It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let me explain something.... The futile argument of something versus nothing....

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Now let me explain something... well actually I can't. The only thing I can do is point at something and hope that you the viewer will be able to gather enough from my pointing that you eventually experience something. But in actual fact in order for me to really point at something I would have to be pointing away from nothing.

Indeed I would have to point in all directions at once including my own pointing device be it my finger, word or existence. Now consider that for a moment. How do I point with a device at itself and at the same time point away from it in all directions without occupying all spaces and thus eliminating the very nothing i am trying to point away from? Well I can not. So how do i then explain ? Like I said I can't.

Confused? I hope so because in being so you might be closer to something than you have ever been before. You see something is nothing in it's own right. That's right. Something is just a relationship, a disctinction that we make in order to filter our experience into manageable chunks of nothing that we then use inorder to experience something. See where that leaves you.... It left me with chunks of nothing.


Now let me explain nothing instead... well I can't do that either. Because I would have to point at nothing. But the mere action of pointing has left me in the land of something and not at all anywhere near the nothing i wanted to point out. No matter how hard I try to point with my being be it with vocabulary, actions or anything else for that matter that i can think of all I will end up doing is leading you on a path so far away from nothing that you will end up back where you started. I.e with big manageable chunks of nothing that you call something.

So where am I getting with this? Hopefully nowhere and fast. The point being that there is no point. No matter how you try to put something versus nothing in any argument. No matter how strong you think your argument might be for either something or nothing of that something you will end up with a mish mash of something and nothing which means anything.

Enter the great missunderstanding in all arguments. The assumption that the other person is someone speaking on something rather than noone speaking on nothing and vice versa. See we argue everything based on assumptions we make. Mostly the assumption is that our experience is somewhat or entirely equal to the experience of the other. When that other uses pointing devices (words or actions) that you do not recognise you immediately assume this someone is wrong about something. However the fact is no one is right about anything.... The best we can do is to get as close to nothing as we can in our search for an experience of something, and in experiencing something we finally come to understand what is nothing.

I know this will sound like gibberish to some and to some it will mean something. Again case in point. There is no one point and what decides is not my intention, your intention, the pointing device or any other such thing that we use to measure the reality of something. Ones experience determines what is. And the experience is entirely based on the ability to cut up nothing into imaginary chunks that you call data or facts. Then how well you compare your collected chunks of nothing with even more chunks of the same determines how well you seem to be able to reason, solve and act at any moment. How close your chunks of nothing resembles the chunks of nothing someone else has collected will amount to how agreeable you find that someone. Someone who is actually just your perception of noone cutting nothing into imaginary chunks.


Absurd? Yes very. But this is just one way of trying to explain to you how much of anything is actually down to your perception or experience as supposed to what some call a fact of a place called reality where something takes place.

Something versus nothing is what is absurd without a context to relate it to it just becomes a total mess as can be seen above. You need nothing in order to point at something by the same token you need to know something in order to point at nothing. Neither is better, higher, wiser than the other. But used within the correct context can actually have meaning within the context of experience.

Just my two cents of nothing created into something. Now what do you make of it?

much love and light


*Moderators if you feel this belong in another section of the site please feel free to move it*




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
This means nothing to me.


But I think you may have something.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Glass
 


You're right I do have something but I'm afraid to show it to you I might have to poke you in the eye with a chunk of nothing and that would be pointless




posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


If it has no point, you may find it difficult to poke me in the eye with it.


Let me try to articulate my understanding of this thread with a metaphor:

You have a chunk of nothing in a red box. I have an identical chunk of nothing in a blue box. I look at your red box and scoff at you because your box does not look like my box and therefore you must be wrong. I think I must have something in my box because it is blue, and you must have nothing because yours is red, but in reality we both have nothing. But nothing is still something, and the only difference is the color of the box.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
That was a great read, I see where you are trying to get at. People think of it as how contradictory life is, there is simply no argument against anything/nothing/something in the matter. We humans certainly put concern on something, when they should put their concern on nothing. Which causes concern of everything, because it is everything. It is a beautiful complementary that we are in, in my own understanding. I see your realization of this matter as quite an awakening my friend.

We should all simply laugh and enjoy this existence instead of arguing, because we are truly getting worked up about nothing.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I could never explain nothing but the closest I've come is describing what a blind man sees. He does not see black like we close our eyes, he sees nothing. It would be the same as if you were perceiving with your knee cap, there would be no black, just a void of anything.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Glass
reply to post by IAmD1
 


If it has no point, you may find it difficult to poke me in the eye with it.


Let me try to articulate my understanding of this thread with a metaphor:

You have a chunk of nothing in a red box. I have an identical chunk of nothing in a blue box. I look at your red box and scoff at you because your box does not look like my box and therefore you must be wrong. I think I must have something in my box because it is blue, and you must have nothing because yours is red, but in reality we both have nothing. But nothing is still something, and the only difference is the color of the box.


Indeed.


Yes that is a good metaphor but add to it that the color red can only be understood in relation to the color blue which means both colors are necessary for the perception of red box blue box to take place at all.
Therefore neither box is more real or true than the other, neither is any of the colors better or worse and infact your perception is dependent on the opposing color box to be in order to be able to experience your own favoured box.

