"real" reality...

The philosophical postmodernists, a rebel crew milling beneath the black flag of anarchy, challenge the very foundations of science and traditional philosophy. Reality, they propose, is a state constructed by the mind, not perceived by it. In the most extravagant version of the constructivism, there is not "real" reality, no objective truths external to mental activity, only prevailing versions disseminated by ruling social groups. Nor can ethics be firmly grounded, given that each society creates its own codes for the benefit of the same oppressive forces.

Wilson, Edward O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Vintage Books, 1998, p. 44.

...is in the mind of the beholder? ...originator?

knowledge, language, learning...

I have been describing the problem of acquisition of knowledge of language in terms that are more familiar in an epistemological than a psychological context, but I think that this is quite appropriate. Formally speaking, acquisition of “common-sense knowledge” – knowledge of a language, for example – is not unlike theory construction of the most abstract sort. Speculating about the future development of the subject, it seems to me not unlikely, for the reasons I have mentioned, that learning theory will progress by establishing the innately determined set of possible hypotheses, determining the conditions of interaction that lead the mind to put forth hypotheses from this set, and fixing the conditions under which such a hypothesis is confirmed – and, perhaps, under which much of the data is rejected as irrelevant for one reason or another.

Chomsky, Noam, Language and Mind: Linguistic Contributions to the Study of Mind , Source: Language and Mind publ. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1968. One of the six lectures

...language first? ...mind first? ...questions a priori?

signs...

Semiotics is the science of communication and sign systems, in short, of the ways people understand phenomena and organize them mentally, and of the ways in which they devise means for transmitting that understanding and for sharing it with others. Although natural and artificial languages are therefore central to semiotics, its field covers all non-verbal signalling and extends to domains whose communicative dimension is perceived only unconsciously or subliminally. Knowledge, meaning, intention and action are thus fundamental concepts in the semiotic investigation of phenomena.

"Semiotics & Communications Theory," Course of study description, Victoria College, British Columbia, Victoria College - Semiotics

...out there or in here with language?

is there in truth...

What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...

'On truth and lie in an extra-moral sense,' The Viking Portable Nietzsche, p.46-7, Walter Kaufmann transl.

...no beauty?

to be or not to be...

Nothing in the universe can stand by itself - no thing, no fact, no being, no event - and for his reason it is absurd to single anything out as the ideal to be grasped. For what is singled out exists only in relation to its own opposite, since what is is defined by what is not, pleasure is defined by pain, life is defined by death, and motion is defined by stillness. Obviously, the mind can form no idea of what "to be" means without the contrast of "not to be," since the ideas of being and non-being are abstractions from such simple experiences as that there is a penny in the right hand and no penny in the left hand.

Watts, Alan, The Way of Zen, "Mayahana Buddhism," 1957, p. 63

...it is not a question?

an indication of something...

A sign stands for something to the idea which it produces or modifies....That for which it stands is called its object, that which it conveys, its meaning; and the idea which it gives rise, its interpretant.... [the sign creates in the mind] an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. This sign stands for something, its object. It stands for that object, not in all respects, but in reference to a sort of idea which I have sometimes called the ground of that representation."

C. S. Peirce, quoted in Umberto Eco (1979) The Role of the Reader 7.2

or something else...?

strange...

...attractor?

into the chaos...

The Universe has a fundamental pattern of fourfoldness throughout all scales of magnitude. When applied to Nature, including Man, the Law of Four manifests as the four attractors. These attractors balance entropy, providing order from out of chaos. When applied in the microcosmic level "the four" manifests as the four basic energies or forces: electro-magnetic, gravity, and the strong and weak forces. In human consciousness its the four functions of sensing, thinking, feeling and willing. Understanding how the Attractors work in the meso-cosmic world can help us make sense of our world, and make sense of our consciousness functions....

The four attractors act on all levels of reality to form Cosmos out of Chaos. They make up a newly discovered Wisdom Law fundamental to making sense of what is happening in the real world. The world is not really totally ordered as previously believed. It is fundamentally disordered, chaotic, but it contains forces or attractors of cosmos that create patterns of order over time. They are anchors of order in an otherwise stormy sea. Full understanding of the Attractors requires a new understanding of space and time....

There is no apparent order at all to the actions of the Strange attractor. On the surface it appears to be pure Chaos, but nevertheless there is order of a subtle kind which only appears over time when looked at in the right perspective. Its analogy in consciousness is the willing function. Yet, when tied to Awareness - the Zero - it is spontaneous, unpredictable. It appears to be chaotic, yet it has order of a subtle, fractal kind.

The Four Chaos Attractors

...it appears over time?

real, reality, realization, realism, realist, realty...

Quietism is the attitude of people who say, "let others do what I cannot do." The doctrine I am presenting before you is precisely the opposite of this, since it declares that there is no reality except in action. It goes further, indeed, and adds, "Man is nothing else but what he purposes, he exists only in so far as he realises himself, he is therefore nothing else but the sum of his actions, nothing else but what his life is."

"Existentialism and Humanism" by Jean-Paul Sartre. Trans. Philip Mairet (Brooklyn: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1977), pp. 23-56. First published in French in 1946 under the title "L'Existentialisme est un humanisme*."

* Note: The translation from French to English actually is "Existentialism is (a) humanism." The indefinite article (a) is always used in French with most nouns, as are definite articles (the), unlike English where articles can be understood to be there. As the reader can see, this other translation of the title declares something very different than the translated title "Existentialism and Humanism."

Translation can be a very tricky job. Does the translator need to change the form of what is being said into the idiomatic language of the translated? Is there a need to do literal translation? Can translation change the meaning of what is said? These are all vey important considerations, especially if "language" may be the only thing that can prove what is real, reality, realization, realism, realist, realty...

Reading the two translations shows that they mean two very different things. "Existentialism and Humanism" leads one to initially compare and contrast the two. "Existentialim is (a) humanism" can go in different directions in and of itself. Is existentialism a type of humanism? Are existentialism and humanism one and the same thing? Can we have one without the other? What is the interaction within the two? The entire conversation changes. Consider one of the key phrases in the quote...

..."there is no reality except in action"?

