DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@Ding an Sich,

Ding an Sich wrote:

guigus wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Suppose you say that not any thing has a yellow color. Then, you are saying that at least one thing has another color, not that no thing has a yellow color.

No. If you say that not any thing (nothing) has a yellow color, it just means that nothing has a yellow color. It does not logically follow from this statement that at least one thing has antoher color.

You are just presupposing that "not any thing" is already "nothing," which is precisely what I am showing you it is not (yet): when I say that "not any animals are men," I am saying that, although some animals are men, some others are not.

Actually you are really saying, "it is not the case that for all x".

We cannot infer from the proposition, "for all x, x is not yellow" the proposition that "there is an x, such that x is blue, or green, or red, etc.". This is not the same as saying "there is an x, such that x is not yellow". For whatever x, that x may not have any color at all (colorless), and hence we cannot infer that that x necessarily has another color.

As I said in the post just before yours, I have abandoned the words "any" and "every" in favor of "each," so we don't get lost in that kind of discussion:

Code:Nothing is not each being.

Thus:

Code:Not each being is not each being.

Which means any being is any other being.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

As I said in the post just before yours, I have abandoned the words "any" and "every" in favor of "each," so we don't get lost in that kind of discussion

Good. I was getting tired of those words. Lets rape "each" next.

Quote:

Not each being is not each being.

Yes, and 0*0=0, but so what? How is that anything but a waste of letters?

Quote:

Which means any being is any other being.

Are you trying to prove that everything is fundametally one? On a different concetpual level I would perhaps agree with you, but this sentiment is really not communicated by the approach you are insisting on.

[not each being]=[not each being], which is what you said, can also be expressed as x=x. But can you seriously think of anyting more redundant and utterly superfluous than x=x? This is dictated by our understanding of x.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
As I said in the post just before yours, I have abandoned the words "any" and "every" in favor of "each," so we don't get lost in that kind of discussion

Good. I was getting tired of those words. Lets rape "each" next.

Quote:
Not each being is not each being.

Yes, and 0*0=0, but so what? How is that anything but a waste of letters?

Quote:
Which means any being is any other being.

Are you trying to prove that everything is fundametally one? On a different concetpual level I would perhaps agree with you, but this sentiment is really not communicated by the approach you are insisting on.

[not each being]=[not each being], which is what you said, can also be expressed as x=x. But can you seriously think of anyting more redundant and utterly superfluous than x=x? This is dictated by our understanding of x.

Of course that "not each being is not each being" can be taken as "x = x," or -- as you so brilliantly wrote -- "[not each being] = [not each being]." Or, as I would write it, as "[whatever] = [whatever]." All that is required is that we simply forget what "not each being" means...

But of course it can also be taken as the sentence it is, with the meaning it has, which just happens to be that "any being is any other being."

Unless, of course, you forbid words of having their meaning. Until then -- until you have that kind of power -- I suggest you stop wasting both our times, and finally accept that you have no decent objections left (it is incredible how some people prefer to turn sentences into a bunch of meaningless letters just to avoid admitting they were wrong).

Or perhaps you could take yourself seriously and stop posting on this forum, since to you every sentence is nothing but a series of [subject] [verb] [object] structures in which it doesn't matter what the subject and the object are and in which the verb can be replaced by "=."

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

[not each being]=[not each being], which is what you said, can also be expressed as x=x.

Let us play this mathematical game of yours for a while.

Let "[not each being] is [not each being]" be "x = x." Then let us take another statement, say, that "[my finger] is [not each being]," as "y = x" ("my finger" would be "y," since "x" is already taken by "not each being"). In the end, we have that "y" (either the meaningless bunch of letters "my finger" or its meaning) is identical to "x" (either the meaningless bunch of letters "not each being" or its meaning). Unfortunately, this is false, as those two "things" -- either as meaningless bunches of letters or as meanings -- are just not identical.

Sorry, but your little game is an offense to both mathematics and semantics.

It would be far better if you stopped such regrettable games to read the following as if it were written in plain English, if not for the fact that indeed it is:

Code:

Nothing is not each being.

Not each being is not each being.

Any being is any other being.

2 Replies

@guigus,

The "property" of "being" is a shared property for all that there is...in that sense any being is like any other being...but either, or there´s no "other" such being to refer to, according to your logic, or if there is "others" around with different sets of property´s, then necessarily, any being is not any other being, even if "beingness" it is what they share and have in common !!!

