/lit/ - Literature

close your eyes

" !"

>Imagine a room with a dog
>Imagine the room without the dog
>Imagine this without the room
Is this nothingness
or is it
>Imagine a boat sailing across a lake
>imagine on the way across every plank and screw getting replaced
>imagine the boat on the other side
>imagine the thing that is persisting in both

Suppose that X is the set of all things. Then
nothingness = y such that y is not in X
QED

>>11167250
Suppose a unit that doesn't fall in the category of "things".

You will never make it anon

>>11167263
yeah it's more like ≠X
but that doesn't really describe the not thing that we are talking about - that it's not a thing.
But nothing is in itself not a thing - so nothing could not exist without a thing to not be - can we thus conclude that nothing must exist somehow for thing to exist???

>>11167273
Here we can basically see the dualism that is in everything that it exists in contrast to nothing

>>11167215

hearing your baby cry

There was an indistinct nothingness. All that could describe it would be all those vapid words that attempt in vain to label that which is nothing, and sadly only such words could be used, for nothing else could.

>>11167273
Why would you define nothing as a thing? Just define nothing as not thing. Like how multiply connected domains are defined as domains not simply connected.

How could man describe the unobservable?

>>11167348
With language

>>11167215
" "

>>11167348
you just did

null

>>11167215
無

-

No way to know if it's described - language can't reach

>>11167215

>>11167433
Did I win?
>>11167233
Given the chance, I would fuck her for at least 20 seconds, then blow my load in her. Wait a minute, then go again, hopefully reaching 40 seconds. Then, in the next morning go nice and slow and attempt the 3 minutes.

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"

>>11167439

you will never make it anon

>>11167442

>easy to work out

[I would generalize nothingness as an animated action to unanimity]

>>11167458
Well that's not exactly a good generalization at all.
What I mean is it is a potential that can be reached by animation, a potential of unanimity, as soon as the potential is actualized all potential animation ceases to be, it isn't an anime becoming unanimity, it's an anime that has the quality of unanimity, a quality that exists as a potential, a quality to have no qualities. Once the potential is acted out, all potential disappears.
Here is why I told you to read peirce
>By the third, I mean the medium or connecting bond between the absolute first and last. The beginning is first, the end second, the middle third. The end is second, the means third. The thread of life is a third; the fate that snips it, its second. A fork in a road is a third, it supposes three ways; a straight road, considered merely as a connection between two places is second, but so far as it implies passing through intermediate places it is third. Position is first, velocity or the relation of two successive positions second, acceleration or the relation of three successive positions third. But velocity in so far as it is continuous also involves a third. Continuity represents Thirdness almost to perfection. Every process comes under that head. Moderation is a kind of Thirdness. The positive degree of an adjective is first, the superlative second, the comparative third. All exaggerated language, »supreme,« »utter,« »matchless,« »root and branch,« is the furniture of minds which think of seconds and forget thirds. Action is second, but conduct is third. Law as an active force is second, but order and legislation are third.
Here nothingness is a degenerate third.
http://www.textlog.de/4319.html

no thing

>>11167215
Freedom isn't no restriction, that's a really dumb, modernist understanding of the term.

That feeling in your chest when you realize that you've spent the best years of your life browsing imageboards while your peers laughed and loved each other in the seemingly endless spring of youth, something that will bring them fondness and warmth until their deathbed?

>>11167220
*unzips penis*
and open your mouth

the female form

>>11167527
t. retard
all of that is meaninglessm and waste of energy that only low-IQs do and even lowert-IQs like you want to be like them

>>11167215
Aryans did that 3500 years ago

Rig Veda 10.129.1-2a
>The nonexistent did not exist, nor did the existent exist at that time. There existed neither the airy space nor heaven beyond.
>What moved back and forth? From where and in whose protection? Did water exist, a deep depth?
>Death did not exist nor deathlessness then. There existed no sign of night nor of day.

>>11167499
Is this loss?

>>11167215
Restrictions give purpose

>>11167966
this, to have everything and to be unbound is nothingness

>>11167215
nothingness isn't the "threat" in Evangelion, a complete loss of self and individuality, Id and ego is.
>>11167966
that's pretty much the conclusion Shinji comes to right after that scene

>>11167215
can we really describe true nothingness?

cause isn't nothingness still a kind of thing, the way a vacuum is a kind of space? can we truly comprehend and convey something that, from our perspective, doesn't really exist?

