Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

59752Re: [existlist] Re: shaping nothing

Expand Messages
  • christopher arthur
    May 4 11:34 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      Maybe the intention is to say that the absolute distinction of Being and
      Nothing is made while one becomes the other, but otherwise they are the
      same. Also he seems to say that the process already happened, so that
      they are no longer in a state of becoming, and therefore always
      presently the same.

      Somehow this reminds me of the Timaeus of Plato where Socrates, with his
      friends, is discussing the beginning of the universe, and they stop to
      make the point to distinguish "between that which always is and never
      becomes from that which is always becoming but never is." In these
      cases what can we say about beginnings and endings, or is there no
      anxiety of nothingness here because we cannot find the ends of such things?

      One question to ask is whether we can feel what pure being is by trying
      to generalize from examples of being...like a human being or a living
      being. Since to be a living being has "diversity within itself", e.g.,
      human beings are living beings, it cannot be the same as pure being.
      But then, why don't we eventually come to the conclusion that there is
      no such thing as pure being? Maybe we're supposed to think that there
      is a little bit of pure being in everything.


      eduardathome a écrit :
      > One gets the feeling that this is just words for the sake of words.
      > “Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same”.
      > “... on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely
      > distinct”.
      > eduard
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Mary
      > Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 11:07 AM
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: shaping nothing
      > Hello Jim,
      > The Zizek quotes are from "Less Than Nothing: Hegel and the Shadow of
      > Dialectical Materialism" Verso 2012.
      > If what we experience are appearances expressing universal ideas,
      > though something, they appear out of nothing. However, illusory being
      > is the only being we have. Something and Nothing both exist as
      > necessary conditions for one another. Nothing is often capitalized to
      > indicate the concept rather than the feeling of nothingness associated
      > with existential anxiety. Previous to reading Hegel I thought absolute
      > Nothing was merely theoretical and only Being was, but my current
      > understanding of Nothing is derived from Hegel's Science of Logic
      > quoted as follows:
      > A. BEING
      > Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its
      > indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself. It is also not
      > unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor
      > any with a reference outwards. It would not be held fast in its purity
      > if it contained any determination or content which could be
      > distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an
      > other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to
      > be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only
      > this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought
      > in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking. Being, the
      > indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less
      > than nothing.(Hegel, Science of Logic §132)
      > B. NOTHING
      > Nothing, pure nothing: it is simply equality with itself, complete
      > emptiness, absence of all determination and content —
      > undifferentiatedness in itself. In so far as intuiting or thinking can
      > be mentioned here, it counts as a distinction whether something or
      > nothing is intuited or thought. To intuit or think nothing has,
      > therefore, a meaning; both are distinguished and thus nothing is
      > (exists) in our intuiting or thinking; or rather it is empty intuition
      > and thought itself, and the same empty intuition or thought as pure
      > being. Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather
      > absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure being.
      > (§133)
      > C. BECOMING
      > Pure Being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the
      > truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being — does not pass
      > over but has passed over — into nothing, and nothing into being. But
      > it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other,
      > that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely
      > distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that
      > each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore,
      > this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other:
      > becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a
      > difference which has equally immediately resolved itself. (§134)
      > Mary
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:existlist%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hi Mary,
      > >
      > > I struggle to make sense of the Zizek quotes – which of his books
      > are you quoting from?
      > >
      > > In particular the following quote does not seem satisfactory to me:
      > >
      > > ...The answer to "Why is there Something rather than Nothing" is
      > thus that there IS only Nothing, and all processes take place "from
      > Nothing through Nothing to Nothing." (p.38)
      > >
      > > Surely this is not correct. I know there is something – myself, my
      > family, my keyboard, my desk, my flat, my work colleagues. So Zizek is
      > wrong to say there is only nothing.
      > >
      > > And why does he spell nothing with a capital `N'?
      > >
      > > A perplexed Jim
      > >
      > ------------------------------------
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 67 messages in this topic