reply to post by ALLis0NE
ALLis0NE
Having read the previous three posts. I gather that my intent here is not being met. You are not in need of prompting. And yet, there may be potential
for benefit to the audience. So with apologies I proceed.
the concept of "nothingness" MUST exist in some form (such as an illusion or other non-real form like an idea or theory) in order for the concept
and reality of "something" to exist.
We may as well suggest that "light cannot exist without darkness." An idea I also reject. But my rejection requires clarification. I acknowledge
that if there is only light, observers of light may be unlikely to perceive it in the manner as one for whom there is both light and dark. If you wish
to define "light" in such a way as to include the perception of one who perceives both light and dark, then I cannot refute you. But I would suggest
that the thing that is light may be capable of existence outside of that perception.
Which I suspect is the exactly the idea you're trying to communicate.
ALLis0NE
All that is...all that may be...timelessness yet the possibility of the limitation of time, as well as all other limits as they too, may be...
...and then I build a wall.
Between this possibility and that one, I build a wall that separates them. This wall is a limitation. And yet I did not truly "build" a wall,
because I have not added something new. Rather, I have manifested the existant possibility of "disconnection" in the form of a lack of awareness.
That is the nature of the wall.
And I build another wall. And another. And more until eventually we have a compartmentalized set of possibilities that corresponds roughly to...for
example...the awareness of one human being. That awareness might not be aware of, for example, the experience perceived by a blade of grass.
From the perception of that human being, the experience of the blade of grass does not exist. If he wishes to say that it is "nothing" I'm unlikely
to argue with him.
However, if you, ALLisONE, were to come along and suggest that the perception of a blade of grass, or a deukma, or anything else, must exist for it to
be possible for me to build walls between it and the perception of that human being in order for it to not exist for him...I'd be unlikely to argue
with you either.
However...within the context of this thread, the "nothing" that I think some of us were referring to was simply a lack of directed mental focus. Is
it not focus that creates these walls? When I look at a thing and choose to perceive it in a specific manner, do I not build walls between myself and
other possible ways of perceiving it?
Originally posted by LordBucket
May I suggest that instead of trying to conceptualize
nothingness, you simply stop conceptualizing.
You do not empty a cup by putting emptiness into it.
You empty a cup by pouring the contents out.
Do you see?
Now, if you'll forgive me...
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
For "nothing" to exist, "something" would have to exist
along side it. You can't have 0 unless 1 exists.
I think this was not an effective way to communicate the idea I think you intended. A cup of tea does not imply a cup with no tea. Yes, the cup of tea
does contain the potential for a cup with no tea...and no tea would need to be "removed" from the cup to accomplish that. Simply by choosing to
focus on only the cup, there could be a cup with no tea, just like choosing to perceive a thing in one way closes off peception of other ways.
However...
Originally posted by ALLis0NE
For "nothingness" to exist there must be "something"
to remove so that you get "nothingness".
...yes. To build walls between things, there must be things to build a wall between.
[edit on 17-3-2010 by LordBucket]
