If this is in the wrong place, I apologize. It's philosophy-ish..
I'm a student at the University of Tromsø (in Norway). I study pedagogy, and I'm currently writing my MA paper. Deadline is just 6 months away! This has nothing to do about this topic though..
Anyway. A friend of mine and my self love discussions. We always manage to talk about things for so long it doesn't make much sense in the end. But some time back we came over soething. What is "nothing".
Before I get into this I must admit I'm not sure if this topic is something I should know that "this" and "that" philosopher talked about so and so many years ago. I apologize if I'm a bit ignorant here.
Now, me and my friend agree that "nothing" doesn't exist. Not as something that is in this world as something other than a "term", that is. Because it does exist in our minds as a part of our language. "I've got nothing left to eat", "I've done nothing today", "I know nothing about this subject", etc., etc. You can't eat nothing, do nothing or know nothing, now can you? This "nothing" is always something, even though it may _seem_ like nothing.
If you ask people what "nothing" is, most people say it's nothing.. And that's all they bother to say about the subject. Those who bother to think about their answer, say that "nothing" is a vacuum. But as we all know, a vacuum is indeed something. It is a vacuum, with all the abilities a vacuum consists of. Therefore we're back at the beginning: is "nothing" anything?
Our conclusion is this: "nothing" doesn't exist in our world of perseption. We can't see, hear, touch, feel, smell or taste "nothing". It's always something. Therefore, "nothing" is only something as a term that, bare with me now, implodes when you say the word "nothing". As we know, words are used to categorize terms (that exist in our minds). But the term "nothing" will destroy it self when you express it, because it cannot exist. That's the thing about "nothing": it doesn't exist. It's only in existance as a term that destroys it self, simply by being what it is. Nothing exists only as a term that implodes when you think it Cool, huh?
Have I lost you? If I have, I'm sorry. I'm writing in English, about something I barely manage to explain in my native tongue. I hope you understand most of it though.
But what do you think? Is this a "real" answer to the question? Or is this just rambling?
How does "nothing" implode? You CAN eat nothing. It is the same as not eating anything. Nothing DOES exist. You can describe a vacuum as nothing, but that's not very accurate. A vacuum is generally just something with little to no atmosphere. If there were no dust, there would be "nothing" in space. Having "nothing" somewhere means you have "not a thing" in that spot... absolutely no atoms, electrons, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
As Sutherlands said, nothing cannot destroy itself. That's just ridiculous.
The concept of nothing exists, just as the concept of zero exists. There's no physical manifestation of zero just as there is no physical manifestation of a negative number, but it still exists.
Nothing means "no thing" or "not a thing." When you qualify "thing," you can then take meaning from "nothing." For instance, if I qualify "thing" with "to do today," I can say "I have no (thing to do today)." Or I can qualify "thing" with "that is simultaneously fully black and fully white." Then I can say, "There is no (thing that is simultaneously fully black and fully white)." Then, when I contract "no thing," I get, "There is nothing that is simultaneously fully black and fully white."
So "nothing" is not a type of thing. It's just two contracted words, and it has meaning if the "thing" is qualified.
How does "nothing" implode? You CAN eat nothing. It is the same as not eating anything. Nothing DOES exist. You can describe a vacuum as nothing, but that's not very accurate. A vacuum is generally just something with little to no atmosphere. If there were no dust, there would be "nothing" in space. Having "nothing" somewhere means you have "not a thing" in that spot... absolutely no atoms, electrons, etc.
You can eat nothing? What are you eating then? If you eat nothing then you eat something. It's the same way as with the vacuum example. The vacuum is _something_. It's a vacuum. And the nothing you're NOT eating is nevertheless _something_, It is nothing. Having a distinct characteristic as "nothing" is, makes it something for us. It's no longer nothing. If the word nothing exists, then it must refer to something. And it does. it refers to the lack of something. That is all a nothing does. If I would have to strecht this idea further, I could say that not even nothing is in fact nothing. It IS something since it is nothing. I realize this is a play with words, and some might find it stupid and plain idiocy. Let the idea grow on you.
I agree with you about the vacuum. It's just what I mean. Most people would say a vacuum is what equals nothing (or something close to it), but the truth is that a vacuum is a whole of a lot. It is a vacuum, and since it is, it can't be nothing. It is something, and that's far from nothing.
And the same goes for the "nothing". Since I'm talking about it, it must be something. And since it IS something (a term or a thought etc.) it CAN'T be _nothing_. If nothing is something, then it isn't nothing any more. It has devouered it self (or imploded as I said...), and as a result I can't see how nothing can exist.
Let me quote you on one thing. You say "You CAN eat nothing. It is the same as not eating anything." I agree with the last part. Not eating anyhing is something I do as I type this. I just don't eat. If I ain't eating anything, I ain't eating at all. Simple. But if I eat "nothing", then I AM in fact eating something ain't I?
