Nothing Limited

Grasping Aire by David Arthur Walters

2010-02-16T08:30:00.000-08:00

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?

Metaphysical Nothing

2010-02-06T06:49:00.000-08:00

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

Nothing is as Nothing Does

2007-08-27T10:18:00.001-07:00

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.
Nothing was
Calm, Quiet, and Still
For quite a long while.
Then,
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.

Nil

Dear Judith,

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,

Editor

The Facilities

The Index
The Rest Room

Luther on Doing Nothing

2006-10-18T06:28:00.000-07:00

As Luther interpreted St. Paul: “But this most excellent righteousness of faith I mean… consists not in our works, but is clean contrary; that is to say, a mere passive righteousness. For in this we worked nothing unto God…. For there is no comfort of conscience so firm and so sure as this passive righteousness is…. Why, do we then nothing? Do we work nothing for the obtaining of this righteousness? I answer: Nothing at all. For the nature of this righteousness is to do nothing, to know nothing, whatsoever of the law or of works.”

There is Nothing Like Nothing

2006-02-16T17:34:00.000-08:00

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
understand."

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.

-X-

Thinking of Nothing

2005-12-07T13:57:00.000-08:00

The Ground Floor

2005-12-06T06:20:00.000-08:00

Nothing is Impossible

NOTHING LIMITED is no joke. I have the scheme worked out in my mind. It is a promotion company that has tremendous potential to make a lot out of Nothing.

This may sound highly amusing, for Nothing is amusing, and Nothing Limited shall be highly profitable - millions shall be earned every year.

Now you can get in on the ground floor of Nothing Limited! I have Nothing at this very moment, hence investment opportunities abound.

Investors may invest small or large sums. All investors will receive delivery of a handcrafted, numbered stock certificate, suitable for framing if not for papering walls. O. Henry advised confident men to provide investors with something substantial to hold on to, namely a gilded certificate. At least they will have something attractive to paper the walls with. Our handcrafted certificates should in themselves be worth at least the amount originally invested, and perhaps a great deal more if they become collector's items.

But the certicates of our largest investors will be unique works of art, expected to double in value in ten years, and much more than that if the company folds. But not to worry, for Nothing will not fold! We can have full faith and confidence in Nothing Limited: this enterprise to make a something if not a fortune out of Nothing will succeed.

Mind you in this context that I am a survivor. My being depends on Nothing. I have faith in Nothing, for Nothing works.

I have several exciting ventures already planned. They will culminate with a balloon tour across the United States and Austria. Now we need a small amount of seed money to get started. Then I shall:

1) Register the corporation in Nevada or offshore;

2) Design logos, purchase stationery and office supplies;

3) Pay the annual fee for an Internet web site, our Internet Calling Card;

4) Design and produce a small supply (samples) of products, including stock certificates - a secondary market for the designer certificates shall be, by the way, Ebay auctions, if the investor so chooses.

Now is the time for you to get in on the ground floor of Nothing Limited, dba The Nothing Company, and to make a fortune out of Nothing Limited. Give me a call right away.

David Arthur Walters
305.742.8462

Nothing Will Work

Kabbalah Krackpot?

2005-12-01T17:08:00.000-08:00

NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE

Is Rick Ross a Kabbalah Krackpot?

I noticed the Miami Kabbalah center's full-page ad running in Knight Ridder's prestigious The Miami Herald recently. Shortly thereafter I was approached on the sidewalk in Coral Gables by Kabbalah sales persons.

Apparently there have been numerous complaints about the conduct of the pop-Kabbalah movement. For instance, a Mr. Rick Ross (www.rickross.com) informed me today that the head of the movement in Israel has been arrested for fraud. He said he is looking for relevant "newspaper" articles about the movement for his database. He is not interested in opinions: he seems to believe in "facts", and apparently has the opinion that newspapers are the only relatively credible source of "facts."

