Nothingness as empty representation

[Reciprocality]

Nothingness is an empty representation of what may be divided in 'something'. Every 'something' is itself indivisible. There are at all anything plural. Plurality is only of unity. Therefore growth, as a means for plurality as multiplicity (or just multiplicity) is inherent to every 'something', this is an actual equation for god, it can be better stated.

Multiplicity inheres to whatever is undivided and actual, as its potential. 

 

Nothingness then is merely our capacity to identify the nature of multiplicity without also rendering anything particular by means of this capacity, and itself ultimately indivisible. 

Everything is also always an empty representation of itself, some moment may contain both a non-empty particular and a empty universal representation, or it may contain a non empty particular representation of something subsistent to itself as memory, which by being itself indivisible yet plural implies at that time universal emptiness or what we may represent now as nothingness.

 

What is here referred to differs to what is said conceptually, you do not have to fabricate some thought to get it, you are merely aware of how nothingness by being indivisible is never what is typically referred to as nothing but itself substantial.

This is mostly an exposition of why many mystics says that experience is actually just nothing, and how the typical idea of nothingness as some possible opposition to 'being' is meaningless, not meaningless in that it can not produce meaning, but meaningless in that this representation does not mean what it is alleged to mean, in reality it means "anything to no exclusion" or "everything in unity".

Thought presuppose/necessitates distinction, nothingness has no distinction and opposition hinges on distinction, therefore the idea of opposition as the predicate for nothing is absurd, which also means that nothingness as a synthetic judgement is absurd.

Nothingness then has plurality without distinction, it can thus be justified as that out of which intuition of cognition is made phenomenally, which of course means that it is not made phenomenally, which then implies that something has made yout intuitions that is independent of you, if they are made at all. 

This something which has made your intuitions (if they are at all made) I conclude with necessarily having to constitute cosmological/ontological/absolute/existential growth, going back to the equation of god. If however they (intuitions) are not made at all then the original premises of the first paragraph must necessarily be false.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

Nihilism then, for it to be true in its ultimate and only meaningful form requires plurality to be equally ultimately divided, which is a funny way to conclude with how materialism leads to nihilism.

If consciousness is believed to be emergent out of mere parts then reason will from there necessarily lead to nihilism, that nothingness as the disappearance of emergence is its necessary conclusion, to say that something in accordance to it must remain when itself disappears.

 

The problem is that the parts out of which consciousness is allegedly emergent of are undivided magnitudes in consciousness, consciousness in 'being at all' or 'being in the first place' proves its eternity/infinity, for any negation of the proposition that consciousness emerges predicates it.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

There is obviously only one conclusion to the latter points, namely that teleology inheres to dualism.

Not Cartesian or material dualism in particular, but Kantian and to be sure Human dualism in absolute general.

Whatever upon which our particular form of being hinges, it were necessarily there for us to become, and so even though material causation is justified in attributing priority or foundation to whatever precedes something else it still is no more fundamental to what is emergent of it.

 

The question of why one are at all emergent out of what requires it to be asked, the answer will always and only go meta on itself and are the very proof of irreducible existence. @ll Ontology ll Are we getting anywhere?

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Reciprocality