>>11168008
No, we can't. The concept of true nothingness is beyond the realm of our ability to reason. It is transcendental in concept, meaning that as far as we can rationally consider it, there is no actual content to the concept of real nothingness. For instance, we cannot imagine nothing because "nothing" necessarily implies no space, no time, no anything at all. These things are required by our minds to be able to produce meaningful content, and since nothingness is defined as something beyond our ability to perceive, we cannot even come to any real conclusions about the nature of nothingness. We exist in a universe of somethingness and cannot fathom the negation of that without doing some kind of imaginative trickery to try and contextualize the concept of nothingness. For instance, when we try to imagine something with "no space", we imagine a blank expanse as far as we can stretch the image within our minds. This is not a real representation of something without space, however, we cannot actually fathom something with no real space, so instead we create transcendental containers by which we impress some aspect of our perspective in order to create something by which we can converse or consider.

freedom

Nothingness in what sense

>>11168033
This.

absence of a center

>>11167215
You cant

>>11168033

>>11168033
didn't you technically just describe it though?

>>11168081

>>11168033
and still you are explaining nothingness... even when we cant visualize it.

>>11168084
>>11168095
Not at all. I've described the limitations of our minds which create the inability to perceive and thus define nothingness, as well as anything which is transcendental in linguistic encapsulation. The inability to cognize of something gives detail to the nature of our minds, not the nature of the non-considerable thing.

>>11167676

>4chan is for smart people

Loving every laugh

>>11168084
No he is saying you can't describe it and explained that it is outside our experience and therefor not possible to conceptualiz either.e

>>11168033
You are like a little baby.
You can only describe anything by relationship, the bare minium being something relating to itself, like the movement of matter in a perfect vaccum through spacetime moving at the plank length.
Here spacetime is only the betweeness of the movement of that particle, a pure relationship. The particle moved because it has the quality of movement, that is in it's existence, it's actuality, is defined by the potential to move.
Nothing is like spacetime, it can only be defined by relationship with substance, not as a substance itself.
Nothing is an inert quality of all substance that cannot be realized as a substance, if the quality of nothingness is acted upon it loses all qualities and thus can not be considered as a quantity, just like spacetime is a quality.
To say nothing can't be imagined is like saying spacetime, or the mind cannot be imagined.
What kind of child thinks the universe is made out of substances like matter or ideas and not the qualities of those substances?
Everyone is so juvenile and I'm the only waking person in a world of dreaming sheep.

>>11168103
>>11168107
i'd argue that describing how we can't comprehend it is a roundabout way of describing it, especially since the explanation was really close to the nature of the subject itself.

and considering that we really can't comprehend it, isn't describing why/how we can't comprehend it a really good, indirect way of describing the subject itself?

>>11167215

>>11168136

>>11168103
>>11168107
>as well as anything which is transcendental in linguistic encapsulation.
not only with the transcendental. a table is not a table.
i only say that you are describing the nothingness what our mind can feel or understand..
i agree with you in that this sensing nothingness is not the "real" nothingness.
but every concept is a human creation.

>>11168124
Stroke yourself off somewhere else, faggot. If you want to slap the word nothingness on some relation that you've identified then go ahead, but when regarding the consideration of the thing which is the absence of all things we cannot possibly perceive of it. We can perceive the relations of things, however if "nothing" is some relation of a thing, then it is not nothing, but rather it has conceptual content. For "nothing" to have conceptual content betrays what we define it to be, once again betraying the fact that it is a mere transcendental container by which we impress some aspect of our perspective. This is, as I described, imaginitive trickery, and is not real understanding of this transcendental concern.

>>11168135
That's absurd. If I consider an object through a lens that is entirely black and I thus can see nothing through it, then I cannot say anything about the object other than that it is imperceptible through this lens. The fact that it is imperceptible through this lens does betray some quality of the object, however the only thing betrayed by that observation is the fact that the lens cannot properly transmit information about the object.
What we cannot perceive is necessarily something which is beyond our ability to perceive. This is a simple tautology, and does not betray anything about the things we cannot perceive beyond the requirements of being a thing beyond our perception.

>>11167215
It's impossible, since there's nothing to describe. If it's able to be described it's not nothing.

>>11167378
Ok this gave me a laugh thanks bud :)

>>11168148
Sure every concept is a human creation, however, when considering nothingness with the contextual definition of "the absence of existence", which is typically what one means when they evoke the term, I am detailing that this is a transcendental idea with no real rational meaning. Rather, we impress some quality of our perception upon the thing in order to give it meaning. We cannot actually perceive the absence of existence, for the necessary qualities of perception which generate the framework for our ideas to manifest exist independently of our experience. Without a conceptualization of space, we cannot cognize of any object at all. Without a conceptualization of causality, we cannot have rationality at all. These qualities of perception exist a priori.
So I don't believe that I am describing the nothingness that the mind can "feel or understand", for I am specifically speaking of that thing which exists beyond our perception by its very definition. The mind can have no meaningful cognizance of that concept.