I have seen nothing but positive information about the Kabbalah movement in the South Florida press. I understand that prominent members of our community as well as highly placed celebrities ardently support the movement as if it were a bona fide religion. If there is a record that the movement somehow places vulnerable people in danger, I believe the public has a right to know what that record is. Have members of the South Florida press printed anything on the movement besides advertisements and upbeat "news"?

The Miami Mirror will not go into print until next year, when our funding is in place. Until we become a newspaper, we must rely on existing newspapers for reliable information on the dangers that might confront us in our search for perfection. Rick Ross has a great deal of information to share on this particular subject. As for his opinion, his understanding of what a fact is, and his interpretation of facts, we cannot render our opinion as of yet. Nor do we have the funds to conduct a thorough investigation as to whether or not his work is a fragment or kellipot from the Cracked Pot. If that is in fact the case, some light may be recovered from therein. And that is why we have asked various newspaper editors to conduct an investigation into the facts and report back to us on this crucial issue.

Thank you for your consideration,

David Arthur Walters
The Miami Mirror

Nothing is Free at the Kabbalah Fest
http://authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=23453&id=20165

Coral Cabala

2005-11-19T11:10:00.000-08:00

Hyatt Regency Coral Gables

Coral Gables, Florida, is perhaps the most expensive place for members of the growing servant economy to have lunch in metropolitan Miami; many of them pack their lunch. As for me, I was headed for Burger King. A becoming young lady handed me a slick flyer as I walked along Miracle Mile.

"Kabbalah Comes to the Gables."

The public was invited to a free introduction to the Kabbalah, to be held at the Hyatt Regency on October 23, 2005. Furthermore, for the sum of $25, interested parties could attend a workshop:

"Many Lives, Many Lovers - How To Find Your Soul Mate: This workshop will reveal the secrets of finding your true soul mate and everlasting love."

The area traversed by Miracle Mile in Coral Gables is an upscale, upgraded neighborhood south of downtown Miami and Coconut Grove. It is graced by Mediterranean architecture, wealthy people, banks big and small, exclusive restaurants, art galleries, beauty shops, and the like. The few, low-slung, historic buildings are elegantly charming. But the current architectural mode for business is ponderously Romanesque-made-tall, amply court-yarded and colonnaded.

The Miracle Mile look is inhospitably antiseptic in my opinion. One might notice an ever-so-slight, mingled scent of laundered money and expensive colognes on breezy days. The businessmen are relatively handsome and well heeled under cuffed trousers. If they wear a phallic symbol at all, it is most often a long and red, power tie. Some of the women, particularly those who drive the luxury cars found for sale nearby, have cozy rear seats and comfortable headlights. I happen to be a lip-man who prefers the dignified demeanor and noble countenance of the latinas.

By the way, Miami-at-large has the largest breasts in the Sunbelt, at least according to the recent statistical study of breast implantation. But ordinary Latinos, particularly Cubans, seem to be mostly fond of rumps, the larger the better. Wherefore if you are an amply endowed lady, no problem, come on down to Miami and your beauty will fare well in many neighborhoods.

As for Coral Gables, I suppose the most desirable mates are reserved; yet one never knows unless the issue is pressed hard. I myself am lonely for dollars at present, hence I have not paid much attention to the possibility of meeting a body or soul mate as of yet - a synthesis of the two would be best for one who follows the personalist ethics of the late Polish pope.

Thanks to La Mujer de Oro, the beautiful married woman who called me out of the clear blue sky, I landed a temporary assignment in Gables for a few weeks. I had almost hit rock bottom - or rather the beach - when she called. I had been beating my head against the wall for some time, and had given up all my high hopes as well as my lowly desires.

There are some things we can do nothing about except leave everything including our egos behind at the coral gate, then submit, forego, forgive, forget, and enter empty-handed with palms opened upward to receive whatever is in store. There are times when we should for nothing if we would receive what is good for us, for our confusing demands simply get in the way.

In any case, I would keep going through the motions with an empty mind, resigned to my fate whatever it might be. In fine, with faith in nothing and knowing nothing is perfect, I would accept whatever number came up even if it were zero. Those 'woulds' were the extent of my will. La Mujer de Oro called two hours later. I found myself in Gables the very next day.

