GENIUS FORUMS

I suppose that is philosophical humour?

They must want people (or at least I am sure they would like the fact that people are taking an interest in their books) to read their books or else they wouldn't bother writing. I get that money is not the motivating factor, perhaps getting them published, isn't either.

Don't mind Steve, he's our resident wino, who posts from the public library, usually under the influence of his own type of breakfast and lunch. He's harmless.

Jeannie,

A b b.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It could be positioned in relation to nothing at all; no other. This merely demonstrates the emptiness of existence and the development of the conceptual.

Positioning in relation to other would preclude it from being everything. The equation that no-thing is relative to every-thing fills void with concept and hence negates emptiness. The concept is The 'thing'. It is the label, identification, naming, bounding, limiting, the measuring, the attachment of thought through projection onto the illusion of other. It is Things that occupy and hence negate emptiness, therefore obfuscating the nature of existence. The way l put it together is to say that thinking reveals the nature of thought and existence. But it seems that thought can only reveal. It cannot touch existence, it can only reflect on itself (its image making).

let's apply socrates' (plato's) idea of the forms. suppose everything or infinity are Opposites to nothing or zero. a form cannot come from, or become its opposite. now to their particulars. what exhibits everything-ness? what exhibits nothing-ness? Could the particular of everything be infinity, and the particular of nothing be zero? just as you could have zero apples in your cabinet, but there is not nothing. infinity and everything are much harder to discern a difference.

Steven Coyle wrote:Jeannie,

A b b.

Gee, Steven, if you keep coming up with tricky pearls of wisdom like that, I may get jealous :P

pointexter wrote:It is Things that occupy and hence negate emptiness, therefore obfuscating the nature of existence.

While it's true that our relationship to things, which are the things themselves, can lead to believing in these created illusions, they are not able to negate emptiness since they are emptiness as well. Following the nature of existence, things are still things, whatever way we'd look at them.