Monday, September 22, 2014
He's Got the Blues painting by Sebastian Ferreira
The Opposition Painting by Sebastian Ferreira
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Nothing is Indeterminate
NOTHING IS ENDLESS
NOTHING IS BOUNDLESS
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Grasping Aire by David Arthur Walters
I beg your pardon for beginning with my I, but it’s all I can try to cling to at this point. It is as if I were grasping thin air, clutching at a straw. It might suffice to say that I am that I am, and that’s about it for the moment, whatever it may be, if anything at all, yet, since my nothingness compels me to persist forever for the time being, I must say something more about what cannot be properly affirmed, the nothing that I am without another, in order to avoid my I altogether. If I said I well enough, you might be offended by my pride, and then, in all humility, I would be moved to apologize for the grandeur of my insignificance, and wish, for your sake, that I were less than nothing. But would not to be less than nothing make something of nothing, and something to be ashamed of?
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Monday, August 27, 2007
Nothing is as Nothing Does
Nothing Is as Nothing Does
by Judith Bailey
because David Arthur Walters
got me to thinking
about Nothing and nothing at all...
In the Beginning
Was the Word,
And the Word was Nothing.
Calm, Quiet, and Still
For quite a long while.
Nothing wanted to see
What nothing looked like,
And discovered that,
To see nothing or even Nothing,
Something had to be added.
And then it got complicated.
I enjoyed your poem about Nothing, and I take comfort in knowing that Nothing is the only Subject we absolutely agree on, for Nothing is always Self-Identical as the Absolutely Unconditional. Nothing has no attributes and cannot be conditioned by thought, for thought must have a mutual subjective and objective relation, or a knowing between knower and known. Indeed, the tragedy of our dreary times is the objective faith and its objectivist monstrosities. I speak of the false faith that Nondenominational Nothing must be a spiritual object. Therefore I congratulate you and I urge you to remain steadfast in Nothing. And remember, if someone asks, "Well, if Nothing exists, what is Nothing?", we may allude to Nothing in this reply, 'Nothing is your Freedom." Or, someone might say, "It's your freedom, stupid." But seldom do those who appreciate Nothing resort to such abusive terms.
Yours In Absolutely Nothing,
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Luther on Doing Nothing
Thursday, February 16, 2006
There is Nothing Like Nothing
by David Arthur Walters
Blasphemy distracts me from an absolute state of rest on Sunday
I was fully committed to a Sunday of absolute rest today, but no sooner had I started to do nothing than I was distracted by the memory of the blasphemy I had just encountered over my morning coffee. Sometime it seems doing absolutely nothing on Sunday is akin to starting a diet after the next piece of cake. Neither eternal peace or starvation is really wanted.
Yes, the distraction was blasphemy in this case, of the sort that might lead one to conclude that life is really worth living whether one is eating cake or not. It was blasphemous in the technical sense, that Nothing was used against Nothing to prove that Nothing does not exist. ANd this I was confronted with after making it perfectly clear in my essay 'How To Do Absolutely Nothing' that one must be Nothing in order to do nothing, upon which it should follow that Nothing indubitably exists.
I was unsuspectingly led into sin by a book, namely Professor R.B. Collingwood's AN ESSAY ON METAPHYSICS. It was the 'Revised Edition with The Nature of Metaphysical Study, Function of Metaphysics in Civilization, Notes for an Essay on Logic,' published by Clarendon Press in 1998 at Oxford--of course!
First of all, let me explain why I had this heretical book in my possession. I had overheard gossip that Professor Collingwood discovered something called the Four Forms of Experience. Each form is a mistake corrected by its successors, in this order: Art, Religion, Science, History. I have heard of all sorts of orders; I was not surprised that History came out on top this time inasmuch as the professor, who died in 1943, was, first and foremost, a historian. For him, History was everything.You may have heard of his Three Doctrines:
1. Mental creations must be studied historically, not psychologically;
2. Historical knowledge is attainable;
3. History and philosophy are a unity.
The good professor invested nearly his entire professional life in Oxford, where he was the only surviving disciple of the great Romano-British archeologist F.J. Haverfield. Professor Collingwood was a fine archeologist in his own right, highly respected for his ability to interpret his and other people's excavations. He succeeded where others conformed; he was not afraid to make mistakes, to create hypotheses to be challenged, knowing truth is often found in bed with error. From the bits and pieces I picked up from the conversations about him, I received the impression that he was a tolerant man who would read a book about absolutely nothing to see if there was some truth in it.
Well, to each his own, I thought, as the chitter-chatter about him went on, then someone said he once claimed that, although his Four Forms of Experience were all mistakes, there was a Fifth, comprehensive Form that was error-free yet had no content of its own. My ears perked up at that! And then someone rendered this hearsay:
"The truth is not some perfect system of philosophy: it is simply the way in which all systems, however perfect, collapse into nothingness on the discovery that they are only systems."
There it was again, I thought, Nothing! For, if systems collapse into nothingness, Nothing exists! The unsystematic philosophy of Nothing is the key to everything!
Therefore I eagerly scooped up the professor's Essay to peruse this morning over my one-hundred percent Kona coffee. I opened it up to Chapter I, 'Aristotle's Metaphysics.' Professor Collingwood proposed that If we are to understand "metaphysics" we must understand its history; to understand its history we must understand Aristotle's motive for bringing it up. So far so good. What was metaphysics to Aristotle? Nothing. He did not even use the term. His editors used it to identify certain treatises they placed after the physics, hence "metaphysics" is the name of that book. Aristotle addressed three obscurities in the works constituting our present book; we now refer to the study of same as the "science" of metaphysics.
