|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 25, 2020 15:44:36 GMT
Form is constant and it in itself is intrinsically empty given upon closer inspection nothing is there except a series of further forms. A form is a median to further forms where one form inverts to many. This points to all forms as intrinsically empty thus nothing. This leads to the question of "what is nothing?" Nothing is not a thing in itself but a relationship between parts. For example an empty cup points to the relationship between a liquid and a cup. The emptiness is an absence of a specific relation, ie that which lacks something. In this case the liquid in the cup. Void is not a thing on itself thus is self negating. Only being exists.
The void voids itself and is expressed only as being. This being in turn is voided into multiple beings resulting in the relationship between parts thus necessitating being as have a dynamic state where it moves itself through itself through void. For example the liquid can only be poured into the cup if the cup is empty, the emptiness allows for the relationship between water and cup, and their subsequent movements to occur.
Simultaneously this void acts as the intrinsic curvature which allows for the cup and water to have distinct properties. Looking at water in a cup, one can see the distinct curvature of both the cup and the water as intrinsically empty yet it is the boundary line which allows for this aforementioned distinction. Another example of this is the line between the half full cup and the air, the line maintains the definite properties between the air and water yet is intrinsically empty.
Void, as the relationship between parts, is both the emptiness of a specific phenomena and is the curvature which allows for definition. How this applies through a theory where all is a simulation, or an illusion, is that being in its totality is directed through itself as itself through the void. The imaginary, or rather illusive nature of reality, reflects void acting much like a barrier. This barrier is the multiplicity of phenomena which in turn acts as a means of approximation in a manner where the "whole" or the "all" is only observed in parts. This absence of a perceivable, yet existing, whole is the masking of the "One" through the "Many".
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 15, 2020 17:30:51 GMT
It's strange, because an existence of Nothing:
- requires of something else; - doesn't exist before existence of smth else; - it's a technical.
I'll be defending the last one, but explain all of them.
If there not only one being, and seemingly it is, then Nothing exists at the same time as the other parts or beings. It doesn't really matter that I use "exist" for Nothing, but if there would be only one being it would be everything and Nothing (Nothing would be included into it as something unexplainable)).
If Nothing is a "gap" between deities (beings) - I agree on it, - then before gaps appear there is no Nothing. Yeah, Nothing is able to bot be, but yet there mustbe different Nothing that doesn't seem to be correct.
Nothing is technical, because all submissive essences are nothing. Everything that exists must exist actively. Dead activity = not existence. This thought cones from the same view as existence of just one thing: if there was only obe thing that would be dead end. Just One thing (being ( cannot bring anything new - results in no activity - results in no existence.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 16, 2020 2:40:17 GMT
It's strange, because an existence of Nothing: - requires of something else; - doesn't exist before existence of smth else; - it's a technical. I'll be defending the last one, but explain all of them. If there not only one being, and seemingly it is, then Nothing exists at the same time as the other parts or beings. It doesn't really matter that I use "exist" for Nothing, but if there would be only one being it would be everything and Nothing (Nothing would be included into it as something unexplainable)). If Nothing is a "gap" between deities (beings) - I agree on it, - then before gaps appear there is no Nothing. Yeah, Nothing is able to bot be, but yet there mustbe different Nothing that doesn't seem to be correct. Nothing is technical, because all submissive essences are nothing. Everything that exists must exist actively. Dead activity = not existence. This thought cones from the same view as existence of just one thing: if there was only obe thing that would be dead end. Just One thing (being ( cannot bring anything new - results in no activity - results in no existence. "This leads to the question of "what is nothing?" Nothing is not a thing in itself but a relationship between parts. For example an empty cup points to the relationship between a liquid and a cup. The emptiness is an absence of a specific relation, ie that which lacks something. In this case the liquid in the cup. Void is not a thing on itself thus is self negating. Only being exists."
