Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Nothing Meditation South Beach

 

 

by David Arthur Walters

South Beach is incredibly beautiful today, enough to cry about, and that is just what I silently did a I fled from hurricane Irma in 2017 to a high school shelter in a dangerous Miami neighborhood, expecting there would be nothing to return to, realizing then and there, on the evacuation bus that picked us up after the rich people had flown out in the days prior, how much I loved South Beach even though I was prone to hating it from time to time and desirous of returning to Hawaii, a place I had never hated, to die.

The news was incredible. South Beach would be under at least twelve feet of water. But Irma turned on a dime at the last possible moment and headed to Ft. Myers, where Tanya the Savage had fled, reminding me of the Arab who fled from one oasis to another to escape Death only to find Death waiting for him there.

Tanya, thankfully, survived the terrible blow. I myself was in such shock from the adventure that, after my return to barely damaged South Beach, I collapsed on a sidewalk in front of a building on which an ancient tree had collapsed, and I sobbed out loud, something real men secretly do.

When I recovered, thanks to a woman who consoled me, I exclaimed, “Damn the news!” I resolved to never run from a hurricane again, but to just get on a floor of a building that can withstand the wind, even if I have to witness bodies floating in the water when it blew over.

Sad to say that the sympathetic woman lost her job in the aftermath of Irma. She could not make her rent, was evicted from her apartment, then she moved away. I was thinking of her this morning in the context of the mayor’s big Law and Order Crackdown that practically shut down South Beach during Spring Break. Business had not been so good before that, so restaurant jobs are harder to find. A friend of mine lost his job when the restaurant where he works closed for good; he is on the verge of homelessness. May God help The Help because their employers must be heartless to survive in paradise.

There is no beauty without ugliness. Paradise can be hell despite its beauties. One can always take a walk around and find some comfort in how it looks. I sauntered over to South Pointe Park, one of the most beautiful parks in the world, where I noticed a long line of young people, the majority of them women dressed in white, walking up the big rise overlooking the Atlantic. They were not relating to one another or looking about, and I was reminded of the Living Dead. Indeed, the procession was solemn, as if it were a funeral without a casket. I wondered if someone important had died. The participants stopped on the rise to face the ocean sky. Some appeared to be praying. One woman had her arms upraised with palms toward the Sun, reminding me of how I had done in D.C. when stoned during an anti-war protest near the Washington Monument during the Good Old Days.

A beautiful, mature woman, dressed all in black came riding up the rise on a motorized bicycle large enough to be called a motorcycle. Never mind that , bikes on that elevated sidewalk had been prohibited until everyone disobeyed the rule, so the rule was abrogated rather than enforced to save human beings from serious injuries.

“I am late,” she said to me, thinking I was a member of the group.

“Who died?” I asked, looking at her closely, thinking she looked like a wise witch.

“It is a meditation.”

“Oh, excuse me. I am just standing here. There is plenty of room for meditation since countless angels can stand on the head of a pin.”

She did not have time to get it, and she continued on, trying to converse with the meditators, with some difficulty because they were preoccupied with their meditations and did not want to be bothered with things.
Meditation upon what? The vast ocean and sky, the clouds, as if less were more? I supposed they were seeking Nothing, hopefully, because Nothing Meditation provides relief from every thing, something contemplation fails to achieve. It is by no means easy to literally become No Thing. Why, my friend Billy accomplished Nothing in India during a Sun Worship, and he was, ironically, deported, then jumped out of a high window on his return to New York, leaving a note saying he was going to join Madame Blavatsky.

So there I stood with the meditators. I understand their plight. Even paradise can be hell; there would be no paradise without it. Indeed, South Beach is perfect because it resists perfection defined. So, I was glad they are purging their minds of garbage so they can go back refreshed, and I felt like giving them all a big hug at the same time. I am, however, Almost Dead Already. Nothing is not enough for me. Give me everything or give me death. Being here is wonderful this morning. Believe it or not, South Beach is incredibly beautiful. You do not have to get anything out of it, and Beauty is good for Nothing, if you so please; that is its advantage! Just look and see for your Self.

Thursday, March 03, 2022

Metaphysical Nothing


Abstract by Sebastian Ferreira

 
Martin Heidegger enjoyed a lifelong obsession with Being and its negation, Nothing. Is Being everything, or is there something called Nothing besides?

Every proposition in truth is about Being. Even the special sciences of various kinds of beings ultimately have a mutual end in Being, for special beings are forms of Being.

The human being is a being that sets itself apart from Being to assert its particular being as well as Being, the ultimate genus which it invasively divides into special beings that the nature of their existence or essence erupts into man’s consciousness. Man does this “in such a way that in and through this irruption beings break open and show what they are and how they are.”

In this way, beings are related to man, are in effect “for” man’s self-consciousness, which of course implies the existence of a world to which he belongs. Modern science is, then, despite its rejection of metaphysics and its subject, Being, concerned with what is and nothing else, i.e. Being. But that is to assume that there is, generally speaking, something other than Being, or Nothing, an assumption that many thinkers from Parmenides onward have considered too logically absurd for consideration.