I studied the Kabbalah flyer as the young lady who handed it to me stood by.

"Do you know about the Kabbalah?" she asked.

"Nothing is better than the Kabbalah," I replied.

We smiled broadly at each other and parted pleased with each other and ourselves.

Nothing is perfect.

MaMa if not Nothing

2005-11-15T16:06:00.000-08:00

God would have no reason to be puzzled by logical contradictions nor by any other obstacles real or imagined for that matter, except, perhaps, the problem of her own eternal existence. Of course she might not bother to question her own existence absent any self-defining challenge to it, preferring instead to remain profoundly ignorant in eternal bliss. But If that were the case, then she would not be omniscient, for she would know nothing of herself in relation to her universe. She would be an inscrutable mystery if not Nothing.

Of course she is slightly more than nothingness to manu, primordial man, whom she "measures out" (ma) along with the rest of the universe, in all its particulars - hence we double Ma and call her MaMa, the wise infinitude draped in absolute space, the womb of everything finite that would negate her, but must be satisfied, instead, with an infinitessimal portion of her plenitude.

Within her measure we self-consciously exist. We suppose she is absolute wisdom instead of absolute ignorance. If she were not wise to her particulars, then the fleeting fabric of the illusory universe would collapse back into her womb and she would be the one and only non-dimensional point again, the Ace or Kali. And then we would have nothing to post, posit or prove, for neither we nor anything else would exist. Since we are capable of thinking of the absence of everything except Nothing, we have good reason to presume that Nothing positively exists before anything at all, an unknown something, pregnant with everything including humankind.

Figuratively speaking, we propose that Nothing is fe-male; meaning, she who crowns man. That man is ignorant of the 0rigin from whom all males and females are born is no reason to believe that Ma-Ma is ignorant. Rather, man is ignorant, no matter how learned he might be: the more he knows about particular subjects, the less he knows of the perfect universal, or Nothing, the thou-art-that.

The Negatively Existent One

2005-09-12T16:10:00.000-07:00

Since Being is the Universal stripped of It's predicates, or what can be said of It, the infinitely variable X is sometimes considered in its negative aspect, as Nothing. Of course there is a subtle and crucial difference between Being and Nothing. We have this occult interpretation of Exodus XVII.7, in regards to the thirsty grumblers at Massah - Moses struck a rock, from which water proceeded to flow: "And concerning this, the children of Israel wish to know in their minds, like as it is written: is the Tratragrammaton in the midst of us, or the 'Negatively Existent One?' From The Law of Love or Else by David Arthur Walters

The Law of Love or Else
http://authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?id=19431

On Becoming Nothing

2005-09-12T16:02:00.000-07:00

I died as a mineral and became a plant,
I died as a plant and rose as an animal,
I died as animal and I was Man.
Why should I fear? When was I less by dying?
Yet once more I shall die as Man to soar
WIth angels blest; but even from angelhood
I must pass on: "All save the face of God doth perish."
When I have sacrificed my angelic soul,
I shall become what no mind has ever conceived.
Oh, let me not exist! for nonexistence
Proclaims in organ tones: "To Him shall we return.

"Nothing is God" - Boehme

2005-07-14T16:06:00.000-07:00

{Excerpt from Karl Jaspers' The Great Philosophers Volume III , Harcourt Brace 1993, p.120-121 on Jakob Boehme}

What is God before creation? "The Nothing is GOd" and "God has made all things out of the Nothing and is the self-same Nothing.

But this Nothing is a strange Nothing. It is not Nothing altogether. What then? God Himself is "the seeing and feeling of the Nothing... and is called a Nothing (even though it is a God himself) for the reason that it is incomprehensible and ineffable. "

This Nothing is touched by us in thinking when we think of God. God is the "unground." The unground is an eternal Nothing." There, within the eternity of the unground, there is nothing but stillness, an eternal quiety, no beginning and no end, no searching or finding, or anything that would be a possibility. The unground "is first and foremost a magia [invocatory thought].

