87 replies to this topic

[the sad clown]

Maybe I should phrase the question diffrently. "What is the relation between Everything and Nothing?"

I have found it impossible to answer. The ultimate opposites. Sometimes I contemplate on the two and I come up with this: nothing is my pure "being" and everything is an expression of the pure being.

What is the relation between Everthing and Nothing? The word "thing". Everything is the enumeration of all things within a frame of reference (e.g., if I say I took everything out of the box, it is not typically understood that I removed the air in the box because there is an understood frame of reference for my statement). It includes every "thing".

Nothing is the absence of enumerable objects within a frame of reference. There is no "thing".

Why would it be more complicated than this?

[Luckee]

What is the relation between Everthing and Nothing? The word "thing". Everything is the enumeration of all things within a frame of reference (e.g., if I say I took everything out of the box, it is not typically understood that I removed the air in the box because there is an understood frame of reference for my statement). It includes every "thing".

Nothing is the absence of enumerable objects within a frame of reference. There is no "thing".

Why would it be more complicated than this?

You have a very intellectual aproach to things it seems, you know that?

ok, how about this: "how does Everything out of Everything relate to Nothing out of Nothing?"

[the sad clown]

You have a very intellectual aproach to things it seems, you know that?

I'm not a very good mystic, its true.

ok, how about this: "how does Everything out of Everything relate to Nothing out of Nothing?"

I don't know. It isn't clear to me kind of relationship "out of" is delineating. Perhaps it signifies a relationship of origins. Then it would mean "Everything originates from Everything and Nothing originates from Nothing". Honestly, it sounds like bunk to me. The first question I would ask is in what manner is this originating occurring. Everything is every thing and Nothing is no thing. I don't see there being any other relations holding besides these, nor do I see any necessity that is met by proposing any additional relationships.

[Luckee]

I'm not a very good mystic, its true.
I don't know. It isn't clear to me kind of relationship "out of" is delineating. Perhaps it signifies a relationship of origins. Then it would mean "Everything originates from Everything and Nothing originates from Nothing". Honestly, it sounds like bunk to me. The first question I would ask is in what manner is this originating occurring. Everything is every thing and Nothing is no thing. I don't see there being any other relations holding besides these, nor do I see any necessity that is met by proposing any additional relationships.

I feel that there is no non-existance. It has no place for its own self. Thats the paradox. Non-existance contradicts itself.

Nothing should be call "yesthing" hehe.

I mean... I don't get past the point of "being" without thought. It is a really weird experience to meditate on nothing. It feels similar to everything though. There is a strong intuition that urges me to find out the relation. I suspect they differ in construct but have the same effect. Both being tools for one task. Something like you said.

[the sad clown]

I feel that there is no non-existance. It has no place for its own self. Thats the paradox. Non-existance contradicts itself.

I think what you are describing is a category mistake. Non-existence is not a thing but rather the absence of a thing. If it where a thing, then yes it would be self-contradictory, but this is not the case. Everything and nothing are more like numbers and other abstract concepts that are used to describe and organize the frame or reference and not the objects that inhabit the system. In other words they are not self-referential.

[Luckee]

I think what you are describing is a category mistake. Non-existence is not a thing but rather the absence of a thing. If it where a thing, then yes it would be self-contradictory, but this is not the case. Everything and nothing are more like numbers and other abstract concepts that are used to describe and organize the frame or reference and not the objects that inhabit the system. In other words they are not self-referential.

So you're saying that both existance and non existance depend on a frame of reference. What if your remove the frame of reference? It can't be done?

[the sad clown]

So you're saying that both existance and non existance depend on a frame of reference. What if your remove the frame of reference? It can't be done?

No, it can't be done. As soon as you ask the question, you have implicitly created the referential framework that defines the parameters of your question.

[Luckee]

No, it can't be done. As soon as you ask the question, you have implicitly created the referential framework that defines the parameters of your question.

I have always thought that pure non-existance doesn't exist, but what value does that give existance? It seems that existance is an empty vessel full of infinite potential to be filled with more and more value, created by us. Meaninglessness with a positive twist to it ^^

Like we are free to define life in any way we wish to.