''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7074
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Jul 29, 2016 9:28 am

Harbal wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:.
We are left with no choice other than to accept the truth that matter is made of nothing.
.
Now that you've left us with no choice but to accept the truth that matter is made of nothing, what are we supposed to do with this new knowledge? What use is it? What does it change? Of what benefit will it be to me to know that every time I encounter an object there is nothing there?
Nope, nothing here but empty images of consciousness. There's nothing behind the image of you in the same sense there is nothing in a photograph of you ..it's just an image.

Consciousness is not a thing, so what can the mind do with that? ...nothing... so the mind names the nothing...name it what ever you like and this mind will be that. Also the opposite will be this too ..It's all this. Everything and Nothing, is all THIS...THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE NAME.

Nothing is without a name...name it and it's a thing. No thing is everything...quite simple logic, and nothing to gain or lose from this knowledge, it's just what it is...and appearing here on this forum is what it does apparently... :o

It won't benefit you because the you is a name, and a mind by any other name is still a mind. There is no you in a mind, the mind is in you. You don't have a mind. The mind has you.

Without the mind for One's projection screen, where would the world/universe/you be located?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7074
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:08 pm

Harbal wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:.
We are left with no choice other than to accept the truth that matter is made of nothing.
.
Now that you've left us with no choice but to accept the truth that matter is made of nothing, what are we supposed to do with this new knowledge? What use is it? What does it change? Of what benefit will it be to me to know that every time I encounter an object there is nothing there?
The good news is that you're always going to choose one over the other...but it doesn't mean the other has less value.


Image

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7074
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Jul 29, 2016 2:23 pm

Dontaskme wrote:

The good news is that you're always going to choose one over the other...but it doesn't mean the other has less value.
Same pizza except they differ in their appearance...but are of equal value.


Image

Image

1st image...hmm, that looks fantastic, wow!

2nd image...yuk, that's gross...how disgusting.

See how they are the same one except one is rejected in favor of the other. That's what we do when we hear that nothing is the same as something.

We accept the images, but fail to see there is no thing behind the image. And it's just an image of the imageless.

The eye can see everything except itself.

gurugeorge
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 2:42 pm

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by gurugeorge » Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:31 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:

See how they are the same one except one is rejected in favor of the other.
They're not the same though, one is nourishing (which is why you're inclined to want it), the other isn't. They're made of "the same" matter, in a sense (whatever that basic constitution of matter is), but the matter is arranged differently. Same with the choccie and the turd.

I'm not unsympathetic to the non-dual thing, I've had non-dual epiphanies too, though I wouldn't say I'm "enlightened" (in the sense that it's not a perspective I'm situated in permanently), but I think you'll have to work harder to convince philosophers of it.

Talking about being and nothing is old hat to philosophers, and mostly these days philosophers think of such talk as largely empty (since it's just to do with concepts, whereas everywhere we find in experience never nothing, but always something, whether that's external objects, or thoughts or images, etc., so that, ontologically, nothing doesn't exist, which is the same as to say something exists, and you can't get around that).

I think the best inroad to a philosophical discussion of nonduality is probably in relation to a) the problem of consciousness and b) the problem of the self. Particularly with the latter, it may be the case that the sense of self is labile, and that while it's normally closely tethered to the body, it can also attach to one's walking stick, to the family, the nation, or even the universe as a whole.

But that would be a superficial way of looking at it, I suppose - that would be thinking of the self as the product of a faculty or a function (perhaps of the body and brain), or as the Hindu tradition has it, the Ahamkara or "self-making" function. The deeper question is whether there's anything objective and real behind the concept of self, a referent that fixes the concept of self ontologically.

Traditional Advaita (and other non-dual systems) say yes, it's consciousness, bare consciousness per se., the sheer fact that anything is "lit up" and comes to be "known" at all. So then the further point is the identification of our several individual, separate consciousnesses, with a metaphysically universal consciousness, such that the non-dual epiphany isn't just the transference of the activity of a self-identifying function ("what am I?", were it vocalized) from the body to the universe, but rather the recognition (in conceptual terms, by an individual mind) of an already-existing metaphysically universal quality to consciousness (to every particular instance of consciousness).

The way I think of it is that while our several concrete consciousnesses, being perfectly ordinary, functions of matter/energy, coming to be and dissolving, are most definitely personal and mortal, each is at the same time as it were a representative, or emissary (performs the function of) universal consciousness, every particular consciousness is at the same time an instance of the Universe's awareness of itself, every particular consciousness, mortal though it may be, is revealing something particular, unique and individual (pattern of matter/energy) that was inherently possible from yea time. Another poetic way of saying it would be that the function of consciousness is that God may serially canvass the infinite possibilities inherent in His Being, in concrete, actual form.

This goes against the traditional non-dual idea, whereby the inability to conceptually distinguish one's own personal consciousness from a putative universal consciousness is held to demonstrate (or at least open up the possibility to contemplate) that our particular individual consciousness only seems to be personal, but is actually universal. However, I don't think that argument quite succeeds, I think the most that can be shown is that while ontologically personal, it may at the same time be metaphysically universal.