In the French the langauge for this phrase is "...il n'y a de réalité que dans l'action." It can also be translated as "there is reality only in the action." [emphasis mine]

...the action? What about the thought?

existence a priori...

What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world--and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing--as he wills to be after that leap towards existence. Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.

"Existentialism and Humanism" by Jean-Paul Sartre. Trans. Philip Mairet (Brooklyn: Haskell House Publishers Ltd., 1977), pp. 23-56. First published in French in 1946 under the title "L'Existentialisme est un humanisme."

...i am, therefore I think?

the journey...

What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves? This is the most important of all voyages of discovery, and without it, all the rest are not only useless, but disastrous.

Thomas Merton, 1915-1968

...the destination?

"The world exists but it is not real...

...what do you think about that?

...Ku* is existence without noumenon. It exists but it doesn't exist. There is no substance. I exist, but what does that mean? Is this me, my head, my feet, my skin? No. My cells, body, skin are changing all the time. Every seven years all the cells in our body are completely renewed. Where is me? It's the same for everything in the world, and for the world itself; it has no noumenon, it is ku*."

Taisen Deshimaru Roshi (1914-1982) ABZenD: 180 answers about zen from Master Deshimaru

*Ku - (Japanese) "Emptiness;" ...It is the emptiness of emptiness, it is the emptiness of the circumstances of any situation, and it is the emptiness of yourself.....

a thought...

Does your room really have a view,
Or even a window to look through?
All I want is for you to look inside of you.
Don't be afraid to walk through the door.
Believe it or not, you've opened it.

Chris Cormack, Mind Moon Circle Quartely, Autumn 1992, pp.21

...goes through the door?

the two abysses...

He who regards himself in this light will be afraid of himself, and observing himself sustained in the body given him by nature between those two abysses of the Infinite and Nothing, will tremble at the sight of these marvels; and I think that, as his curiosity changes into admiration, he will be more disposed to contemplate them in silence than to examine them with presumption.

For in fact what is man in nature? A Nothing in comparison with the Infinite, an All in comparison with the Nothing, a mean between nothing and everything. Since he is infinitely removed from comprehending the extremes, the end of things and their beginning are hopelessly hidden from him in an impenetrable secret; he is equally incapable of seeing the Nothing from which he was made, and the Infinite in which he is swallowed up.

Blaise Pascal, Pensees, sect. II, 72

... = ?

before, during, after...

Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of nothingness...Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another.


Helen Keller, 1908

...real being or nothingness?

a difference...

It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives... It isn't only the synonyms: there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take 'good', for instance. If you have a word like 'good', what need is there for a word like 'bad'? 'Ungood' will do just as well - better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not.

Orwell, George, Nineteen Eighty-Four, [1949] 1989, 54.

...no matter how miniscule, is still a difference.

reality, what a concept...

For we shall maintain that no statement which refers to a "reality" transcending the limits of all possible sense-perception can possibly have any literal significance; from which it must follow that the labours of those who have striven to describe such a reality have all been devoted to the production of nonsense.

A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic, 1936, 34

"...limits of sense-perception?"

concept of infinitesimals...

The Dichotomy: There is no motion, because that which is moved must arrive at the middle before it arrives at the end, and so on ad infinitum.

The Achilles: The slower will never be overtaken by the quicker, for that which is pursuing must first reach the point from which that which is fleeing started, so that the slower must always be some distance ahead.



The Arrow: If everything is either at rest or moving when it occupies a space equal to itself, while the object moved is always in the instant, a moving arrow is unmoved.

The Stadium: Consider two rows of bodies, each composed of an equal number of bodies of equal size. They pass each other as they travel with equal velocity in opposite directions. Thus, half a time is equal to the whole time.

Zeno of Elea's "Paradoxes," in Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b15

...can no time and no space exist?

noumena...

Sect. 32. Since the oldest days of philosophy inquirers into
pure reason have conceived, besides the things of sense, or
appearances (phenomena), which make up the sensible world,
certain creations of the understanding (Verstandeswesen), called
noumena, which should constitute an intelligible world. And as
appearance and illusion were by those men identified (a thing
which we may well excuse in an undeveloped epoch), actuality was
only conceded to the creations of thought.

And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere
appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in
itself, though we know not this thing in its internal
constitution, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in
which our senses are affected by this unknown something. The
understanding therefore, by assuming appearances, grants the
existence of things in themselves also, and so far we may say,
that the representation of such things as form the basis of
phenomena, consequently of mere creations of the understanding,
is not only admissible, but unavoidable.

Our critical deduction by no means excludes things of that
sort (noumena), but rather limits the principles of the Aesthetic
(the science of the sensibility) to this, that they shall not
extend to all things, as everything would then be turned into
mere appearance, but that they shall only hold good of objects of
possible experience. Hereby then objects of the understanding are
granted, but with the inculcation of this rule which admits of no
exception: "that we neither know nor can know anything at all
definite of these pure objects of the understanding, because our
pure concepts of the understanding as well as our pure intuitions
extend to nothing but objects of possible experience, consequently
to mere things of sense, and as soon as we leave this sphere these
concepts retain no meaning whatever."

Kant, Immanuel, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, 1783.

nou*me*non, |noōmə,nån|
noun (pl. na |nə|)
a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes.

Oxford American Dictionariese

"...that we neither know nor can know anything at all... and as soon as we leave this sphere these concepts retain no meaning whatever...?"

...can I know "nothing," if I am not by its sphere nor cannot sense it?

the other belongs to me...

The other, in so far as he is other, only exists for me in so far as I am open to him, in so far as he is a Thou. But I am only open to him in so far as I cease to form a circle with myself, inside which I somehow place the other, or rather his idea; for inside this circle, the other becomes the idea of the other, and the idea of the other is no longer the other qua other, but the other qua related to me…

Gabriel Marcel, Being and Having, 1949, p. 107

...does existence depend on the other?

another koan...

The Stone Mind

Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the country. One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire in his yard to warm themselves.

While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?"

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Hogen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

...does the stone mind?

words...

