i'm just trying to catch up on ng posts. so much good stuff!
so much bad stuff, too.
it is the way of things.
better than no things.
what do you mean?
confucious say, many good things and many bad things better than no things.
um. nothing is a thing too. sorry.
nothing is a lack of things...kinda like darkness is a lack of light.
a lack of things is a thing.
no, it's a lack of things.
any time you have differentiation from the undifferentiated whole you've got a thing.
the concept of nothing is a thing, but nothing itself is nothing.
hell, even the undifferentiated whole is thing!
is not.
prove it.
i just did.
i just went to get more coffee. you didn't prove diddly.
i did so. while you were gone, i didn't type anything. i didn't type a thing. i typed nothing.
did *nothing* happen then?
nothing happened on this screen.
if something happens it is a happening. a happening is a thing.
yes, but nothing happened. not a thing. nothing. so nothing is not a thing.
no.
yes. the CONCEPT of nothing is a thing. nothing itself is nothing.
there is no time that nothing is nothing.
nothing has always been and always will be nothing. nothing = no things.
no matter if nothing was typed on the screen something happened. nothing.
nothing is not something. "no" is not "some".
anything manifest is a thing.
nothing does not manifest.
any time you make distinctions you have posited thing-ness.
no. when you make distinctions you make concepts.
lack of manifestation has no name.
lack of manifestation = nothing
lack of manifestation has no name.
lack of manifestation = nothing. no things can manifest in a void.
you're naming it by calling it nothing. by giving it a name it must manifest certain properties.
i'm naming the concept. the idea.
the nameless is beyond our comprehension or conceptualizing. the moment you begin to conceptualize you give it form.
right, so we call it "nothing".
you might call it that. i can accept this. i don't.
not true.
what is truth? what is non-truth?
there is no non-truth.
the relativity of things says that truth is relative, yes.
the relativity of things is overrated.
you are carrying this too far
i don't think so.
you can only reason to a certain point and then you land in the realm of frustration and/or absurdity.
i'm not frustrated yet.
the nameless is somewhere beyond reason. it is what you sense with your heart-mind. it cannot be put into words or concepts.
it's a lot simpler than you think. i put my heart-mind into words all the time. or pictures. or notes.
it isn't in your words, it is in the spaces in between the words.
yeah, that. but it's there.
yes, it is. i didn't say it didn't exist. it is everywhere.
if it couldn't be conceptualized then we wouldn't be talking about it now.
we can talk around it. we can guess.
we're talking about it now.
we can *wonder* which is an essential aspect of some people's characters.
we're referring to it, therefore, it's conceptualized.
we can use what we have to talk about it, yes, but we can't know if it's the way it is or not. we can only guess.
we're calling it "it", fer chrissakes. we're putting it into words...or at least a word. therefore, it's conceptualized.
but that word ISN'T nothing!
it's a symbol for the concept of nothing.
maybe to you.
to you too. you called it "it".
but i see it as everything, including nothing, and beyond.
everything is not nothing.
it's all i can do! with words, talking with you. by myself, words are not used.
everything is point A. nothing is point B. all things fall in between. so you don'tthink in words. that doesn't mean it's not conceptualized.
and i don't even conceptualize it consciously usually. it's just there, doing its mysterious thing. it is when we try to communicate with words that it happens.
but you're conceptualizing it now. you're putting it into words. so (for the third time) it CAN be put into words and conceptualized.
yes, because we're discussing it. it is a paradox. but one that is unavoidable.
all paradoxes are unavoidable. that's what makes them paradoxes.
if we wish to speak with each other on the subject. we can guess that the moon is made of green cheese too, but does that make it so?
the moon is made of whatever you want it to be made of until you set foot on it.
SOMETHING is perceived. what it is is a mystery.
it's not that mysterious. nothing = no thing = lack of things. the end. even babies get it.
babies don't conceptualize it.
no, conceptualization is a higher art reserved for pretentious intellectual adults. when a baby sees something, it exists. when it leaves their field of view/smell/touch/hearing, it ceases to exist.
i find conceptualization an endearing and vital human attribute. pretention is optional and not requisite for conceptualization.
i was being silly.
i know.
no you didn't.
i knew it otherwise i wouldn't have made comment on its silliness.
you didn't comment on its silliness. you commented on its fallacy.
just because i gave a non-silly answer doesn't mean i didn't see what you said as silly.
sure it does.
are you saying that my response would have had to reflect your silliness in order to show that i thought it was silly?
no, I'm saying that the great wall of china is made out of moon rock.
silly.
no. conceptual.

--

"In the beginning there was absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing. But nothing implies something, just as up implies down and sweet implies sour, as man implies woman and drunk implies sober and happy implies sad. I hate to tell you this, friends and neighbors, but we are teensy-weensy implications in an enormous implication. If you don't like it here, why don't you go back to where you came from?" - Kilgore Trout