This (the un-get-overable mortality of our several consciousnesses) may be a bit disappointing to the hopes for some kind of literal, temporal immortality that often arise from non-dual thought, but on the other hand, it's quite a big thing to be a chip off the old block, even if only for a moment.

Anyway, the problem really is that while a lot of this area of talk makes sense poetically, it's extremely hard to put into words without taking many, many words and making many, many precise qualifications and distinctions. The short poetic version isn't the argument, it just gives a general sense of the thing.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7074
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:05 pm

gurugeorge wrote: They're not the same though, one is nourishing (which is why you're inclined to want it), the other isn't. They're made of "the same" matter, in a sense (whatever that basic constitution of matter is), but the matter is arranged differently. Same with the choccie and the turd.
The difference is in their appearance or and their interpretion.
gurugeorge wrote:Talking about being and nothing is old hat to philosophers, and mostly these days philosophers think of such talk as largely empty (since it's just to do with concepts, whereas everywhere we find in experience never nothing, but always something, whether that's external objects, or thoughts or images, etc., so that, ontologically, nothing doesn't exist, which is the same as to say something exists, and you can't get around that).
Yes you can easily get around that.

If nothing doesn't exist then neither can something. It's not that nothing doesn't exist, it exists as something. ...
To pronounce ''the impossibility of nothing'' is absurd because the statement couldn't and wouldn't even arise in the first place is there wasn't the belief in something. What that something is is just an idea arising from nothing - but for the sake of wanting an origin of idea...we can call it mind which is the same thing as nothing.

“Show me your face before your parents were born.”
gurugeorge wrote: I think the best inroad to a philosophical discussion of nonduality is probably in relation to a) the problem of consciousness and b) the problem of the self. Particularly with the latter, it may be the case that the sense of self is labile, and that while it's normally closely tethered to the body, it can also attach to one's walking stick, to the family, the nation, or even the universe as a whole.


Yes, I agree, it would be like trying to unhinge our self from a thought. Thoughts not even being our thoughts, because if they were we could choose which thought to have. So no owner of thought, no idea of location of thought, or origin of thought believed to be mind, and no believer...seems like a whole load of nothing to me.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7074
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:25 pm

gurugeorge wrote:The deeper question is whether there's anything objective and real behind the concept of self, a referent that fixes the concept of self ontologically.
There is nothing behind an image except light. Light cannot see itself, but is the castor of every shadow.


gurugeorge wrote:This (the un-get-overable mortality of our several consciousnesses) may be a bit disappointing to the hopes for some kind of literal, temporal immortality that often arise from non-dual thought, but on the other hand, it's quite a big thing to be a chip off the old block, even if only for a moment.
Nothing is immortal.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by raw_thought » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:28 am

All the above responses to the OP remind me of,

"One of Berkeley's contemporaries was Samuel Johnson, who hearing about Berkeley's theory, kicked a stone and declared, "I refute it thus." For Johnson feeling that hard stone against his toe was sufficient evidence that the stone had material substance. However, Johnson missed Berkeley's point. Feeling the stone against your foot did not prove that the stone had extension. It only proved that the mind has an idea of a hard stone."

Similarly, the objections to the OP make the unsophisticated point that if one says that existence and nothingness are united like a mountain and a valley one is a poopy head because obviously certain things exist. * The fact is, is that the nature of existence ( what it means to exist) has not been settled.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exist ... iNotProInd

The reason that I have quit posting here is because there is hardly any interesting philosophical arguments here. It is mostly a bunch of adolescents calling each other poopy heads. Suppose that the OP is moronic. Suppose, that the author of the OP has never been to university but has a curiosity about the big questions. Only someone of vast insecurity will strut about boasting how superior he is to the OP writer.

* I am not saying that a field interpretation of existence/ nothingness is correct. I am saying that if one objects to it, one should give an argument and not just name call ! Anyway, I'm gone. I am sure there will be many posts after mine calling me a poopy head ( or other immature name calling)

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by raw_thought » Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:36 am

In the interest of accuracy. I am not saying that all the responses have been immature. However, the majority are.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:45 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:

The good news is that you're always going to choose one over the other...but it doesn't mean the other has less value.
Same pizza except they differ in their appearance...but are of equal value.


Image

Image

1st image...hmm, that looks fantastic, wow!

2nd image...yuk, that's gross...how disgusting.

See how they are the same one except one is rejected in favor of the other. That's what we do when we hear that nothing is the same as something.

We accept the images, but fail to see there is no thing behind the image. And it's just an image of the imageless.

The eye can see everything except itself.
Not the same, actually. I don't recall ever ordering a pizza with hydrochloric acid as a main ingredient.

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by raw_thought » Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:09 am

Dontaskme wrote ":Proof that although Some thing appears to be, it is in all actuality No thing.
Please discuss."

Here is Harbal's sophisticated response!

" Therefore, there is nothing to discuss, you moron."

Here is " Hobbes choice" sophisticated response,

"Yes. Let me see... everything you have typed is rubbish; and self contradictory. No, it does not even deserve that, it is simply false. There is no merit to anything you have said."

