T.o.N. (Theory of Nothing)

[Fredrick]

Nobody and LG, re the Absolute. The real Self which is Pure Awareness cannot be the object of knowledge. It is the Absolute and as it is Pure Awareness - only by becoming one with "IT" - can we know "IT."

The life of the flesh and the life of the spirit are two distinct and separate things, exclusive of each other. This is the way it is said, He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it.

Naturally, there are many ways to agree with you, Infinite Consciousness, and that pleases me. However, where we disagree may be more interesting for this thread on Nothing:

The overall picture is as simple as placing mother, father, son, and daughter in a pyramid called family. To call the family a nothing is of course ridiculous, yet at the same time it is not something that is actually there by itself; it is something that is based on the members upholding that institution. We can take some members out, and still have a family, but again, only for as long as that concept is actively used by these people (and/or placed upon them by others). Certain animals go through life without the institution of family, being born without anyone to care for them or guide them. We are lucky in that we have the insitution, and if we do not have the specific institution (or not in a 'perfect' way as Hollywood tells us we should have it) then society as a whole still contains the functions of the family (though in many and multi-faceted ways). The life of the flesh (the actual members) and the life of the spirit (the family) are two separate things, yet can be inclusive of each other.

'The other' is of utmost importance for us to go through life, but whether that is your partner, your family, your fascination with (...), or jesus or mohammed, simply does not matter: most people grow up having different people as 'the other' while going through various phases in life. These people are extremely important to us, and help us become who we want to become.

Even an imaginary friend can be helpful, and children can decide to have one (even adults may use this option too, but we call it 'talking to ourselves'). A second position next to our own is extremely helpful, and as long as we are able to come out on the other side being more of who we want to be or more of who we are 'supposed to be' or just happier with who we are — period — it does not matter who takes in that second position, even when that second position matters big time. But let's keep our feet on the ground, and let the pure spiritual guidance be dealt with in another thread. The good news is that even when and no matter how hard we try to not be part a family, we are all part of that largest of families: the human family.

[N0B0DY]

I'm sorry, IC, but from my perspective I still see a contradiction if my stance is that the absolute is non-existent. Nothing can't exist as an absolute state, let alone a self-aware state.

To me, the relative means by which existence is made manifest is being taken as an absolute existence of itself. The means to an end is not the end itself. The end is you and I. The means, when totalled, is non-existent.

At another site we were on, there was someone who said if God was omniscient, God would have to know what it was like to not exist. Of course, it struck a chord because it could be said that God is non-existence itself, as the absolute, and a part of every aspect of abstract reality as well.

[N0B0DY]

To call the family a nothing is of course ridiculous, yet at the same time it is not something that is actually there by itself; it is something that is based on the members upholding that institution.

I'm not really sure what the rest of your post has to do with the topic, but this here above might fit in. Though, to me, family and its members are the same thing. Or are you saying that each member by him/herself doesn't make the family?

[Fredrick]

To call the family a nothing is of course ridiculous, yet at the same time it is not something that is actually there by itself; it is something that is based on the members upholding that institution.

I'm not really sure what the rest of your post has to do with the topic, but this here above might fit in. Though, to me, family and its members are the same thing. Or are you saying that each member by him/herself doesn't make the family?

The family is an abstract that happens to be very real, but it's still an abstract. In language we treat abstracts as singular: the family is fine, and not the family are fine. Multiple members, but a single entity that exists on top of the members. So, of course, Nobody, they are one and the same thing. But also not: take a guy and a gal, and two kids, and you cannot claim automatically that they are a family.

The post itself has to do with the nothing that can still have a value, a result. Even if jesus is just a man from a time long gone, the position of reverence he receives automatically has a lot of impact on many people alive today. Same goes for mohammed, and others long gone. When such a position exists (and we can argue whether we created that position or if god or jesus created that position), we are close to being forced to deal with it. If I were to state that jesus is nothing I'd get myself in a lot of trouble, so I am not going to do that. Yet I use my saying that as an example that someone or something not being here can have a tremendous impact on us here. In a material way, nothing exists, and this 'nothing' has a tremendous impact.