Section 29. Words. I have copiously enough spoken of the abuse of words in another place [071] and therefore shall upon this reflection, that the sciences are full of them, warn those that would conduct their understandings right not to take any term, howsoever authorized by the language of the schools, to stand for any thing till they have an idea of it. A word may be of frequent use and great credit with several authors and be by them made use of as if it stood for some real being; but Met, if he that reads cannot frame any distinct idea of that being, it is certain[ly] to him a mere empty sound without a meaning, and he learns no more by all that is said of it or attributed to it than if it were affirmed only of that bare empty sound. They who would advance in knowledge and not deceive and swell themselves with a little articulated air should lay dolor this as a fundamental rule, not to take words for things nor suppose that names in boozes signify real entities in nature till they can frame clear and distinct ideas of those entities. It will not perhaps be allowed if I should set down "substantial forms" and "intentional species" [072] as such that may justly be suspected to be of this kind of insignificant terms. But this I am sure, to one that can form no determined ideas of Chat they stand for they signify nothing at all; and all that he thinks he knows about them is to him so much knowledge about nothing and amounts at most but to a learned ignorance. It is not without all reason supposed that there are many such empty terms to be found in some learned writers, to which they had recourse to etch [073] out their so stems where their understandings could not furnish them with conceptions from things. But yet I believe the supposing of some realities in nature answering those and the like words have much perplexed some and quite misled others in the study of nature. That which in any discourse signifies "I know not what" [074] should be considered "I know not when." Where men have any conceptions, they can, if they are never so abstruse or abstracted, explain them and the terms they use for them. For our conceptions being nothing but ideas, which are all made up of simple ones, [075] if they cannot give us the ideas their words stand for, it is plain they have none. To what purpose can it be to hunt after his conceptions who has none or none distinct? He that knew not what he himself meant by a learned term cannot make us know anything by his use of it, let us beat our heads about it never so long. Whether we are able to comprehend all the operations of nature and the manners of them, it matters not to enquire; but this is certain, that we can comprehend no more of them than we can distinctly conceive; and therefore to obtrude terms where Me have no distinct conceptions, as if they did contain or rather conceal something, is but an artifice of learned vanity to cover a defect in a hypothesis or our understandings. Words are not made to conceal, but to declare and show something; where they are, by those who pretend to instruct, otherwise used, they conceal indeed something; but that they conceal is nothing but the ignorance, error or sophistry of the talker, for there is, in truth, nothing else under them.

John Locke, Of the Conduct of the Understanding, 1706, Edited by F. W. Garforth.

...belong only to the speaker?

representation...

"[O]ne must distinguish the Object as it is represented, which is called the Immediate Object, from the Object as it is in itself. The latter is purely active in the representation. That is, it remains in all respects exactly as it was before it was represented. It is true that the purpose of representing an Object is usually, if not always, to modify it in some respect. But by the Object Itself, or the Real Object, we mean the Object insofar as it is not modified by being represented."

C.S. Pierce, On Signs, MS 793:14, not dated

...objectively real?

conceptual vagueries...

The nominalist and conceptualist schools regard concepts as subjective, i.e., as products of man's consciousness, unrelated to the facts of reality, as mere "names" or notions arbitrarily assigned to arbitrary groupings of concretes on the ground of vague, inexplicable resemblances.

Ayn Rand, 1990. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Second Edition. New York: Meridian.

"notion" from the Latin notus 'known'

...vague notions? ...known reality? ...facts? or just plain 'inexplicable?'

formulaic insignificance...

Nonlinearity means the non-superposition of factors or effects; it means there are terms like

X², 2mxy, byz

in the equations, in which x, y and z are variables, b and m are parameters. Nonlinearity is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the appearance of chaos. Chaos motions must come from a nonlinear system but nonlinearity does not necessarily imply chaos. Piecewise nonlinearity is not equal to linearity.

"A Brief History of the Concept of Chaos", Huajie Liu, (Department of Philosophy, Peking University, 100871, Beijing, P.R.China), 1999-04-12

...or an expression of order?

no essence...

Individual men who are separate from each other, while they differ both in their own essences and in their own forms ... nevertheless agree in this: that they are men. I do not say that they agree in man, since a man is not any thing unless it is a distinct man. Rather I say in being a man. Being a man is not a man nor any thing if we consider the matter carefully.... We mean merely that they are men and do not differ at all in this regard, that is, not in as much as they are men, although we call on no essence....

...Now it seems we should stay away from accepting the agreement among things according to what is not any thing — it's as though we were to unite in nothing things that now exist! — namely, when we say that this [human] and that one agree in the human status, that is to say: in that they are human. But we mean precisely that they are human and don't differ in this regard — let me repeat: [they don't differ] in that they are human, although we're not appealing to any thing [in this explanation]....

Logica ‘ingredientibus’, Pierre Abelard du Pallet, d. 1142

...separate or separated?

looking for answers...

The important thing is not to stop questioning.

~ Albert Einstein

...will someone let me know if they find an answer?
... and then ask me if I trust it?

a temptation...

Now I am tempted to say that the right expression in language for the miracle of the existence of the world, though it is not any proposition in language, is the existence of language itself. But what then does it mean to be aware of this miracle at some times and not at other times? For all I have said by shifting the expression of the miraculous from an expression by means of language to the expression by the existence of language, all I have said is again that we cannot express what we want to express and that all we can say about the absolute miraculous remains nonsense.

Lecture on Ethics, Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1929

...and language exists?

limited consideration...

This actual world of what is knowable, in which we are and which is in us, remains both the material and the limit of our consideration.

Arthur Schopenhauer, World as Will and Representation, vol. i, pg. 273, (E.F.J. Payne Translation)

...actual? ...knowable?

what a concept...

Man is the place at which and through which everything that is real exists for us at all. To fail to be human would mean to slip into nothingness.

Karl Jaspers, "On My Philosophy," Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, edited by Walter Kaufman.

...but, what is real?

the abode...

Language is the house of Being.

Letter on Humanism, Martin Heidegger, 1947, p. 217

...who created the house?

a dialogue...

I have been having with myself.

There is, despite evidence to the contrary, a method to what I have been posting. It is both existential and chaotic and it is not. Until this point, I have not made an entry of my own on this blog with the exception of comments about the contents of a post or a question about some entry's gist. That is until today....

Though I had not intended to write an entry of my own at this point, because of some things happening in my life, the following is a dialogue I have been having with myself and I find a need to include it in this blog.