It's really an attempt at opening up the mind to the realization that context is key in any and every conversation. And that language is a close but not quite way to try and share an experience with someone who can never have your experience. In the end language within context can be very accurate at making that description, but taken out of context really is meaningless. Especially when it comes to personal philosophies.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


Yes that is one way of trying to point at nothing. But what you have done is actually described (pointed at) something. The something being what a blind person sees. And so you can only hope that the person reading that description can somewhere in their mind understand the problem of nothing based on that view of 'what a blind person sees' but it would not be accurate just close enough within the context of seeing.

Do you see the problem that can arise from that if we do not understand this?

Only a person with sight can understand this analogy, by understanding how to mentally remove something from a context. For a blind person (someone who has never seen your description would not be as obvious.

Further more a more accurate way to describe nothing might be to say imagine what a blind person sees, now remove the blind person. But again you need the reference of something in this case seeing and person in order for that to make any sense at all.
edit on 12/9/2012 by IAmD1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/9/2012 by IAmD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


* points to a mirror *

There you go, pointing to the apparatus which allows my pointing.

Hmm... I'm also pointing to the apparatus, which allows me to point at the apparatus of my pointing.

And, via the reflection, I am pointing at the form, which possesses the apparatus, which points to the apparatus, which points at the thing, which I am using to point originally...

and... and... and...

* head explodes *

Nothing is perfect.
Nothing lasts forever.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


Very good - now tell me what the point is...



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Could you please summerize all that into 5 short sentense?



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Could you please summerize all that into 5 short sentense?


Nope, i can't because it would mean nothing.
And all you would get is something.
At which point it could mean anything.
So my point would be lost.
We end up with your original question and the same answer would follow.



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Does there need to be a point? Make your own point, it's much more interesting that way.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The more you talk, the less profound your words.
The more profound your words, the less you talk.
However, the words arise from emptiness, just as the thoughts.
It is "emptiness" with the mask of "something" trying to explain itself...



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by IAmD1
 


Does there need to be a point? Make your own point, it's much more interesting that way.

~ Wandering Scribe


Indeed.
edit on 12/9/2012 by IAmD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
The more you talk, the less profound your words.
The more profound your words, the less you talk.
However, the words arise from emptiness, just as the thoughts.
It is "emptiness" with the mask of "something" trying to explain itself...



Do you think?
Words and thoughts arise from emptiness, but how can it be empty if something has rose from it?
Could it be that they arise from fullness and become emptiness instead?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by IAmD1
 


That's the interesting thing about it. Even "Emptiness" is something, which is why I call it "Space" instead.

lack of light/matter, lack of sound, lack of heat, lack of all,
from there it is only potential which arises into form (energy/light/matter)...
It is the birth "place" - metaphorically the mother's womb, the place where all arises.

The light comes from the dark (space/emptiness). Scientist show that light does indeed come from void (space).
edit on 13-9-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by IAmD1
 


That's the interesting thing about it. Even "Emptiness" is something, which is why I call it "Space" instead.

lack of light/matter, lack of sound, lack of heat, lack of all,
from there it is only potential which arises into form (energy/light/matter)...
It is the birth "place" - metaphorically the mother's womb, the place where all arises.

The light comes from the dark (space/emptiness). Scientist show that light does indeed come from void (space).
edit on 13-9-2012 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


I love this conversation but let's define a context (referring back to the OP). Are we speaking scientifically or metaphysically on the subject from now on?

The lack of spoken on above scientifically speaking can be seen as a lack of detection as supposed to a lack of existence. Meaning it is something there but we haven't yet got the method and instruments in order to measure it yet.

Light scientifically speaking comes from the de-exitation of an electron as it reverts from an exited (over energized) state into it's original or a less exited (energised) state . The photons do not arise from nothing they are the product of energy released from the electron. Similarly by combining two photons we can create a positron and other particles. (depending on the energy we put in during the combining )

Alternatively if we want to speak metaphysically

What is seen can be said to arise from the unseen. But does unseen mean lack of something or just lack of understanding of something? Just like a light bulb in the dark is unseen until we turn on the switch - the light does not arise out of nothing it arises from understanding of what is occult (in hiding)

I am happy to take the discussion in either direction but not both at the same time. This is also what the OP is about. That without a clear context we will just keep going in circles. Weaving in an out between, hypothetical spiritual metaphysical and physical thinking. All correct but seemingly contradictory if we jump between context during the conversation


You lead and i will follow both are interesting discussions


edit on 13/9/2012 by IAmD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SparkOfSparks6
That was a great read, I see where you are trying to get at. People think of it as how contradictory life is, there is simply no argument against anything/nothing/something in the matter. We humans certainly put concern on something, when they should put their concern on nothing. Which causes concern of everything, because it is everything. It is a beautiful complementary that we are in, in my own understanding. I see your realization of this matter as quite an awakening my friend.

We should all simply laugh and enjoy this existence instead of arguing, because we are truly getting worked up about nothing.


I'm sorry I missed your reply. Thank you and yes laughter is a great remedy for so many ills. Although the writing is in all seriousness, I was smiling as I typed. In the end it means nothing, and like you say nothing is worth getting worked up over


much love




top topics



 
4

log in

join