Everything exists.

Nothing is something.

This statement holds all the possible ramifications of the assessment of Being to its orientations. And from the dual meaning that arises in this statement, all problems and solutions exist.

It is not merely meaning, because that represents only one of the two orientations then.

But meaning is the main issue through which, if the truth is to be understood, must be confronted.

Something is always something else; nothing is always something.

It is the question of orientation upon the universe. Less what meaning is made, more when that meaning is challenged.

Orientation upon things concerns two basic questions;

what are we dealing with?

What are we trying to accomplish?

If these two questions are not stated, then they are assumed. We thus have one thing we are dealing with: Reality is thus the teleo-ontological assumption of a common sense of being human and the universe.

Without this assumption implicit to every statement and thought, no reality arises. It is then just a bunch of things doing stuff; reality is complicit with an agenda.

So then the next question involved in that truth — it is a truth because no argument can be made against it without implying that its meaning is operative:

What are we trying to accomplish by the assumed common arena ?

For this:

We are dealing with the truth of reality for the purpose of Being mentally healthy.

This is a anthropology of philosophy.

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

9 thoughts on “Everything exists.”

  1. Nothing is no more something than darkness is something. The only ‘something’ is the contrast to something else. It reminds me of the statistical notion of ‘degrees of freedom’. There is no degree. It’s a binary state: 0 and 1; off and on. So, like off is not on, nothing is not something, and dark is not light.

    It also reminds me of the notion of zero itself. It took so long for zero to be introduced as a number because the notion of nothing was so difficult to fathom. Although much can be read about the history of zero on the Interwebs these days, I found this book by Charles Seife interesting: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0140296476, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. These absences (zero, dark, nothing) are conveniences of language to describe a state. Because I have a name for something doesn’t manifest it.

        Like ’empty’, it’s a state. If I present a marble in my hand and remove it, my hand is ostensibly empty of marbles. This doesn’t make ’empty’ something; it makes ’empty’ the absence of ‘something’. Using symbolic maths, we get 1 – 1 = 0—something minus something equals nothing or ’empty’. Conversely, light minus light equals dark.

        One might entertain a line of argumentation that even the vacuum of space contains something, but this would miss the point that the ‘something’ that may be there is of no interest in context to the situation.

        Revisiting marbles, I may have a marble and a penny; once I remove the marble, I may still have a penny, but I’ve got no marbles. This is the relevant context of nothing.

        Essentially light is the perception of photons. Darkness is the absence of these photons, conceptually similar to the marble.

        On a tangent (or perhaps a non sequitur), the aphorism, ‘there is nothing that thinking doesn’t make it so’ is to make a call out to magical thinking. New-agers tend to put a different weight on it by believing if you focus on something hard enough, it will come to be. Self-help articles say you can attract great wealth or a mate by concentrating on it. The flip side of this is that the reason you ‘have’ nothing rather than nothing is that you haven’t committed yourself appropriately.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. My point is, why should thinking have anything to do with whether or not something exists?

        Because, ultimately, I am just basically coming from the standpoint of the Cartesian quoteI think therefore everything else exists”

        Why am I so sure that it is only me that exists, as well as that my thoughts are able to determine what exists and what it does not exist?

        Basically I’m standing at a point that, for all noble purposes, does not exist, and using that unapproachable off-limits point of collapse, using it to proclaim upon the rest of the universe what is allowed to exist and what is not allowed to exist. As well as the qualifiers, for example, well it’s language.

        How could this nonexistent being, this being that supposedly thinks, that is never able to be approached by anything else in the universe, by the sheer fact that it thinks, but could never locate itself within a surety about what it is that “it“ is that his thinking — why does this empty space of nothingness get to decide for anything else what exists and doesn’t exist in the universe?

        But even better, why does it get to decide that the brain is the center of its formation, such that we have a language etc.?

        Now, these are not arguments in rebuttal to what you’re really saying. They are arguments in correspondence with what you’re saying.