>>11168158
Nothing isn't a relationship.
Nothing is a potential that can be related to. A potential to have no potential, since something cant actually become that potential, nothing cant be said to be something, nothing can only be a potential, not an actuality.
Toddlers who can't yet comprehend object permenance could probably understand this easier than you.
You literal child, so sure of your skepticism, I feel sorry for you.

>>11168193
>He thinks I'm a skeptic
I have no interest in participating in your weird intellectual masturbation. As I said, you can call whatever this potential you want "nothing", it is in no way what I was speaking of regarding the topic. Be it a potential or a relationship, either way you have defined a "something" and given it the name of "nothing". And to literally write the words "nothing cant be said to be something, nothing can only be a potential" and to not understand that a "potential" is in fact a thing dependent upon the qualities of causation betrays exactly the kind of teenager mentality that goes into your ridiculous masturbatory remarks.

>>11168191
>The mind can have no meaningful cognizance of that concept.
the mind conceptualize existence, and from existence, conceptualize non-existence. that is the nothingness the mind understand and feel. that is what i refer anyway.
if that is strictly true. if we cant comprehend and conceive in any way the nothingness we dont come up with a word for it.

no attributes

>>11168220
based

>>11168223
Well, once again, what you have defined is a concept that is necessarily transcendental. We can call the negation of existence "nothing", however, the concept is empty. In a similar way, we can define the afterlife as perception beyond death, however, we can produce no meaningful cognizance of that idea for it necessarily extends beyond our perception. We cannot meaningfully describe what "existed" before the big bang, nor can we meaningful describe what will exist after the heat death of the universe. These are things that step outside of causality, space, time, etc. We can say whatever we like about that, but rationality fails to produce meaningful results the second you put it to work on the consideration of something that necessarily exists beyond the confines of the rules of our perceptions and thus rationality itself.
So by the definition of nothing as the negation of existence, or the "absence of existence", we know that we cannot produce any meaningful cognizance of that concept. We can define it, but we will never be able to perceive of it. We can say it certainly doesn't exist in our phenomenal world, for in order for the negation of existence to be in the phenomenal world it must be perceptible, as the definition of the phenomenal is that which our mind generates from the sensory stimuli of the world around us. Whether it exists in the noumenal, or the world that exists in itself from which the sensory stimuli we consider manifests, is a question beyond our ability to answer. This is what it means to be transcendental. It is of the world transcendent of our perceptions.

>>11168253
I-Immanuel?

>>11168253
>but we will never be able to perceive of it
that's the point

>>11168220
>Potentials actually exist
>that a "potential" is in fact a thing dependent upon the qualities of causation
Potentials are not things, they are possibilities of things
Causation doesn't have any qualities, maybe you think it does. I encourage you to list some qualities of causation.
If you work it out yourself you should come to the conclusion that causation is dependent on the qualities of things
That of course assumes that you even understand what actuality, potential, and qualities are, which you obviously don't, if you did you wouldn't be making catagory mistakes left and right.

>>11168253
ok, but i never say transcendental. that is your fight. i only explain the limitations of that descriptions. and what exactly is explaining.
every word if you look from "transcendence" they dont have any meaning.

i think we are in the same boat. i only say that is a "useful" word, even is only an imagination thing.

>>11167215
Don't commit the Reification of Zero fallacy buckos.

>>11168264
Right, which makes it transcendental and thus undefinable. Perception includes understanding, for understanding is merely perception ordered by the processes of the mind in such a way that it generates useful constructs for further manipulation of phenomenal (thus perceptible) things. "Nothing" as in "the negation of existence" or "the absence of existence" is a meaningless linguistic container that we impress some element of our perception upon in order to generate a workable construct of understanding. This is merely some construct by which we impress meaning though, and is not actually a cognizance of what we "define" it to be. We have a "mental image", so to speak, of "nothing", however, this is not what we define it to be, but merely is what we have impressed upon the word.
So we still haven't defined "nothingness", nor can we. It is beyond our ability to define in a meaningful way, for the combination of words "the absence of existence" evokes no understanding of the "absence of existence" but rather it evokes the impression we imbued the word with.

