DOES NOTHING EXIST???

@guigus,

You are a confusing individual at times... The hint would imply a mathematical equation which would lead me to assume, initially, that you are referring to the numerical digit "fifteen". That however doesn't really answer the question as to your "meaning" towards that numerical digit, if that's, in fact, what you are referring to. Are you specifically referring to just the numerical digit? It would actually seem as though you're trying to make the point that our "meanings" about "fifteen" can be the same...although that would change the entire meaning of fifteen (in this situation) for you. The reason being, is that you would just be using fifteen as a tool (rather than a numerical digit) with a motive behind it, thus intertwining "fifteen" with that motive to create some new "meaning" for "fifteen".

Even if you were only referring to the numeric digit without any kind of point to it, we could still delve deeper into context about "fifteen" and the equation 14+1 and find differences there. For example, fifteen may be a simple numeric digit for you, and 14+1 just a simple mathematical equation. For me, "fifteen" represents my age in a very important event in my life, and "14+1" represents the number of extended family that I know of (the 14) and the (1), being myself.

The point I'm making in all of this is that we can come to perfect agreement in anything that is stated without specifics, but the more specific that you get, the more the differences in our "meanings" show. Those differences are what make us unique however and by providing the context around and about that, we help to convey ourselfs to each other to form relationships and to build understanding.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Quote:

I'll give you a clue: fourteen plus one.

There are different positional numeral systems in mathematics so 15=14+1 is not always correct.

0 Replies

@Chights47,

What I am saying is just that whatever the meaning "fifteen" has according to its context, it will be the meaning of "fifteen" (14 + 1?) and not of, say, "sixteen." Each word has a meaning before any context, which is its vernacular meaning.

The contextual meaning of any word depends on its vernacular meaning, not the other way around.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Either way, if I say "sixteen" that isn't very meaningful, now is it? All you know is that the number 16 is involved in some way, but until you get the context it is rather meaningless. It does not communicate anything of value.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

It honestly doesn't really matter if it's meaningful to us or not, regardless of how much context that you place around it. Before you even say or type the word or sentence, the meaning that you have for that word "flows" from you and is "funneled" or "confined" into the various "categories" or "symbols" that only represent the meaning that you have for that word. Generally those "symbols" are words, but they can also be gestures, sounds, etc.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Either way, if I say "sixteen" that isn't very meaningful, now is it? All you know is that the number 16 is involved in some way, but until you get the context it is rather meaningless. It does not communicate anything of value.

The whole point is that "nothing" has a different meaning than "fifteen," regardless the context, which is precisely what you are uselessly trying to evade: nothing means "no thing," which is the same as "no being"---the word "nothing" performs the negation ("no") of all things ("thing"), thus whatever the context it finds itself in will have to build upon that fundamental meaning, no matter how creatively.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I think we kind of circled around this in the "Truth is a choice" topic. I think what Cyracuz said here: http://able2know.org/topic/163374-10#post-4599291 sort of coincided with it.

Cyracuz wrote:

The way I see it, no truth is the closest we can come to any real truth. All is perspective and relationship.

It may not be an exact correlation, but I think it heads in the right direction at least.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

I think we kind of circled around this in the "Truth is a choice" topic. I think what Cyracuz said here: http://able2know.org/topic/163374-10#post-4599291 sort of coincided with it.
Cyracuz wrote:
The way I see it, no truth is the closest we can come to any real truth. All is perspective and relationship.
It may not be an exact correlation, but I think it heads in the right direction at least.

And how exactly this changes the meaning of the word "nothing"?

2 Replies

@guigus,

"No truth is the closest we can come to any real truth" It's like the start of the first step from nothing. "No truth" is like nothing and everything comes from that nothing through our perspectives, relationships, etc.

1 Reply

@guigus,

What I mean by the quoted sentence is that whatever we say we say from a perspective, and it always relates to something. There is perspective and relationship, and within it all we can decide the truth of whatever is said. Change the perspective, or the relationship, and the truth may change. So no truth is absolute.
This doesn't change the meaning of the word "nothing", but maybe it reveals that the word never actually meant what you put into it...

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I actually does change the meaning...completely. It doesn't, however, change the definition. The definition of something doesn't really have anything to do with what something means to us, but it does have everything to do with how it's conveyed. Maybe you're thinking about this too much in an external/materialistic sense?

Cyracuz wrote:

There is perspective and relationship, and within it all we can decide the truth of whatever is said.

Where does perspective and relationship come from?

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Well, one thing is that your senses are all located around your physical form, giving you the perspective of a human being. Everything you perceive with your senses establishes a relationship between you (the perspective of human perceiver) and whatever your senses are detecting.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

You're not answering the question, just circling around it. It seems as if you're just describing the process between perception and relationship. What is before that though?

0 Replies

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

"No truth is the closest we can come to any real truth" It's like the start of the first step from nothing. "No truth" is like nothing and everything comes from that nothing through our perspectives, relationships, etc.

This is not even close to what I am saying, which is that being and nothingness are the same: this is no metaphor. Your attempt to preserve the "purity" of the word "nothing" is disgusting.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

What I mean by the quoted sentence is that whatever we say we say from a perspective, and it always relates to something. There is perspective and relationship, and within it all we can decide the truth of whatever is said. Change the perspective, or the relationship, and the truth may change. So no truth is absolute.
This doesn't change the meaning of the word "nothing", but maybe it reveals that the word never actually meant what you put into it...

Since this does not change the meaning of the word, then:

Code:

Nothing is not each being.

Not each being is not each being.

Any being is any other being.

So "nothing" have not "actually meant what you put into it," not because of some "perspective," but because of its own internal dialectic---it is because of that dialectic that you perspective must change.

0 Replies

@guigus,

Wow, do you just disagree with people no matter what they say? Of course they are both the same, but you cannot deny that people are blind to this. So essentially this sentence was just referring to the mental process in which confuses, distracts, and blinds us from this truth.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

The post you refer to contains more agreement than disagreement, which I regret you haven't noticed.

1 Reply

@guigus,

I'm afraid I don't follow you. The post I was referring to, and had commented on was where you stated: "This is not even close to what I am saying, which is that being and nothingness are the same: this is no metaphor. Your attempt to preserve the "purity" of the word "nothing" is disgusting." Last i checked, that's called a disagreement.

1 Reply

@Chights47,

Chights47 wrote:

I'm afraid I don't follow you. The post I was referring to, and had commented on was where you stated: "This is not even close to what I am saying, which is that being and nothingness are the same: this is no metaphor. Your attempt to preserve the "purity" of the word "nothing" is disgusting." Last i checked, that's called a disagreement.

Sorry, I was referring to another post. My fault. And I maintain the above, despite its bad humor.

1 Reply

@guigus,

Then please explain which post you were referring to. As far as with you "maintaining the above" could you please explain as to how I am wrong specifically. I know you like to just repeat yourself over and over again buy I prefer that you correct what I've stated direct and explain what is wrong and how it's wrong. Anyone could say that someone is wrong but it means nothing unless valid specific reasons are provided.

1 Reply

DOES NOTHING EXIST???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know