This could be solved gramatically though by saying "I ain't eating anything" instead of saying "I'm eating nothing". But think about it. If you talk, think, dream, etc. about something as "nothing", it stops being nothing. It has become something by your definition of what that nothing is. Nothing only exist before this happens, and (once again) implodes when it becomes that nothing we believe it is. And being a nothing makes it a something. Hence, it can't be nothing any longer --> nothing doesn't exist, since nothing isn't nothing when it is something.
I'm not drunk, and I'm not trying to display my self as stupid. This is just something a friend of mine and I discussed and wholeheartedly agreed upon. If noone else agrees, we'll still have each other
There's no physical manifestation of zero just as there is no physical manifestation of a negative number, but it still exists.
0 and nothing can't be compared.
If you say 0 of something is on the table, I would believe you. We can both see that there are 0 "that thing you said" on the table. If you say "nothing" of something is on the table, I wouldn't believe you, because you're talking about something which nothing can't be. 0 can be something, and that's the difference. It is a value of something. Nothing and something excludes one another.
Are we talking about 'nothing' as a concept? Or are we talking about 'nothing' as a something physical?
If we're talking about a concept, you can indeed eat nothing, and there can be nothing. Nothing is not something.
As something physical, it only makes sense if you use it as "not a thing." If you're not eating anything, you're "eating nothing" - but using nothing as a concept. You're not physically eating "nothing" because you can't eat a concept.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Nothing is the measure by which everything else gains significance. Without a conceptual nothing (or cipher/null/void,) we'd fail to have any reason to validate anything else as something.
I'd contend there is a nothing, so long as there is a something too.
Nothing is the measure by which everything else gains significance. Without a conceptual nothing (or cipher/null/void,) we'd fail to have any reason to validate anything else as something.
I'd contend there is a nothing, so long as there is a something too.
Now we're talking.
I agree that if something exists, then nothing would also have to exist. But the way I see it, nothing stops being nothing the (split) second it becomes the concept of nothing. It is then a concept of something. It can't be nothing without being something. Either it isn't at all (it's not anything) or it is something. Nothing will always become something and therefore never stay as a nothing. hmmm..
If I accept that nothing exist, I would have to alter the meaning of nothing (which is "the lack of somethings existence"). Wouldn't that make the original nothing not exist, seeing I discarded it's own meaning?
Nothing is something though, by virtue of having a name it is a conceptual something; it is merely the absence of of anything else deemed to be something in the population set 'everything.'
Think about it, if the universe is a finite space, expanding/retracting, what-have-you, what does it end in? I'd call that the physical manifestation of nothing. If the infinite model of the universe is correct, this example holds less water... but that'd be a more tangible way of expressing nothing, albeit a contingency.
Nothing is something though, by virtue of having a name it is a conceptual something; it is merely the absence of of anything else deemed to be something in the population set 'everything.'
I guess it just boils down to what one defines as "nothing". I agree with you, if I were to follow your definition. It is "deemed to be something" out of "everything".
Think about it, if the universe is a finite space, expanding/retracting, what-have-you, what does it end in? I'd call that the physical manifestation of nothing. If the infinite model of the universe is correct, this example holds less water... but that'd be a more tangible way of expressing nothing, albeit a contingency.
I'm one that doesn't believe the universe is finite. Why would it be? Just becaues we humans have a way of dealing with our lives as finite? I don't buy it. But I can't prove otherwise either...
What is required for existence? Since nothing is by definition not a thing, it might be difficult for it to pull this off. I can't even ask whether nothing is the sort of thing that can exist, or whether it fits the conditions for something to exist, because it's neither any sort of thing nor something - it's nothing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Nothing is the absense of something. Just as dark is the absense of light and cold is the absense of heat. Nothing does not exist except as an abstract.
"Nothing" is a concept. "Nothing" does not physically exist. You can not eat "nothing" the concept, but you can eat nothing, the physical amount represented by that concept, which is not a thing. The universe can have all the concepts defined that it wants, but if there is not a single atom that physically exists, then nothing exists. It's like saying 0 exists. It doesn't make any sense. As notjohn said, "nothing" does not exist except as an abstract, and abstracts can't be "there" to say that there "is something."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Either it can be used in regards to math as an amount, or it can be used in the context of a speech.
"I looked in the record shop for a good record, but I found nothing."
It's an incredibly useful concept for communicating, and I can only imagine how early it must have developed. As for it being manifested anywhere, I don't really think so.
And of course, how exactly would we know that there is nothing at the end of the universe?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
Stan's right, as usual. You're getting lost in the layers of signification here and playing word games. Do read some of Derrida's stuff about signification and language, it's useful for what you're talking about. The word "nothing" is of course a signifier (I hope I'm being precise about my terminology, I tend to mix up sign/signifier/signified, etc...), and thus signifies a concept, idea, image, whatever (you can call it "something", but you're just trying to play word games again). The signified, in this case, is just what Stan says, a (negative) qualifier of the idea of a "thing," probably most commonly construed as the absence of a given "thing." You can call the signified a thing, in some way, but you're meshing together the concept of signification (a word/other sign signifying a signified) and the definition of nothing (a qualifier of the word "thing," specifically negative, usually implying absence). It's just word games.
