Part I: The Mother-Universe [the primary assumption]
Monday, January 9, 2012 Reading note A: 99% of these words are entirely unnecessary; find the ones that matter to you.
Reading note B: in trying to convey the ineffable aspects of my "subject matter," I - by necessity - have to now and then jump the levels of abstraction which creates an illusion of self-contradiction but serves the flow of narrative; I ask for your tolerance of my inarticulation.
Reading note C: I write this freely, unafraid of self-contradiction. And I encourage you to read this with the same attitude of interpretive freedom. Enjoy the paradox.
1. There is No Nothingness:
The following is the “mother” of all of my cosmological[1] assumptions: there is no true nothingness.
Understand: the word[2] Nothing exists but what it refers to doesn’t.
The idea[3] of “Nothing” exists but it has no physical analog[4]. Nothingness - a theoretical absence[5] of any stuff whatsoever - has nothing to exist with.
Emptiness[6] – in an ontological[7] sense – is just another word for “Nothingness.” There is no true – unfilled[8] - emptiness.
By the same token, there is no true – unfilled - Vacuum[9]. Similarly, there is no truly empty Void[10]. Nothingness – an idea of an Absolute Absence[11] – has no physical Presence[12] to begin to be.
Absence does not exist even if we can mathematically represent “it”[13] (with a Zero[14] as a numerical place-holder). I say “it” because a Nothingness isn’t a true It.
A true It actually is (i.e. present). Whatever actually exists, whatever actually is, is present. Whatever isn’t, isn’t. Presence is. Nothingness isn’t.
A word that describes something that isn’t is a word of Fiction[15] (e.g. the word "Unicorn"[16]). “Nothingness” – both as the word and as the idea behind it – is Fiction as it has no ontological/physical basis to be a Fact[17].
In sum, the Universe is literally full of itself (of its own Presence[18]) – it neither came from a nowhere nor does it have any gaping holes or margins of emptiness around it. The Universe[19] – in one word – is (full of) Oneness[20].
The thought that “there is no true nothingness” might not seem like a big deal but it is. It is the beginning of beginning-less-ness!
In sum: nothingness is not nothingness; nothingness is no-thingness, i.e. a state of form-less-ness not a state of absolute absence.
Cautionary note before you read on:
while the above notion (that there is no such thing-less thing as nothing-ness) seems rather self-evident the consequences of this assumption lack all face validity; this simple negation of "void" requires a complete rehabilitation of the classic, "empirical" worldview; as you read on about such secondary conclusions as "there is no motion" or "there are no objects" you will find yourself in a dilemma as to what to believe. should you follow your logic or should you follow your "real-life experience"? this, my fellow mind, is a false choice: you have no real-life experience; after all, the neurons inside your skull have never been outside; the neurons (the experience of which constitutes your experience of reality) have never actually experienced the true unmediated reality outside of your skull. [this is the "neuro" caveat of this psycho-analytic socio-cosmology.] for example, while your eyes have "seen" the light, your occipital lobe hasn't. you - the consciousness that is processing this information right here and now - have never been in any direct touch with reality. you have always been inside the matrix of your subjectivity. you inhabit the very dream of reality that you yourself dream. but do reserve your judgment: this is no grade school solipsism. there's more and less to this all. in the meantime, understand: the choice isn't really between logic and "empirical experience" but between two different kinds of logic: a logic of void (classic logic, logic of duality) and a logic of non-void (the logic of nonduality which is non-logic). the choice, once again, is not whether you should believe your "experience" or the logic that i offer but which logic to believe. mind - in my experience - runs on two kinds of software: the software of division and the software of unification. the former requires that you assume nothing-ness. the latter requires that you assume nothing-less-ness. enjoy the crossroads.
Note to a "nondual" reader:
A "nondual" reader might say:
- Your position is too "rational." This is the case of "A & not-A," this is the case of "both/and," this is the case of "neither/nor."
And I would say:
- I don't think so! Indeed, everything else (everything else but nothingness) can both be and not be, can both be A and not be A. But not nothingness. Nothingnesss can only "not be." "It" (nothingness) cannot also "be" if it is to still be nothingness. Sure, light can both be a particle and not be a particle (as it manifests as a wave). But not nothingness! Nothingness knows no duality of form because "it" is singularly non-existent. Nothingness cannot manifest as either "this" or "that" because it simply has no matter to manifest with. Nothingness, just like its mathematical symbol of Zero, is but a fictional place holder that has no place in objective reality. Understand: nothingness is pure fiction and nothing-less-ness is fact! So, let us not overestimate the containing capacity of "nondual" perspective: while it can hold Everything, it cannot hold a single Nothing! Enough said! Accept my apologies for monopolizing the silence of your mind, Nondualist!
[1] Cosmology:
[2] Word: all words are means of capturing states of mind for purpose of communication; thus, words do not represent reality as such but our thoughts about reality; thus, words are tools of fiction; thus, fiction is inevitable; with this in mind, the present account (this writing) is to be taken as nothing more than philosophical impressionism; Reader is encouraged to cultivate epistemological sobriety and nondiscursive engagement with reality as much or often as he/she/it can; mind postulates, operates in categories.
[3] Idea:
[4] Analog:
[5] Absence: a lack, a deficit, i.e. a non-existence of (fill in the blank).
[6] Emptiness: another word for “nothingness,” i.e. another semantic symbol for that which doesn’t exist, i.e. another ontological myth, i.e. another word of fiction; not to be confused with a feeling of “emptiness” (which is akin to existential angst, restlessness, to a feeling of boredom, ennui, or meaninglessness); feeling is real, but emptiness isn’t.
[7] Ontology: an attempt at a comprehensive view of the foundation of all that is
[8] Unfilled: true emptiness/void/nothingness/space/place cannot be filled with anything; it is a hypothetical (i.e. unreal, i.e. imaginary absence of any filling/matter/substance, an absence of anything); while we can speak of an unfilled absence we cannot really imagine it – any attempt to imagine a no-thing involves an image of some-thing which, by definition, is not a nothing;
[9] Vacuum: another word for “nothingness,” i.e. another semantic symbol for that which doesn’t exist, i.e. another ontological myth, i.e. another word of fiction.
[10] Void: another word for “nothingness,” i.e. another semantic symbol for that which doesn’t exist, i.e. another ontological myth, i.e. another word of fiction.
[11] Absolute Absence: another word for “nothingness,” i.e. another semantic symbol for that which doesn’t exist, i.e. another ontological myth, i.e. another word of fiction
[12] Presence: evidence of existence, material signature
[13] “It”: if an “it” doesn’t have an “it” to exist with, it is not a true it, thus the quotation marks; only presence is, nothing isn’t.
[14] Zero:
[15] Fiction: that which isn’t (e.g. Unicorn)
[16] Unicorn: the word “Unicorn” exists but what it refers to doesn’t.
[17] Fact: that which is – you reading this sentence.
[18] Presence: that which actually is, i.e. All, i.e. Reality, i.e. Universe
[19] Universe: the etymology of the word is literally “one world;” in this writing, the word Universe is meant as the top-most Set of all possible Worlds and Sub-sets, i.e. as an (outmost) Whole; compare my use of the word “Universe” with the language of the Multi-Universe models, wherein the word “Universe” appears to suggest parallel worlds, rather than the sum-total of all independent Worlds that comprise the Whole of the Universe; the “universes” of the Multi-Universe models are not really (capital letter “U”) Universes but merely (independent or inter-dependent) aspects of the Universal Whole; to clarify, there can be only one Universe, thus Universe – in one word – is Oneness (see Assumption 1 as well as the note below).
[20] Oneness: that which is undivided and indivisible.