves back and determines the structure of its own operation.

Definition, then, is never just about the object. It's about Being itself trying to grasp itself. And failing. And trying again.

 

III. Bestimmung: The Voice of Determination

The German word Bestimmung (noun), Bestimmen (verb) is nearly untranslatable. It means:

• To determine
• To define
• To assign purpose or function
• To tune (an instrument)
• To give something a voice (Stimme)
• To resonate
• To call or destiny

So when we define something, we are doing all of that: tuning it into harmony with our understanding, giving it a voice in meaning, assigning it purpose, resonating with it. We are not just describing—we are participating in its self-making.

But here's the paradox:

Quote

Every act of Bestimmung presupposes something that cannot be bestimmt.

That is, there must be a power that remains free in relation to every form of determination—a power that enables plurality in determination. Otherwise, everything would be reducible to a single logic or law.

This excess—this overflow—is the dynamic I call Exzess (excess). And its logic is Non Sequitur.

 

IV. Non Sequitur: The Logic of Groundless Power

In medieval logic, non sequitur marked a fallacy. Something that "does not follow." A mistake.

But what if we reverse this?

Quote

What if the power not to follow is the condition for all creativity, all will, all being?

This is not just a rhetorical move. It is the key.

Every act of determination involves a leap—a moment that does not follow from anything prior. It can’t. Because that which enables determination itself must be undetermined.

In this sense:

Quote

Non sequitur is not a failure of logic. It is the source of logic.

It is the divine power of the Absolute to arise from nothing. It is the God-move: the pure "nevertheless"—the capacity to be, with no cause, no justification, no derivation.

This is what I mean when I say: The Self is that which does not follow.

 

V. The Self as Escalation

The Self—das Selbst—is not a substance. It is not a soul. It is not an identity.

It is a dynamic. A recursive, escalating movement.

The Self is the unceasing attempt to determine itself, and thereby constantly exceeding itself. It is the ungraspable origin of grasping. A pulse. A flame. A volcano that erupts from nowhere.

This is why the Self can never “have” itself. It is always in a movement of Zu-Sich-Machen—making-itself-itself. But never arriving. Always escaping.

This is not dysfunction. This is not suffering. This is God’s own logic.

We see it in nature:

• In the recursive spirals of Mandelbrot fractals
• In the pulsing of stars and galaxies
• In your own heart
• In breath, rhythm, orgasm, and laughter
• In the strange loop of self-reference

Each of these is an instantiation of the Self’s excessive, recursive attempt to be itself. And none of them follow from anything.

They just are.

 

VI. Will: The Non-Sequitur Capacity

Will (Wille) is not something you learn. It is not the result of a decision. It is not conditioned or explainable.

Will is the moment when the Self meets its own non-following. It is the “nevertheless.”

Seneca said it best: Velle non discitur. Will cannot be taught. It can only be encountered.

This is not the will of ego or striving. This is the divine Will: the Absolute acting through itself, from no ground, toward no goal, in perfect creative overflow.

Quote

To will is to act from the non sequitur—to affirm being without needing a reason.

You cannot give anyone this power. You cannot demand it. You cannot systematize it. You can only stand in awe of it when it shows up.

 

VII. Lust: The Joy of Will Encountering Itself

Lust (Lust) is not pleasure. It is not hedonism. It is not desire fulfilled.

Quote

Lust is the Self encountering the Will and delighting in its own groundless freedom.

Lust is the joy of saying yes without reason. It is when the Will touches itself. When the Self collapses into its own paradox. When power realizes it has no origin, and rejoices.

Real Lust is sacred. It is divine. It is the ecstatic pulse of the Absolute realizing itself in form.

Lust is when the Rubicon is not just crossed, but celebrated.

 

VIII. Ernährung, Stars, and Other Examples

Let’s anchor this in tangible examples:

• Ernährung (Nourishment): When I eat, I make something into myself. I transform otherness into identity. But this is never complete—I am always in the act of becoming. Eating is a living metaphor for the Self’s Zu-Sich-Machen.
• Pulsars and Variable Stars: Astronomical bodies pulse, not because of cause, but because of the same logic. They are self-referential excess in motion.
• The Heartbeat: Your own heart pulses. Not because you will it, but because you are Will in form. It is a manifestation of recursive selfhood.
• The Table (the philosopher's favourite example): Defined now by parts, now by function, now by artistic form. The table reveals that every act of determination opens a space for meta-determination—and thereby never captures what is.

Each of these reveals: Being is a recursive, self-referential miracle. And the more we chase its essence, the more it eludes us—because it was never “there” to begin with. It was always here.

 

IX. Pedagogy and the Touch of the Will

True teaching cannot operate through sequences, systems, or techniques. Because:

Quote

Only the Will can touch the Will.

A pedagogue must not only know—they must burn. They must be amazed at what they do. Only then can they open the horizon of non-following. Only then does learning occur.

Learning happens only when the Will is amazed. Everything else is imitation.

In this sense, all true learning is ontological—not informational. It is the moment where the Self meets another Self and recognizes itself, groundlessly.

This is the logic of spiritual awakening, mystical insight, and true transformation. It cannot be forced. It cannot be faked.

It happens in the Present, or not at all.

 

X. The Present as Non-Sequitur

The Present (Gegenwart) is not a point in time. It is the site of Will. It is where the Self erupts into itself. It is the moment of non-sequential freedom.

In the Present, we are not following. We are not justifying. We are not tracing back causes.

We are being, without reason. Without defense. Without escape.

And in that moment, all Bestimmung—definition, logic, identity, structure—collapses into the ecstatic simplicity of this.

This is the miracle.
This is the Absolute.
This is what it means to be free.

And it does not follow. ;-)

 

<3
With love and fire,

Benjamin