*Being* is *Nothing*
August 31st, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
In a message dated 31/08/2006 02:49:06 GMT Standard Time, Bernx at aol.com
writes:
In a message dated 8/30/2006 9:35:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
GEVANS613 at aol.com writes:
Dr Michael Eldred:
Yes, “*Being* does not *name* anything - for there is nothing to be named.”
Strangely, we agree that being is nothing, you in the form of denial, I in
the form of affirmation. Children, and most other people, do not need to know
anything about dimension to play out their lives. They take it for granted –
a luxury that those who practise ontological thinking cannot afford.
Jud:
Sorry Dr. Eldred, Look again. I did NOT say that *Being* is Nothing* - I
said *there is nothing to be named.* So I ‘m afraid that I do not agree with
your employment of the *is of identity* in your tautologous coupling of *Being*
and *Nothing* as - *Being is Nothing.* on this occassion.
(Compare *Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor *is* *Elizabeth II of Great
Britain.*)
Your ontological position appears to be this:
(1) *Being* *is* Nothing. (*Being* = *Nothing*)
[Bernard] Ergo, nothing is nothin!–thus committing the sin of tautologism
but the Marxist schoolboy employment of the dialectical negation of the
negation.
Jud:self-referential
Exactly Bernard! One cannot negate: *that which does not exist* to be
negated. Therefore one cannot negate *Being* and identify it as being *Nothing,*
for *Being* does not exist to be negated. To negate *Being* and call it
*Nothing* is tantamount to believing that *Being* exists in the first place in
order to be negated. When will these people grasp the SIMPLE FACT that the
feedback notion/sensing of *Being* is no more than a self-referential
awareness/acknowledgement of the fact/reality that they exist - and that it is not the
*fact* or *reality* that they exist or that they are real that exists - it is
THEM?
regards,
Jud Evans.
Personal Website: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…