I had a major breakthrough on my way home from work about my "almost, probable, certain future." I feel like I'm "stuck" at work because of "external circumstances," eg not having the connections that others have, the plethora of a club of administrators who take care of each other first, or being too qualified compared to others, when, actually, I am making it my "almost, probable, certain future" based on the past. I'm not believing that anything is possible because the past is in front of me not behind me. There should not be an almost, probable, certain future; there are only endless possibilities because nothing exists in the future except things I create. The past has already been created and exists no more.

No matter how many times I tell this to myself [and it has been for years and years] it is difficult to always keep it in perspective.

I do not believe that anything exists. Anything. Existence is predicated on language. Everything must be distinguished by language. Language is what makes anything exist because I name it as such, yet I still can't prove that anything exists.

We have a set of common distinctions about objects. We call a chair a chair because of the language we use to describe it or, rather, what language we decided to use to describe its existence.

It is a task teaching kids how to read because language itself is a creation. A creation that is actually foreign to the functioning of the brain processes. No one has ever been able to explain how we learn to read. There are many theories that explain the various steps but none that explain how. Yet, we are driven to learn how to read - and write.

The artist George Seurat is attributed with a phrase: "A blank canvas. So many possibilities." Endless possibilities not based on an "almost, probable, certain future" but on nothing that previously existed on the blank canvas. What is interesting is that Seurat's art was known as pointilism, a blending of dots that are so close together that they give depth, color, perspective and emotion. In addition, there is a scientific and mathematical basis to this form of art since it deals with an optical mixture based on light. This explanation, of course, is based on the distinctions we make based on language that is a creation itself and may not exist.

So, if "nothing exists," or the antithesis that is an "almost, probable, certain future" does not exist, we have to understand that we have the possibility of creating anything and everything from nothing.

so many possibilities...

jumping together...

"The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction obtained from another different class. Thus Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs."

The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, William Whewell, 1840

...are all things connected?

definitions...

Absolute nonexistence: The absence of existence, the absence of nothingness, and the absence of absence. It is what is not being referred-to under any circumstances. Its definition is that which cannot be referred-to, named, or defined. It is the non-state to which everything including nothingness is attracted.

Chaos Theory: The study and mathematical modeling of complexity in natural systems.

Complexity: The characteristic of a system endowing it with the capacity for infinite variation of motion and form.

Dis-equilibrium: A disturbance in absolute nonexistence. It is a result of the fundamental asymmetry between nothingness, absolute nonexistence and temporal existence.

Disordered Complexity: Random chaotic motion within a system either moving towards or coming from ordered complexity.

Energy: Motion; which is the detectable change in spatial relationships between the components of a given system and the means of redistribution of space and matter. Energy is also the measure of all the forms of repulsion and attraction between space and matter (known as potential energy).

Environment: The immediate surroundings of a given system from which the system comes, upon which it is dependent, and to which it will return its component parts.

Evolution: The universal progressive pattern of the exchange of disordered complexity for ordered complexity in all natural systems. It is the orderly increasing delineation of a system from its environment.

Existence: The set of circumstances in which it is possible for humans to maintain sentient consciousness of self and time. Existence is independent of temporality by virtue of its infinite nature except in the context of its temporal phase (see Temporal Existence).

Force: That which initiates or changes motion.

Gravity: The space/time gradient caused by the bending of space/time towards mass/density. It is therefore also the measure of mass/density (referred to as the specific gravitational density of a given area of matter).

Matter: The absence of space. It is attracted to space and repelled by itself.

Mass: The aspect of matter detectable by measurement.

Motion: The detectable change in spatial relationships between the components of a given system. Also see “energy” (above).

Nothingness: A state of perfectly uniform static equilibrium constituting relative nonexistence. A state that exists relative to absolute nonexistence but does not exist relative to temporal existence.

Ordered Complexity: A consistent pattern of arrangement of the elements of a system in relation to each other that is infinitely variable and that accrues from or dissolves to the disordered phase of those elements (see Disordered Complexity).

Particle: A discrete unit of matter with consistent characteristics unless divided or fused.

Physics: The study of motion

Relative Nonexistence: Nothingness; a state of uniform, static equilibrium undetectable by humans due to the absence of spatial/temporal dynamics.

Space: The absence of matter. It is attracted to matter and repelled by itself.

Stimulus: An electrochemical alteration of the dynamic basil or "resting" equilibrium of an organic system

System: Elements interacting with each other and delineated from their surroundings.

Temporal existence: The constraint of infinite time and space within which human beings can exist. A state delineated from nothingness by virtue of non-uniformity and whose components are attracted to nothingness. It is the dynamic phase of existence whereas nothingness is non-temporal and non-dynamic.

Time: is the measure of the universal progression of uniformity between matter and space accomplished by counting equal, standardized divisions of a cyclical system of regular motion.

Universe: The manifestation of temporal existence – composed of matter, energy, space, and time. It is anything that is or ever will be detectable by human beings. It is the macro-system of which all natural systems are a sub-set.

Nothingness Theory: The connection between the evolution of the universe and human thought, Corey Kaup, 1989 – 2005



...existentionally chaotic improvability?

une lai celtique...

La grandeur humaine
Est une ombre vaine
Qui fuit;
Une ame mondaine
A perte d'haleine
La suit.

translation:

The greatness of man
Is a vain shade
Which flees;
A fashionable heart
A loss of breath
Follows It.

...a fleeing or fleeing thought?

[A "lai" ("lait" in Irish Celt) is based on a single thought expressed with an octosyllabic format in most cases. It's origins are from 12th century tradition.]

education from educe...

Education gives to Man nothing which he might no educe out of himself; it gives him that which he might educe out of himself, only quicker and more easily. In the same way too, Revelation gives nothing to the human species, which the human reason left to itself might not attain; only it has given, and still gives to it, the most important of these things earlier.

The Education of The Human Race, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, 1774–1778.

...nothing?

an assumption...

NOTHING can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a Good Will. Intelligence wit, judgment, and the other talents of the mind, however they may be named, or courage, resolution, perseverance, as qualities of temperament, are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects; but these gifts of nature may also become extremely bad and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them, and which, therefore, constitutes what is called character, is not good. It is the same with the gifts of fortune.

Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, "First Section: Transition from the Common Rational Knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical," Immanuel Kant, 1785.

...nothing = moral + (good - evil) or moral + (evil - good)?

limitations...

Without collapsing critical thinking into relativism, hermeneutics recognizes the historicity of human understanding. Ideas are nested in historical, linguistic, and cultural horizons of meaning. A philosophical, theological, or literary problem can only be genuinely understood through a grasp of its origin. Hermeneutics is in part the practice of historical retrieval, the re-construction of the historical context of scientific and literary works. Hermeneutics does not re-construct the past for its own sake; it always seeks to understand the particular way a problem engages the present. A philosophical impulse motivates hermeneutic re-construction, a desire to engage a historically transmitted question as a genuine question, worthy of consideration in its own right. By addressing questions within ever-new horizons, hermeneutic understanding strives to break through the limitations of a particular world-view to the matter that calls to thinking.
About Hermeneutics

definition: Hermeneutics may be described as the theory of interpretation and understanding of the text through empirical means. It should not be confused with the concrete practice of interpretation called exegesis. Exegesis extracts the meaning of a passage of text and enlarges upon it and explicates it with explanatory glosses; hermeneutics addresses the ways in which a reader may come to the broadest understanding of the creator of text and his relation to his audiences, both local and over time, within the constraints of culture and history. Thus it is a branch of philosophy concerned with human understanding and the interpretation of texts....
Wikipedia

...a clear understanding?

the sky is falling, the sky is falling...

"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia."
Charles Schultz

imagination, thought, ideas...

23. But, say you, surely there is nothing easier than for me to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no difficulty in it; but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and the same time omitting to frame the idea of any one that may perceive them? But do not you yourself perceive or think of them all the while? This therefore is nothing to the purpose; it only shews you have the power of imagining or forming ideas in your mind: but it does not shew that you can conceive it possible the objects of your thought may exist without the mind. To make out this, it is necessary that you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy. When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while only contemplating our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to think it can and does conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind, though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in itself. A little attention will discover to any one the truth and evidence of what is here said, and make it unnecessary to insist on any other proofs against the existence of material substance.

A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, George Berkeley, 1710

...and what of things that we don't know that we don't know?

arts, science, design...

Among the branches of philosophy, I had, at an earlier period, given some attention to logic, and among those of the mathematics to geometrical analysis and algebra, -- three arts or sciences which ought, as I conceived, to contribute something to my design. But, on examination, I found that, as for logic, its syllogisms and the majority of its other precepts are of avail- rather in the communication of what we already know, or even as the art of Lully, in speaking without judgment of things of which we are ignorant, than in the investigation of the unknown; and although this science contains indeed a number of correct and very excellent precepts, there are, nevertheless, so many others, and these either injurious or superfluous, mingled with the former, that it is almost quite as difficult to effect a severance of the true from the false as it is to extract a Diana or a Minerva from a rough block of marble. Then as to the analysis of the ancients and the algebra of the moderns, besides that they embrace only matters highly abstract, and, to appearance, of no use, the former is so exclusively restricted to the consideration of figures, that it can exercise the understanding only on condition of greatly fatiguing the imagination; and, in the latter, there is so complete a subjection to certain rules and formulas, that there results an art full of confusion and obscurity calculated to embarrass, instead of a science fitted to cultivate the mind. By these considerations I was induced to seek some other method which would comprise the advantages of the three and be exempt from their defects. And as a multitude of laws often only hampers justice, so that a state is best governed when, with few laws, these are rigidly administered; in like manner, instead of the great number of precepts of which logic is composed, I believed that the four following would prove perfectly sufficient for me, provided I took the firm and unwavering resolution never in a single instance to fail in observing them.

The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgement than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.

The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.

The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.

And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted.

"The First Principle of Philosophy," Rene Descartes, Discourse on Method

...cogito ergo sum?

Rule IV...

In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

"Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy," Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

..."rule" or "procedure?"

blue, uncertain, stumbling buzz...

I heard a fly buzz when I died;
The stillness round my form
Was like the stillness in the air
Between the heaves of storm.

The eyes beside had wrung them dry,
And breaths were gathering sure
For that last onset, when the king
Be witnessed in his power.

I willed my keepsakes, signed away
What portion of me I
Could make assignable, - and then
There interposed a fly,

With blue, uncertain, stumbling buzz,
Between the light and me;
And then the windows failed, and then
I could not see to see.

Emily Dickinson

...is death the only time we cannot see to see?

reason of an age...

You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.
A Letter to a Friend Regarding the Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, Paris, May 12, 1797

...and to prove oneself?

the aggregates of existence...

"This again, indeed, O mendicants, is the noble truth of suffering. Birth is painful, old age is painful, sickness is painful, association with unloved objects is painful, separation from loved objects is painful, the desire which one does not obtain, this is too painful - in short, the five elements of attachment to existence are painful. The five elements of attachment to earthly existence are form, sensation, perception, components and consciousness.
Buddha, The Dahmmapada

...in pain is found truth?

vacuity...

Form is emptiness, and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness; whatever is emptiness, that is form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness.

Diamond Sutra, Buddha


As in the Buddhist Diamond Sutra, chaos can be found in order, and order in chaos. The organizing principle is the key. The organizing principle used in Systemic Solutions is an experience of integrity - a stable experience of connectedness, integration and purpose - an experience of self-as-system that does not diminish with passing time.
Chaos & Consciousness

...being = existence; nothingness = absence of existence?

chaotic tao...

Chaos is the supreme ideal of Taoism. Chaos is wholeness, oneness and Nature. Chaos represents the natural state of the world. Digging holes on the head of Chaos means destroying the natural state of the cosmos. Therefore, to the ancient Chinese people chaos not only has the meaning of disorder but also presents a respectable aesthetic state.
A Brief History of the Concept of Chaos Huajie Liu

浑沌

The ruler of the Southern Sea is called Change; the ruler of the Northern Sea is called Uncertainty, and the ruler of the Centre is called Primitivity（浑沌). Change and Uncertainty often met on the territory of Primitivity, and being always well treated by him, determined to repay his kindness. They said: "All men have seven holes for seeing, hearing, eating, and breathing. Primitivity alone has none of these. Let us try to bore some for him." So every day they bored one hole; but on the seventh day Primitivity died.

a chaos fable excerpted from one of the ancient Chinese classics Chuang-Tzu:《庄子》A New Seleted Translation with an Exposition of the Philosophy of Kuo Hsiang by Fung Yu-Lan (冯友兰)


...创 世 纪 (Genesis), 2:2 到第七日、　神造物的工已经完毕、就在第七日歇了他一切的工、安息了。

...and on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
The Book of Genesis, 2:2

a picture of chaos...?

