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

Re: Nothingness enters reality through language.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.