In the unground there is an eternal will. We recognize "that the eternal beginning in the ungrouned is an eternal will in itself, whose primal state no creature is to know (for) the Nothing is a desire for Something." The desire in the Nothing makes, "in itself, the will into something.... With the free joy of the Nothing (God) leads himself to desire; for in the Nothing there is an eternal will to revelation.... Will in free joy is named God."

"The will in the unground is like an eye in which nature lies hidden; like a hidden fire that does not burn, that is there and also is not." The eye "is a will... yearning for revelation, in order to find the Nothing." Its "seeing is in itself, for there is nothing before it that would be deeper."

Unground, primal will, the unseeing eye, themselves Nothing, yet they do not remain in the Nothing. They become manifest:

A "will is as flimsy as a Nothing, therefore it is desirous, it wants to be something so that it may be manifest in itself."

Nothing Proves Everything

2005-06-29T16:26:00.000-07:00

Nothing proves it all.

Nothing Lasts Forever

2005-06-29T16:25:00.000-07:00

Whereas everything is ephemeral, Nothing lasts forever,

Nothing is Sacred

2005-06-29T16:24:00.000-07:00

Compared to Nothing, everything is secular.

Nothing is Enough

2005-06-29T16:23:00.000-07:00

Nothing is enough because Nothing lasts forever.

Support Nothing for a Change

2005-06-29T16:22:00.000-07:00

Give up everything and support Nothing for a change.

Nothing is the Antidote for Everything

2005-06-29T16:21:00.000-07:00

Nothing is the universal cure for every disease.

Nothing is Unique

2005-06-29T16:20:00.001-07:00

There is nothing like Nothing.

Nothing Last Forever

2005-06-29T16:20:00.000-07:00

Nothing lasts long enough.

Nothing is Interesting

2005-06-29T16:19:00.000-07:00

I am interested in Nothing because Nothing is interesting.

Nothing is Easy

2005-06-29T16:18:00.000-07:00

Nothing is easy because everything requires effort.

Nothing is Perfect

2005-06-29T16:17:00.000-07:00

Have faith in Nothing for Nothing is Perfect.

Nothing is Meaningless

2005-06-29T16:16:00.000-07:00

Everything has a meaning but Nothing.

Only Nothing is Permanent

2005-06-29T16:15:00.000-07:00

Don't worry about change, for Nothing is Permanent.

Kazimir Malevich's Truth of Nothing

2005-06-29T07:01:00.000-07:00

"If there is a truth," said Malevich, "then only in abstraction, in nothingness."

Malevich's Black Square (1915) was for him, he said, the "majestic newborn, living, royal infant" representing the world - Andrei Nakov called it the "zero form of the new painting" (i.e. Suprematism).

Malevich aimed at the "supremacy of pure feeling" or abstraction "in itself." The black rectangle is "freed from the pressure of objects."

Black of course is the color of anarchy, appearing now in rectangular form. The Black Square is then to be considered as a "positive presence" - we might say that it is the form of negation.

The more positive and primary presence is, however, the tetrahedron, the brilliant structure of the Diamond Lotus of Om mani padme hum.

The Diamond is Man's Best Friend
by David Arthur Walters
http://authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=23453&id=15506

Nothing is Free

2005-06-03T13:45:00.000-07:00

Maybe you can't get something for nothing, but Nothing is Free, so why pay more?

Doing Nothing on Sunday

2004-12-20T07:37:00.000-08:00

How To Do Absolutely Nothing

I BELIEVE SUNDAY should be a day of absolute rest, a day to do absolutely nothing, but how do I begin to do absolutely nothing? I cordially invite you to join me for your own edification, as a vicarious I, in my struggle for an answer.

Doing nothing is impossible for most if not all living beings, hence to do nothing I certainly have a great task ahead of me!

