"Nothing" is an Illusion, like Everything Else.

From a spiritual standpoint, it is a common perspective that reality is the illusion of the senses, the source of both pleasure and pain. To avoid one, you must avoid both. Detach from the illusion; nothing matters, all makes sense. It is the essence of right and wrong as it stems from our physical existence and our interactions with it. By that rationale, if we detach ourselves from the material world, we transcend all that defines it. But the appearance of transcendence implies existence as the thing to transcend from, which is still something. If someone or something is truly detached from reality how do I know of it? The paradox of detachment is that to be detached the opposite must also be true. There must be something not to be attached to. This is obviously not "Nothingness" as nothingness is no thing at all.

Still, I can't help but observe (Observing by virtue of the fact that things happen even if I'm not responsible for them) that there must be some value to at least the idea of "nothingness", otherwise we couldn't express it, or we would have realized by now that there is no value.

To illustrate it as I understand it, I say that if "Existence" and "Nonexistence" are, then "Nothing" is the space between them. In order to experience, there must be distinction and distinction is separation. To illustrate that, I turn to the well-used glass containing equal portions of water and air. Existence is the glass half-full. Nonexistence is the glass half empty. It seems logical from here that "Nothing" could be seen as the glass itself since it is the container which allows the perception to take place. This to me is the essence of the idea of detachment. The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty because the glass is all that matters. The relationship of the air and water is incidental and open to interpretation. The inherent problem is that the glass only matters from the perspective of existence and nonexistence, i.e. to the water and air. To truly understand nothingness, neither perspective is valid and must be equally true and false. The only thing left to do then is to look at the issue from a different perspective.

Looking at the glass from a higher angle gives the appearance of more air. From a lower angle, it appears to hold more water. So straight on seems to be the only truly objective perspective, but it still leaves a choice. Looking straight on from the side is the clearest way to look at it if we want to take measurements and attempt to establish the "reality". But it is true to say that all of this is a distortion created by the interaction of light and matter. This leaves the only achievable perspectives left to be from top down or bottom up. From these perspectives there is no way to measure the volume. In fact the water appears perfectly equal in distance to the top or the bottom of the glass. The problem is, this is still the distortion created by the interaction of light and matter. In other words, nothing that any intrinsic, non-perceived, value can be placed on. But that is still something. From the perspective of nothing, not even the distortions can be apparent.

So what's the point in expressing "nothingness"? For me it is an impractical way of illustrating the idea of perceiving all perspectives without favor. Whether that is achievable or not is not the issue to me. By virtue of being describable as something, it is possible. Nothing is only describable as nothing. Which makes it absolute. Indeed, absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by TravelerintheDark
To illustrate that, I turn to the well-used glass containing equal portions of water and air. Existence is the glass half-full. Nonexistence is the glass half empty.

The glass is simultaneously half empty and half full, not only one or the other, but both.

The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty because the glass is all that matters.

What about you? What about the water and the air? Everything matters in a literal sense and in a figurative sense, physically and mentally.

The relationship of the air and water is incidental and open to interpretation. The inherent problem is that the glass only matters from the perspective of existence and nonexistence, i.e. to the water and air.

The generic ratio of water to air inside the glass. But the air exists, AND the water exists. The glass, no matter how you look at it (from the perspective of either water or air), is simultaneously half full and half empty.

To truly understand nothingness, neither perspective is valid and must be equally true and false. The only thing left to do then is to look at the issue from a different perspective.

Well, if it is equally true and false then is it not validated?

It is valid to say that the glass is both half empty and half full. If the glass was filled to 1/4 then it would be valid to say that the glass is either 1/4 full or 3/4 empty. The same would go for 1/2's.

Looking at the glass from a higher angle gives the appearance of more air. From a lower angle, it appears to hold more water. So straight on seems to be the only truly objective perspective, but it still leaves a choice. Looking straight on from the side is the clearest way to look at it if we want to take measurements and attempt to establish the "reality".

If the top is open we could also look straight down and make a mark on the inside of the cup where the water stands. If we truly want to make a valid measurement of where the water is at then we can't go on perspective alone. We must accurately measure the water hands on. Objective reality isn't just left up to perspective.

