Saying Something about Something that is not Nothing
January 13th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
Joe sayeth:
> I’m using ‘x is x is not nothing’ as a way of defining ‘is’ thru its
> use.
Yes, Joe, but this ‘definition’ only de-fines ‘is’ insofar as ‘is’ is [!]
not nothing; thus, you say ‘is’ is [!] not nothing, that the limit/bound
(de-fine-ition) of is (be-ing) is [!] the other side (as it were) of
nothingness; so, in a sense [I am, of course, using spatial metaphors since
your notion of de-finition suggests it), you have, in order to de-fine
(place limits and bounds) be-ing, made be-ing over to some kind of
geographical or topological placing with respect to nothingness, as in a
drawing a line across the space of everything-that-is, where be-ing (or more
strictly, beings-as-a-whole) sits on one side and nothingness on the other,
like two mutually exclusive and independent sets. The trouble with this (to
be elaborated in another post) is (apart from de-fining be-ing at all, which
seems be-side the point for that which is [!] not a being…)) is that
everything-that-is must include nothingness (or, for your system, the empty
set) since nothingness (and the empty set) is too, as does the set of
everything-that-is; thus, the two sides of the de-fining line or circle are
mutually entangled. Or, for ontologists, nothingness belongs to be-ing; the
irruption of a being in/from nothingness continues the nothingness (the
irruption of be-ing is the very presencing (irrupting) of the present being
that is and not just a moving permanently away from nothingness) within its
self in order to be at all; be-ing is [!] not that a being may be; the
relation can not be de-fined (although it can be pointed to) and attempting
to de-fine be-ing is to cover/hide be-ing in/with a de-fined being = to
completely misunderstand be-ing (only beings can be de-fined). Your
logico-technological apparatuses of formal logic and set representation,
etc, completely make over be-ing (the ‘is’ of all-that-is) to a de-fined,
‘en-setted’ [sorry] being, and thus the attempt to grasp be-ing with such
apparatuses ends up clasping a being instead, thus both missing and
confirming the ontological difference at the same time…
regards
michaelP
