/lit/ - Literature

1.We can understand something and nothing in four ways:
1.1 Something as Some-thing and nothing as No-thing, as the affirmation(some) and negation(no) of things.
1.2 Something and Nothing as a fundamental Oppisition, as Beeing vs Nothingsness.
1.3 Something as Beeing and Nothing as the Negation of Beeing.
1.4Nothing as Nothingness and Something as the negation of Nothingness.
1.1 Is no option because the Thing itself would be either something or nothing.
1.2 Is no option because we would have two fundamental Forces which oppose each other and share nothing in common, a reality where both intermingle wouldnt be possible.
1.3 Is no option because Something, or rather beeing, has qualities, ie. it persists over time, has the Possibility of Becoming and so on. If we were to set Beeing as the Beginning we would need to explain from where those qualities came from.
So it seems that only 1.4 is a viable Option. Form the Beginning it has two Advantages:
2.1 Because Nothingness is not within Time one can not ask what was before Nothingness in a meaningful way.
2.2Because Nothingness has nothing, nothing about it needs to be created.
Then the question arrises, what is the nature of Nothingness, understood as the final Reality?
In Short, it is Beyondness, every thought about it, as a thought, already is, and therefore already too late. So haw can we think about it ? Only in thinking about how our thinking fails to think about it. Put it this way, that which is before thinking and not thinking itself, can only be grasped by slowly disassemblying thinking itself.
When we then dissassemble the differentations which constitute our thinking, we see that the creation of something out of nothing is necessary for nothingness to be really nothingness. Nothingness is beyond time, but this still is a thought which is. In realitly Nothingness is even beyond beeing beyond time and beeing within time, so it must be both, in time and beyond time, and what is our existence other that than nothingness in time?
How this leads then to God we can see in Eckhart, late Heidegger is also important here.

What he basically tries to do is fusing Jungian archetypes biology evolution and existential questions together, with the goal of creating a framework which can represent the ways we construct meaning. This framework in his eyes is mainly a narrative consisting out of what is and what ought to be, between those two states we find chaos and structure, novelty etc. these elements in between are building blocks for meaning.

TL;DR Meaning is constructed through a metastory, a map of meaning