(for the record, I think Derrida is a kook, but he does have a method to his madness, I should start a thread on the whole idea of his constant oscillation between binaries as am attempt to avoid violence, if people are interested)
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
I really like this topic, because where others often know it through a spiritual faith, I know the 'Divine' as Nothing. Believe it or not, I'm trying to get this terminology more generally accepted in the modern Western marketplace of ideas, sort of like a new spiritual faith, which is only representative of the truths wise men and women have expressed throughout the ages. But the key thing is that I feel Nothing is the best expression of Truth, and I am not the first to use it as such. When you start to use other conventions to express Truth, then you make logical claims that need to be backed up, like God or Satan, or even the Tao where the Lao Tze's famous text the Tao Te Ching literally translates into the English title as "the Tao which is not the Tao".. the word Nothing fits perfectly with traditional Eastern spiritual understanding, and I don't understand why it has not yet been adopted in the modern marketplace of ideas as something of a synthesis of all religions, finally impersonal in nature and beyond dogmas and biases (which is not to say that under the way of Nothing various deities and godforms cannot exist).
So that was just background. Now I will offer a summary answer to the original topic question, coming from a spiritual as opposed to per se philosophical perspective. It is interesting to note that logic plays no less of a role in a spiritual perspective as it does in a philosophical perspective.
The only thing that exists, is Nothing. It is like saying, the only thing that exists is the Divine/God/All/etc. Many different spiritual and occult terms exist to go into greater detail. Of course there is always the matter of context, as for instance here I am assuming that there is such thing as a "Divine", but this is a separate conversation. So, Nothing is fundamental, and the source of universal procession, whereas universal procession is conventional, and the living manifestation of (and extension of) Nothing. Nothing is the ultimate essence and keystone of Creation. It consists in essence of universal principles of creation, in archetypal form both eternal and living, in the Qabalistic framework of the Tree of Life. It is all a matter of simultaneous oneness and difference. Where the Tree of Life, comprised of ten archetypal and infinite Sephirot, is like the alphabet, similarly is physical reality spoken. The Hebrew alphabet is an important aspect of this.
But what does this all mean?
To understand Nothing, is to be self-realized, is to See Maya and See *through* Maya. In the trinary vein of simultaneous oneness and difference, it is proper understanding of the nature of reality at large, that is completely logical as well as practical. Basically it is the knowledge that All is illusion, but where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so All does exist, as Nothing. This is where the logic is chiefly involved, especially if you are hearing all this for the first time. But it is complicated to express, and here the medium is a great deal the message, as most people have inbuilt psychological defenses to resist the notion and implications of Maya. However, new-age spirituality generally does a terrible job at explaining it, and the truth is that it is not so difficult to express. It is however very long, so I will only speak summarily here, but if you want to know more, read Alan Watt's The Wisdom of Insecurity.
Basically, if you name me anything, and feel free to, then I can explain how it does not exist. This is one way of going about it lol. What is a molecule but part of an atom, what is an atom but part of a larger piece of physical matter, what is this piece of physical matter but part of a planet, then universe, then dimension, etc,, all the way to Nothing. This is most simplistic and hardly conclusive, but gives you an idea. It also works through time, as in eternity, eventually star dust gets moved around enough that one thing is made up of bits and pieces of (formerly) tons of other different things. But it's much more than this, because space and time are not separate, but one thing that is space-time. To wit, how can a chair exist without the empty space around it to delineate its contour and form? Woah, now wait a minute. So a chair cannot exist in-and-of itself, the whole universe cannot be a chair, for then no one would be outside of the universe, to sit in the chair. This means that everything is contingent on emptiness for existence. Go deeper, and even emptiness is little particles, dark matter, etc.
Interesting, so what this really means is that space and time are interconnected and mutually contingent. All space, all matter, is one thing, that constantly *changes* pattern. It cannot change without emptiness within which to work, creating the illusion of time as a function of *measurement* of the process of change. So the Now, as the spiritual term goes to describe the present moment, is different than it is *Now*, which is different than it is *Now*, etc. etc., it is ever-changing, and can never be grasped as if it were a static model suspended in animation, as opposed to a living pattern of evolution. Yet simultaneously, the Eternal Now, from the beginning of eternity itself, is the very same one Now, and forever. Clearly this matter is very complex.
You think about your process of self-realization and recapitulating your past so that you are not binded by it but rather regard it properly and in a way so that it no longer defines you. Interesting. This is exactly how it is for anything else, like a plant, in that it is not defined by its past. But then how does the plant know *how* to grow, if it is not sentient? How does the chair know how to age? Because the Eternal Now is not anything intellectual, as if a concept that represents a living truth, but rather it *is* the living truth of the eternal and ever-changing present moment, experiential in nature. There is no plant, just Nothing (think Tao) that is changing. There is no chair, just Nothing that is changing. There is no you or I, just Nothing that is changing. You cannot laugh without something funny, you cannot cry without something sad, you cannot live but for the inevitability of death in other words a symptom of the reality that you are impermanent and individually and sovereignly sentient as opposed to permanent in the sense of impersonality and inertness.