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 17, 2020 21:29:10 GMT
It's strange, because an existence of Nothing: - requires of something else; - doesn't exist before existence of smth else; - it's a technical. I'll be defending the last one, but explain all of them. If there not only one being, and seemingly it is, then Nothing exists at the same time as the other parts or beings. It doesn't really matter that I use "exist" for Nothing, but if there would be only one being it would be everything and Nothing (Nothing would be included into it as something unexplainable)). If Nothing is a "gap" between deities (beings) - I agree on it, - then before gaps appear there is no Nothing. Yeah, Nothing is able to bot be, but yet there mustbe different Nothing that doesn't seem to be correct. Nothing is technical, because all submissive essences are nothing. Everything that exists must exist actively. Dead activity = not existence. This thought cones from the same view as existence of just one thing: if there was only obe thing that would be dead end. Just One thing (being ( cannot bring anything new - results in no activity - results in no existence. "This leads to the question of "what is nothing?" Nothing is not a thing in itself but a relationship between parts. For example an empty cup points to the relationship between a liquid and a cup. The emptiness is an absence of a specific relation, ie that which lacks something. In this case the liquid in the cup. Void is not a thing on itself thus is self negating. Only being exists." No. Saying that "lack of liquid in a cup is nothing" is the same as to say nothing. "Nothing" is a cup is kinda substitute of the liquid in this cup. There has to be liquid, yet there's no this liquid. If you check your desk to find a pencil, or a book, and when you haven't find it will you say: "There is nothing"? You might. But if you don't know what must or should be on your table, you can't say "There is nothing". It's just impossible. You only can say "There's nothing" if there must be something, and instead of this "something" there is something else. Hence, each time you wanted to find something, but you didn't, you were able to say "there were nothing". And finding "nothing" means you've found not what you've been looking for. - Because, as soon as you're about to say "There is nothing", instead of doing it and you will continue to investigate, and you either can find something else, or find nothing again. If you failed (finding nothing), you also can continue to do this, and this is an eternal process. So, you will have never reached "nothing". This must lead us to say that even if "nothing" exists, it is only in our heads. But how to distinct "nothing" and "something" if both of them are concepts?!
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 17, 2020 22:37:31 GMT
No. Saying that "lack of liquid in a cup is nothing" is the same as to say nothing. "Nothing" is a cup is kinda substitute of the liquid in this cup. There has to be liquid, yet there's no this liquid. If you check your desk to find a pencil, or a book, and when you haven't find it will you say: "There is nothing"? You might. But if you don't know what must or should be on your table, you can't say "There is nothing". It's just impossible. You only can say "There's nothing" if there must be something, and instead of this "something" there is something else. Hence, each time you wanted to find something, but you didn't, you were able to say "there were nothing". And finding "nothing" means you've found not what you've been looking for. - Because, as soon as you're about to say "There is nothing", instead of doing it and you will continue to investigate, and you either can find something else, or find nothing again. If you failed (finding nothing), you also can continue to do this, and this is an eternal process. So, you will have never reached "nothing". This must lead us to say that even if "nothing" exists, it is only in our heads. But how to distinct "nothing" and "something" if both of them are concepts?! To say "nothing is in the cup" is to say it is absent of a specific relation, in this case a liquid or candy or something else. Nothingness is a state of relations between parts. Nothingress is the absence of "a thing in itself" thus necessitating all phenomenon are intrinsically empty in themselves except through another phenomenon. One phenomenon does not exist except through another thus is void on it's own terms as a distinct phenomenon. Any distinction is to point out a singular phenomenon composed as the apex of a series of phenomenon. To look at a deer is to see a series of parts which compose the deer. The deer is a relationship of multiple parts with this relationship being one of change. This change is the inversion of one part of the deer into another. For example in looking at a leg the leg changes into hair or a torso. The distinction is the point of change where any singularly observed phenomenon is to observe a point of change where many phenomenon converge into one, or one phenomenon diverges into many. To say something is distinct is to mark it as a point of change. For example if a deer exists distinctly in a field it is an observation of a point of change in the observation of the field to something else entirely. The distinct object exists in contrast to another phenomenon with this contrast necessitating a change from one phenomenon into another. It is this change through contrast which necessitates all phenomenon as fundamentally nothing in themselves where what is distinct being equivalent to a point of change in which one phenomenon is observed through another but not as a thing in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 18, 2020 15:47:34 GMT
No. Saying that "lack of liquid in a cup is nothing" is the same as to say nothing. "Nothing" is a cup is kinda substitute of the liquid in this cup. There has to be liquid, yet there's no this liquid. If you check your desk to find a pencil, or a book, and when you haven't find it will you say: "There is nothing"? You might. But if you don't know what must or should be on your table, you can't say "There is nothing". It's just impossible. You only can say "There's nothing" if there must be something, and instead of this "something" there is something else. Hence, each time you wanted to find something, but you didn't, you were able to say "there were nothing". And finding "nothing" means you've found not what you've been looking for. - Because, as soon as you're about to say "There is nothing", instead of doing it and you will continue to investigate, and you either can find something else, or find nothing again. If you failed (finding nothing), you also can continue to do this, and this is an eternal process. So, you will have never reached "nothing". This must lead us to say that even if "nothing" exists, it is only in our heads. But how to distinct "nothing" and "something" if both of them are concepts?! To say "nothing is in the cup" is to say it is absent of a specific relation, in this case a liquid or candy or something else. Nothingness is a state of relations between parts. As you wish. But it's quite freely determination. I can't say it doesn't look like to be it. It's pretty close to our intuitive imagines, but at the same time why to complex it, including "parts", "relations"?
