All!

Here are some interesting thoughts I found on the paradox/contradiction of Nothing viz. perceptions in the mind:

Nothing. Let us consider it as a term. Now, et us try and define Nothing. Is Nothing the lack of Something? If we try to find an example in the existing Universe, can we succeed? Nothing should be the lack of:

Matter. Obviously, if there is matter, then it is defined as something, excluding the existence of Nothing.

Energy. Another word for matter, or vice versa; same logic applies to it as well.

Emanations. Or, not-matter, not-energy. Just in case we haven't covered everything with the first two.

Space. Space? Space is not exactly matter, nor energy.. more in category of our next term

Perception. Why perception? Because if Nothing is there, then simple perception gives it definition, and Nothing is void of anything, including definitions.

The following conclusion is that Nothing simply excludes itself. If it exists, then by its very act of existence it gains definition, thus rendering it into Something (for example the definition of Nothing), which definitely is not Nothing.

---------------------------
NOTHING COMES EASY

Nothing is the opposite of everything.

Thought turns Nothing into something.

You get something from Nothing.

Thinking makes Nothing something.

Nothing only exists in relation to its opposite only if we choose to think of it in relationship to something.

Nothing cannot exist without thought.

Nothing comes easy.

As a matter of fact, there's Nothing to it.
------------

Enjoy,

Warus

Attempts to define/characterize No-thing in effect
make No-thing into a Some-thing, don't they? Isn't
it sort of like Ontological Anthropomorphism with
a twist?:) G-man This is.

Gman!

I agree. But I lost you on the ontological aspect. I think it's more epistemological, if you ask me. In order to search for the essence of a [some]thing, we should look at the nature of it, and whether it changes with time. The short answer is that things (matter) 'do' change with time and in fact appear and disappear from our sense experience. Two issues of essence rear their ugly heads:

1. The inability to observe, know, or understand the beginnings and ending of time/space.

2. Find out who actually created the word nothing/something.

I suspect the answer is that it is not possible to know these things... .

(Of course the rationalist/materialist only fools himself here...;)

On the other hand, if all that we percieve comes thru the medium of the mind, then perhaps a bit of ontology/epistemology applies. Solipsism comes to mind here... . If perceptions are reduced to electronic images in the mind (not to mention the essence of matter-electric energy), then how do I know whether I'm a spiritual creature living a material life of matter? [Ghosts that move objects.] Or another way of saying this; how do I know that my dreams are dreams, and reality is reality. When I'm in the middle of dreaming, it is real. Its meduim is electrical imagery regardless of whether I'm awake or not. And when I'm awake I don't have a 'third' objective party telling me what is absolutely real/timeless matter.

So all this implies temporality of material existence. Is that real? I guess so, but aren't there timeless truths? Yes. Mathematics. But matter and mind do not appear to be timeless truth's. What follows?

Time, Matter and Being! Quite a paradox [in the universe] wouldn't you say?

Walrus

If epistemology were in need of placing a mask (of a human face) onto a rather somewhat seeming amorphous 'ontology'...in order to be able to 'relate' to it...then could we say that in order for episteme to 'know' that which is formless it must first overlay a template of 'form'? And indeed, what if, upon removing said mask from said 'Phantom o' Opera,' one were to discover no underlying facial form hidden, but rather...a formless fog-like voidance, silent...then, either one of the other, which: would the mask (as surface), or the underlying invisible vapor...be what's Real? Finally, consider the following rhetorical statement: 'Creation never Began, and had no single Beginning...because it is still Beginning: Beginning never Ended, never Ends--Ending never Begins...' Is this a 'Creatio ex Nihilo' recipe? Or is Creatio ex Creatio the case? G-man

g!

Yes, I like it, eye's without a face!

... a witness to Being. An observer who does nothing but take pictures of the nothingness; one who has chosen to wear the mask. But I find you are correct in that in order to find answers from this theater of void and nothingness, in this enigma of a some thing, one must predicate his existence. How do we do this? Perhaps by taking off the mask... . For at least, it becomes one's reality! An ugly reality that many do not want to embrace but rather, deny!

Free yourself, I say. Know what it means to become! Take the risk! There is "Nothing to it!"