I have done a pretty lousy job at expressing what I mean to express. It is very difficult to do in isolated context. I apologize. Maybe ask me if a thing exists and I'll explain how it does not. I have not spoken about these sorts of things in much time, focusing rather on very different aspects of spirituality. It seems I am rusty! Having seen how dismally does most spiritual writing express Truth on this point, I have also become cautious always to give the downsides along with the (always redeeming) upsides, perhaps overly cautious, but I'm sick of portraying spirituality as something "empty". Honestly it is the key to personal immortality. If I try to say this in a more precise and direction fashion, then it will seem very negative, as if any negative connotation is associated with "Nothing".. it will only finally seem positive once I continue writing at length and finally come to the end where the reader becomes enlightened. LOL That's why eastern spiritual rhymes and riddles were as they were. If you say it bluntly, it will sound unfortunate and deterministic. It is truly wondrous.
"Everything is nothing" is equivalent to saying "Everything is no thing." But "everything" is a thing, by definition. I think that's the point at which I start to think that's nonsense. When I replace your capitalized "Nothing" with "not a thing," "no thing," or "not anything," all of which are semantically legitimate, it makes your sentences sound absurd.
EDIT:
Examples:
The only thing that exists is not a thing.
This is tautologically false.
Not a thing is the ultimate essence and keystone of Creation. It consists in essence of universal principles of creation...
Notice that the word "It" is absurd given the preceding sentence.
I don't know what "tautologically" means but I beg to differ lol. What if All is just a word, describing all things? There is no All for any intents and purposes, yet it cannot be denied that the sum of everything is expressible. All is not a thing, it is many things. This is what I am speaking about, but more profoundly. If you dissect any particular thing on (wise) logical grounds, then you are left with but a shell, a phantom of a thing, you are left with no-thing. And all 'no-things' are one in Nothing. The one central permanence that allows impermanent conventional to arise into individual existence in the first place, this one thing cannot but exist in simultaneous oneness and difference, at once both all 'no-things' and separate from all 'no-things'. How could it be otherwise? The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. "All" is a term, but also representative of all things. When you say the term, this expression is inclusive of what it represents, but gives something else, a label to say it better. Now imagine if the whole universe is words being read in sentences and stories.. how impressive will the label of it all be, even if it is called but 'Nothing'?
The symbol and the symbolized is never the same. Indeed by this symbolic process does everything come back to Nothing. The moment you say that one thing exists in isolation from any greater context, then you confuse symbol with symbolized. The only constant is change. The constant is Nothing, and the change is everything, but the change is simultaneously a part of Nothing and apart from Nothing. It is difficult for us to grasp this because ours is a single-pointed focus that is temporally bound, as opposed to a focus that captures all eternity at once (leaving room for free will of course, hey it ain't easy to be a god!).
Actually it's also funny how you put it extremestan, because Nothing generally fits like magic into sentences in spiritual context. Like put it in the adage "nothing infinite exists apart from the finite" and the sentence also works as "Nothing infinite exists apart from the finite". Whenever you speak of "no-thing" in the Buddhist sense, usually you can substitute in Nothing and the sentences gains a different but still true meaning.
All-thing would be a better word, which is what is being gotten at here. Not a totality of objects, but all-being. Some theologies would like to speak of a "God" or "one" who encompasses all things, and none of them refer to things as simply a mere summation or totality, because it would typically be considered banal and not "worthy of worship." Or put more simply, they do want the total to be greater than the sum of parts. So more is being grasped at then simply the largest possible collection of distinct objects (things)
When you start speaking at this level though, you blur (if not eliminate) the distinctions between objects. What makes something chunked as a "thing" is that it can be mentally isolated from the surrounding context. When you approach "all-thing" that chunking process begins to break down, as there's no other things to contrast with the all-thing. Once that's gone you don't have a thing anymore, not even one of them. This is why some have insisted (correctly from within this system IMO) that God is a unity "simpler than one".
That's more or less the level that alot of the mystical sources are working on. Object distinctions and persistence are, "quickly put", the mind abstracting percieved constants from a constantly shifting perceptual field. If this abstraction process is temporarily disrupted or halted while conscious, you suddenly have a very different perspective from which to view reality, and it leads to the kind of thoughts in the above post.
Hmmmm, I do not really understand what you are saying, FoxBat. How to do you relate to the reality of the Trinity that is simultaneous oneness and difference? Personally I am coming from the perspective that you ask me what God is and I point to the salt shaker on the table or any other old thing. Picture the Zen teacher, when the student asks what is God, he says what isn't? This is not banal, but hopefully indeed it is not worthy of worship. Worship is another affair altogether.
More than the sum of its parts. I definitely take a view that does not minimize the importance of Maya. I do not think it is possible to say that Nothing is in any way better or worse than the salt shaker. So I would never say that God is "more" than "simply the largest possible collection of distinct objects (things)". To me this could be called sacrilegious if you are coming from a theistic perspective. Certainly I do not think highly of the commonly held views on such subjects. Suffice it to say that Blake was on to something saying that he sees the universe in a grain of sand, and if you get technical, you may just logically have to take him *literally* on that (as science is beginning to discover).