“Precisely what is remarkable is that, precisely in the way scientific man secures to himself what is most properly his, he speaks of something different. What should be examined are beings only, and besides that – nothing; beings alone, and further – nothing; solely beings, and beyond that – nothing. What about this nothing?”

Since this general nothing is rejected by science, given up as nothing but Nothing, are not scientists conceding that Nothing exists by deliberately abandoning it? It would seem that Nothing does exist in the sense of something standing apart (existere) from Being.

“If science is right, then only one thing is sure: science wishes to know nothing of the nothing…. But even so it is certain that when science tries to express its proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects.”

So Heidegger returns to the question, which presumes the existence of nothing and thus violates the fundamental logical principle of non-contradiction, “What is Nothing?”

Quoted: What is Metaphysics, Martin Heidegger





















Thursday, May 16, 2019

Life is Better than Nothing


Nothing is Perfect but Life is better than Nothing

Labels: ,

Friday, May 25, 2018

All is I - A Burlesque by Querkopf von Klubstick


ALL IS I – A BURLESQUE BY QUERKOPF VON KLUBSTICK

A burlesque on the Fichtean Egoismus entitled ‘The Categorical Imperative, or the annunciation of the new Teutonic God, ETQENKAIIIAN: a dithyrambic Ode, by Querkopf Von Klubstick, Grammarian, and Subrector in Gymnasic,’ was quoted by Samuel Coleridge, who said, "The following burlesque on the Fichtean Egoismus may, perhaps, be amusing to the few who have studied the system, and to those who are unacquainted with it, may convey as tolerable a likeness of Fichte's idealism as can be expected from an avowed caricature."

Eu! Dei vices gerens, ipse Divus,
(Speak English, Friend!) the God Imperativus,
Here on this market-cross aloud I cry:
I, I, I! I itself I!
The form and the substance, the what and the why,
The when and the where, and the low and the high,
The inside and outside, the earth and the sky.
I, you and he, and he, you and I,
All souls and all bodies are I itself I !
All I itself I !
(Fools! a truce with this starting!)
All my I ! all my I !
He's a heretic dog who but adds Betty Martin!
Thus cried the God with high imperial tone;
In robe of stiffest state, that scoffed at beauty,
A pronoun-verb imperative he shone—
Then substantive and plural-singular grown
He thus spake on ! Behold in I alone
(For ethics boast a syntax of their own)
Or if in ye, yet as I doth depute ye,
In 0 !, you, the vocative of duty!
I of the world's whole Lexicon the root!
Of the whole universe of touch, sound, sight
The genitive and ablative to boot:
The accusative of wrong, the nominative of right,
And in all cases the case absolute!
Self-construed, I all other moods decline:
Imperative, from nothing we derive us;
Yet at a super-postulate of mine,
Unconstrued antecedence I assign
To X, Y, Z, the God Infinitivus!


Coleridge warns his readers against getting the wrong impression of Fichte, and quoted one William Smith, who, in On the Nature of the Scholar, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1806) published lectures on Fichte’s work:

"Few perhaps of any time, exercised a more powerful spirit stirring influence over the minds of his fellow-countrymen. The ceaseless effort of his life was to rouse men to a sense of the divinity of their own nature—to fix their thoughts upon a spiritual life as the only true and real life—to teach them to look upon all else as mere show and unreality, and thus to lead them to constant effort after the highest Ideal of purity, virtue, independence, and self-denial."

SEE: The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Vol. III, Ed. Professor Shedd, Harper and Brothers: New York 1858

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Something About Nothing for Muhammad Ali







SOMETHING ABOUT NOTHING

BY

DAVID ARTHUR WALTERS

There is nothing I like better than to equivocate over nothing. Since nothing is perfect, nothing and only nothing is perfect. Wherefore Muhammad Ali’s picture on the poster in the window at the World Famous 5th Street Gym on Alton Road in Miami Beach caught my eye. I met the prize fighter when he was Cassius Clay at the original gym on 5th Street, and as Muhammad Ali in the elevator of the Ala Moana Hotel, in Honolulu, where I was preparing to argue a case pro se before the state supreme court.

“Impossible is Nothing” quoth Ali on the poster, giving me cause to consider whether or not Impossible and Nothing are commutative terms.

Sometimes all the talk about nothing seems quite sensible to me, and even the mere mention of nothing excites me to say something about nothing. Of course my limited faculties condemn me to figures of speech or metaphors - sometimes I laugh at how the most abstract gods or gods negatively defined down to nothing wind up being a "He." One author threw me off with a "She" - imagine that!

I don't know why, but even my most abstract notions seem to be derived from sensation and perception no matter how much I fervently hope for immediate gnosis from the Transcendent Sphere Beyond or for some revelation not mediated by the limited forms imposed by my mental field or faculty.