Yes, I do have the opportunity as a human being to turn on myself and to shut down my operations forthwith, but I'm afraid my inactivity might then extend forever; to that eternity I do not aspire at this fleeting moment, although sometimes I think anyone in their right mind would terminate themselves forthwith, entirely relieving themselves of the time-space continuum. My goal today is merely a day of absolute rest, not a permanent vacation or vacant eternity.

To do absolutely nothing on Sunday and yet survive for the rest of the week will require the me that I merely think I am to become nothing for the time being. That might require a lot of doing, for which there is hopefully some technique or the other which I hope to discover without submitting myself to the prejudices of a bona fide spiritual master.

Again, where shall I begin? I shall proceed with the alpha and omega of everything as far as I am concerned: I mean myself, my very I. Perhaps I may, by focusing on my I, obliterate the objective world that demands my reactions and actions.

"I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I...." I might reiterate, despite the uncomfortable diphthongs - me, me, me, etc, would be in poor taste given the perversity of the me-generation.

I might redundantly go on and on and on, with that clumsy litany to my I, in order to exclude everything except the unconditional I that is in fact a not-I reflecting no-thing, not even a universal I-projection. But those discrete I's are inadequate to the purpose regardless of their number, for the I that I want is the undivided unity that is not a multiplicity of I's. Even if diphthongal "I" were eliminated and replaced by a continuously sounded vowel, say "O", the continuity would not rid my O of its possible moments in time or the perturbing imperfection of its fluctuating permutations.

There is no way I can realize the no-thing-ness of the unconditional I, or become the free not-a-thing that I must be in order to do absolutely nothing, by repeating myself, no matter how sincere or deadly serious my effort might be. Those multiple I's are not the unconditional I that I would be to save me from the objective conditions requiring my action, for each I, as a unit, depends on the existence of another I for its own existence as an I. No, I do not want the identity of an I repeated ad infinitum; nor do I want the numerical differences of the perseveration.

One might say of my repetition of I (I=I) that the I is identical to itself, so I am really doing nothing but reminding I of I; that is to say, that I is I. But alas, there are three I's in the statement (I is I): the subjective I, the objective I, and the holy I recognizing their equality relation; to wit: "In the name of the I, the I, and the I, I am I." In other words, in the identity statement ("I=I") there is a difference between the I's because it takes time to make the statement, therefore there are two I's, not to mention a third I observing the relation between the two; that's precisely the sort of triunism I would avoid on my Sunday of freedom from activity, in the unconditional I, of course. I want to do absolutely nothing on my Sunday of absolute rest. No, ladies and gentlemen, I am hardly satisfied when I am not the indivisible I in absolute freedom from multiplicity and therefore from action.

I heard a voice command, "Shut up and be quiet, for silence is golden! Think not and be free, you fool, for all your thinking is just symbolic doing!"

Ah, but what a formidable task that command presents, an arduous task for which an effective technique is required, just as I suspected in the first place! It seems freedom must be pursued against one's own will because the will is not free and really would not be free if it had it druthers, for if it were absolutely free, had nothing set against it, it would not be a will, it would be nothing at all.

Silence!

Objective silence might be obtained with a real or virtual gag, of course, but the inner chatter would persist and the thoughts would persevere; both would run rampant without some method to harness them in order to reach the ultimate goal: to do absolutely nothing. Therefore, one must compose an argument, a disciplined conversation with oneself, an I versus I that in synthetic narrow course would rush one more swiftly to the limitless I, into the ocean of bliss or perfect rest requiring no further selfish actions or repetitious, discrete, compulsively perseverated I's.

If life is action, then successfully doing nothing while remaining essentially alive implies being nothing in virtual death, obviously by technical means of virtual suicide. The motor would still be running unless suspended animation could be achieved. Absent suspended animation, only death would suffice for doing nothing in an absolute state of rest on Sunday. But that would make the next Sunday unlikely, not to mention arrival at planets revolving around distant stars.