Nothingress is the absence of "a thing in itself" thus necessitating all phenomenon are intrinsically empty in themselves except through another phenomenon. One phenomenon does not exist except through another thus is void on it's own terms as a distinct phenomenon. Where did you get it that Nothing was a distinct phenomenon? Well, it might be, but it's not even more obvious that "it has parts", "it's between things"...Any distinction is to point out a singular phenomenon composed as the apex of a series of phenomenon. To look at a deer is to see a series of parts which compose the deer. The deer is a relationship of multiple parts with this relationship being one of change. This change is the inversion of one part of the deer into another. For example in looking at a leg the leg changes into hair or a torso. The distinction is the point of change where any singularly observed phenomenon is to observe a point of change where many phenomenon converge into one, or one phenomenon diverges into many. But parts could be taken freely. If one sees a deer, another person may see a beer. Okay, let's imagine, if there's a person (or more) which sees only plain things. So, does Nothing exist for this person? - No, perhaps. And what about a person who sees always much more parts? And what if there's a person who's able to see billions of particles? That person is most likely to guess that is nothing, but Nothing. So, the more parts you see, the more Nothing it appears (looks like).To say something is distinct is to mark it as a point of change. For example if a deer exists distinctly in a field it is an observation of a point of change in the observation of the field to something else entirely. The distinct object exists in contrast to another phenomenon with this contrast necessitating a change from one phenomenon into another. It is this change through contrast which necessitates all phenomenon as fundamentally nothing in themselves where what is distinct being equivalent to a point of change in which one phenomenon is observed through another but not as a thing in itself. Oh, it's enough difficult to get, so I'd better not try to understand this. "The thing in itself" doesn't exist except for the dreams of some artists. And even this is not 100% true. They could lie.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 18, 2020 16:02:34 GMT
To say "nothing is in the cup" is to say it is absent of a specific relation, in this case a liquid or candy or something else. Nothingness is a state of relations between parts. As you wish. But it's quite freely determination. I can't say it doesn't look like to be it. It's pretty close to our intuitive imagines, but at the same time why to complex it, including "parts", "relations"? Nothing cannot be percieved on it's own terms as it is not a thing in itself but an observation of relative parts. Nothingress is the absence of "a thing in itself" thus necessitating all phenomenon are intrinsically empty in themselves except through another phenomenon. One phenomenon does not exist except through another thus is void on it's own terms as a distinct phenomenon. Where did you get it that Nothing was a distinct phenomenon? Well, it might be, but it's not even more obvious that "it has parts", "it's between things"...
It is void as a distinct phenomenon, as in it is not a phenomenon.Any distinction is to point out a singular phenomenon composed as the apex of a series of phenomenon. To look at a deer is to see a series of parts which compose the deer. The deer is a relationship of multiple parts with this relationship being one of change. This change is the inversion of one part of the deer into another. For example in looking at a leg the leg changes into hair or a torso. The distinction is the point of change where any singularly observed phenomenon is to observe a point of change where many phenomenon converge into one, or one phenomenon diverges into many. But parts could be taken freely. If one sees a deer, another person may see a beer. Okay, let's imagine, if there's a person (or more) which sees only plain things. So, does Nothing exist for this person? - No, perhaps. And what about a person who sees always much more parts? And what if there's a person who's able to see billions of particles? That person is most likely to guess that is nothing, but Nothing. So, the more parts you see, the more Nothing it appears (looks like).
