From my perspective, analysing ethics with the benefit of the work of primatologists such as de Waal, I truly cannot see a meaningful difference between evolutionary survivability and universal truthfulness.

This only applies universally to replicators who must care for their genes and gain benefits by reciprocal altruism. Of course, replicators of this type are the inevitable result of evolution on Earth so far. An alien species with a different ultimate concern would be scary indeed.

One of the problems I've always had with religion is that the gods they champion are the foci of love far more powerful than people give their neighbor. Once that happens, 'love priority' is set askew and humanity takes second place to pleasing your god, even if one of the tenets is to love your neighbor as you love your self.

Does Gaiman propose what things should be held sacred? If so, are they along the lines of humanity and prosperity, rather than higher powers and angels?

Interbane wrote:"From my perspective, analysing ethics with the benefit of the work of primatologists such as de Waal, I truly cannot see a meaningful difference between evolutionary survivability and universal truthfulness." This only applies universally to replicators who must care for their genes and gain benefits by reciprocal altruism. Of course, replicators of this type are the inevitable result of evolution on Earth so far. An alien species with a different ultimate concern would be scary indeed.

One of the problems I've always had with religion is that the gods they champion are the foci of love far more powerful than people give their neighbor. Once that happens, 'love priority' is set askew and humanity takes second place to pleasing your god, even if one of the tenets is to love your neighbor as you love your self. Does Gaiman propose what things should be held sacred? If so, are they along the lines of humanity and prosperity, rather than higher powers and angels?

Gaiman starts, as I read him, from the outlook that we should only believe claims for which we have sufficient evidence. This is a completely different starting point from traditional religious faith, which puts the authority of tradition before evidence. It is a paradigm shift begun by the scientific revolution, but as yet incompletely applied to matters of symbolic meaning. Hence the notion of the sacred is completely contestable. Gaiman does esteem pagan mythology, and so regards the old stories as containing an intrinsic sanctity, containing hints at a higher wisdom concealed in a popular wrapping. Hence the iridescent ambiguity of the question of this thread, 'Is Nothing Sacred?' Gaiman's concern seems to be that the dominant models of sanctity are idolatrous, putting finite things before the openness to the ultimate which his fundamental question indicates. Nothing is an ambiguous term (as in my joke), given that as soon as it is discussed or considered it is paradoxically turned into something. Shadow has nothing, and this starting point enables him to take everything on its merits, rather than distorting his outlook by assessing the remarkable events of the book against ordinary criteria.

The theme of foreboding I mentioned in the Question One thread provides a path to answer if Gaiman considers humanity and prosperity to be sacred. It is just because Gaiman has such high regard for humanity, with our rich mythological heritage, that he is so concerned to puncture the modern Gods, and is aiming to rebase thought on a natural outlook. I suspect this rebasing, alluded to in the theme of the gathering storm, he sees as necessary for any future prosperity. The implication is that the path to prosperity provided by the shallow gods of modernity is not sustainable.

Angels don't get a mention in American Gods. I think this is because they emerge from the Hebraic mind against which Gaiman is positing a pagan outlook in which religious symbols are just metaphors for natural reality. The idea of angels as real beings is a big part of the dominant Judeo-Christian mindset. In presenting Odin, Anansi and the Norns as real people, he is arguing for a very different metaphorical engagement with religious language from that propounded by mainstream religions.

RT

American Gods is a very philosophical book. The message it is presenting is highly critical of the western analytical method of philosophy, and has more in common with the Eastern tradition of Taoism. On the theme here of discussion of nothing, the Tao Te Ching has an intriguing description of the tao at Chapter 14 -

Look, and it can't be seen. Listen, and it can't be heard. Reach, and it can't be grasped.

Above, it isn't bright. Below, it isn't dark. Seamless, unnamable, it returns to the realm of nothing. Form that includes all forms, image without an image, subtle, beyond all conception.

Approach it and there is no beginning; follow it and there is no end. You can't know it, but you can be it, at ease in your own life. Just realize where you come from: this is the essence of wisdom.

Gaiman has a similar attitude to Gods as symbols of divinity and the essence of wisdom, seeing them not as entities but as ideas which, like the tao, return to the realm of nothing. A further discussion of nothing in the Tao is also relevant to Gaiman's implication that Odin is an American king. The ironic despair with which Gaiman looks at current American culture is encapsulated in this gem from the tao:

17: When the Master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists. Next best is a leader who is loved. Next, one who is feared. The worst is one who is despised.

If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy.

The Master doesn't talk, he acts. When his work is done, the people say, "Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!"

18: When the great Tao is forgotten, goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines, cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family, filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos, patriotism is born.

An interesting discussion.

The void as an existential abyss has been discussed by Heidegger and, of course - albeit differently - by Sartre. Freud's point was different only in his approach, which could be summed up as "the aim of all life is death".

I look differently at the anxiety about death. I do not see it as an anxiety about death, but about dying. Dying can be contemplated, and so can the death of others. What is impossible is the ability to contemplate the state of being dead. This state of being dead is Nothing (the absence of everything). Compare this to what I term "nothingness" (the absence of something).

What is impossible is the ability to contemplate the state of being dead. This state of being dead is Nothing (the absence of everything). Compare this to what I term "nothingness" (the absence of something).

This is interesting. In the state of being dead I assume that you mean the absence of consciousness when saying "the absence of everything." That is certainly tough to contemplate. Sort of like trying to contemplate the state of first being alive in the womb and just what sort of consciousness, if any, you were experiencing very early on in your life. That's equally difficult.