>>11167215
i refuse

>>11167215
Shinji only rejected instrumentality because Anno wanted to prove to himself that life doesn't suck and make himself feel better about not offing himself

>>11168281
Oh, well right then I do believe we are speaking of the same thing then. The concept of nothingness we generate is definitely a useful construction of the mind. My whole point is that it is indeed a construction of the mind and that the actual thing described by the normal definition of "nothing" is something we can't actually cognize of. I definitely do think it is interesting to consider the construct though, and what exactly it is we are impressing on that construct in order to manifest useful meaning.

>>11168303
>>11168226
nothing has nothing

>>11168333
Which is indefinable

>>11168008
No, and you can even describe this as well in physics. Take away everything including vacuum and quantum fluctuations. Does it exist? only if you agree that the timeless void outside the known universe exists. Regardless, the theory of it can explain it.

>>11168341
that's the definition

Nothing isn't.

>>11167215
try to describe faggotness, op

>>11167215
it's like nothing but not really since nothing is something
try to imagine if something was nothing and then you can imagine nothing, only without being something

>>11167215
The absence of meaning.

Read Parmenides you faggots, he proved that the concept is indeed inconsistent

>>11167215
(define nothingness
lambda (a)
(equals a '() ) )

Hegel said if we can think Nothing, then we must be the Nothing thinking itself.

>>11168333
>>11168341
>>11168377
>>11169138
>>11169157
>>11169426
see
>>11168099

>>11169426
So, trying to think "of" the Nothing is to just imbricate it in the determinate categories of the Something. Nothing must be the one limit that cannot be posited, because all other limits are immanent to the mind the instant they are posited by it, and hence cease being simply Nothing. The Nothing is the limit external to the Mind as such, hence it must be the Mind itself (as the infinite rotation of negativity) that is Nothing, as what the Nothing "does" (which is to make Nothing of itself in/through the Mind).

>>11167215
Don't imagine.

>>11167215
A homosexual composed of nothingness?

I am sure that vast majority of LGBT people are already dead inside.

>>11167215

>>11168033
tl;dr

If you exist to observe nothingness, there is actually something there, and therefore the "nothingness" is invalidated.

>>11169502
Think harder, perform the speculative turn: you are nothingness observing itself.

>>11168033
This guy knows his shit.

Same thing when you try to describe infinity to someone. Its impossible for our minds to grasp concepts like this. There is so much that we don't know about.
>I know that I know nothing

>>11167215
Nihilism.

>>11168124
Substance is self-sufficient; that which itself neither changes or passes away is substance. If there were two distinct substances, this means that either 1) they each have the same nature, in which case they would be one substance, or 2) they have differing natures, in which case one would not be substance, in which case there would nevertheless be one substance. And nothing couldn't possibly be a quality of substance, since this is necessarily defined by its self-subsistence permanence. Matter is an idea.

Back to Hippel's, little Hegelian

Ok, stop thinking. If you remember the experience you are doing it wrong, and if you don't remember something it doesn't exist to you. There is nobody on this planet who can explain "nothingness" to you, because nobody can remember how it feels and/or are probably dead.

>>11167215
Just think of the meaning of life

>>11167215

You cannot, for what-is-not cannot be described since it is not what-is

>>11167527
>The grass is always greener on the other side.

>>11167215
"use" your eyes to look behind your head without actually looking.

>>11167215
Place without an object in it
Place without place

>>11167215
The absence of creation.
Chaos.

There is no such thing you retards

>>11169138
>nothing is not
>nothing is
>IS
now you fucked up

>>11167250
fuckin analytics

>>11167215
nothigness is defined by its differentiation from reality. if there was no world, no being in your prior experience, there would be no nothigness

>>11167250
not descriptive

>>11167237
>>imagine the thing that is persisting in both
Purpose?

>>11167215
>>11168008
"Nothing" exists solely as an abstract concept, and therefore the only way we can define it is via abstractions, not concretes. It is the word "absent" as a nonexistent noun rather than "absent" being an adjective describing an existing noun.

This is a good thread. I'm enjoying reading your posts anons.

>>11167250
You can't have a universal set in typical set theories, anon.
A better description of the null set might be along the lines of the set of all things such that for them a falsity is true.

>>11169689
But my mind can grasp the concept of infinity.

>>11167215

negation of being, sublated with being to be becoming

>>11167215

>>11171047
/thread

null

Death

>>11167215
Nothingness is God. It is the self-contradictory and infinite potential which necessarily collapses in on its own nonexistence to result in Fundamental Being

>>11167220
Hardly nothingness. A blind mans existence is nothingness?