All phenomena are observed in relation to a contrasting phenomenon thus do not exist on there own terms. This absence of existing on it's own terms necessitates the phenomena as empty when view individually.To say something is distinct is to mark it as a point of change. For example if a deer exists distinctly in a field it is an observation of a point of change in the observation of the field to something else entirely. The distinct object exists in contrast to another phenomenon with this contrast necessitating a change from one phenomenon into another. It is this change through contrast which necessitates all phenomenon as fundamentally nothing in themselves where what is distinct being equivalent to a point of change in which one phenomenon is observed through another but not as a thing in itself. Oh, it's enough difficult to get, so I'd better not try to understand this. "The thing in itself" doesn't exist except for the dreams of some artists. And even this is not 100% true. They could lie. The nature of distinction is an observation of contrasting phenomenon. To say something is distinct is to say it stands out from a phenomenon. As standing out the phenomenon exists in contrasting to another phenomenon thus exists only in relation through the phenomenon leaving the distinct phenomenon as a point of inversion where one phenomenon exists through another. This nature of the distinct phenomenon is that of a point of change from one phenomenon to another thus leaving the distinct phenomenon as empty in itself.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 18, 2020 17:52:20 GMT
I'm not saying it can. Staying at bus-stop and waiting for a bus. And then there was no bus at the time. You wait for some long, but there was no busses either. What could I say? - There was no bus. And it was the same to say "there were nothing". "There were nothing" doesn't mean - I declare that that place or space, or whatever has nothing, I exchange a lack of such a situation as manifesting Nothing. Because it is impossible to manifest about Nothing. Nobody know what is it, and how must it looks like. Every "nothing" I'm using is a substitions, a replacement, a fiction. So, surely, in the sentence "there were nothing" - 'nothing' can be replaced with "no bus". And exactly such replacements are allowed. There are no other allowed replacements we can get. In other words - try to deduce Nothing in some logical way. It is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 19, 2020 16:10:19 GMT
I'm not saying it can. Staying at bus-stop and waiting for a bus. And then there was no bus at the time. You wait for some long, but there was no busses either. What could I say? - There was no bus. And it was the same to say "there were nothing". "There were nothing" doesn't mean - I declare that that place or space, or whatever has nothing, I exchange a lack of such a situation as manifesting Nothing. Because it is impossible to manifest about Nothing. Nobody know what is it, and how must it looks like. Every "nothing" I'm using is a substitions, a replacement, a fiction. So, surely, in the sentence "there were nothing" - 'nothing' can be replaced with "no bus". And exactly such replacements are allowed. There are no other allowed replacements we can get. In other words - try to deduce Nothing in some logical way. It is impossible. Nothing can be deduced given no object is in itsled existing given it requires another phenomenon to determine it. For example a singular bird does not exist. It exists in relationship to another phenomenon such as a tree but it does not exist on it's own terms. It in itself is nothing. This emptiness of each phenomenon in turn necessitates each phenomenon as void in itself thus a point in which one phenomenon changes into another. In observing a bird we observe it change into a tree branch with the tree branch changing into a tree etc. Each phenomenon as distinct is a point of change from one phenomenon into another. Each phenomenon in itself is empty thus a point zero in observation. And much like point zero it acts the same way as zero. A zero on its own terms is impossible to observe given it does not exist. It is observed through its self negation into a line with this line being the progress from one zero to another with each zero with each zero being a point of change from one line into another. In these respects each point zero is a point of change from one phenomenon into another. The progression of one point to another or one phenomenon to another is an observation of one change progressing to another. Each phenomenon is a progressive point of change into another phenonemon thus leaving each phenomenon as reducible to nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 19, 2020 19:37:29 GMT