Here is hexhammer's sophisticated response,

" ...pure nonsense and babble thread! Why must I suffer so much?!?!?"

Like I said a bunch of adolescents calling each other poopy heads!!!!!

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by raw_thought » Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:10 am

raw_thought wrote:All the above responses to the OP remind me of,

"One of Berkeley's contemporaries was Samuel Johnson, who hearing about Berkeley's theory, kicked a stone and declared, "I refute it thus." For Johnson feeling that hard stone against his toe was sufficient evidence that the stone had material substance. However, Johnson missed Berkeley's point. Feeling the stone against your foot did not prove that the stone had extension. It only proved that the mind has an idea of a hard stone."

Similarly, the objections to the OP make the unsophisticated point that if one says that existence and nothingness are united like a mountain and a valley one is a poopy head because obviously certain things exist. * The fact is, is that the nature of existence ( what it means to exist) has not been settled.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/exist ... iNotProInd

The reason that I have quit posting here is because there is hardly any interesting philosophical arguments here. It is mostly a bunch of adolescents calling each other poopy heads. Suppose that the OP is moronic. Suppose, that the author of the OP has never been to university but has a curiosity about the big questions. Only someone of vast insecurity will strut about boasting how superior he is to the OP writer.

* I am not saying that a field interpretation of existence/ nothingness is correct. I am saying that if one objects to it, one should give an argument and not just name call ! Anyway, I'm gone. I am sure there will be many posts after mine calling me a poopy head ( or other immature name calling)

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7074
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:36 am

raw_thought wrote:All the above responses to the OP remind me of,

"One of Berkeley's contemporaries was Samuel Johnson, who hearing about Berkeley's theory, kicked a stone and declared, "I refute it thus." For Johnson feeling that hard stone against his toe was sufficient evidence that the stone had material substance. However, Johnson missed Berkeley's point. Feeling the stone against your foot did not prove that the stone had extension. It only proved that the mind has an idea of a hard stone."

Similarly, the objections to the OP make the unsophisticated point that if one says that existence and nothingness are united like a mountain and a valley one is a poopy head because obviously certain things exist. * The fact is, is that the nature of existence ( what it means to exist) has not been settled.
The mind can change it's mind, it can be in two minds...that's the beauty of non- duality...one side can say, existence is, and the other can say existence isn't...either way sums to zero, since where is the location of mind? ..the earth is a rock, so in a sense we actually came out of a piece of dead rock....so is the mind in the rock or is the rock in the mind.... :P ...it's quite a head scratching dilemma... is it not? :D but not if we know we are on both sides at the same time.

raw_thought wrote:The reason that I have quit posting here is because there is hardly any interesting philosophical arguments here. It is mostly a bunch of adolescents calling each other poopy heads. Suppose that the OP is moronic. Suppose, that the author of the OP has never been to university but has a curiosity about the big questions. Only someone of vast insecurity will strut about boasting how superior he is to the OP writer.

* I am not saying that a field interpretation of existence/ nothingness is correct. I am saying that if one objects to it, one should give an argument and not just name call ! Anyway, I'm gone. I am sure there will be many posts after mine calling me a poopy head ( or other immature name calling)
I already understand this and agree with you. I like posting here because I like to switch context from the conditioned mind to the non-conditioned mind...it's fun to play with things that make you go Hmm?

Also, a lion never takes any notice of the opinions of sheep.
You make your own reason and purpose for living...that's what the mind is for, it's a useful tool, a free gift from nature...we either use it or lose it... :P :D :mrgreen: 8) :lol: ... of all the things I've lost...I miss my mind the most....no one can take that away from you...hehehe!

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:27 pm

Dontaskme wrote:To assume that 'Nothingness' is impossible - you'd also have to assume that 'Somethingness' is impossible.

Reality can only ever be ''ONE THING'' or ''NO THING'' = Same Difference.

What IS ..what appears to be, is actually No thing.

What IS is without doubt...who knows this? THIS does.

This is the Absolute.

The ONE knowing THIS cannot be known because it is IT

Can a circle get outside the circle without separating itself?

No.

Proof that although Some thing appears to be, it is in all actuality No thing.



Please discuss.
Will these stupid threads never cease?

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by raw_thought » Thu Aug 18, 2016 1:41 pm

Like I said children calling others poopy heads. If you want a real laugh you should read Hobbes Choice's posts! I have used a few in the class I teach as examples of logical fallacies!
Well I guess I do get something out of this site!!! :lol:

raw_thought
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:16 pm
Location: trapped inside a hominid skull

Re: ''Something'' and ''Nothing'' are the same ONE

Post by raw_thought » Thu Aug 18, 2016 1:51 pm

I remember when I was at University getting my philosophy degree. I quickly learned to always use superfluous academic language, like " modalities". I would read a philosophical paper , translate it into normal English ( discover that the point being made was either obvious or trivial) , write a response in normal English, then translate that into academese and turn the final result in. I graduated with a 4.0!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests