Nothingness is All Things

[Eodnhoj7]

The Tao is a way of being and God is a religious concept, this is more aligned with understanding the nature of reality. At one time physicists looked for the stuff of which everything was made. only to find that matter is not made of matter, it is all energy.

A way of being is a belief.
A religious concept (belief) guides our actions (A way of being).

Distinctions between the two can be blurred under the premise: "all is one".

A way of being is a style not a belief.

And one believes their style is the most appropriate to others and/or themselves.

[commonsense]

A way of being is a belief.
A religious concept (belief) guides our actions (A way of being).

Distinctions between the two can be blurred under the premise: "all is one".

A way of being is a style not a belief.

And one believes their style is the most appropriate to others and/or themselves.

Are you saying that a person believes their way of being is the most appropriate…?

[Eodnhoj7]

A way of being is a style not a belief.

And one believes their style is the most appropriate to others and/or themselves.

Are you saying that a person believes their way of being is the most appropriate…?

Because they only know the limits of their senses belief is inevitable.

[commonsense]

And one believes their style is the most appropriate to others and/or themselves.

Are you saying that a person believes their way of being is the most appropriate…?

Because they only know the limits of their senses belief is inevitable.

Therefore a belief is not a style!

[Darkneos]

If you consider experience/knowledge/meaning belief, yes. Religions, however are systems founded upon a very abstract concepts, and a system of how one should live in the world as discipline/beliefs are also systems. Religions are systems made up of our knowledge and ignorance, which makes ignorance sacred. I really don't think there is any such thing a nothingness, at least as it is commonly understood. Ways of being based on certain beliefs as to the benefits are creative systems, biological extensions and expressions of our humanity.

So, you think it’s tautology!

Depends, the vast space of the cosmos were once thought the great nothingness. Perhaps that is where the heading of this thread got the idea, for it turns out the empty space is the great caldron of creation.

This sounds eerily similar to some nonsense someone tried with me on YouTube and I had to tell them there is no such thing as “nothing”, we made it up. There is always something, even at the beginning of the universe.

Even eastern philosophy (which is where I assume OP got it) doesn’t say there is nothingness but rather “no thingness” meaning nothing with an inherent and unchanging form, everything is always shifting. What they mean by “non exist” is there isn’t some essence to it that is separate from the world. Or rather it exists but not as we usually think so (though I’m pretty sure no one imagines a chair is external or anything else so they might be off there).

Of course that was when we don’t know much about the origins of the universe and everything else so it’s outdated as a belief system. But it wouldn’t be the first time someone butchered eastern philosophy.

I mean even the initial post is incorrect as every word they used is by definition a comparison. Nothing with something, total with partial, we know what it is by what it is not. Without any comparison you wouldn’t know what any of those things were, so it’s kinda funny they’d say that.

But that’s mysticism for you, you’re just meant to accept it not question it because they weasel out with “you can’t logic it”.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you saying that a person believes their way of being is the most appropriate…?

Because they only know the limits of their senses belief is inevitable.

Therefore a belief is not a style!

A style is observed as a way of being considering the style is how we carry ourselves through the future. Considering the future is not entirely predictable one believes that their style will carry them through their uncertainty.

[Darkneos]

Because they only know the limits of their senses belief is inevitable.

Therefore a belief is not a style!

A style is observed as a way of being considering the style is how we carry ourselves through the future. Considering the future is not entirely predictable one believes that their style will carry them through their uncertainty.

It usually does depending on what the style is. The future is only somewhat uncertain limited only by our lack of information and knowledge of all the factors.

Technically if you knew it all you could predict the future with total certainty. We just lack the processing power to do it.

[popeye1945]

A way of being is a belief.
A religious concept (belief) guides our actions (A way of being).

Distinctions between the two can be blurred under the premise: "all is one".

A way of being is a style not a belief.

And one believes their style is the most appropriate to others and/or themselves.

I think we need to define our terms, are you using the term in a religious sense, where there is no foundation for said belief, or are you talking about I believe I am six foot one.

[Eodnhoj7]

A way of being is a style not a belief.

And one believes their style is the most appropriate to others and/or themselves.

I think we need to define our terms, are you using the term in a religious sense, where there is no foundation for said belief, or are you talking about I believe I am six foot one.

You struck a very interesting point in your statement. I don't think you did it on purpose or you may have done it intuitively without consciously knowing.

This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise;

1. If we do not define our terms we end in absurdity as anything can equate thus creating an indefinite unity.

2. If we do define our terms, by making distinctions between the two, then we still end in absurdity as belief and style contradict and anything can go from that conversation.

[Darkneos]

And one believes their style is the most appropriate to others and/or themselves.

I think we need to define our terms, are you using the term in a religious sense, where there is no foundation for said belief, or are you talking about I believe I am six foot one.

You struck a very interesting point in your statement. I don't think you did it on purpose or you may have done it intuitively without consciously knowing.

This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise;

1. If we do not define our terms we end in absurdity as anything can equate thus creating an indefinite unity.

2. If we do define our terms, by making distinctions between the two, then we still end in absurdity as belief and style contradict and anything can go from that conversation.

Uhh then why are you posting on a philosophy forum in the first place.

You realize the absurdity of saying it doesn’t matter and then forming an argument through it to explain that right?

Duh if you don’t define terms then you’ll just talk past each other. This doesn’t mean indefinite unity it just means you won’t be able to have a conversation.

Number 2 is just wrong. Anything can’t go from a conversation where you define terms because you know what the conversation is about and what you are trying to communicate. The only way anything can go is if you DONT define terms and plenty of people avoid trying to do that because they depend on being able to escape in ambiguity.

Like, you’re not even right even by your own points.

[Darkneos]

And one believes their style is the most appropriate to others and/or themselves.

I think we need to define our terms, are you using the term in a religious sense, where there is no foundation for said belief, or are you talking about I believe I am six foot one.

You struck a very interesting point in your statement. I don't think you did it on purpose or you may have done it intuitively without consciously knowing.

This is an example of the futility of philosophy and why philosophy should only be practiced for fun or mental exercise;

1. If we do not define our terms we end in absurdity as anything can equate thus creating an indefinite unity.

2. If we do define our terms, by making distinctions between the two, then we still end in absurdity as belief and style contradict and anything can go from that conversation.

Uhh then why are you posting on a philosophy forum in the first place.

You realize the absurdity of saying it doesn’t matter and then forming an argument through it to explain that right?

Duh if you don’t define terms then you’ll just talk past each other. This doesn’t mean indefinite unity it just means you won’t be able to have a conversation.

Number 2 is just wrong. Anything can’t go from a conversation where you define terms because you know what the conversation is about and what you are trying to communicate. The only way anything can go is if you DONT define terms and plenty of people avoid trying to do that because they depend on being able to escape in ambiguity.

Like, you’re not even right even by your own points.

[popeye1945]

So, you think it’s tautology!

Depends, the vast space of the cosmos were once thought the great nothingness. Perhaps that is where the heading of this thread got the idea, for it turns out the empty space is the great caldron of creation.

This sounds eerily similar to some nonsense someone tried with me on YouTube and I had to tell them there is no such thing as “nothing”, we made it up. There is always something, even at the beginning of the universe.

Even eastern philosophy (which is where I assume OP got it) doesn’t say there is nothingness but rather “no thingness” meaning nothing with an inherent and unchanging form, everything is always shifting. What they mean by “non exist” is there isn’t some essence to it that is separate from the world. Or rather it exists but not as we usually think so (though I’m pretty sure no one imagines a chair is external or anything else so they might be off there).

Of course that was when we don’t know much about the origins of the universe and everything else so it’s outdated as a belief system. But it wouldn’t be the first time someone butchered eastern philosophy.

I mean even the initial post is incorrect as every word they used is by definition a comparison. Nothing with something, total with partial, we know what it is by what it is not. Without any comparison you wouldn’t know what any of those things were, so it’s kinda funny they’d say that.

But that’s mysticism for you, you’re just meant to accept it not question it because they weasel out with “you can’t logic it”.

In modern science ultimate reality is thought of as a place of no things, in other words, unmanifested energy, while apparent reality is a place of things/objects. Objects, however, are manifest energies, but I suspect they are dependent on the effects of energy on the biological subject's body. Seeing as we cannot escape our subjective consciousness, however, to date it is impossible to know.

