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

Re: Let nothing be after you watch this video

Expand Messages
  • Mary
    h. I will watch your video in order to counteract my mental fatigue but ask that you watch this two part philosophical panel discussion which include Zizek and
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      h.

      I will watch your video in order to counteract my mental fatigue but ask that you watch this two part philosophical panel discussion which include Zizek and Adrian Johnston.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw4Y3MVjv4
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxD_gEDLCPQ

      Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mary & All,
      > I had to take a Nothing break but I can't stop the Nothing exploration entirely. Don't know why. I am going to watch this video from the 22nd in which Krauss and others address Nothing.
      >
      > 2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8&feature=share&list=PLF5385893E7D3DB56
      >
      > PANELISTS:
      >
      > J. Richard Gott, professor of astrophysical sciences, Princeton University, and author of Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective
      >
      > Jim Holt, science journalist and author of Why Does the World Exist? An Existential Detective Story
      >
      > Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics, Arizona State University and author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing
      >
      > Charles Seife, professor of journalism, New York University, and author of Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
      >
      > Eve Silverstein, professor of physics, Stanford University, and co-editor of Strings, Branes and Gravity
      >
      > Come on, Mary, you know you can't just let Nothing go like that!!
      >
      > h.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
      > >
      > > In order for Nothing and Being to exist, there must be even less than nothing and/or more than being. In this imaginary realm, even the words 'exist' and 'be' lose meaning. The tendency to consider both nothing and being as theoretical isn't unreasonable, it seems to me. It is thought questioning itself, which is crazy wisdom in the best sense of the term. I've decided for the time being to let nothing be nothing. Otherwise it loses its nothingness. Perhaps to 'worship' either science or philosophy are both misdirections, and the mystical approach is closer to Nothing's resistance to determination. Nothing is nothing, and it doesn't get any better than that.
      > >
      > > Mary
      > >
      >
    • hermit crab
      Thank you Mary, I watched them last night and can only say that those people live on a different planet than I do. I didn t understand the language they speak
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 3, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thank you Mary,
        I watched them last night and can only say that those people live on a
        different planet than I do.
        I didn't understand the language they speak there. Zizek is fun to watch
        as he flits around from
        topic to topic but I never really resonate with him either. Derrida's name
        was thrown around a few
        times and since I probably have a lot of desconstructionist conditioning, I
        figured I probably
        should read more about him. I'm glad I searched him out because I found
        this quote:

        "I take great interest in questions of language and rhetoric, and I think
        they deserve enormous consideration; but there is a point where the
        authority of final jurisdiction is neither rhetorical nor linguistic, nor
        even discursive. The notion of trace or of text is introduced to mark the
        limits of the linguistic turn. This is one more reason why I prefer to
        speak of 'mark' rather than of language. In the first place the mark is not
        anthropological; it is prelinguistic; it is the possibility of language,
        and it is every where there is a relation to another thing or relation to
        an other. For such relations, the mark has no need of language."

        Aha! So I know that 'trace' means text!! I listened to that first speaker
        never knowing what he meant
        by 'trace' and that was only one of his many words that I was baffled by.
        See, I would have to do quite
        a lot of decoding to begin to understand the language (mark!) of these
        speakers. Now that I know what trace
        means maybe I should go back and try to watch again and see if I understand
        a little better.

        Jacques-Alain Miller was another person mentioned a few times who I could
        research a bit. Someone quoted
        him and now I can't remember what it was they said he said but it was the
        first time in the entire presentation
        where I actually said to myself, "Oh yes, that's so true". I think it was
        a short quote that started with the word
        "Nothing". Do you remember?

        h.