It might appear to the uninitiated that I have hopelessly entwined myself in self-defeating contradictions, and have become so befuddled by my own gases that I shall never leave the ozone; it is no wonder that so many people just say 'No' to abstract thinking, for it is a very powerful anaesthetic. In any event, I am positive that, once the unconditional I beyond both subject and object and their relation is realized as the no-thing that it unconditionally is, then by that reality the adept also realizes that everything necessarily gets its existence and its coincidental activity by virtue of the unconditional I doing absolutely nothing. Furthermore, when not-being is not-doing, only then is being free from existence in the pregnant no-thing-ness or absolute spaciness that posits the Concrete Universal--that is to say, the Universe with disparate contents in unity. Only then are the mutually conditioned subject and object--the polar moments of conscious activity--dissolved in freedom from the known.

Indeed, it is in the unconditional I that we have freedom from knowledge. Knowledge is always problematic because it does not dispense with the ultimate problem of existence: its particularities. Therefore nothing, most honestly signified by an ineffable Name, is posited as the true faith, the only catholic faith plausible. That faith sometimes appears in its dogmatic form as an absolutely skeptical attitude. Yet, ironically, that dogmatic skepticism, or forced faith in nothing, still requires doing something instead of the doing-nothing preferred by adepts of unconsciousness under the instincitive sway of doing absolutley nothing (the so-called death instinct).

Although I have made the foregoing perfectly clear, I suspect many people might not understand it because it requires a prodigious intellectual effort to arrive at the final cerebral abstraction of doing absolutely nothing for the time being, even for a moment or two on Sundays. That endeavor, incidentally, has, if successful performed, the seemingly insensible but actually rapturous effect of ataractic catalepsy. That marvelous state of doing absolutely nothing is what moves me, after recovering from pregnant bliss, to continue with the exposition of My Struggle to regain it, such as this demonstration before you, which is of course drafted for my own sake and for the sake of those like me who desire the ecstatic privilege of doing absolutely nothing.

I do realize that the superficial contradictions of my periodic efforts to do absolutley nothing might discourage some people from embarking on the flight to the perfect self-identity of freedom through the mystical dissolution of illusory objects, hence I shall consider writing, in plain English, an extended disquisition entitled, 'Disquisition On Doing Absolutely Nothing', for the edification of the masses and to raise funds for further research. I intend it to be a sort of bible, if I might call it that, to dispel biblical contradictions and to bring all persons into the direct intuition of the unconditional I that supernaturally "transcends" logical contradictions. My disquisition will be illuminated with whatever figurative illustrations that uninitiated inquisitive minds might requires. For example: since to realize the unconditional I, one must rid oneself of all not-I objects, both real and imaginary, I shall include an illustration of a men smashing things and images of things with a hammer as their leader shouts, in the caption provided, the classic iconoclast's motto: "Smash everything! What is left is Good."

Now then, whilst looking forward to next Sunday, I am, in the active interlude between nothings, Very Truly Yours.

I-I-I

Important Note:

Nothing exists. Nothing is the gap or Chaos (chainein: to gape ) we fill with fiction. The impetus to creation is the horror of nothingness. Myth and fiction fill Nothing with signs in a way that Being continues to conceal Nothing as an impetus to further creation. Narcissus closes the gap with the unity of subject and object: the subject and object of his desire are one. He could not live in unity with himself, thus was it said by the blind seer that Narcissus could not know himself and live. His horror of nothingness gave way to that of Dionysus who tears everything to pieces and is torn to pieces. So we see that myth fills Nothing with signs in a way that Being continues to conceal Nothing as an impetus to further creation. We are projected from and into Nothing, and without a sense of the unconditional Nothing there is no selfhood or freedom. The essence of Nothing is that it presents Being to beings for the first time. Nothing is not, as Descartes had it to defend his concept of a perfect god, a negative, a deficiency or defect. Rather, Nothing is a positive, pregnant with all meaning.

Introduction to Nothing Limited

2004-11-26T06:13:00.000-08:00

Nothing is Impossible

Nothing is Perfect

2004-11-25T09:18:00.000-08:00

I have faith in Nothing because Nothing is Perfect.