So what's the point in expressing "nothingness"?

Non locally it determines interconnection, it also determines eternity and immeasurable, it also represents the symbol 0. Loosely and locally it is used to determine the presence of a thing from its past, supposed or originating place. For instance: "there's nothing there!" We all know there is something everywhere, but nothing in this case is used to describe the absence of a particular item, idea or concept.

For me it is an impractical way of illustrating the idea of perceiving all perspectives without favor. Whether that is achievable or not is not the issue to me. By virtue of being describable as something, it is possible. Nothing is only describable as nothing. Which makes it absolute. Indeed, absolutely nothing.

Nothing, when used in differing contexts can be described as the concept of something's absence to a particular location, however if that something still exists in its aforementioned form and is simply not in its location (misplaced, tardy, etc.), then nothing is used to describe the existence of something that can not currently be seen where it is expected to be, as illustrated above.

It is true that nothing is absolute and that we live of an absolute existence. However, the dichotomy of nothing's eternity is rarely understood by most Human Creatures.

Post script: I enjoy your threads and our conversations.

[edit on 20-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

What about you? What about the water and the air? Everything matters in a literal sense and in a figurative sense, physically and mentally.

Indeed. It's the question I ask myself more than any other. Of course the literal answer is I am something living in the water wondering what it is like in the rest of the glass. Figuratively, my value in the system is the unknown.

It is true that nothing is absolute and that we live of an absolute existence.

Yes, 1 and 0 are the most basic value system and the expression of existence spans every other digit. That is how I look for possibilities beyond the boundaries I understand.

Post script: I enjoy your threads and our conversations.

Thank you. I'm sure my communication skills aren't what I'd like them to be.

reply to post by TravelerintheDark


Very interesting. I suppose the only thing I can really add to a topic about nothing is my own understanding of nothing in relation to existence and non-existence. This understanding would agree with the premise that nothing is an illusion but gets to that premise from another angle. As usual any language I use that speaks in absolutes is meant only for ease of writing and communication.

I call nothing the 'infinite void'. I also call it the 'Unconscious Mind of One'. Or 'The Creator in Potential'. It is what doesn't exist outside of existence. Existence could be viewed as a bubble of vibration of infinite potential expansion floating through the infinite void of non-vibration.

As I alluded to the infinite void is not actually nothing. The infinite void is infinite potential. For if it was truly nothing then nothing would exist. All that exists, can exist, and will exist is already a potential contained within the infinite void.

As that which exists expands towards infinity it turns this potential into something. It uses this potential to create. And since this potential is infinite, that which can be created is also potentially infinite.

Originally posted by OmniVersal
As I alluded to the infinite void is not actually nothing. The infinite void is infinite potential. For if it was truly nothing then nothing would exist. All that exists, can exist, and will exist is already a potential contained within the infinite void.

As that which exists expands towards infinity it turns this potential into something. It uses this potential to create. And since this potential is infinite, that which can be created is also potentially infinite.

Yes, and so it seems there is always something behind nothingness as the rabbit hole seems to fold in on itself

In an infinite system, everything is relative. Which might explain how the idea of infinity got into the mind of the finite problem-solver. Then again, maybe not. Which is what keeps me paying attention

Unfortunately there is no expansion toward infinity as this is a contradiction and an oxymoron. Infinity is a static attribute of immeasurability, there can't be expansion toward it. No matter how many finites you have you can not expand toward infinity until the finite becomes infinite, at which point there is no expansion and never was because to do so means that the finite was always infinite.

Infinity has no beginning and no end, so for a finite thing to become infinite only means that the finite thing always was infinite, there was simply no awareness of this before it was made known or morphed.

Since there is no beginning or end to the infinite, a finite thing can neither move toward it or away from it because no one knows exactly where it is at to be moving toward or away from. It is immeasurable. A finite thing can move through infinity, a finite thing can move of infinity, but a finite thing can not move infinity nor can it get any closer or further away from it.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


I don't disagree with your words, but to describe the infinite we assume a finite perspective simply by virtue of being, at least in part, finite beings ourselves. Communication itself is finite within a system of infinite possibilities. All words have a beginning and an end.

The point of it all for myself is to see that in the infinite all perspectives are valid. So I consider it the first importance to evaluate the perspective of others based on how it relates to my perspective as opposed to how it disagrees. From there I believe it becomes easier to accept the disagreements which are vital in adjusting the boundaries of our personal perception, and therefore our growth.

Our perspective is not only finite, it is also infinite.

There are many ways to prove this and explain this.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
There are many ways to prove this and explain this.

Yes, and sometimes I believe I'd like to try to see them all

But ultimately individual perspective will determine what is correct and incorrect for each of us. And so the wheel spins.

The wheel doesn't have the spin, just as it isn't an issue whether the cup is half full or half empty, it is simultaneously both.

We are all connected through the eternal one, sharing one mind of objective reality that is the same for all of us (infinity), however, we are still given our individual bodies as these creatures to experience through.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


My personal point of view is that individual perspective can not be undermined, no matter how differently we see it. I apply this to myself by standing by my observations so long as they serve my personal truth, but without using my vantage point to determine the personal truth of others. At least that is the goal I work towards in my day to day life.

Infinity applies all perspectives in defining itself. We perceive infinity yet are not in things all infinite. That is the contradiction of life and the nature of duality as I see it.

Yes, we have an individual viewpoint. No two people can see and experience the same thing from the exact same location at one point in time without the help of technology such as a video camera, etc. But even then we'd be watching the screen that it is projected onto from different perspectives.

However, things such as logic, true science and mathematics do not rely on viewpoints. They are objective universal constructs. If the mechanics of a car work for one person it will also work for another, viewpoint plays no part in the make up of an engine that works for all. It's science, it's math and it's logic. It's carnal connection and unity.

We are simultaneously individual and infinite. Individuality explains this in itself. In-Divi-DUALITY.

The reason that we can express and understand concepts such as eternity is because in at least one aspect we all really are. Energy is eternal, for one.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
If the mechanics of a car work for one person it will also work for another, viewpoint plays no part in the make up of an engine that works for all. It's science, it's math and it's logic. It's carnal connection and unity.

Yes, but how we "drive" it matters, doesn't it?

What I mean is that understanding the machine and working the machine are different things. So while knowing how a car works is useful, does it make us better drivers? Personally, I believe it should if it is to be useful.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

Yes, knowing how the car works makes us better drivers, it also allows us to understand one another's cars. In this case all of our cars are the same design (objective reality, logic, math, science), but we all drive a different path (individual creatures).

The more we understand about the design of the car, the better the upkeep and the better it is driven.

We all share the same design of engine, but we each drive a different car.

Some of us don't ever get to know that engine, thus our car fails over time unless we tend to it with maintenance.

Please understand that this is a metaphorical analogy for the objective universe and the individual creature.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Please understand that this is a metaphorical analogy for the objective universe and the individual creature.

I do, and I think it's a useful one.

I'm not sure knowing how the car works makes us better drivers, but it does make us more aware. The truth is, aside from a rudimentary understanding that pertains more to maintenance, we don't need to know how it works to make it work. A bad driver isn't a bad driver because they don't understand the internal combustion engine, and telling them how it works isn't going to help much. They are a bad driver usually because they don't give consideration to other drivers.

Somewhat true, but knowing the engine, its limits, knowing the suspension and the brakes and their limits, knowing your rate of acceleration etc. All of this makes you a more aware and effective driver thus making you by default more "considerate" of others.

Since this is only a metaphor we can't take it too much further without it not making sense towards what it is supposed to be an allegory for.

We all share the eternal one is what I'm saying and we're all individual creatures experiencing different lives from different perspectives, but the mechanisms of the universe are omnipresent. No where can the mechanisms of the universe be escaped.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Since this is only a metaphor we can't take it too much further without it not making sense towards what it is supposed to be an allegory for.

I don't see much point in going any further with it. I think it stands well enough as it is.