Walrus

WJ: Another way, again, to approach this dilemna,
involves finding a method to answer such esoteric
questions, as: how is it that the eye that sees--
even when it sees its own image reflected--cannot
see 'sight' itself, except through the content of
what it sees? We see 'something.' Yet we cannot
see sight itself. We can dissect an eye, know how
the complex manifold of its many subparts (down to
a cytologic level) cooperatively work together to
recieve that which such eye 'sees.' We can
approach sight spectrally, ranging from aesthetics
...to ophthalmologic mechanics. We can know so
much of the 'what,' the 'how,' etc...We can
speculate of the evolutionary/adaptational
roles/causes of human vision, versus, say that of
a bald eagle, or feline...But we can't 'see' the
experienceof sight itself, and are not always 100%
certain of the 'meanings' of what it is we see.
Hence, I cannot see the back of my head...since I
cannot be in two places at once...can't be inside
looking out, and outside looking 'at'
simultaneously. How to overcome?:) G-man This
is..

G-man,

Your thoughts here caused me to post in the TOE thread.

Claude

THAT I AM

I am, to be,
But who is me?
Who on my own,
Can it be known,
That we,
As One with Cosmic Light,
Declare "I am"!
So erudite?

For we are free,
From trespass,
If we agree,
That I am,
... Me.

--an adaptation to a poem written into the Inexpressible competition.

Cheers! Ivan

For Me to be
I must first I to am.
I...I-ing am,
and as mine I-ing
ams amingly into AM,
I no longer am I,
but rather am an am
(not to be confused
with an M&M, peanut
or otherwise:).

I am not
so that I might be:)

--Uncle Greg

CAN THIS BE THE SOUL?

I ask this question, "Can this be the Soul?", in a secular sense, from a philosophical perspective. My earlier question about our 'identity', whether we can define 'who we are' may lead to an answer of the soul. Here is my reasoning.

If each person's identity, or of any living thing for that matter, is already an end product of a whole chain of existence, then we have continuity from the earliest life to now. However, that is only at only one side of the space-time continuum, since that living thing, and us in particular, also has had a connection to all of existence from earliest times. This means that each identity is like a point of light at the end of a very long filament, both in terms of the life ancestry continuum, and in the spatial continuum of existence. At each moment of time, all of existence hugged us subatomically closely in each moment of life, from the beginning. Therefore, this existence has in it some 'memory' of our being in its chain of continuum, which in the end is embodied in ourselves, the who we are now. What happens when this identity 'dies'? This is the most interesting question, because if the light at the end of this continuum fades in old age and finally dies, or dies through sudden causes, then the memory of this identity nevertheless remains within the space-time continuum within which it existed. It could be concluded that this 'continuum memory' could either be enhanced, or damaged, through the time of our lives; ie., saints through good works enhance this light, whereas criminals diminish it; but the memory persists regardless once the being is dead. Does this 'memory' remember itself in death? This is a cosmic question then, since without having the experience, and other than those experiences reported by persons who had a near death event, we have no way of knowing with certainty. But we can know that each living thing's 'continuum memory' embodied within its space-time continuum, which dates back to the origin of life, has not been lost thus far. And if this is so, then for each point of light at the end of that continuum there is some value, some memory embodied not only in its flesh but also in its space-time existence, that does not perish, since it had already been indelibly imprinted there. Need I say more? I think we have here evidence, philosophically speaking, that there is grounds for us, and all living things, to have a 'soul'. And thus embodied in that soul are all the memories of our existence, our loves and hates, our happiness or sadness, and our good works or evil deeds. In effect, rather than becoming "no-thing", we survive our own selves.

The next question, one which had been addressed through the millennia by human beings, is what happens next? Do we get sent to a heaven or hell, or reborn into a higher caste or as a worm, or is this simply merged back into that cosmic continuum from which our identity sprang? I don't have an answer, yet, but it is something to think about.

Eternally yours, Ivan

As originally posted on the Examined Life Discussion Forums: http://66.34.45.14/cgi-bin/discus/board-newmessages.cgi?method=last&number=1&units=1440&tree=ON&where=all