Aristotle called what came to be our obscure science of metaphysics by three different names: First Science, Wisdom, Theology.
The First Science is the study of what is logically prior to all other sciences, the Science of sciences--although we work up to it from the bottom of the pyramid, it is first because it is the apex, point, or principle of all lines below.
Wisdom is what all sciences search for within their respective disciplines.
Theology has the ultimate goal of what is logically presupposed in the First Science and is therefore present as the principle of all sciences, namely, God.
All these are one under cover of three names. We reason from the particular to the general and from general to particular in the inductive-deductive process. We generalize our experience and act accordingly, correcting our mistakes as we progress up the mountain, forming better and broader generalizations that extend down the slopes, across the plains and to the circular horizon below. Naturally, the universal laws we discover on our ascent are presumed to exist prior to our climb.
There is one pyramid of universals. Thus metaphysics is considered to be the general science of universals, the science of Pure Being found at the summit.
My heart leapt at this Aristotelian process of generalization paraphrased by Professor Collingwood, whose paraphrasing I have paraphrased. Having led me to the summit, I felt he would, in full faith, bear witness for his students and take the magnificent leap into Nothing!
Alas, was I ever disappointed. I had put on Richard Strauss' 'Also Sprach Zarathustra', refilled my coffee mug, and turned the page to behold the professor's title to his second Roman-numerated chapter, II:
'NO SCIENCE OF PURE BEING!" (emphasis and exclamation-mark added).
Egads, that should never be said on Sunday, my day to practice doing absolutely nothing. For Nothing is Pure Being. To say there is no science of Pure Being is to say Pure Being cannot be known: what good is it to do absolutely nothing and not know it? And worse, if there is no theoretical science there is no practical technology, so there is no way to do absolutely nothing. Since it is necessary to be Nothing to do absolutely nothing, Nothing must exist, therefore Nothing must be known by doing absolutely nothing. Surely he is pulling my leg, so I went on to read:
"(Aristotle) was aware that when the process of abstraction is pushed home to the limiting case and arrives at the summit of the pyramid, the thought which has effected this new abstraction and might seem, therefore, to stand upon the threshold of a new science, the science of pure being, stands in a situation not quite like the situations out of which ordinary sciences arise. The situation in which it stands is in certain important ways unprecedented and unique, and it is a debatable question how far and in what sense anything that arises out of it ought to be called a science."
So, now, looking down on the dirty details from our lofty elevation, our teacher wants to cavil instead of leaping into the Nothing, to pause and hold debates about the "facts", I suppose. He steps back from the precipice to inform us that there are two conditions for a legitimate science: one, there must be orderly thinking; two, there must be a definite subject-matter. He claims that "the science of pure being would have a subject-matter entirely devoid of peculiarities; a subject-matter, therefore, containing nothing to differentiate it from anything else, or from nothing at all."
But there it is! Nothing! He fails to observe that Nothing is precisely the non-dimensional, unique, all-encompassing pointless point, the very principle of the space-time continuum. He fails to observe there is nothing like Nothing! Furthermore, Nothing is the perfectly undifferentiated identity of the proposition [Nothing=Nothing], the equation that simultaneously expresses absolutely minimal differentiation. Moreover, and this is as plain as Day: Nothing is All abstracted from All rushing to All-fulfillment in the Vacuum not abhorred but loved by All. But what does our Oxford man have to say about abstraction? This:
"Abstraction means taking out. But science investigates not what is taken out but what is left in. To push abstraction to the limiting case is to take out everything; and when everything is taken out there is nothing for science to investigate."
But he has missed the capital point entirely. There is not 'nothing' to investigate: there is Nothing to investigate, and there is nothing like Nothing, for Nothing exists! He goes on to say:
"You may call this nothing by what name you like--pure being, or God, or anything else--but it remains nothing, and contains no peculiarities for science to examine."
Well then, may that sordid "science" keep its dirty hands off!
At first I suspected the doctor of duplicitous ambiguity; perhaps intolerance was forcing Oxford dons to resort to coded ambiguities to maintain tenure. But on further reading it does not seem so, when he directly states:
"This is only a roundabout way of saying that there can be no such science. There is not even a quasi-science of pure being: not even a thing which in certain ways resembles an ordinary science and in certain ways differs from it....There is not even a pseudo-science of pure being: not even a collection of what seems to be statements but are in fact only the record of guesses, intellectual gropings or emotional reactions that take place within us when we confront an object we do not
Now then, I hope I have not quoted at too great a length without authorization from authorities; I do not believe so, for in order for blasphemy to be exposed, it must be quoted freely for the Public Good.
I would go on to read Professor Collingwood's third chapter, 'III. Metaphysics Without Ontology', where I presume he is going to throw the being of nothingness out of metaphysics, but my CD has traversed the peaks with Zarathustra and gone through most of 'Ein Heldenleben' (A Hero's Life) to that sweet pasture where I am starting to relax to the point where I can do absolutely nothing without even trying.
Now that I have calmed down, I am beginning to think that Professor Collingwood really meant Nothing when he said "nothing", otherwise he has employed Nothing against itself, which is technical blasphemy. Surely he knows that ignorance is the necessary precondition for all knowledge, that Nothing is the font of all that is, and that all his statements about the science of Pure Being prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt since there is nothing to obstruct the reason, that Nothing exists. Therefore as the music ends I retire into the Silence.