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

Re: [existlist] Re: Nothing

Expand Messages
  • wsindarius
    H,

 Yes, Nothing is, at a certain point, indistinguishable from Being. The most basic concept is Being. But what does it mean? As itself and without any
    Message 1 of 77 , Mar 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      H,



      Yes, Nothing is, at a certain point, indistinguishable from Being. The most basic concept is Being. But what does it mean? As itself and without any 'declension', it is empty. It is Nothing. But Nothing, as a concept, demands that it 'is', that it can be a case of thought's knowledge, even if that is Nothing.

      Hegel writes, "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."

      Hegel is speaking vis-à-vis logic and not ontology at this point, of course, even though Logic is ultimately Ontology for him as the text proceeds (that is the whole point, actually), but thinking Nothing is fundamentally thinking ontology. You may be saying to yourself that this statement is close to Anselm's Ontological proof, and you would be correct. It is. Being/Nothing is that which, in thinking them, demonstrates them. It is what Descartes had in mind when he posited his status as "thinking (and doubting) thing" as the basis for his apodictic certainty of Being, which he then, like Krauss in some respects, likens to extension. (Or, more importantly, to the knowability of extension: he was also demonstrating extension as geometric/mathematical.)

      When we say "Being 'is'", it shows the empty derivative nature of the concept in every annunciation of it, because the concept, qua conceptual, already has to have missed what it is it is defining, because, again, 'IS' denies itself any indexical reference. You cannot point to it, and when you do, you point to some thing or to some situation, etc., that is already there, as it were, by virtue of the IS itself.

      The apparently redundant phraseology of "Being 'is'" expresses the failure of language (the sign is always an imposter) to speak without intercession, without representations; and the failure of the concept to capture its idea, thereby making the IDEA (a la Hegel, etc.) something, as it were, transcendent to itself.

      Again, because when I say 'is', one can only associate it with a thing or an experience, but 'is' is that which preceded both as its precondition. This is true metaphysics, one that cannot be otherwise than metaphysical in the singular sense of a subtending mystery.

      And this Krauss misses entirely and rejects as theology.

      Wil


      PS: It has been a while since I have been here. You (H) seem to be a different moderator. I would love to knoe more about you.



      -----Original Message-----
      From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Mon, Mar 18, 2013 8:51 pm
      Subject: [existlist] Re: Nothing





      If I quiet my mind, I get a taste of nothingness and I recognize that nothingness as being the backdrop of everything else. That's all I know of nothingness.

      h.









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • wsindarius
      http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream ... From: hermit crab
      Message 77 of 77 , May 18 9:26 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8751648669/in/photostream

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8752770770/in/photostream







        -----Original Message-----
        From: hermit crab <hermitcrab65@...>
        To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 7:23 pm
        Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)






        Very interesting, Wil. I kept wondering how it went. Good thing he didn't
        start spouting off about philosophers, eh? :-D Thank you for the update.
        The first link worked but the second one did not.

        h.

        On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:05 PM, <eupraxis@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > Hello H,
        >
        > Yes, sorry for my silence. The Krauss talk was nearly identical to others
        > of recent vintage that you can see on YouTube, but he did lay off
        > philosophy a bit and concentrate his sarcasm on Republicans, the South (I
        > am in New Orleans) and string theorists. I got some nice photos of him and
        > said hello (I was part of an invited group, NOSHA). He was pleasant, in
        > that almost-smug way.
        >
        > http://www.flickr.com/photos/wil_sinda/8669528519/in/photostream
        >
        >
        > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152796725025424&set=a.10152392005530424.946669.654825423&type=3&theater
        >
        > Wil
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: existlist <hermitcrab65@...>
        > To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 9:04 am
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Building a better nothing (Wil sees Krauss)
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        > > Response: As I said, I like Krauss' book and I like him, especially his
        > talks. In fact, he will be here in a few weeks to discuss this very book,
        > and I will be present. My problem with his statements has nothing to do
        > with his manner of doing science; it has to do with his unfortunate
        > dismissal of philosophy and his misunderstanding of ontology.
        >
        > ===Wil,
        > I have been waiting patiently to hear how this meetup went.
        > Please report. :)
        >
        > h.
        >
        >

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.