The word "Nothing" as the Divine lends itself in important ways to the personal experience of a spiritual reality.. how the process is largely at first deconstructive, and finally when one crosses the abyss, they remain in no-thing and use it as their blank slate, upon which a master can be created. My words here are not precise. But I am sort of trying to shock you. Even the word "Nothing" is tricky, because one may easily think that negative connotation is associated therewith. The point is that religion has been used as a weapon against humanity for ages, and the result today is a prison planet, that 'might' just avoid complete desolation.
Zen is most definitely not referring *only* to everything as a totality of objects. Neither does it entirely obliterate those objects, but its easier to start off with Monism. (Or the world of "mu" in Zen terms) I don't think we ultimately disagree, just trying to figure out how to express this to others that do.
Anyway, dealing with simple monism like I said, there is no distinction between everything (or rather all-thing) and nothing. In religious terms, there isn't a distinction between a principle of Nothingness, and an understanding of God as Creation (or all-thing) On this level extremestan's objection should not apply. I'm not sure he necessarily agrees with that so I mostly stop at that point. If so, then we can get into the mess that follows.
Getting into how this all/no-thing is related (or rather is) things is the trick. The Zen you mentioned often falls into a dualist language when explaining the concepts abstractly, using the terms "mu" (non-being) and "u" (being) to respectively refer to non-discriminatory and discriminatory states, though maintaining they are ultimately not different nor same. The religions "of the book" typically end up constrasting God and creation in a similar fashion, and flirt with blurring the line between the two as much as possible without running too afoul of orthodoxy, depending on the circumstances.
It is maintained that the truth is in the middle or both, but only a small handful of masters like say Dogen or Nishida approach explicating that in a conceptual fashion. Psychologically I would describe the process as not the complete obliteration of object distinction/ossification, but rather a loosening of its normally tight hold, so that objects can be seen more fluidly and more rapid shifts of perspective become possible, as well as levels of change within and between distinguishable objects which are not noticed by the typically stronger calcifying power of normal thought. This also opens up a greater sensitivity to the context and conditions objects we'd like to distinguish find themselves in, which is I believe one thing you are referring to.
At this level of perception though, you can't really speak of "nothing" or "everything" anyway, because this is immersion in unfolding sense perception. As long as perception of distinction holds, you can't strictly speak of "nothing/everything" terms. These are only appropriate descriptions of sensation when moving from "intense consciousness of one simple object" (like when the salt shaker "becomes the entire universe") to approaching "consciousness without an object" (realms of formlessness in Therevada Buddhism.) Mystical theories will try and tie this variety of experiences into one coherent metaphysics of paradoxical Trinities and "emptiness of emptiness", but sense perception places itself somewhere more or less on a scale of distinct and non-distinct sensation at different points in time. This can happen so quickly and fluidly though as to generally not be worth trying to objectify and understand while immersed in the process, but I think it is worth pointing out as a potential gap between mystical language and experience.
If this is in the wrong place, I apologize. It's philosophy-ish..
I'm a student at the University of Tromsø (in Norway). I study pedagogy, and I'm currently writing my MA paper. Deadline is just 6 months away! This has nothing to do about this topic though..
Anyway. A friend of mine and my self love discussions. We always manage to talk about things for so long it doesn't make much sense in the end. But some time back we came over soething. What is "nothing".
Before I get into this I must admit I'm not sure if this topic is something I should know that "this" and "that" philosopher talked about so and so many years ago. I apologize if I'm a bit ignorant here.
Now, me and my friend agree that "nothing" doesn't exist. Not as something that is in this world as something other than a "term", that is. Because it does exist in our minds as a part of our language. "I've got nothing left to eat", "I've done nothing today", "I know nothing about this subject", etc., etc. You can't eat nothing, do nothing or know nothing, now can you? This "nothing" is always something, even though it may _seem_ like nothing.
If you ask people what "nothing" is, most people say it's nothing.. And that's all they bother to say about the subject. Those who bother to think about their answer, say that "nothing" is a vacuum. But as we all know, a vacuum is indeed something. It is a vacuum, with all the abilities a vacuum consists of. Therefore we're back at the beginning: is "nothing" anything?
Our conclusion is this: "nothing" doesn't exist in our world of perseption. We can't see, hear, touch, feel, smell or taste "nothing". It's always something. Therefore, "nothing" is only something as a term that, bare with me now, implodes when you say the word "nothing". As we know, words are used to categorize terms (that exist in our minds). But the term "nothing" will destroy it self when you express it, because it cannot exist. That's the thing about "nothing": it doesn't exist. It's only in existance as a term that destroys it self, simply by being what it is. Nothing exists only as a term that implodes when you think it Cool, huh?
Have I lost you? If I have, I'm sorry. I'm writing in English, about something I barely manage to explain in my native tongue. I hope you understand most of it though.
But what do you think? Is this a "real" answer to the question? Or is this just rambling?