[Darkneos]

Depends, the vast space of the cosmos were once thought the great nothingness. Perhaps that is where the heading of this thread got the idea, for it turns out the empty space is the great caldron of creation.

This sounds eerily similar to some nonsense someone tried with me on YouTube and I had to tell them there is no such thing as “nothing”, we made it up. There is always something, even at the beginning of the universe.

Even eastern philosophy (which is where I assume OP got it) doesn’t say there is nothingness but rather “no thingness” meaning nothing with an inherent and unchanging form, everything is always shifting. What they mean by “non exist” is there isn’t some essence to it that is separate from the world. Or rather it exists but not as we usually think so (though I’m pretty sure no one imagines a chair is external or anything else so they might be off there).

Of course that was when we don’t know much about the origins of the universe and everything else so it’s outdated as a belief system. But it wouldn’t be the first time someone butchered eastern philosophy.

I mean even the initial post is incorrect as every word they used is by definition a comparison. Nothing with something, total with partial, we know what it is by what it is not. Without any comparison you wouldn’t know what any of those things were, so it’s kinda funny they’d say that.

But that’s mysticism for you, you’re just meant to accept it not question it because they weasel out with “you can’t logic it”.

In modern science ultimate reality is thought of as a place of no things, in other words, unmanifested energy, while apparent reality is a place of things/objects. Objects, however, are manifest energies, but I suspect they are dependent on the effects of energy on the biological subject's body. Seeing as we cannot escape our subjective consciousness, however, to date it is impossible to know.

That’s not what modern science regards as “ultimate reality”. There is no “ultimate reality” or “apparent reality” in modern science it’s just reality. It’s not manifest energy or unmanifested energy. There are levels to it where different laws and rules apply. It’s why some quantum principles don’t apply at the classical level and vice versa.

Again you need a degree in physics to understand this. I only know this because I spoke to someone who did and the answer is no fields are not “unmanifested energy”. The truth is way more complicated than I think most folks here will get.

But the short answer to your statement is NO. I know because someone I saw 7 years ago said the same stupid remark.

[Atla]

That’s not what modern science regards as “ultimate reality”. There is no “ultimate reality” or “apparent reality” in modern science it’s just reality. It’s not manifest energy or unmanifested energy. There are levels to it where different laws and rules apply. It’s why some quantum principles don’t apply at the classical level and vice versa.

Again you need a degree in physics to understand this. I only know this because I spoke to someone who did and the answer is no fields are not “unmanifested energy”. The truth is way more complicated than I think most folks here will get.

But the short answer to your statement is NO. I know because someone I saw 7 years ago said the same stupid remark.

There's no reason to think that there are levels to reality either. Not everyone with a physics degree will admit that a century ago they split the universe into the classical level and the quantum level, because simply no one knows what's really going on with quantum mechanics. Of course the "classical level" also entirely consists of things that we consider quantum.

[Darkneos]

That’s not what modern science regards as “ultimate reality”. There is no “ultimate reality” or “apparent reality” in modern science it’s just reality. It’s not manifest energy or unmanifested energy. There are levels to it where different laws and rules apply. It’s why some quantum principles don’t apply at the classical level and vice versa.

Again you need a degree in physics to understand this. I only know this because I spoke to someone who did and the answer is no fields are not “unmanifested energy”. The truth is way more complicated than I think most folks here will get.

But the short answer to your statement is NO. I know because someone I saw 7 years ago said the same stupid remark.

There's no reason to think that there are levels to reality either. Not everyone with a physics degree will admit that a century ago they split the universe into the classical level and the quantum level, because simply no one knows what's really going on with quantum mechanics. Of course the "classical level" also entirely consists of things that we consider quantum.

Wrong. Science has advanced leaps and bounds in a century and we know there are “levels” to this stuff, to put it one way.

In a sense we do know what is going on because it’s a heavy math field. The math checks out but trying to create an interpretation for it is…challenging. It doesn’t help that only those with degrees in this stuff understand what’s going on. But that doesn’t stop folks from running away with interpretations.

But no there is not only a reason but evidence for levels of reality. This is just ignorant.