        On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Mary <josephson45r@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > h.
        >
        > I will watch your video in order to counteract my mental fatigue but ask
        > that you watch this two part philosophical panel discussion which include
        > Zizek and Adrian Johnston.
        >
        > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYw4Y3MVjv4
        > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxD_gEDLCPQ
        >
        > Mary
        >
        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Mary & All,
        > > I had to take a Nothing break but I can't stop the Nothing exploration
        > entirely. Don't know why. I am going to watch this video from the 22nd in
        > which Krauss and others address Nothing.
        > >
        > > 2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
        > >
        > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8&feature=share&list=PLF5385893E7D3DB56
        > >
        > > PANELISTS:
        > >
        > > J. Richard Gott, professor of astrophysical sciences, Princeton
        > University, and author of Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective
        > >
        > > Jim Holt, science journalist and author of Why Does the World Exist? An
        > Existential Detective Story
        > >
        > > Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics, Arizona State University and
        > author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than
        > Nothing
        > >
        > > Charles Seife, professor of journalism, New York University, and author
        > of Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
        > >
        > > Eve Silverstein, professor of physics, Stanford University, and
        > co-editor of Strings, Branes and Gravity
        > >
        > > Come on, Mary, you know you can't just let Nothing go like that!!
        > >
        > > h.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > In order for Nothing and Being to exist, there must be even less than
        > nothing and/or more than being. In this imaginary realm, even the words
        > 'exist' and 'be' lose meaning. The tendency to consider both nothing and
        > being as theoretical isn't unreasonable, it seems to me. It is thought
        > questioning itself, which is crazy wisdom in the best sense of the term.
        > I've decided for the time being to let nothing be nothing. Otherwise it
        > loses its nothingness. Perhaps to 'worship' either science or philosophy
        > are both misdirections, and the mystical approach is closer to Nothing's
        > resistance to determination. Nothing is nothing, and it doesn't get any
        > better than that.
        > > >
        > > > Mary
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mary
        h. I m halfway through this video so my opinion is still half-baked. I like Holt s perspective and approach so far, his resistance to calling something
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 3, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          h.

          I'm halfway through this video so my opinion is still half-baked. I like Holt's perspective and approach so far, his resistance to calling something nothing. Krauss annoys me when he dismisses the Why question and also tells me something about his enormous ego. He really likes the physicist rock star persona though probably no more than Zizek enjoys his and which I feel is more deserved in my opinion.

          Later,
          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@...> wrote:
          >
          > Mary & All,
          > I had to take a Nothing break but I can't stop the Nothing exploration entirely. Don't know why. I am going to watch this video from the 22nd in which Krauss and others address Nothing.
          >
          > 2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
          > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8&feature=share&list=PLF5385893E7D3DB56
          >
          > PANELISTS:
          >
          > J. Richard Gott, professor of astrophysical sciences, Princeton University, and author of Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective
          >
          > Jim Holt, science journalist and author of Why Does the World Exist? An Existential Detective Story
          >
          > Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics, Arizona State University and author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing
          >
          > Charles Seife, professor of journalism, New York University, and author of Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
          >
          > Eve Silverstein, professor of physics, Stanford University, and co-editor of Strings, Branes and Gravity
          >
          > Come on, Mary, you know you can't just let Nothing go like that!!
          >
          > h.
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
          > >
          > > In order for Nothing and Being to exist, there must be even less than nothing and/or more than being. In this imaginary realm, even the words 'exist' and 'be' lose meaning. The tendency to consider both nothing and being as theoretical isn't unreasonable, it seems to me. It is thought questioning itself, which is crazy wisdom in the best sense of the term. I've decided for the time being to let nothing be nothing. Otherwise it loses its nothingness. Perhaps to 'worship' either science or philosophy are both misdirections, and the mystical approach is closer to Nothing's resistance to determination. Nothing is nothing, and it doesn't get any better than that.
          > >
          > > Mary
          > >
          >
        • existlist
          ... I went back to find the Jacque-Alain Miller quote: Nothingness enters reality through language It s a concept created through language because
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 5, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxD_gEDLCPQ

            I went back to find the Jacque-Alain Miller quote:
            "Nothingness enters reality through language"

            It's a concept created through language because pre-linguistically there is no differentiation of no-thing and something.

            h.
          • existlist
            ... ===Mary. After doing some Zizek and Lacan reading, I came to the conclusion that it is good to read it ALL (science and philosophy), take it ALL in, then
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 6, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
              >
              > In order for Nothing and Being to exist, there must be even less than nothing and/or more than being. In this imaginary realm, even the words 'exist' and 'be' lose meaning. The tendency to consider both nothing and being as theoretical isn't unreasonable, it seems to me. It is thought questioning itself, which is crazy wisdom in the best sense of the term. I've decided for the time being to let nothing be nothing. Otherwise it loses its nothingness. Perhaps to 'worship' either science or philosophy are both misdirections, and the mystical approach is closer to Nothing's resistance to determination. Nothing is nothing, and it doesn't get any better than that.
              >
              > Mary
              >


              ===Mary.
              After doing some Zizek and Lacan reading, I came to the conclusion that it is good to read it ALL (science and philosophy), take it ALL in, then throw it out and worship the fusion that the brain naturally creates. Maybe it's sort of a 'rational mystical' approach.

              h.
            • Mary
              h. I finished the video today, and I still find Jim Holt s approach the most appealing, that is, more inclusive apropos your comment today about taking it ALL
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 6, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                h.

                I finished the video today, and I still find Jim Holt's approach the most appealing, that is, more inclusive apropos your comment today about taking it ALL in. Holt's 2012 book, "Why Does the World Exist: An Existential Detective Story," will be here soon.

                "A state of absolute nothingness, even though we can't envision it in our minds, is logically consistent, and it's a real possibility..." Jim Holt

                I also support his contention that 'why' is not a question that presupposes intent, which is what Krauss asserts. It is a philosophical question relating to necessity, whereas theoretical physicists are more concerned with the way 'how' relates to contingency.

                One point of difference I have with Holt is his dismissal of Hegel's nothing as equal to being. This is a gross misstatement. Hegel says they are also unequal if one takes the time to wrestle with Hegel's Logic of Science.

                I liked Holt's simple explanation that dreamless sleep is the closest to nothing we may 'experience'. I liken this to the only time when I'm not uncomfortable--when I'm sleeping-- but can only guess, since I'm unaware of dreamless sleep or being comfortable.

                Mary

                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
                >
                > h.
                >
                > I'm halfway through this video so my opinion is still half-baked. I like Holt's perspective and approach so far, his resistance to calling something nothing. Krauss annoys me when he dismisses the Why question and also tells me something about his enormous ego. He really likes the physicist rock star persona though probably no more than Zizek enjoys his and which I feel is more deserved in my opinion.
                >
                > Later,
                > Mary
                >
                > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "existlist" <hermitcrab65@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Mary & All,
                > > I had to take a Nothing break but I can't stop the Nothing exploration entirely. Don't know why. I am going to watch this video from the 22nd in which Krauss and others address Nothing.
                > >
                > > 2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing
                > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8&feature=share&list=PLF5385893E7D3DB56
                > >
                > > PANELISTS:
                > >
                > > J. Richard Gott, professor of astrophysical sciences, Princeton University, and author of Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective
                > >
                > > Jim Holt, science journalist and author of Why Does the World Exist? An Existential Detective Story
                > >
                > > Lawrence Krauss, professor of physics, Arizona State University and author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing
                > >
                > > Charles Seife, professor of journalism, New York University, and author of Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea
                > >
                > > Eve Silverstein, professor of physics, Stanford University, and co-editor of Strings, Branes and Gravity
                > >
                > > Come on, Mary, you know you can't just let Nothing go like that!!
                > >
                > > h.
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > In order for Nothing and Being to exist, there must be even less than nothing and/or more than being. In this imaginary realm, even the words 'exist' and 'be' lose meaning. The tendency to consider both nothing and being as theoretical isn't unreasonable, it seems to me. It is thought questioning itself, which is crazy wisdom in the best sense of the term. I've decided for the time being to let nothing be nothing. Otherwise it loses its nothingness. Perhaps to 'worship' either science or philosophy are both misdirections, and the mystical approach is closer to Nothing's resistance to determination. Nothing is nothing, and it doesn't get any better than that.
                > > >
                > > > Mary
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • Jim
                All, I ve ordered both Holt s book and Krauss s - so hopefully I ll have both sides of the story of nothing before too long. Jim
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 6, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  All,