Thanks for reading
[High~Light Studios]
How does "nothing" implode? You CAN eat nothing. It is the same as not eating anything. Nothing DOES exist. You can describe a vacuum as nothing, but that's not very accurate. A vacuum is generally just something with little to no atmosphere. If there were no dust, there would be "nothing" in space. Having "nothing" somewhere means you have "not a thing" in that spot... absolutely no atoms, electrons, etc.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
The concept of nothing exists, just as the concept of zero exists. There's no physical manifestation of zero just as there is no physical manifestation of a negative number, but it still exists.
So "nothing" is not a type of thing. It's just two contracted words, and it has meaning if the "thing" is qualified.
You can eat nothing? What are you eating then? If you eat nothing then you eat something. It's the same way as with the vacuum example. The vacuum is _something_. It's a vacuum. And the nothing you're NOT eating is nevertheless _something_, It is nothing. Having a distinct characteristic as "nothing" is, makes it something for us. It's no longer nothing. If the word nothing exists, then it must refer to something. And it does. it refers to the lack of something. That is all a nothing does. If I would have to strecht this idea further, I could say that not even nothing is in fact nothing. It IS something since it is nothing. I realize this is a play with words, and some might find it stupid and plain idiocy. Let the idea grow on you.
I agree with you about the vacuum. It's just what I mean. Most people would say a vacuum is what equals nothing (or something close to it), but the truth is that a vacuum is a whole of a lot. It is a vacuum, and since it is, it can't be nothing. It is something, and that's far from nothing.
And the same goes for the "nothing". Since I'm talking about it, it must be something. And since it IS something (a term or a thought etc.) it CAN'T be _nothing_. If nothing is something, then it isn't nothing any more. It has devouered it self (or imploded as I said...), and as a result I can't see how nothing can exist.
Let me quote you on one thing. You say "You CAN eat nothing. It is the same as not eating anything." I agree with the last part. Not eating anyhing is something I do as I type this. I just don't eat. If I ain't eating anything, I ain't eating at all. Simple. But if I eat "nothing", then I AM in fact eating something ain't I?
This could be solved gramatically though by saying "I ain't eating anything" instead of saying "I'm eating nothing". But think about it. If you talk, think, dream, etc. about something as "nothing", it stops being nothing. It has become something by your definition of what that nothing is. Nothing only exist before this happens, and (once again) implodes when it becomes that nothing we believe it is. And being a nothing makes it a something. Hence, it can't be nothing any longer --> nothing doesn't exist, since nothing isn't nothing when it is something.
I'm not drunk, and I'm not trying to display my self as stupid. This is just something a friend of mine and I discussed and wholeheartedly agreed upon. If noone else agrees, we'll still have each other
0 and nothing can't be compared.
If you say 0 of something is on the table, I would believe you. We can both see that there are 0 "that thing you said" on the table. If you say "nothing" of something is on the table, I wouldn't believe you, because you're talking about something which nothing can't be. 0 can be something, and that's the difference. It is a value of something. Nothing and something excludes one another.
[High~Light Studios]
If we're talking about a concept, you can indeed eat nothing, and there can be nothing. Nothing is not something.
As something physical, it only makes sense if you use it as "not a thing." If you're not eating anything, you're "eating nothing" - but using nothing as a concept. You're not physically eating "nothing" because you can't eat a concept.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I'd contend there is a nothing, so long as there is a something too.
When you cross my mind you'd best look both ways.
How is nothing not something? If it is a concept, it IS a concept of something.
Now we're talking.
I agree that if something exists, then nothing would also have to exist. But the way I see it, nothing stops being nothing the (split) second it becomes the concept of nothing. It is then a concept of something. It can't be nothing without being something. Either it isn't at all (it's not anything) or it is something. Nothing will always become something and therefore never stay as a nothing. hmmm..
If I accept that nothing exist, I would have to alter the meaning of nothing (which is "the lack of somethings existence"). Wouldn't that make the original nothing not exist, seeing I discarded it's own meaning?
[High~Light Studios]
Think about it, if the universe is a finite space, expanding/retracting, what-have-you, what does it end in? I'd call that the physical manifestation of nothing. If the infinite model of the universe is correct, this example holds less water... but that'd be a more tangible way of expressing nothing, albeit a contingency.
When you cross my mind you'd best look both ways.
I guess it just boils down to what one defines as "nothing". I agree with you, if I were to follow your definition. It is "deemed to be something" out of "everything".
I'm one that doesn't believe the universe is finite. Why would it be? Just becaues we humans have a way of dealing with our lives as finite? I don't buy it. But I can't prove otherwise either...
[High~Light Studios]
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
A qualifier of X does not always denote a kind of X. It can denote an amount of X, the lack of X, etc.
Either it can be used in regards to math as an amount, or it can be used in the context of a speech.
"I looked in the record shop for a good record, but I found nothing."
It's an incredibly useful concept for communicating, and I can only imagine how early it must have developed. As for it being manifested anywhere, I don't really think so.
And of course, how exactly would we know that there is nothing at the end of the universe?
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
... Which is not a thing.
I have a pen on my desk. I have the mental image of pen. The mental image is not a physically tangible thing.
