Astonishment at Being

I think you can shrink it down to an infinitesimal, but not to pure nothingness. Just my opinion.

but yes to pure nothingness

even the quantum has something there , always

It seems to me that the concept itself will have to have a certain mind-space. is it possible to think of it wordlessly/numberlessly?

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:29 AM ----------


what do you mean? Are we agreeing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by north
man is not pure negativity , I'm not anyway

No, man is the collision of pure negativity and spatial being. But this negativity concept is hard to grasp. It must be inferred. What is the Being of beings? What is raw existence made of?

where does this pure negativity come then ?

I don't know if this is relevant, with regards to this idea of 'nothingness', but I wonder if it is not something like the Buddhist 'sunyata' or 'emptiness' that is being spoken of? This is symbolised in Zen with a roughly-drawn zero, like this. Is that is what we are getting at here?

It must be inferred. It is what makes our concepts and numbers singular. It is why we perceive the world as sliced into objects (conceptually, not visually.)

What is the Being of beings? What is the most minimal being you can think of/ What is it made of? Emptiness and a form that makes it a singular emptiness. This singularity is imposed by nous. Please check out Appearence and Reality for more, as I have written so many times already, but my explanation is all over the place.:bigsmile:

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 02:15 AM ----------



I can't tell. There are two distinct reductions. One is a concept, and the other is a concept of the non-conceptual. In my view, the bare minimum concept is well described as 'being,' and this is actually equivalent to number, except slightly more abstract, as it does not hint to integration with a number continuum. But Parmenides' "One" is the same thing.

The other reduction is behind this. But it can only be inferred. I think this is what they mean by the "uncreated.' It's is necessarily paradoxical, because it is a digital or unified representation of the non-digital which is also non-spatial . Pure negativity. A strange but brilliant concept. It's the knife that cuts distinctions. But it cannot cut beyond the One, for the mind is digital. One is its lowest terms. Hence Hegel's logical inference was necessary. And probably the Greeks and their Nous. (The Number that was never a number, but the source of all number....)
I'm thinking they wouldn't represent it with a circle. I came upon by thing of the logical operator "not" as used so often in philosophy. what is the logical meaning of not? It only exists in relation. "not" is the uncreated which is only manifest in the spatial present......as a hole is only manifest in the donut.