Keep it simple Guigus and who know´s maybe you will come to get it... Cool

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

The "property" of "being" is a shared property for all that there is...

Now "being" is just a property? So please tell me: a property of what? Sorry, but you now just won the silliness championship.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

in that sense

I would say "nonsense," but I'll let you proceed...

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

any being is like any other being...

All being is, hence is a being, if that is what you mean.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

but either, or there´s no "other" such being to refer to, according to your logic, or if there is "others" around with different sets of property´s, then necessarily, any being is not any other being, even if "beingness" it is what they share and have in common !!!

Unfortunately to you, being is not a property, since without that "property" there is nothing left to which we can apply any (proper) property.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Keep it simple Guigus and who know´s maybe you will come to get it...

Before talking about simplicity, we must talk about correctness: if it is wrong, it hardly matters if it is either simple or complex.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Nothing is not each being.
Not each being is not each being.
Any being is any other being.

Where are you going with this? What is your point?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

But since you began talking about being, let me show you something: since being and nothingness are the same, you can prove that starting from nothing -- as we have done so far -- or from being itself -- as I'll show you now:

Code:

Being is all being.

Being is each being.

Each being is not all being.

Being is not being.

So being is nothing.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Nothing is not each being.
Not each being is not each being.
Any being is any other being.

Where are you going with this? What is your point?

You will never see my point without admitting I am right: first things first.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I have to agree that you are right before you tell me what you are right about?

Are you serious???

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I have to agree that you are right before you tell me what you are right about?

Are you serious???

In fact, that's the other way around: it is you that are demanding that I show you the consequences of being and nothingness identity to admit they are identical, as if I hadn't proved it yet: whatever the consequences are, being and nothingness are identical -- a conclusion depends on its logical antecedents, not on its logical consequences.

1 Reply

@guigus,

You are such an arrogant asshole.

"Nothingness" is a state of being. But that is not the same as saying that being and nothingness are identical.

You are damn right that if you make a claim people have every right to demand that you substantiate that claim.

Quote:

a conclusion depends on its logical antecedents, not on its logical consequences

More bullshit. A conclusion does not depend any less on the consequence than the antecedents.

I think (antecedent) ergo (consequence) I am (conclusion).

Quote:

whatever the consequences are, being and nothingness are identical

So we can just toss one of the words to the wind then, because they both mean the same. And then we can never refer to the absence of something by saying nothing. How is that moving forward in a constructive and expansive manner? It is just restricting the patterns of your thought, diminishing the level of detail you are capable of processing and ensuring that you will remain a damned fool to the day you die.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You are such an arrogant asshole.

You are a bit confuse: someone else being right when you are wrong does not necessarily make that person an asshole (by the way, did you ever wondered that perhaps the asshole is you?).

Cyracuz wrote:

"Nothingness" is a state of being. But that is not the same as saying that being and nothingness are identical.

Then please explain to everyone in this forum how is it possible that being is in the "state" of nothingness without being nothing, OK?

Cyracuz wrote:

You are damn right that if you make a claim people have every right to demand that you substantiate that claim.

Unfortunately, that's not what you are demanding: I have already "substantiated" my claims, as well as falsified all you "objections." And now that you have no objections left you are demanding that I show you where all this will lead as if this was needed for me to be wright: it is not -- I have already proved myself right, and you, wrong.

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
a conclusion depends on its logical antecedents, not on its logical consequences

More bullshit. A conclusion does not depend any less on the consequence than the antecedents.

I think (antecedent) ergo (consequence) I am (conclusion).

Sorry, but "ergo" is not a consequence of the above reasoning -- and how could it, if it is only part of it? -- just a word indicating an inference. A consequence of the above reasoning would be, for instance, that "the existence of my body is not certain, since it is not my thought."

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
whatever the consequences are, being and nothingness are identical

So we can just toss one of the words to the wind then, because they both mean the same. And then we can never refer to the absence of something by saying nothing. How is that moving forward in a constructive and expansive manner? It is just restricting the patterns of your thought, diminishing the level of detail you are capable of processing and ensuring that you will remain a damned fool to the day you die.

Why don't you stop trying to anticipate the consequences of my being right instead of recognizing you cannot falsify my reasoning? My reasoning is this:

Code:

Nothing is not each being.

Not each being is not each being.

Any being is any other being.

Can you falsify that?