(for the record, I think Derrida is a kook, but he does have a method to his madness, I should start a thread on the whole idea of his constant oscillation between binaries as am attempt to avoid violence, if people are interested)
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
[High~Light Studios]
So that was just background. Now I will offer a summary answer to the original topic question, coming from a spiritual as opposed to per se philosophical perspective. It is interesting to note that logic plays no less of a role in a spiritual perspective as it does in a philosophical perspective.
The only thing that exists, is Nothing. It is like saying, the only thing that exists is the Divine/God/All/etc. Many different spiritual and occult terms exist to go into greater detail. Of course there is always the matter of context, as for instance here I am assuming that there is such thing as a "Divine", but this is a separate conversation. So, Nothing is fundamental, and the source of universal procession, whereas universal procession is conventional, and the living manifestation of (and extension of) Nothing. Nothing is the ultimate essence and keystone of Creation. It consists in essence of universal principles of creation, in archetypal form both eternal and living, in the Qabalistic framework of the Tree of Life. It is all a matter of simultaneous oneness and difference. Where the Tree of Life, comprised of ten archetypal and infinite Sephirot, is like the alphabet, similarly is physical reality spoken. The Hebrew alphabet is an important aspect of this.
But what does this all mean?
To understand Nothing, is to be self-realized, is to See Maya and See *through* Maya. In the trinary vein of simultaneous oneness and difference, it is proper understanding of the nature of reality at large, that is completely logical as well as practical. Basically it is the knowledge that All is illusion, but where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, so All does exist, as Nothing. This is where the logic is chiefly involved, especially if you are hearing all this for the first time. But it is complicated to express, and here the medium is a great deal the message, as most people have inbuilt psychological defenses to resist the notion and implications of Maya. However, new-age spirituality generally does a terrible job at explaining it, and the truth is that it is not so difficult to express. It is however very long, so I will only speak summarily here, but if you want to know more, read Alan Watt's The Wisdom of Insecurity.
Basically, if you name me anything, and feel free to, then I can explain how it does not exist. This is one way of going about it lol. What is a molecule but part of an atom, what is an atom but part of a larger piece of physical matter, what is this piece of physical matter but part of a planet, then universe, then dimension, etc,, all the way to Nothing. This is most simplistic and hardly conclusive, but gives you an idea. It also works through time, as in eternity, eventually star dust gets moved around enough that one thing is made up of bits and pieces of (formerly) tons of other different things. But it's much more than this, because space and time are not separate, but one thing that is space-time. To wit, how can a chair exist without the empty space around it to delineate its contour and form? Woah, now wait a minute. So a chair cannot exist in-and-of itself, the whole universe cannot be a chair, for then no one would be outside of the universe, to sit in the chair. This means that everything is contingent on emptiness for existence. Go deeper, and even emptiness is little particles, dark matter, etc.
Interesting, so what this really means is that space and time are interconnected and mutually contingent. All space, all matter, is one thing, that constantly *changes* pattern. It cannot change without emptiness within which to work, creating the illusion of time as a function of *measurement* of the process of change. So the Now, as the spiritual term goes to describe the present moment, is different than it is *Now*, which is different than it is *Now*, etc. etc., it is ever-changing, and can never be grasped as if it were a static model suspended in animation, as opposed to a living pattern of evolution. Yet simultaneously, the Eternal Now, from the beginning of eternity itself, is the very same one Now, and forever. Clearly this matter is very complex.
You think about your process of self-realization and recapitulating your past so that you are not binded by it but rather regard it properly and in a way so that it no longer defines you. Interesting. This is exactly how it is for anything else, like a plant, in that it is not defined by its past. But then how does the plant know *how* to grow, if it is not sentient? How does the chair know how to age? Because the Eternal Now is not anything intellectual, as if a concept that represents a living truth, but rather it *is* the living truth of the eternal and ever-changing present moment, experiential in nature. There is no plant, just Nothing (think Tao) that is changing. There is no chair, just Nothing that is changing. There is no you or I, just Nothing that is changing. You cannot laugh without something funny, you cannot cry without something sad, you cannot live but for the inevitability of death in other words a symptom of the reality that you are impermanent and individually and sovereignly sentient as opposed to permanent in the sense of impersonality and inertness.
I have done a pretty lousy job at expressing what I mean to express. It is very difficult to do in isolated context. I apologize. Maybe ask me if a thing exists and I'll explain how it does not. I have not spoken about these sorts of things in much time, focusing rather on very different aspects of spirituality. It seems I am rusty! Having seen how dismally does most spiritual writing express Truth on this point, I have also become cautious always to give the downsides along with the (always redeeming) upsides, perhaps overly cautious, but I'm sick of portraying spirituality as something "empty". Honestly it is the key to personal immortality. If I try to say this in a more precise and direction fashion, then it will seem very negative, as if any negative connotation is associated with "Nothing".. it will only finally seem positive once I continue writing at length and finally come to the end where the reader becomes enlightened. LOL That's why eastern spiritual rhymes and riddles were as they were. If you say it bluntly, it will sound unfortunate and deterministic. It is truly wondrous.