The Lorenz attractor, introduced by Edward Lorenz in 1963, is a non-linear three-dimensional deterministic dynamical system derived from the simplified equations of convection rolls arising in the dynamical equations of the atmosphere. For a certain set of parameters the system exhibits chaotic behavior and displays what is today called a strange attractor....
Lorenz attractor

...strange can be breathtaking!

predictablility...

"In science as in life, it is well known that a chain of events can have a point of crisis that could magnify small changes. But chaos meant that such points were everywhere. They were pervasive." (24)

John von Neumann

...small changes = ?

intentionality...

The Object Theory

The example of the imagining a centaur is famous in the history of philosophy. The object theory, and the difficulities surrounding it, derive from philosophical reflection on this and similar examples of the use of our imagination.

Certainly, in one sense, there exists an object in our imagination; the object must be "real" or we would not be able to imagine it. There is a picture of something in my mind.

On the other hand, the centaur is known to be a mythical being and hence has no existence. Is my thought, then, actually directed toward a non-existing object? How can this be if an intentional act requires an object? Surely, the object toward which my thought is directed exists, otherwise, if the object theory is correct, there would be no thought at all....

The Content Theory

The content theory seeks to resolve some of the difficulties of the object theory. It utilizes the idea that there must be an intermediary between consciousness and its ultimate object. For a first approximation, this intermediary can be variously called a "sign," a "representation," a "vehicle" or, more generically, a "content" in the intentional act. Thus, the act of thinking of imagining an actually existing thing (say, a table) is easily described and explained: my image of the table is the vehicle, while the object of my intention is the table itself. To solve the problem of non-existing beings that can be the objects of thought, the content theory allows that content can exist or "be" without the corresponding object. In imagining a centaur, I have a mental image whose content is a centaur. The centaur "exists" as content in my mind, but there is no object outside of the mind corresponding to this thought.

Difficulties for the Theory of Intentionality, Anthony Birch

...nothingness ≥ or ≤ ideas?

and yet another cunundrum...

But may not the ideas, asked Socrates, be thoughts only, and have no proper existence except in our minds, Parmenides? For in that case each idea may still be one, and not experience this infinite multiplication.

And can there be individual thoughts which are thoughts of nothing?
Impossible, he said.
The thought must be of something?
Yes.
Of something which is or which is not?
Of something which is.
Must it not be of a single something, which the thought recognizes as attaching to all, being a single form or nature?

Yes.
And will not the something which is apprehended as one and the same in all, be an idea?

From that, again, there is no escape.
Then, said Parmenides, if you say that everything else participates in the ideas, must you not say either that everything is made up of thoughts, and that all things think; or that they are thoughts but have no thought?

The latter view, Parmenides, is no more rational than the previous one. In my opinion, the ideas are, as it were, patterns fixed in nature, and other things are like them, and resemblances of them-what is meant by the participation of other things in the ideas, is really assimilation to them.

But if, said he, the individual is like the idea, must not the idea also be like the individual, in so far as the individual is a resemblance of the idea? That which is like, cannot be conceived of as other than the like of like.

Impossible.
And when two things are alike, must they not partake of the same idea?

They must.
And will not that of which the two partake, and which makes them alike, be the idea itself?

Certainly.
Then the idea cannot be like the individual, or the individual like the idea; for if they are alike, some further idea of likeness will always be coming to light, and if that be like anything else, another; and new ideas will be always arising, if the idea resembles that which partakes of it?

Parmenides, Plato, 370 B.C.E.

...ideas = something?

hopelessness...

The question looms in moments of great despair, when things tend to lose all their weight and all meaning becomes obscured....It is present in moments of rejoicing, when all things around us are transfigured and seem to be there for the first time, as if it might be easier to think they are not than to understand that they are and are as are. The question is upon us in boredom, when we are equally removed from despair and joy, and everything about us seems so hopelessly commonplace that we no longer care whether anything is or is not...

Martin Heidegger

... nothingness = despair?

a noiseless patient spider...

A noiseless patient spider,
I marked where on a little promontory it stood isolated,
Marked how to explore the vacant, vast surrounding,
It launched forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself.
Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.

And you O my soul where you stand,
Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space,
Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them.
Till the bridge you will need be formed, till the ductile anchor hold,
Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul.

Walt Whitman

...to get from there to where?

the impossible is evident...

I know that I exist, and nevertheless I am uncertain whether there is any ‘body’ in the nature of things. Therefore I am not a body. This argument is weak, unless it can be shown that extension in itself fully establishes substance. For even if this is assumed, it is certainly obvious that thought cannot originate from that substance; but this is not yet shown. And so we know this at least, that thought is not a mode of extension, but we do not know whether it cannot be a mode of substance, of which extension itself is a mode. [But it seems not to be so, because two different modes must be resolved into something common] For evidently extension and extended matter itself are different in body.

Therefore this is the true method of proving the distinction between mind and body: because it is impossible for us to ever know with certainty whether body exists. However I call body everything that is like those things that we perceive. But that this is impossible is evident, because it is impossible for us to be able to be made certain about the existence of bodies [except through a priori reasoning, from understanding the nature of God], or it cannot ever be proved by philosophical reasoning that bodies are not appearance or substances.

Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz, The Distinction of Mind and Body, [Gr p511] [A VI iv p1368]

or the possible is evident...?

the sole purpose...?

As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.

Schopenhauer [Memories, Dreams, Reflections]

...does darkness = nothingness?

la commedia è inizio...

Io veggio ben che già mai non si sazia
nostro intelletto, se ‘l ver non lo illustra
di fuor dal qual nessun vero si spazia.

translation -

I see well that never is our intellect satisfied, unless that truth illumines it beyond which no truth may soar.