[N0B0DY]

I still don't get what you're driving at, Fredrick. Granted family would be an abstract to represent its members, but then contextually member would be an abstract to represent the particles of a body, and the particles the abstract to represent energies, etc..

The bottom line is that nothing represents non-existence, and not an abstract representation of another abstract.

[Fredrick]

I still don't get what you're driving at, Fredrick. Granted family would be an abstract to represent its members, but then contextually member would be an abstract to represent the particles of a body, and the particles the abstract to represent energies, etc..

The bottom line is that nothing represents non-existence, and not an abstract representation of another abstract.

We've been here before, Nobody. I don't think there is disagreement between our thinking; it is just too easy for the words to get in the way. While re-reading my own words, I found myself distracted by the words and had to read it twice to get what I was saying.

Center piece in what I was trying to deliver is that our condition is based on our circumstances, and not as something extra, but part and parcel of our circumstances. I started this reply as a way to show how I disagree with Infinite Consciousness in one specific way (while strongly supporting the notion that there was truly much I have in common with IC's words) on that the "life of the flesh and the life of the spirit are two distinct and separate things, exclusive of each other." I disagree with the exclusive part being the only way, since I see the inclusive part so clearly — as well. Where the four people are made of flesh and blood, the concept of 'family' is not. If you wish, the abstract 'family' is part of the spirit world, a concept we inherit through our genes, and still it is bound to the embodiment of actual people. Through thousand upon thousand of generations, we have genetically sifted through all options and have kept on the one hand those options most beneficial to us and on the other hand those options impossible to get rid of.

It may be easier to discuss this when talking about other animals than ourselves. Take a dog and it comes with a set of genes that will make it a group animal. The genetic tract of wolves and dogs has gotten rid of individual aspects not beneficial to the wolves — or said somewhat differently, the benefits of cooperation were so much greater than the benefits of being selfish that the wolves genetic code has diminished the individual options to a minimum.

Go along a different tract of the animal kingdom and we find animals not born in families at all, but are beings that crawl out of an egg with no one out there but preditors to talk to. For them, the concept of family is empty; it does not exist, while we may still state that they can be placed in a pyramid of parents and kids (better word for both: generations), and males and females. The idea of family can be downgraded to nothing. It is a spiritual concept, both abstract and mighty real.

[N0B0DY]

No one likes analogies more than me, Fredrick, but perhaps try another avenue for me to follow because I haven't got a clue as to where this is leading.

I prefer to just get right to the point, spit it all out, so I can at least semi-connect the result to my thinking.

I read a few positive remarks on your site regarding keyholes to everything, and when I read the first chapter of the book it threw me for a loop.

I'm working on a book myself, "Nothing" by Nobody Nowhere - credit given to the wind - or perhaps "Atom and Eve". If you can contribute something I can relate to, I'm all ears. Even if I tear it to shreds with all my stupidity, I always absorb a bit here and there. If you have the answer to everything, and don't wish to share it or whatever, then I'm going to stick the earplugs in.

[Fredrick]

No one likes analogies more than me, Fredrick.

I read a few positive remarks on your site regarding keyholes to everything, and when I read the first chapter of the book it threw me for a loop.

I'm working on a book myself, "Nothing" by Nobody Nowhere - credit given to the wind - or perhaps "Atom and Eve". If you can contribute something I can relate to, I'm all ears. Even if I tear it to shreds with all my stupidity, I always absorb a bit here and there. If you have the answer to everything, and don't wish to share it or whatever, then I'm going to stick the earplugs in.

I like it: "Nothing" by Nobody Nowhere. As you may know, Odysseus used this name of 'Nobody' to help him and his crew escape the Cyclops. They were captured in a cave, and only by first poking out the single eye of the cyclops and subsequently hanging under the bellies of sheep, were they able to escape the cave. Yet as soon as Odysseus left the cave, his name was no longer Nobody, but it was Odysseus again. I bet that if you write this book, it will be helpful for many to escape the cave.

