The universe as a continent, receptacle, has no beginning and no time, no end and only inside does it have content, the legitic energy that generates all: movement, space, time, in a clarity without enigmas, without mysteries, without contradictions or mystifications.
I say: the law is the generating source of radiation that animates the Universe; and yet that word, source, is not correctly employed: the fact that there is a source of origin presupposes a precedent action that does not actually exist. The energy that constitutes the Universe did not come from just anywhere, because no thing was created: the energy lies as does the principle - the law - that sustains it. As opposed to what we sensorially deem to be natural, its being does not come from the past of from above; it does not govern from outside .It acts inside the phenomenon itself as an element of its intrinsic composition. And yet these affirmations possess as lengthy a history as my work fumbled in the core of the forms; as strong as this current certainty mingled with disturbing queries. If, as I believe and for many years have clamoured, the essence of Art does not lie in the object - Art is in the geometry, the underlying mathematics that animates the object - then what is it I feel except this and what touches me but the energy that emanates from its norms? From my earliest works I have asked these questions: do laws themselves irradiate energy? Is it not the emotion I feel that is the effect of its impact? I have tenaciously devoted my life to these questions and was not light-heartedly that my studies flowed and confined themselves to this final conclusion: the law is the natural entity that no force can create and no force can eliminate; it rejects its creation as it rejects its negation.
Simple conjectures? Certainly, but what is the concept in cosmogony that is not pure supposition? These beliefs are at least placed at the end of an activity performed in the work of the forms. I do not hesitate to state: in the way that l will try to expound my theory it is unique in the sense that appealing to the originality and the singularity' of the law - as autokinesia - it does not contain its antithetical term that analytical thought usually claims; any causal hypothesis appears inconceivable to me. Where is the power that surpasses - or the cause that precedes -, willing to suspend the law of forms in its elementary, the force that can prevent that this constant reality that is its mathematical genesis should exist, in itself as distinct from the object that expresses and represents it?
Both the elements and the physical substances are founded on geometrical rules. What can be self-sufficient except singularity, extreme simplicity and the exactness of the circle? All cosmic space is in essence reduced to this absolute spatial rule; and any other principle, physical or geometrical, is already a complexity arising therefrom. As the synthesis of all elements of nature, the circle expresses the form raised to its ultimate reduction; it encloses that demiurgic intuition, now lost: in classical antiquity geometrics was the cosmometric form par excellence… and I will now return to that original meaning, that pure platonic monad, and attempt to express myself within it: The solution of the cosmic problem, in the same perceptive path of the artistic phenomenon, at the start requires an act of reflection based on the concept of elementarily and simplicity.
© Nadir Afonso - Nadir face to face with Einstein