                  I've ordered both Holt's book and Krauss's - so hopefully I'll have both sides of the story of nothing before too long.

                  Jim
                • Mary
                  Jim, And it looks that with Holt s book, we ll get more than two sides of each side :) Mary
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 6, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jim,

                    And it looks that with Holt's book, we'll get more than two sides of each side :)

                    Mary

                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > All,
                    >
                    > I've ordered both Holt's book and Krauss's - so hopefully I'll have both sides of the story of nothing before too long.
                    >
                    > Jim
                    >
                  • wsindarius
                    Jim, all, Apropos the question of Nothing, I recommend Zizek s The Indivisible Remainder, which I am rereading just now. I can also recommend Schelling s late
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 7, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jim, all,

                      Apropos the question of Nothing, I recommend Zizek's The Indivisible Remainder, which I am rereading just now. I can also recommend Schelling's late works, Of Human Freedom (Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit ...), and Ages of the World.

                      About a year and a half ago, I purchased a nice and rather fat leather journal and a nice Parker fountain pen and began an experiment that is soon to conclude: I began with a question and made this question the more or less single thread of the whole text. I began with Descartes' ontology and brought it through (among other things) Schelling's insight into Void/Desire/Individuation as ontology, Hegel's Logic, Nietzsche's Will-to-Power as Nature, and so on, and began an earnest critique of scientific reductionism as the warp of the religious woof. This has been one long meditation. Quite an experience. In any case, Schelling has haunted much of the writing.

                      My esteem for Schelling cannot be exaggerated. The Zizek text tackles Schelling in a surprisingly readable and thought provoking way.


                      Just a thought.

                      Wil





                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sat, Apr 6, 2013 5:42 pm
                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Poking at nothing





                      All,

                      I've ordered both Holt's book and Krauss's - so hopefully I'll have both sides of the story of nothing before too long.

                      Jim









                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jim
                      Wil, Thanks - that sounds quite a project. My problem is I start off on such projects but tend to get distracted and diverted after a while. However I note the
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Wil,

                        Thanks - that sounds quite a project. My problem is I start off on such projects but tend to get distracted and diverted after a while.

                        However I note the books you refer to. I have never read any Schelling but I guess reading some of his stuff will make Hegel more accessible as Hegel was responding partly to Schelling as his immediate predecessor in the post-Kantian philosophers.

                        I agree the Schelling/Hegel/Zizek account of these issues is probably a radical alternative to what Krauss and Holt offer.

                        Jim



                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                        >
                        > Jim, all,
                        >
                        > Apropos the question of Nothing, I recommend Zizek's The Indivisible Remainder, which I am rereading just now. I can also recommend Schelling's late works, Of Human Freedom (Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit ...), and Ages of the World.
                        >
                        > About a year and a half ago, I purchased a nice and rather fat leather journal and a nice Parker fountain pen and began an experiment that is soon to conclude: I began with a question and made this question the more or less single thread of the whole text. I began with Descartes' ontology and brought it through (among other things) Schelling's insight into Void/Desire/Individuation as ontology, Hegel's Logic, Nietzsche's Will-to-Power as Nature, and so on, and began an earnest critique of scientific reductionism as the warp of the religious woof. This has been one long meditation. Quite an experience. In any case, Schelling has haunted much of the writing.
                        >
                        > My esteem for Schelling cannot be exaggerated. The Zizek text tackles Schelling in a surprisingly readable and thought provoking way.
                        >
                        >
                        > Just a thought.
                        >
                        > Wil
                        >
                      • wsindarius
                        Jim, The trick is to spend far too much on both the journal and the pen. Then one s sense of responsibility takes over. Wil ... From: Jim
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim,

                          The trick is to spend far too much on both the journal and the pen. Then one's sense of responsibility takes over.