To escape the cave, one should pay close attention to the sentence: "Center piece is that our condition is based on our circumstances, and should not be confused as something extra." The name Nobody is not something extra, really. Still, without the name, Odysseus could not have escaped the cave.

Take four people — two adults, two kids — that do not know each other, and take four other but similar people that are related by blood, a mom, a dad, and their two kids. Place these two groups of four in two homes next to each other, and when never telling anyone else that one of them is not a family, no one will ever realize they are not a family in the 'proper' way. As far as the eye can see, there is no difference. The concept of family is not all in the mind, a family is a real thing that when accepted really affects our behavior. Yet it does not exist as something extra, it is contained within. The four people who are not a family will almost automatically start to behave like a family, and everybody else will treat them like a family. If you want, but I may linguistically confuse the picture now, one can call them a family; that would then be based on grounds that are different from being directly related by blood — on grounds that are just as important to the condition of 'family.'

It is like mixing red, blue, and yellow together. A new distinct 'color' appears, yet it is actually not something extra. It is a condition that exists within the scheme of colors. If you are a cyclops, you'd see four colors, if you are two-eyed, you see three colors and a distinct mixture of the three colors.

[N0B0DY]

I understand what you mean now, that certain non-existent abstracts exist for some depending on circumstances, but where does "nothing" fit into "everything?"

I chose Nobody because of the movie "My Name is Nobody" with Terence Hill and Henry Fonda. Nobody (Terence Hill) wants his idol Jack Beauregard (Henry Fonda) to take on and defeat the Wild Bunch, which is an almost impossible task; Jack says to Nobody, "I've met all kinds of people in my life, but the kind you're looking for don't exist." and Nobody responds, "but they're the only ones that count."

The universe can only overcome the effects of its infinite workings that breed chaos, if it doesn't exist as a whole. In my third eye, perfect replication is the prerequisite to perfection, and that is an impossibility in a literal universe based on subatomic "order."

The "order" is deceiving, breeding pain for innocent people ignorant of the consequences of their present actions. Only the universe that can know all outcomes can avoid those actions. I don't even think the human mind can fathom it, and remains stuck in a twisted sense of equality.

[austintorn@aol.com]

This is one of my theories that I discarded, so don't take it too seriously. Just felt like talking about nothing. Maybe someone can make something better out of it.

Free Lunch

We can have something for nothing—how about the entire universe—who said there is no free lunch! The universe did not always exist, because, for one, it is expanding, and, if we run the “film” backward, this points to a time when the universe was a singularity. Amazingly, the universe was created from nothing! It was borrowed from the vacuum, a debt that will someday have to be repaid. Perhaps photons appeared first—and then there was light!

There are positive and negative energies which we now know can appear from nothing, like virtual particles, which can later recombine back into nothing. Thus, either positive or negative energy, if separated long enough and far enough from its opposite and significant other, could form a universe. One theory is that gravity is a negative energy since it takes a positive force to keep objects from being drawn toward each other. Positive energy may be embodied in matter. Someday, trillions of years from now, gravity could slow down the expanding universe, eventually bringing the expansion to a halt, and then cause the universe to contract back into nothing—then poof! it’s all gone. (Except, perhaps, the photons, but they soon will be.)

Or, if this doesn’t happen, there’s another final way to settle Nature’s account. Due to quantum mechanics, protons may decay, after something like 2**30 years or so, into photons (massless light particles), and positrons, which, after eventually meeting all of the electrons—for there are an equal number of electrons and protons in the universe—cancels out everything but the photons, leaving nothing but light. What about neutrons—well, they decay into protons and electrons, and so they will also amount to nothing some day. Only photons will remain—all that we knew and loved is gone in a flash! Then the photons, too, are gone somehow.

It’s the ultimate magician’s trick: start with nothing; divide it into plus and minus; utilize each portion separately, being careful not to mix them, and, when done, recombine the parts back into nothing. Meanwhile, between the two parentheses of nothings, here we are!

(Of course the vacuum is most likely not a nothing in the above)