        I’m not saying that thought is just a fantasy and so we’re not really thinking. I’m saying that for sure I think, and for sure I do not. For sure my thinking is able to designate categories of substance and whatever the fuck I want to talk about discourse language etc., and there is nothing that is going on then involves thinking whatsoever. And. It is only a certain righteousness upon this latter proposition that I verify want to argue against the fact that there is really no substance to me at all.

        But then again, this is why I write books. Because there is no simple back-and-forth that’s going to get to any sort of real understanding here.

        Thinking is both a positive space and a negative space.

        Everyone already knows all the things everyone’s gonna say about what positive space that thinking occupies. Intention, language, discourse, science, cognition etc. etc.

        I already know all these things. They are interesting sure. But they don’t really get us anywhere. Or, as I say, what are we trying to accomplish through these various sorts of ethereal transcedent categories?

        I’m not saying that we can’t accomplish things. I merely asking what we are trying to accomplish. I am merely calling us out to say hey, let’s be honest about what we’re really trying to do here by using all these categories and positive assertions that arise from some noble finger, some actually substantiated basis of thought that gets to discern all these etc. etc. I’ve already described it

        So I’m actually describing what the case may be if indeed I’m not thinking at all. I’m not using discourse from a standpoint of a central think it one bit. There is no consciousness going on inside my brain right now. None of it. It is not speculative, it is not linguistic. It is not even conceptual. Because all that is a rising is that which is occurring around this negative space. It is a rising in existence as such in the universe, contained by the universe itself.

        Anyways I got to stop this because I just talk incessantly. lol.

        These are difficult conversations because it’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying. And yes they’re really interesting. But I don’t think they’re really getting us anywhere. I mean they don’t affect my life one single bit so far as I’m living it in my daily life. Where they do affect it it is under a totally different condition: That condition that I’m involved with helping other people. And that’s my job. And so yes it’s very interesting. Because I can use these things to try and help other people. But so far as my own life. It has pretty much nothing to do with it at all except that it’s kind of interesting that people come up with these great crazy dumb stupid fabulous ideas and they’re making a living doing it. I mean how incredible and ridiculous at the same time. lol

        But I’m a total dork👽 .

        Like

      3. To your point, something can exist without thinking (or perception), and something can be perceived without existing. Descartes trod this ground. But it seems like you are claiming that if one can think—I prefer perceive—it, it exists. My original response holds: we seem to be disagree with ‘it’.

        In my beliefs—following Saussure’s semiotics—there is a signifier and a signified. Saussure intentionally and purposefully avoided the term ‘it’, as this is a placeholder for something that exists. ‘Signified’ has no such connotation, so the signified can either exist or not. Since there is no requirement for existence, I can employ it against an empty or NULL set.

        There are interesting psychological and anthropological studies in this space. The Sapir-Whorf language proposition is interesting, and I’ve read some interesting pieces on perception and colour.

        Anyhoo, have a happy New Year. See you on the other side.

        Like

      4. I am saying that you are actually saying that “I think, therefore everything is”.

        I am saying that I am not thinking. Can you prove to me that I am thinking?

        Or that I am conceptualizing or perceiving ?

        I am probably not even using language. And yet. Something is coming to you. I’m not sure it has anything to do with language. Becuase I am assuming that, at least me, is not thinking either.

        What is occurring then? If I tell you I am not thinking nor using language. What is happening then? What goes on ?

        Since, for sure you must be thinking right at this moment, that I am being obstinate. Or that I am making some sort of thought experiment. But indeed this is not happening at all. And so I’m wondering what is actually occurring, what is actually occurring right at this moment, when I’m telling you, when I’m giving you evidence in front of your face that there is no thought occurring at all, what is happening right now then?

        Can you tell me?

        Like

      5. One of the issues I come accross in discussions is that the person I am discussing with does not understand the two routes.

        Yes. Yes and yes. I agree with you…

        And.

        That is the key word. I think you are missing my understanding by.

        You are arguing with me and giving me rebuttals that we already know. And I agree with.

        And…

        Yes and no.

        Perhaps :

        https://www.academia.edu/39724836/The_Philosophical_Hack_The_Concluding_Unscientific_Postscript_to_Event

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s