                          Wil




                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
                          To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Mon, Apr 8, 2013 7:05 am
                          Subject: [existlist] Re: Poking at nothing





                          Wil,

                          Thanks - that sounds quite a project. My problem is I start off on such projects but tend to get distracted and diverted after a while.

                          However I note the books you refer to. I have never read any Schelling but I guess reading some of his stuff will make Hegel more accessible as Hegel was responding partly to Schelling as his immediate predecessor in the post-Kantian philosophers.

                          I agree the Schelling/Hegel/Zizek account of these issues is probably a radical alternative to what Krauss and Holt offer.

                          Jim

                          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
                          >
                          > Jim, all,
                          >
                          > Apropos the question of Nothing, I recommend Zizek's The Indivisible Remainder, which I am rereading just now. I can also recommend Schelling's late works, Of Human Freedom (Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit ...), and Ages of the World.
                          >
                          > About a year and a half ago, I purchased a nice and rather fat leather journal and a nice Parker fountain pen and began an experiment that is soon to conclude: I began with a question and made this question the more or less single thread of the whole text. I began with Descartes' ontology and brought it through (among other things) Schelling's insight into Void/Desire/Individuation as ontology, Hegel's Logic, Nietzsche's Will-to-Power as Nature, and so on, and began an earnest critique of scientific reductionism as the warp of the religious woof. This has been one long meditation. Quite an experience. In any case, Schelling has haunted much of the writing.
                          >
                          > My esteem for Schelling cannot be exaggerated. The Zizek text tackles Schelling in a surprisingly readable and thought provoking way.
                          >
                          >
                          > Just a thought.
                          >
                          > Wil
                          >









                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Mary
                          The Holt book has arrived, and since it seems more relevant to existentialism proper, I ll tackle it first as well as a family matter which demands much of my
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The Holt book has arrived, and since it seems more relevant to existentialism proper, I'll tackle it first as well as a family matter which demands much of my energy. Thank you for your patience.

                            Mary

                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Wil,
                            >
                            > Thanks - that sounds quite a project. My problem is I start off on such projects but tend to get distracted and diverted after a while.
                            >
                            > However I note the books you refer to. I have never read any Schelling but I guess reading some of his stuff will make Hegel more accessible as Hegel was responding partly to Schelling as his immediate predecessor in the post-Kantian philosophers.
                            >
                            > I agree the Schelling/Hegel/Zizek account of these issues is probably a radical alternative to what Krauss and Holt offer.
                            >
                            > Jim
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Jim, all,
                            > >
                            > > Apropos the question of Nothing, I recommend Zizek's The Indivisible Remainder, which I am rereading just now. I can also recommend Schelling's late works, Of Human Freedom (Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit ...), and Ages of the World.
                            > >
                            > > About a year and a half ago, I purchased a nice and rather fat leather journal and a nice Parker fountain pen and began an experiment that is soon to conclude: I began with a question and made this question the more or less single thread of the whole text. I began with Descartes' ontology and brought it through (among other things) Schelling's insight into Void/Desire/Individuation as ontology, Hegel's Logic, Nietzsche's Will-to-Power as Nature, and so on, and began an earnest critique of scientific reductionism as the warp of the religious woof. This has been one long meditation. Quite an experience. In any case, Schelling has haunted much of the writing.
                            > >
                            > > My esteem for Schelling cannot be exaggerated. The Zizek text tackles Schelling in a surprisingly readable and thought provoking way.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Just a thought.
                            > >
                            > > Wil
                            > >
                            >
                          • Mary
                            Jim, I m halfway through Holt s book about to begin the Interlude titled Nausea. I m enjoying his brief introduction to the various theories about why there s
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 16, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim,

                              I'm halfway through Holt's book about to begin the Interlude titled Nausea. I'm enjoying his brief introduction to the various theories about why there's something rather than nothing. Of course it's difficult to accept or reject these without more in-depth attention, except for the god theory; I did give that adequate attention. I need to spend a little time thinking about the how the law of contradiction works, because contradiction, opposition, and negation are all part of his speculative reason.