>>11168033
Even outside of space and time (something humans can't think out of) There is something that gave birth to the universe, only it is immaterial and timeless.

I'm not sure if it's possible to have true nothingness.

>>11171192
see
>>11171176

>>11167215
No time, no space

>>11171176
Buddhist/Schopenhauerian theories don't really prove anything.

>>11171192
see
>>11171214

>>11170905
does the mere act of attributing a name and concept to something make it exist as an entity? Like a mass of planks and ropes turning into a "boat".
Does assigning the name "nothingness" to a concept or idea of nothing make it exist, despite not existing at all?

>>11167215

Hegel's description blew my mind. I don't even think I could word it like him.

>>11167439
there is no way in hell you're blowing quicker the day before than the morning. morning blows are the quickest

>>11167215
See the line below.

See the line above.

>>11167220
now I just see weird colorful blobs

>>11169778
>Substance is self-sufficient; that which itself neither changes or passes away
>Doesn't change
>Doesn't pass away
Oxymoronic.
I'm not a hegelian I'm a Peirceian, I don't even want to start with you when I haven't taken Ritalin.

>>11167215
Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.

Your reality before you were born.

Can you imagine the kabbalistic Tzimtzum? Neither can I.

Just meditate until you reach nirwana, or try anesthetics.

The absence of this

אין סוף

no

>>11168181
Then start by describing what nothingness is not.

>>11171665
Stop resting your boyfriens testicles on your eyes.

>>11167215

From an ''ontocentric'' (the only view?) and especially anthropocentric view, nothingness can be described. What I mean is, this seemingly transcendental object, which is not an object-- becomes an object. It becomes an abstract object in the form of negation.

To illustrate: Imagine that you wish to put an object into a box. You form a gestalt of reference, that the form of the box generates the space inside it. Even though that space is not truly a transcendent nothing-- this form of the formless within a form allows you place an object within the box. Now it seems that we can only describe nothing, in the *form* of negation, that nothing is an abstract object. But this would make nothingness which we can speak about, into a simulacrum. More specifically, it is not a copy of the original, diminished in quality. But a copy of a copy. Where is the original to be copied? Is it nowhere, if it is nothing? But for the abstract object of it to form, it must be inferred from something which is not it as well. Of course, this would then ultimately imply its transcendent possibility, but since this would be non-being, it is then only seen in the object of nothingness, which is a copy of the inferred relation between forms, which is a copy of the transcendent in this case-- of nothing. Thus for it to become an ''active nothingness'' in the gestalt initially described above; it must be experienced as a relation between objects, but also that that relation between objects makes it possible for there to be objects.

I am not really sure.

Where there once was;
Void and absolute.
What was once known;
Shade and mist
What was before felt;
Numb and passed
What was once longed for;
Abandon and despair.

Vision and color no more. Image and form devoid. All that was is no more. Ephemeral infinity.

>>11171227
... you avoid the precise phrasing.

You mean to say

that they prove

N O T H I N G

>>11172121
>gestalt

Coach Schtitt?

>>11167215
Your sex life lmao

75mg of pure dmt held in your lungs for as long as it takes to black out

>>11167509
This. As long as you still realize modernist>premodernist>>>postmodernist

the absents of everything bitch

>>11167509
What is it then?

>>11167215

It's like being in a dry, dark, huge, cavernous expanse. Not unlike your mother's vagina.

>>11172036
But we're in it.

>>11172171
calm the fuck down Satan

>>11171180
Blind people see something

>>11167215

"This shit empty....YEET"

>>11167215
Does anyone else find themselves contemplating the possible sensation of death with their eyes closed? I usually feel a strange falling off a cliff sensation of terrifying nothingless. I had a dream recently where a giant surreal looking helicopter crashed into my and rolled over my field of vision and I had a lucid thought along the lines of "here it is, the lights are about to go out, everything is suddenly going to st-" I paused anticipating the plug about to be pulled, but my perception continued and I finished the word "stop". I'm constantly reminding myself about how people hundreds of years ago, living in the present moment just as we are right now would have felt the exact same sense of importance of being at the very edge of the future, making history in their wake. They thought they were trail blazers, better than their predecessors and superior in endless ways. Now they too are in our history books, deemed barbaric in many ways, morally abhorrent etc. We too, our generation our era of humankind will also have this treatment. One day 2018 will be considered an ancient time, back then when x was accepted as normal and y didn't even exist yet. When you pick a book up and whizz the pages with your thumb and finger - there was us and gone! We came and went in a fraction of a second.