Dante Alighieri, La Comedia [Par. 4.124-26]

what is...

It is natural to suppose that, before philosophy enters upon its subject proper - namely, the actual knowledge of what truly is - it is necessary to come first to an understanding concerning knowledge, which is looked upon as the instrument by which to take possession of the Absolute, or as the means through which to get a sight of it. The apprehension seems legitimate, on the one hand that there may be various kinds of knowledge, among which one might be better adapted than another for the attainment of our purpose - and thus a wrong choice is possible: on the other hand again that, since knowing is a faculty of a definite kind and with a determinate range, without the more precise determination of its nature and limits we might take hold on clouds of error instead of the heaven of truth.

This apprehensiveness is sure to pass even into the conviction that the whole enterprise which sets out to secure for consciousness by means of knowledge what exists per se, is in its very nature absurd; and that between knowledge and the Absolute there lies a boundary which completely cuts off the one from the other. For if knowledge is the instrument by which to get possession of absolute Reality, the suggestion immediately occurs that the application of an instrument to anything does not leave it as it is for itself, but rather entails in the process, and has in view, a moulding and alteration of it. Or, again, if knowledge is not an instrument which we actively employ, but a kind of passive medium through which the light of the truth reaches us, then here, too, we do not receive it as it is in itself, but as it is through and in this medium. In either case we employ a means which immediately brings about the very opposite of its own end; or, rather, the absurdity lies in making use of any means at all. It seems indeed open to us to find in the [132] knowledge of the way in which the instrument operates, a remedy for this parlous state; for thereby it becomes possible to remove from the result the part which, in our idea of the Absolute received through that instrument, belongs to the instrument, and thus to get the truth in its purity. But this improvement would, as a matter of fact, only bring us back to the point where we were before. If we take away again from a definitely formed thing that which the instrument has done in the shaping of it, then the thing (in this case the Absolute) stands before us once more just as it was previous to all this trouble, which, as we now see, was superfluous. If the Absolute were only to be brought on the whole nearer to us by this agency, without any chance being, wrought in it, like a bird caught by a limestick, it would certainly scorn a trick of that sort, if it were not in its very nature, and did it not wish to be, beside us from the start. For a trick is what knowledge in such a case would be, since by all its busy toil and trouble it gives itself the air of doing something quite different from bringing about a relation that is merely immediate, and so a waste of time to establish. Or, again, if the examination of knowledge, which we represent as a medium, makes us acquainted with the law of its refraction, it is likewise useless to eliminate this refraction from the result. For knowledge is not the divergence of the ray, but the ray itself by which the truth comes in contact with us; and if this be removed, the bare direction or the empty place would alone be indicated.

The Phenomenology of Mind, 1807, Introduction, G. W. F. Hegel

...may not be. or is it? absolutely?

things do not change...

Two boys arrived yesterday with a pebble they said was the head of a dog until I pointed out that it was really a typewriter.

- Pablo Picasso


...or can they?

power and tragedy...

"The Church is precisely that against which Jesus preached and against what he taught his disciples to fight".

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 1901, 168

"Christianity is still possible at any time. It is not tied to any of the impudent dogmas that have adorned themselves with its name: it requires neither the doctrine of a personal God, nor that of sin, nor that of immortality, nor that of redemption, nor that of faith; it has absolutely no need of metaphysics, and even less of asceticism, even less of a Christian "natural science". Christianity is a way of life, not a system of beliefs. It tells us how to act, not what we ought to believe."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, 1901, 212

"For this is how religions tend to die: the mythic premises of a religion are systematized, beneath the stern and intelligent eyes of an orthodox dogmatism, into a fixed sum of historical events; one begins nervously defending the veracity of myths, at the same time resisting their continuing life and growth. The feeling for myths dies and is replaced by religious claims to foundations in history."

Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, 1872, 10

"Tales of My death have been greatly exaggerated" as God might say... Yet the essential nature of Nietzsche's critique here remains sound. We do indeed see myths taken too seriously, we see 'religion' perverted into a form of 'control-freakery' with no freedom of belief, of thought, of possible progress, a denial even of knowledge and science itself. This strangulation of religious thought, this total rejection of evolution or change in any form, destroys free-will, that supposed 'special' gift of God to humans. It thus rejects God in itself, whilst pretending otherwise. Thus it wasn't Nietzsche who killed God, but the fundamentalists, who rejected (and still do) the beauty of His creation - the world-in-itself. It is if we have presented to us a 'mystery play', which is repeated, endlessly, without the slightest variation or emotion by the most wooden of actors - who could possibly love that ? If God has no real followers, then He must, inevitably, wither away...

CALResCo Complexity Writings, "The Will to Power" by Chris Lucas

...1872, ...1901, ...or 2005?

in concreto, in individuo...

...no objects can be represented through pure concepts of understanding, apart from the conditions of sensibility. For the conditions of the objective reality of the concepts are then absent, and nothing is to be found in them save the mere form of thought. If, however, they are applied to appearances, they can be exhibited in concreto, because in the appearances they obtain the appropriate material for concepts of experience -- a concept of experience being nothing but a concept of understanding in concreto. But ideas are even further removed from objective reality than are categories, for no appearance can be found in which they can be represented in concreto. They contain a certain completeness to which no possible empirical knowledge ever attains. In them reason aims only at a systematic unity, to which it seeks to approximate the unity that is empirically possible, without ever completely reaching it. But what I entitle the ideal seems to be further removed from objective reality even than the idea. By the ideal I understand the idea, not merely in concreto, but in individuo, that is, as an individual thing, determinable or even determined by the idea alone.

The Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant, "BOOK II, CHAPTER III, THE IDEAL OF PURE REASON, Section I, THE IDEAL IN GENERAL"

...experience being nothing?

denotation v. connotation...?

An expression denotes the object (if any) which is unambiguously determined by its sense.

Therefore:

An empirical expression denotes an intension, never the value of the intension in the actual world.

On the other hand:

An expression refers to the object which is the value of its denotation in the actual world-time.

"Sense, Denotation, Reference: A terminological/philosophical Chaos", Dr. Pavel Materna


...or does it make sense?