EDIT:
Examples:
The only thing that exists is not a thing.
This is tautologically false.
Not a thing is the ultimate essence and keystone of Creation. It consists in essence of universal principles of creation...
Notice that the word "It" is absurd given the preceding sentence.
The symbol and the symbolized is never the same. Indeed by this symbolic process does everything come back to Nothing. The moment you say that one thing exists in isolation from any greater context, then you confuse symbol with symbolized. The only constant is change. The constant is Nothing, and the change is everything, but the change is simultaneously a part of Nothing and apart from Nothing. It is difficult for us to grasp this because ours is a single-pointed focus that is temporally bound, as opposed to a focus that captures all eternity at once (leaving room for free will of course, hey it ain't easy to be a god!).
Actually it's also funny how you put it extremestan, because Nothing generally fits like magic into sentences in spiritual context. Like put it in the adage "nothing infinite exists apart from the finite" and the sentence also works as "Nothing infinite exists apart from the finite". Whenever you speak of "no-thing" in the Buddhist sense, usually you can substitute in Nothing and the sentences gains a different but still true meaning.
When you start speaking at this level though, you blur (if not eliminate) the distinctions between objects. What makes something chunked as a "thing" is that it can be mentally isolated from the surrounding context. When you approach "all-thing" that chunking process begins to break down, as there's no other things to contrast with the all-thing. Once that's gone you don't have a thing anymore, not even one of them. This is why some have insisted (correctly from within this system IMO) that God is a unity "simpler than one".
That's more or less the level that alot of the mystical sources are working on. Object distinctions and persistence are, "quickly put", the mind abstracting percieved constants from a constantly shifting perceptual field. If this abstraction process is temporarily disrupted or halted while conscious, you suddenly have a very different perspective from which to view reality, and it leads to the kind of thoughts in the above post.
More than the sum of its parts. I definitely take a view that does not minimize the importance of Maya. I do not think it is possible to say that Nothing is in any way better or worse than the salt shaker. So I would never say that God is "more" than "simply the largest possible collection of distinct objects (things)". To me this could be called sacrilegious if you are coming from a theistic perspective. Certainly I do not think highly of the commonly held views on such subjects. Suffice it to say that Blake was on to something saying that he sees the universe in a grain of sand, and if you get technical, you may just logically have to take him *literally* on that (as science is beginning to discover).
The word "Nothing" as the Divine lends itself in important ways to the personal experience of a spiritual reality.. how the process is largely at first deconstructive, and finally when one crosses the abyss, they remain in no-thing and use it as their blank slate, upon which a master can be created. My words here are not precise. But I am sort of trying to shock you. Even the word "Nothing" is tricky, because one may easily think that negative connotation is associated therewith. The point is that religion has been used as a weapon against humanity for ages, and the result today is a prison planet, that 'might' just avoid complete desolation.
Anyway, dealing with simple monism like I said, there is no distinction between everything (or rather all-thing) and nothing. In religious terms, there isn't a distinction between a principle of Nothingness, and an understanding of God as Creation (or all-thing) On this level extremestan's objection should not apply. I'm not sure he necessarily agrees with that so I mostly stop at that point. If so, then we can get into the mess that follows.
Getting into how this all/no-thing is related (or rather is) things is the trick. The Zen you mentioned often falls into a dualist language when explaining the concepts abstractly, using the terms "mu" (non-being) and "u" (being) to respectively refer to non-discriminatory and discriminatory states, though maintaining they are ultimately not different nor same. The religions "of the book" typically end up constrasting God and creation in a similar fashion, and flirt with blurring the line between the two as much as possible without running too afoul of orthodoxy, depending on the circumstances.
It is maintained that the truth is in the middle or both, but only a small handful of masters like say Dogen or Nishida approach explicating that in a conceptual fashion. Psychologically I would describe the process as not the complete obliteration of object distinction/ossification, but rather a loosening of its normally tight hold, so that objects can be seen more fluidly and more rapid shifts of perspective become possible, as well as levels of change within and between distinguishable objects which are not noticed by the typically stronger calcifying power of normal thought. This also opens up a greater sensitivity to the context and conditions objects we'd like to distinguish find themselves in, which is I believe one thing you are referring to.
At this level of perception though, you can't really speak of "nothing" or "everything" anyway, because this is immersion in unfolding sense perception. As long as perception of distinction holds, you can't strictly speak of "nothing/everything" terms. These are only appropriate descriptions of sensation when moving from "intense consciousness of one simple object" (like when the salt shaker "becomes the entire universe") to approaching "consciousness without an object" (realms of formlessness in Therevada Buddhism.) Mystical theories will try and tie this variety of experiences into one coherent metaphysics of paradoxical Trinities and "emptiness of emptiness", but sense perception places itself somewhere more or less on a scale of distinct and non-distinct sensation at different points in time. This can happen so quickly and fluidly though as to generally not be worth trying to objectify and understand while immersed in the process, but I think it is worth pointing out as a potential gap between mystical language and experience.