Something from nothing?

rongreen5 · Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:26 am

Lots of questions (and answers) in my recently published book "Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books).

Chris OConnor · Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:52 pm

Since you are really suggesting your book and not initiating any sort of discussion of the book this thread should be in the Non-Fiction Book Suggestions forum. I will move it there now. And you would generate more interest in your book if you included your real name, a link to where people can read and learn about your book, and then a review or book description.

rongreen5 · Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:15 am

Sorry, I'm new here... My name is Ronald Green,

Let me add more about my recently published book "Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books).

It looks at the concept of "nothing" and shows how it was treated throughout history, and its influence in the arts (visual art, music, theater, literature, architecture...), in religions, and all sorts of questions about how to deal with "nothing".

http://brumskeptics.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... tters.html

It has been extremely well received. Here are two reviews:

http://www.bookpleasures.com/websitepub ... Page1.html

http://callaghanwrites.blogspot.com/201 ... eview.html

This is my webpage: http://www.nothing-matters.org

I'd love to talk with anyone about "nothing".

Robert Tulip · Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:30 am

Hi Ron, welcome, thanks. I have long been fascinated by nothing, since reading Heidegger's analysis of nothing in his An Introduction to Metaphysics. I talk about nothing at http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/asse ... 191058.pdf and http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/asse ... 191138.pdf

Carlos Castaneda's concept of the nagual seems like nothing to me.

We discussed nothing in American Gods at a thread on whether nothing is sacred, which I hope you will be interested to read.

is-nothing-sacred-t6422.html

There are few more interesting semantic logic puzzles than whether we can make any sense of nothing.

rongreen5 · Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:52 am

Robert, I am reading with interest your thesis on Heidegger, and thank you for posting the links above.

One sentence of yours struck me:

"The point of the existential analytic is that true statements only acquire value as they are situated in the human context, that meaning must be created by people if it is to exist at all." (http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/asse ... 191058.pdf p.3)

The reason I mention this is because it sums up the point I made in the "Is nothing is sacred" string in this forum, and to which you objected strenuously: that the universe without humans cannot be imagined, i.e. the universe cannot be imagined if we are not around to imagine it.

Surely the quote from your thesis backs up my contention? In other words, there is no "existence" if there are no humans around.

Robert Tulip · Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:24 am

Ron, thank you for reading my thesis. It fell stillborn from the press, but I still like it. The links above are just to two chapters. The rest can be found from google, or from my signature line.

My objections were not to your intent but to your wording. In philosophy, logical argument requires total precision and accuracy. Vague statements should always be challenged in a respectful and collegial manner, in order to make sure the writer says what he or she means. If you don't talk to other people very much, it can be easy to fall into sloppy habits with language. Wittgenstein is a master on these sort of things.

Talk of nothing is full of pun and paradox. Interbane commented that it is ridiculous. I don't agree, but still feel it is rather absurd. It becomes rather like a mathematical word puzzle. Unless the logic is crystal clear there is massive room for ambiguity. I still suspect that your distinction between nothing and nothingness is unclear, as the zen tradition has long claimed to be fascinated by nothing.

Heidegger has another good essay, What is a Thing? I was thinking about this today. For example, is the relation between past and future a thing? Are numbers things? If we say apart from things there is nothing, the ontological status of mathematics becomes questionable. What is real apart from things? Some might say anything that is not a thing is no thing, ie nothing. These sort of questions illustrate that everyday language needs to be carefully analyzed when it talks about philosophy.

rongreen5 · Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:49 am

Robert, Your questions would be "answered" - or at least dealt with - using my distinction between Nothing and nothingness.

Your reference to Zen shows that you have not actually read what I wrote about this distinction, so I can only repeat that Zen does not refer to Nothing, but to nothingness.

Also your questions re. things and no things are dealt with through my distinction between Nothing and nothingness. In other words, understanding my distinction will make your question less of a puzzle.

I shall continue reading your two chapters (and then the rest) in between my other stuff.

I have just returned from a book tour in the UK and will soon embark on another round. I seem to be spending a lot of time talking about nothing to/with people.

btw - I'm not a great fan of Wittgenstein.

Robert Tulip · Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:17 pm

Ron - I suspect you are unfair to Heidegger. His main question was 'why is there something rather than nothing?'

This is quite different from the Taoist observation of emptiness, such as the gaps between spokes of a wheel making the wheel work.

Heidegger's point is that the mystery of existence is the beginning of thought.

I agree with you on Wittgenstein, but his call for precision is worthwhile.

Forum rules

Something from nothing? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!