Yes, I embarrassingly admit it - I am a frustrated mystic. Kant scoffed at the notion of the noun, 'Transcendent', which he distinguished from the adjective 'transcendental.' And despite the master's warning about the illusion of the transcendental logic, the New England Transcendentalists and others went wild over the idea that everybody naturally possesses not only an innate, transcendental or a priori faculty which imposes the forms understanding on sensation, a process independent of the things in themselves as well as of the recognized authorities, but they also claimed they had direct access to the Transcendent, or God, whom some called "Reason" because they were greatly pleased with their reasoning on the Subject of subjects.

Kant had specifically said that sort of thing is nonsense, and that reasoning about Reason, the god of the Enlightenment, has, at best, illusory results. His god existed as a practical absolute presupposition for the conduct of life's great experiment. It is practical to presuppose God, Immortality, and Free Will in order to do our highest duty, which is of course to overcome evil, and that, of course, has its source in desire.

God: we probably have the power to do our duty. Immortality: we have the time to do our duty. Free Will: we have the conditions to do our duty. The New England Transcendentalists were very practical people and they would have no doubt have appreciated the beauty of Kant's presuppositions if the translations had been at their fingertips.

Now I am moved to say more about nothing, but before I do so I am duty bound to confess that I am absolutely ignorant of its substance and nature - if it is a substance with a nature, which I seriously doubt. An popular analog for nothing is space. The early metaphysicians of modern science took up the subject, space, and were surprised to discover that its attributes were those previously bestowed by metaphysical thinkers on God.

As for empty space, physicists today deny there is any such thing as a void without at least some sort of particulate content. Space without objects, or absolute space, seems to be a logically absurdity. That being said, scientists still speak of space AS IF it were a thing separate from the material system, otherwise how could they talk about nothing? At least I think they do - I am not quite sure what physicists are talking about nowadays, if anything, when they speak of space, and, at my age, it is much too late for me to get ahead of the curve let alone catch up with it.

I occasionally reread the same sentences penned by Sir Arthur Eddington, I do not comprehend them, but I believe I am making some headway. I suppose his notions are passé by now, but I enjoy being mystified. For instance, I do not understand his discussion of the two possible universes posited during his day, the Einstein and the de Sitter universes; both are spherical, closed universes, and both are changeless - a frame or background for relative movement. He says it dawned on scientists that de Sitter's universe was a mathematical fiction, a "completely empty" universe, if his formula is taken literally, and that the only way he had avoided change was by putting no matter into it. Nothing exists after all. Thus Einstein's universe turned out to be the one form of material universe which is genuinely changeless or static. But then the choice between the two became irrelevant because a whole range of intermediate states between motionless matter and matterless motion were found.

I was relieved to know that! More significantly, Eddington speaks of 'space' as if it were a separate thing or substance, saying that space must expand before the material system can expand. But he says too much attention is paid to space. Whatever space is, it is curved, and that is a fact verified by measurement: for, over large distances, the angles of a triangle do not equal two right angles. Thus somehow space curves back on itself and the opposite ends of a line meet, leading us to suppose that space is not as infinite as we thought, but is rather like a strange sort of sphere with a fourth dimension to account for the view that each point of the points evenly dispersed throughout the sphere is at the center of the sphere - this analogy is drawn from the surface of a real sphere, which is a closed space.

Amazing! Space must be something after all. As for the universe, somebody told me that it is really a donut. I said that was ridiculous, for who would eat it? He asked me, "What does it mean when we say that a man who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones." What an ignoramus!

Anyway, my nothing is not empty space. No way, at least that is not my experience! I venture to say that it transcends ordinary 'nothing' and 'something.' I think Eddington recognized the difference, at least in terms of space alone, for he mentions the critic who complained that the common man's conception of space, as he 'experiences' it, is being ignored by scientists:

"It is no part of my present subject to discuss the relation of the world as conceived in physics to a wider interpretation of our experience; I will only say that that part of our conscious experience representable by physical symbols ought not to claim to be the whole. As a conscious being YOU are not one of my symbols; your domain is not circumscribed by my spatial measurements. If, like Hamlet, you count yourself king of infinite space, I do not challenge your sovereignty. I only invite attention to the certain disquieting rumours which have arisen as to the state of Your Majesty's nutshell."

I am moved by Nothing to speculate here: I think the nebulous YOU is personal (Quality) in contrast to IT or impersonal (Quantity); in other words, Subject versus Object. I opine the person is a synthesis of YOU and IT and has as its principle of origin Absolute Power, which causes me to mention, yet again, Nothing.

But what do I know?

Nothing, really.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, September 22, 2014

Heavy Metal painting by Sebastian Ferreira


 
Sold
 
 


Labels:

He's Got the Blues painting by Sebastian Ferreira

The Opposition Painting by Sebastian Ferreira


Sold $1,850 September 2014
 
 

Labels:

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Nothing is Indeterminate



 

NOTHING IS ENDLESS
 

NOTHING IS BOUNDLESS
 
 
 
 
consult Terminus for more information