|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 19, 2021 1:27:42 GMT
Nothing is behind everything as only being exists; any axiom which is taken without thought (nothing) has behind the axiom nothing. Take the axiom of the line, behind the line there is nothing. Only the line exists. Behind being is nothing.
The void of void, as void must be void of void if true void is to be observed (ie no observation), necessitates only being existing as void does not exist considering void is an absence of existence. Being comes from nothing as the voiding of void much in the same manner a double negative results in a positive. Behind existence is no state (void) as only being exists.
To say being is behind being is to observe multiple states of existence with a gap between existences. This gap is an absence of being thus even between multiple beings a gap occurs behind being. Because being is prior to being, multiple states occur thus necessitating behind being is also void with this void being the seperation of beings which allows for distinction.
|
|
antor
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Likes: 51
Country: Sweden
Politics: Middle Left something
Religion: Apatheist
Age: 35
|
Post by antor on May 19, 2021 8:10:16 GMT
Please note that "being" can have at least two meanings. Being as in location, and being as in "to be". Otherwise, you're definately a seeker and I admire that
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 21, 2021 19:41:14 GMT
No, being doesn't come from nothing. Being begins from beings and results in being. Being is being, and there is no nothingness behind being.
Being can be existence or a potential resource. If that being exists and it exists with no spare support for its own existence or being-ness, then that being is that being that exists as that being and results in itself as being.
There is no chance to stop the existence of the being of being, which - as I said above - continues to be with no spare resources, but uses itself (being) for itself.
Nothing (or nothingness) can appear by the will of the being of any beings (i.e. that being that doesn't need to be supported to exist by any other beings). Occasionally nothingness can appear by the interaction of elements withing the nature that can be created by the will of the being of any beings.
No "nothingness" is behind that being of any beings, because the power of that being of any being is absolute. And absoluteness is impossible to be reached by any nothingness.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2021 17:17:52 GMT
No, being doesn't come from nothing. Being begins from beings and results in being. Being is being, and there is no nothingness behind being. Being can be existence or a potential resource. If that being exists and it exists with no spare support for its own existence or being-ness, then that being is that being that exists as that being and results in itself as being. There is no chance to stop the existence of the being of being, which - as I said above - continues to be with no spare resources, but uses itself (being) for itself. Nothing (or nothingness) can appear by the will of the being of any beings (i.e. that being that doesn't need to be supported to exist by any other beings). Occasionally nothingness can appear by the interaction of elements withing the nature that can be created by the will of the being of any beings. No "nothingness" is behind that being of any beings, because the power of that being of any being is absolute. And absoluteness is impossible to be reached by any nothingness. I just said being comes from the negation of nothing. Nothing Negated Results In Being. Dually Being Coming From Another BeIng Results In Multiple Being With The Void Between Each Being Existing As The Point Of Change From One Being Into Another. Void Occurs In Multiplicity Of Being As The Absence Of One Being From Another. This Void Is The Point Of Change Thus Is Equivalent To Potentiality.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 24, 2021 17:18:41 GMT
Please note that "being" can have at least two meanings. Being as in location, and being as in "to be". Otherwise, you're definately a seeker and I admire that Being always occurs in location. Being and location are inseperable.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 24, 2021 20:31:05 GMT
No, being doesn't come from nothing. Being begins from beings and results in being. Being is being, and there is no nothingness behind being. Being can be existence or a potential resource. If that being exists and it exists with no spare support for its own existence or being-ness, then that being is that being that exists as that being and results in itself as being. There is no chance to stop the existence of the being of being, which - as I said above - continues to be with no spare resources, but uses itself (being) for itself. Nothing (or nothingness) can appear by the will of the being of any beings (i.e. that being that doesn't need to be supported to exist by any other beings). Occasionally nothingness can appear by the interaction of elements withing the nature that can be created by the will of the being of any beings. No "nothingness" is behind that being of any beings, because the power of that being of any being is absolute. And absoluteness is impossible to be reached by any nothingness. I just said being comes from the negation of nothing. Nothing Negated Results In Being. Dually Being Coming From Another BeIng Results In Multiple Being With The Void Between Each Being Existing As The Point Of Change From One Being Into Another. Void Occurs In Multiplicity Of Being As The Absence Of One Being From Another. This Void Is The Point Of Change Thus Is Equivalent To Potentiality. I wrote that because this question seems to me to be tiny closer to the question: how God creates something from nothing? and how the universe came from nothing? etc. That's why answering this question I