...

I'm nobody? Who are You?
Are you nobody too?
Then there's a pair of us - don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
How dreary to be somebody!
How public like a frog to tell your name
the livelong day to an admiring bog!

Emily Dickinson, poet

a construct...

Reality! What a concept!
Robin Williams, Comedian

iterate or reiterate...?

When a man says, I have found, in all past instances, such sensible qualities, conjoined with such secret powers, and when he says, similar sensible qualities will always be conjoined with similar secret powers, he is not guilty of a tautology, nor are these propositions in any respect the same.

An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume

exist to will...

...if God does not exist there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence, a being which exists before it can be defined by any conception of it. That being is man or, as Heidegger has it, the human reality. What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world — and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself. Thus, there is no human nature, because there is no God to have a conception of it. Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing — as he wills to be after that leap towards existence.
Existentialism is a Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre (1946)

backwards/forwards...

It is quite true what Philosophy says: that Life must be understood backwards. But that makes one forget the other saying: that it must be lived- forwards. The more one ponders this, the more it comes to mean that life in the temporal existence never becomes quite intelligible, precisely because at no moment can I find complete quiet to take the backward-looking position.
Soren Kierkegaard

...part of the cunundrum?

one alone...

Each person was to himself one alone. One oneness, a unit in a society, but always afraid, always alone. If I should scream, if I should call for help, would anyone hear... would it even matter?

- Ray Bradbury, Dandelion Wine

...would it even matter?

no control...

Epictetus tersely noted the central features of a life lived according to nature in his Encheiridion (Manual) that ...the key is to understand how little of what happens is within our control, and stoicism earns its reputation as a stern way of life with recommendations that we accept whatever fate brings us without complaint, concern, or feeling of any kind. Since family, friends, and material goods are all perishable... we ought never to become attached to them. Instead, we treat everything and everyone we encounter in life as a temporary blessing (or curse), knowing that they will all pass away from us naturally.
Epictetus and the Stoics

does nothing matter...?

useful truths...

"I have never doubted the truth of signs, Adso; they are the only things man has with which to orient himself in the world. What I did not understand is the relation among signs . . . I behaved stubbornly, pursuing a semblance of order, when I should have known well that there is no order in the universe."

"But in imagining an erroneous order you still found something. . . ."

"What you say is very fine, Adso, and I thank you. The order that our mind imagines is like a net, or like a ladder, built to attain something. But afterward you must throw the ladder away, because you discover that, even if it was useful, it was meaningless . . . The only truths that are useful are instruments to be thrown away."

The Name of the Rose, Seventh Day, Night -- Umberto Eco

meaning = meaningless...?

meaningless = meaning...?

a koan...

What is the sensation of thinking?
What is the sensation of not thinking?

Magnus's Koans

l'infiniment petit, l'infiniment grand...

nothing ≠ something...

Although traditional learning focusses on what is, Heidegger noted, it may be far more illuminating to examine the boundaries of ordinary knowledge by trying to study what is not.

What is Nothing, anyway?

It's not anything, and it's not something, yet it isn't the negation of something, either. Traditional logic is no help, since it merely regards all negation as derivative from something positive. So, Heidegger proposed, we must abandon logic in order to explore the character of Nothing as the background out of which everything emerges.

Carefully contemplating Nothing in itself, we begin to notice the importance and vitality of our own moods. Above all else, Nothing is what produces in us a feeling of dread {Ger. Angst}. This deep feeling of dread, Heidegger held, is the most fundamental human clue to the nature and reality of Nothing.
Heidegger: Being-There (or Nothing)

angst ...?

that's absurd...

In a universe that is suddenly deprived of illusions and of light, man feels a stranger. His is an irremediable exile. . . . This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his settting, truly constitutes the feeling of Absurdity.
The Myth of Sisyphus (1942). Albert Camus

"Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful."
Waiting for Godot(1955). Samuel Beckett

no truth, no value, no meaning...

what proof...?

I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (Med. 2, AT 7:25) René Descartes

je pense, donc je suis...?

nothing(ness)...

What does a man love more than life?
Hate more than death or mortal strife?
That which contented men desire,
The poor have, the rich require,
The miser spends, the spendthrift saves,
And all men carry to their graves?

(Leemings, 1953, 201)

answer above...

existence...

Like many philosophically interesting notions, existence is at once familiar and rather elusive. Although we have no more trouble with using the verb ‘exists’ than with the two-times table, there is more than a little difficulty in saying just what existence is. Existing seems to be at least as mundane as walking or being hungry. Yet, when we say ‘Tom is hungry’ or ‘Tom is walking’, it may be news to those not in Tom's vicinity, whereas ‘Tom exists’ would be news to no one who knew Tom, and merely puzzling to anyone who did not. Again, we know what it is like to be hungry or to walk, but what is it like to exist, what kind of experience is that? Is it perhaps the experience of being oneself, of being identical with oneself? Yet again, we can readily indicate what is meant by Tom's walking, but surely Tom's existing is not something we can indicate to anyone. On the face of it, there would seem to be no way at all in which we can explain what existing is. [Emphasis mine.] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Existence

but, who is Tom...?

a conundrum...? an enigma...? an oxymoron...?

According to that logical doctrine which the present writer first formulated in 1873 and named Pragmatism, the true meaning of any product of the intellect lies in whatever unitary determination it would impart to practical conduct under any and every conceivable circumstance, supposing such conduct to be guided by reflexion carried to an ultimate limit. The Commens Dictionary of Pierce's Terms (C.S. Pierce)

Existentialism attempts to describe our desire to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe. Unfortunately, life might be without inherent meaning (existential atheists) or it might be without a meaning we can understand (existential theists). Either way, the human desires for logic and immortality are futile. We are forced to define our own meanings, knowing they might be temporary. In this existence… Existential Primer

Drawing on the American pragmatic tradition of William James and John Dewey as well as Sartre and the French existentialists, Raskin and Barnet created a research center that was not based on any ideology or hierarchical structure but where "existential pragmatism" was to be the dominant theme and social invention a leitmotiv. First Harvest The Institute for Policy Studies, 1963-83

a conundrum...? an enigma...? an oxymoron...?

so what...?