/lit/ - Literature

This is easy to work out with a relational ontology.
Nothingness is not a substance or a property of a substance, if it could be either of these things it would not exist. It is a quality of an actual, that is something that can be reached an indeterminate potential, it does not exist as an action but something that can be related to by an action. A potential relation that, if reached, if "felt"results in utter disapation of all potential relation, a relation to non relation. Something can't be nothing, something can't become nothing, rather something ceases to become anything and degenerates into nothing.
In my personal metaphysics with my own generalities, I would generalize nothingness as an animated action to unanimity.
No reason for me to reinvent the wheel to explain these relations, as I can't quite demarcate it as a special metaphysical snowflake yet.
CS Peirce will tell you everything you need to know about the way these relations I mention work in "the catagories in detail"

>>11126161
>Now you're doing the same shit he does, though. Substance ontology with random words that are supposed to amount to a self-evident post-critical metaphysics
Well that's not true.
Here 'actuality' is not something that has potential as a property, actuality is potential. Actuality develops(devolpment as in the passage of time on whatever scale, Planck length or the biological moment for example) from the realization of it's potential. Actuality isn't a thing in itself devolping from relationships of it's properties, it is a thing relating to itself. Actuality becomes actuality by relating to itself, itself being a potential, more particularly relating to a subset of the set of potentials that is actuality.
This is a relational ontology using scientific and general terms. How dare you tell me I'm doing the same thing as hegel. I'm a post peirceian pragmatist and this all boils down to idealism being stupid and me being very smart.