                              Have you started with Holt's or Krauss' book first, or neither yet? I remember Wil said he read the Krauss book already. Anybody else?

                              Mary

                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > All,
                              >
                              > I've ordered both Holt's book and Krauss's - so hopefully I'll have both sides of the story of nothing before too long.
                              >
                              > Jim
                              >
                            • eduardathome
                              Is it really important in the grand scheme of things?? I suppose one can always ask the question and theoretical scientists are certainly busy trying to
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 16, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Is it really important in the grand scheme of things??

                                I suppose one can always ask the question and theoretical scientists are
                                certainly busy trying to formulating an answer. But isn't this something
                                like asking why there was the car accident I didn't have because I left work
                                early.

                                eduard

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Mary
                                Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:35 PM
                                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [existlist] Re: Poking at nothing (Why Does The World Exist?)

                                Jim,

                                I'm halfway through Holt's book about to begin the Interlude titled Nausea.
                                I'm enjoying his brief introduction to the various theories about why
                                there's something rather than nothing. Of course it's difficult to accept or
                                reject these without more in-depth attention, except for the god theory; I
                                did give that adequate attention. I need to spend a little time thinking
                                about the how the law of contradiction works, because contradiction,
                                opposition, and negation are all part of his speculative reason.

                                Have you started with Holt's or Krauss' book first, or neither yet? I
                                remember Wil said he read the Krauss book already. Anybody else?

                                Mary

                                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > All,
                                >
                                > I've ordered both Holt's book and Krauss's - so hopefully I'll have both
                                > sides of the story of nothing before too long.
                                >
                                > Jim
                                >




                                ------------------------------------

                                Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                                Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                              • Mary
                                You understand the grand scheme of things so that you can dismiss any questions about it? Mary
                                Message 15 of 21 , Apr 16, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  You understand the grand scheme of things so that you can dismiss any questions about it?

                                  Mary

                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:

                                  > Is it really important in the grand scheme of things??
                                • Jim
                                  Mary, Good to hear you are well into Holt s book. I have decided to read Krauss s book first as it seems more focussed on the science, so I thought I d try to
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Apr 17, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mary,

                                    Good to hear you are well into Holt's book.

                                    I have decided to read Krauss's book first as it seems more focussed on the science, so I thought I'd try to understand the new scientific theories about the start of the universe before tackling the philosophical issues which, I guess, get more attention in Holt's book.

                                    I am not very far into Krauss's book, so I'll do a few more days reading before venturing to discuss his ideas.

                                    Hopefully we can get a good discussion going in a short while.

                                    Jim
                                  • eduardathome
                                    It isn t that I understand the grand scheme of things. I am simply putting the question as to whether a focus on nothingness is of any importance. Its a
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Apr 18, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      It isn't that I understand the grand scheme of things. I am simply putting
                                      the question as to whether a focus on "nothingness" is of any importance.
                                      Its a question.

                                      In the next moment in which you decide what you will choose to do, does
                                      "nothingness" have any part in that decision. I doubt it.

                                      eduard

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Mary
                                      Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:19 PM
                                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [existlist] Re: Poking at nothing (Why Does The World Exist?)

                                      You understand the grand scheme of things so that you can dismiss any
                                      questions about it?

                                      Mary

                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:

                                      > Is it really important in the grand scheme of things??





                                      ------------------------------------

                                      Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

                                      Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.