I'm not saying it can. Staying at bus-stop and waiting for a bus. And then there was no bus at the time. You wait for some long, but there was no busses either. What could I say? - There was no bus. And it was the same to say "there were nothing". "There were nothing" doesn't mean - I declare that that place or space, or whatever has nothing, I exchange a lack of such a situation as manifesting Nothing. Because it is impossible to manifest about Nothing. Nobody know what is it, and how must it looks like. Every "nothing" I'm using is a substitions, a replacement, a fiction. So, surely, in the sentence "there were nothing" - 'nothing' can be replaced with "no bus". And exactly such replacements are allowed. There are no other allowed replacements we can get. In other words - try to deduce Nothing in some logical way. It is impossible. Nothing can be deduced given no object is in itsled existing given it requires another phenomenon to determine it. For example a singular bird does not exist. It exists in relationship to another phenomenon such as a tree but it does not exist on it's own terms. It in itself is nothing. This emptiness of each phenomenon in turn necessitates each phenomenon as void in itself thus a point in which one phenomenon changes into another. In observing a bird we observe it change into a tree branch with the tree branch changing into a tree etc. Each phenomenon as distinct is a point of change from one phenomenon into another. Each phenomenon in itself is empty thus a point zero in observation. And much like point zero it acts the same way as zero. A zero on its own terms is impossible to observe given it does not exist. It is observed through its self negation into a line with this line being the progress from one zero to another with each zero with each zero being a point of change from one line into another. In these respects each point zero is a point of change from one phenomenon into another. The progression of one point to another or one phenomenon to another is an observation of one change progressing to another. Each phenomenon is a progressive point of change into another phenonemon thus leaving each phenomenon as reducible to nothing. Actually... we've been talking about the same thing: I was talking about that Nothing could be viewed as subsistence, but I didn't deny it somehow could be taken as relationship to another phenomena (I took it implicitly). Why I tended to subsistence, not for relations? Because Nothing introduces after two beings, not already with them. And your point on that that they are being taken together, and Nothing introduces as soon as the relation is given. For me the draw line, or a border (limits) are the sign of appearence something else. We don't know what that something is, but we do know that is there. To claim Nothing, we need lacking something (not necessary that something what we're suspecting to be there) between those phenomenon. More correctly, from my point of view, to say that there's emptiness or there is something which name (or abilities, properties, characteristics...) we don't know yet. Nothing is absolete sense is beyond any way to reach, to obtain it. We cannot meet this Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 20, 2020 2:43:28 GMT
Nothing can be deduced given no object is in itsled existing given it requires another phenomenon to determine it. For example a singular bird does not exist. It exists in relationship to another phenomenon such as a tree but it does not exist on it's own terms. It in itself is nothing. This emptiness of each phenomenon in turn necessitates each phenomenon as void in itself thus a point in which one phenomenon changes into another. In observing a bird we observe it change into a tree branch with the tree branch changing into a tree etc. Each phenomenon as distinct is a point of change from one phenomenon into another. Each phenomenon in itself is empty thus a point zero in observation. And much like point zero it acts the same way as zero. A zero on its own terms is impossible to observe given it does not exist. It is observed through its self negation into a line with this line being the progress from one zero to another with each zero with each zero being a point of change from one line into another. In these respects each point zero is a point of change from one phenomenon into another. The progression of one point to another or one phenomenon to another is an observation of one change progressing to another. Each phenomenon is a progressive point of change into another phenonemon thus leaving each phenomenon as reducible to nothing. Actually... we've been talking about the same thing: I was talking about that Nothing could be viewed as subsistence, but I didn't deny it somehow could be taken as relationship to another phenomena (I took it implicitly). Why I tended to subsistence, not for relations? Because Nothing introduces after two beings, not already with them. And your point on that that they are being taken together, and Nothing introduces as soon as the relation is given. For me the draw line, or a border (limits) are the sign of appearence something else. We don't know what that something is, but we do know that is there. To claim Nothing, we need lacking something (not necessary that something what we're suspecting to be there) between those phenomenon. More correctly, from my point of view, to say that there's emptiness or there is something which name (or abilities, properties, characteristics...) we don't know yet. Nothing is absolete sense is beyond any way to reach, to obtain it. We cannot meet this Nothing. Nothing is observed in the individual entity given everything is empty in and of itself and is observed only through the contrast with something else. A thing in itself does not exist thus is void on its own terms; a phenomenon is defined by another phenomenon. Dually nothing is an absence of some relationship with some other phenomenon where the phenomenon: 1. Ceases a relationship with some other phenomenon thus is empty of that phenomenon. 2. Because it is absent of relations with another phenomenon the phenomenon in and of itself is empty. 3. The phenomenon as absent of relationship is empty in itself and absent of said relationship thus nothing is two fold: The phenomenon in itself is empty and dually the phenomenon is empty of a relationship with another phenomenon.
|
|