always consider those questions too. Now I see that that being you've been talking about is what Hegel called Nothing. But - I noted it! - the translators perhaps didn't want to be detailed enough. In Russian translations there are more definitions (and I presume it came from German text) for that. Nothing might be different. I would translate Hegel's Nothing to 'Behind-Nothing' or 'Not-No-Nothing', or kinda. It's hard to find the right one. But your definition seems to be very close to it. As an example: each being results in more than one being (and you said also that "Being comes from another Being..."), while that what supports Being to be Being might be: a) identity or the central logical law b) constant process of changing (Heraclites) => then, Being equals to Non-Being c) Being is being supported by (=subsisted) Behing-Non-Being or Not-No-Being, while Behind-Non-Being is hardly to be compared to Non-Being and Being. All these three (a, b, c) occupy the main logic laws. That's why how those categories realizes through logic.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 25, 2021 0:00:07 GMT
I wrote that because this question seems to me to be tiny closer to the question: how God creates something from nothing? and how the universe came from nothing? etc. That's why answering this question I always consider those questions too. Now I see that that being you've been talking about is what Hegel called Nothing. But - I noted it! - the translators perhaps didn't want to be detailed enough. In Russian translations there are more definitions (and I presume it came from German text) for that. Nothing might be different. I would translate Hegel's Nothing to 'Behind-Nothing' or 'Not-No-Nothing', or kinda. It's hard to find the right one. But your definition seems to be very close to it. As an example: each being results in more than one being (and you said also that "Being comes from another Being..."), while that what supports Being to be Being might be: a) identity or the central logical law b) constant process of changing (Heraclites) => then, Being equals to Non-Being c) Being is being supported by (=subsisted) Behing-Non-Being or Not-No-Being, while Behind-Non-Being is hardly to be compared to Non-Being and Being. All these three (a, b, c) occupy the main logic laws. That's why how those categories realizes through logic. Creation is grounded in doubling: 1. Double negatives (ie voiding of void) as a positive. 2. Double positives (best of the best) as grades of the positive. 3. Doubling is repetition from one state to many thus newer forms of the original phenomenon (ie creation).
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 25, 2021 15:00:36 GMT
I wrote that because this question seems to me to be tiny closer to the question: how God creates something from nothing? and how the universe came from nothing? etc. That's why answering this question I always consider those questions too. Now I see that that being you've been talking about is what Hegel called Nothing. But - I noted it! - the translators perhaps didn't want to be detailed enough. In Russian translations there are more definitions (and I presume it came from German text) for that. Nothing might be different. I would translate Hegel's Nothing to 'Behind-Nothing' or 'Not-No-Nothing', or kinda. It's hard to find the right one. But your definition seems to be very close to it. As an example: each being results in more than one being (and you said also that "Being comes from another Being..."), while that what supports Being to be Being might be: a) identity or the central logical law b) constant process of changing (Heraclites) => then, Being equals to Non-Being c) Being is being supported by (=subsisted) Behing-Non-Being or Not-No-Being, while Behind-Non-Being is hardly to be compared to Non-Being and Being. All these three (a, b, c) occupy the main logic laws. That's why how those categories realizes through logic. Creation is grounded in doubling: 1. Double negatives (ie voiding of void) as a positive. 2. Double positives (best of the best) as grades of the positive. 3. Doubling is repetition from one state to many thus newer forms of the original phenomenon (ie creation). When you create something you're not doubling, but tripling: the original thing, a mind project, and a result (or a current made-up thing). You cannot avoid tripling: a) an essence interacting with an essence realizes in a problematic essence b) a problematic essence realizes into two: a quantification essence (i), and a qualification essence (ii) c) both qual's essences are being problematized via their interaction into four: (i) 2, (i)-(ii), (ii)-(i), (ii) 2d) in the result you have three: a qualitative thing (i), a quantitative thing (ii), and their processing of interaction [(i)-(ii), (ii)-(i)].
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 25, 2021 19:04:03 GMT
Creation is grounded in doubling: 1. Double negatives (ie voiding of void) as a positive. 2. Double positives (best of the best) as grades of the positive. 3. Doubling is repetition from one state to many thus newer forms of the original phenomenon (ie creation). When you create something you're not doubling, but tripling: the original thing, a mind project, and a result (or a current made-up thing). You cannot avoid tripling: a) an essence interacting with an essence realizes in a problematic essence b) a problematic essence realizes into two: a quantification essence (i), and a qualification essence (ii) c) both qual's essences are being problematized via their interaction into four: (i) 2, (i)-(ii), (ii)-(i), (ii) 2d) in the result you have three: a qualitative thing (i), a quantitative thing (ii), and their processing of interaction [(i)-(ii), (ii)-(i)]. Creation is grounded in doubling, as in the form of creation results from a dichotomy. Double negatives create a positive. Double negatives create a positive. A man and a woman, ie two people, create a child.
|
|