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

Unfortunately to you, being is not a property, since without that "property" there is nothing left to which we can apply any (proper) property.

1 - Being is to an Observer nothing other then manifestation...and "property" here was meant in that sense...that which can manifest itself !

2 - The first condition of something like "beingness" must not be its last, in there again you deduce wrongly, since to my knowledge there are several forms of manifestation...

Also:

...someone said that nothingness is a state of being...well it is n´t !
...on the contrary, its a state of non being.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Whatever. You are clearly not speaking the same language as the rest of us.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
Unfortunately to you, being is not a property, since without that "property" there is nothing left to which we can apply any (proper) property.

1 - Being is to an Observer nothing other then manifestation...

And I am forced to ask you again: manifestation of what?

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

and "property" here was meant in that sense...that which can manifest itself !

You mean a manifestation that manifests... a manifestation?

If there is no distinction between a manifestation and what it manifests, then the very concept of a manifestation vanishes.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

2 - The first condition of something like "beingness" must not be its last, in there again you deduce wrongly, since to my knowledge there are several forms of manifestation...

You are just saying that being is multiple, and indeed, being is each being. However, it is also all being, by which it ends up denying itself, since each being is not all being.

But you are unfortunately trying to say this by transforming "being" as all being -- while calling it "beingness" -- in a property of "being" as each being, which is just a big mess: what you call "beingness" is just all being, which in turn is just each and every being. Without what you call "beingness" there is nothing left that you can apply that "beingness" to.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Also:

...someone said that nothingness is a state of being...well it is n´t !
...on the contrary, its a state of non being.

If nothing were a state, then it would have to be the sate of something, instead of nothing.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Whatever. You are clearly not speaking the same language as the rest of us.

That's not a problem of language, but of your attitude.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Yes, perhaps it is my attitude. You come across as a very dishonest person who is prepared to say anything to prove to yourself that you are right. You don't seem to care about wether or not it is even sensible. I have tried for several pages of this thread to follow your logic, but each time we grind down to where there is nothing for you to do but to concede that you are completely lost, you just wait a day and start again from the start, with just a few words swapped out from the original statements.
I have been patient, and I have indulged you for far longer than this drivel you post deserves.
So here is me signing off, because this is tragic.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes, perhaps it is my attitude. You come across as a very dishonest person who is prepared to say anything to prove to yourself that you are right. You don't seem to care about wether or not it is even sensible. I have tried for several pages of this thread to follow your logic, but each time we grind down to where there is nothing for you to do but to concede that you are completely lost, you just wait a day and start again from the start, with just a few words swapped out from the original statements.
I have been patient, and I have indulged you for far longer than this drivel you post deserves.
So here is me signing off, because this is tragic.

Talking about patience, look at mine...

And talking about being honest, when are you going to honestly falsify at least one of my reasonings? All I hear from you is how idiot I am, how dumb, how dishonest... What kind of logical argument is this?

Falsify this:

Code:

Nothing is not each being.

Not each being is not each being.

Any being is any other being.

Calling me an idiot will not make my argument go away.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

And I am forced to ask you again: manifestation of what?

SOMETHING which is able to be observed, you ignorant fool...other than that you are speculating...do some reading ass !

Quote:

You mean a manifestation that manifests... a manifestation?

No ! that is just another extremely poor and sad example of your infinite stupidity and general ignorance...a manifestation points towards the transcendental, that which is visible to someone, a given X...nothing else can be said of it !

Quote:

If there is no distinction between a manifestation and what it manifests, then the very concept of a manifestation vanishes.

Again, it does n´t follow...see above !

Quote:

You are just saying that being is multiple, and indeed, being is each being. However, it is also all being, by which it ends up denying itself, since each being is not all being.

But you are unfortunately trying to say this by transforming "being" as all being -- while calling it "beingness" -- in a property of "being" as each being, which is just a big mess: what you call "beingness" is just all being, which in turn is just each and every being. Without what you call "beingness" there is nothing left that you can apply that "beingness" to.

All property´s have the possibility of manifesting themselves towards an hypothetical observer, thus of being for him...and none of that makes them equal, which only means that "beingness" can be perceived as a common trait of all things, or a property that is !
Once more you only show in public a perfect display of sheer stupidity time and again !

I live you to your nonsense as I also am out of this endless hole...your craving for attention wont have any extra push from me.
Goodbye !

0 Replies

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know