I was reading through the Something/Nothing thread and saw that you guys jumped over here. As far as that goes I'm of the understanding that "nothing" and "nothingness" are both just a figure of speech. I'd say that of course there has always been "something", and "somethingness" of some type, or else there couldn't possibly be anything at all in existence right now.

The mythic sense of "nothing", "nothingness", or void is not very literal when you really analyze it. It more or less pertains to an absence of what is known and fully understood at the present moment, not necessarily a literal void where true "nothingness" spontaneously gives rise to something. In the case of Judeo-Christianity there is of course the concept of creation ex-niliho, but then again God is viewed as eternal with no beginning or end and it's this self existent and ever present God which creates the universe by way of commanding it into existence. So where did the universe come from, true nothing? Not really, it came from the mouth, mind, and will of this mythic creator God of the universe in the storyline. There was this God and this Gods dwelling place and then the universe and world that we inhabit. The true void is nowhere to be found. So at the end of the day where is true "nothing" to be found and located in any mythology?

The void that is no void.

I believe that's a more enlightened Buddhistic way of approaching the issue of void and nothingness. It isn't actually void, just transcendent of all human thought and speech as they style it. But in any case, I've often considered that this somethingness that has always been and will always be - though constantly changing in shape, form, appearence, and conscious perspectives - is simply the fabric and structure of the realm of existence as philosopher Alan Watts put it. I suppose that it's quite possible to contemplate how we as individuals are really a part of 'something' with no beginning or end in sight (mere existence itself) and regardless of at what exact point we became conscious ourselves in the womb, or at what point in the future when our consciousness will eventually subside, it's possible to understand and contemplate that neither of these two points in linear time are really our true beginning or end in the grand scheme of things - not as long as we remain focused on the true depth of what the implications of existing right here and now really entails...

I do not see "nothing" and "nothingness" as figures of speech. My thesis, as set out in my book, is that there is difference between them. In fact, it is the differentiation between Nothing and Nothingness that is essential in understanding the difference between Western monotheistic religions and Eastern faiths. It is not a matter of perceiving "nothing" differently, but of having different "nothings". The former need the first miracle: the universe created from Nothing (the absence of everything), while the latter move towards Nothingness (the absence of something/s). This can be seen reflected in the difference between Western ideas and philosophy and that of the East: the aim of self-fulfuiment vs. the urge towards the opposite (self-"emptyment").

Asking where Nothing (the absence of everything) is, is a non-question. Nothing simply isn't. Nothingness (the absence of something) exists. Absences can be tangible. But not the absence of everything, since that would include ourselves as well.

Ronald Green
"Nothing matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books)

Still, above you've still offered both terms as mere figure of speech as I see the issue. The western creation of the universe from nothingness, once again, is a creation of the universe from a self existent eternal God. It isn't really a creation from "nothing" unless of course YHWH Elohim is in fact considered "nothing" in the mythology. But YHWH isn't considered "nothing", but rather "something" which is eternal and omnipresent. The creation of the universe from "nothing" is simply a figure of speech and doesn't even make any sense with respect to the creation accounts (Genesis I & II) of Judeo-Christianity. I wonder if you've considered this previously before the discussion?

Also, to turn to the east and the transcendent doctrines of backing yourself all the way out to "nothingness", once again we're very clearly dealing with a mere figure of speech. We're talking about trying to back out of thinking about matter, space, and time altogether. This is like asking in science "what came before the Big Bang?" Obviously something had to exist in order to then expand out into everything now. It's like the celestial waters and the floating egg myths. There is "something" which then gives rise to something else and so on, and so on. A literal void, or a literal "Nothingness" is a concept. It's a thought of the mind. It's "something" as opposed to being "nothing" or "nothingness". To suggest otherwise is very difficult. I was caught up in considering the idea of nothing = something many years ago and concluded that the assertion is entirely false.

....something = something else = something else = something else....

Monotheistic religions do not consider that the universe was created from God, but that an existing God created the universe from nothing. It had to be from nothing, since if it were from something, then one would have to ask where that something came from. Creation from nothing is essential, as far as monotheistic religions are concerned.

I cannot agree that Nothing (the absence of everything) is something. If it were something, then it wouldn't be Nothing.

You seem to be mixing up language with the concept. The fact that we have to use words to describe Nothing, does not make the concept a "figure of speech". All it means is that we can't find any way to discuss it other than using language. The fact is that Nothing is impossible to grasp, since it is the absence of everything , including ourselves. We cannot imagine a universe in which we are not present, which is why we cannot grasp the concept of Nothing (the absence of everything). We can, though, grasp the concept of Nothingness (the absence of something/s), since we would be around to understand that things are absent. That is the Nothingnessof Eastern faiths.

I suggest you read my recently-published book: "Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books)., in which I set out these thoughts.

rongreen5 wrote:Monotheistic religions do not consider that the universe was created from God, but that an existing God created the universe from nothing. It had to be from nothing, since if it were from something, then one would have to ask where that something came from. Creation from nothing is essential, as far as monotheistic religions are concerned.

I'm stepping ahead of you with my assertions and perhaps that's where the problem lies.

For an existing God to speak "let there be..." the God has created soemthing out of itself. Many don't venture that deep into it, which is where the confusion about the creation of the universe from "nothing" arises in the first place:

http://www.yhwh.com/wrongwithiwillbe.htm
The ancient notion that "God is the Potter, we are the clay" begs to have one question answered: Where did God get the clay from? The totality of the evidence, from nature, science and the Scriptures, is that God made the clay out of Himself!

The best illustration I can give is that of human imagination. As we think of something, say a green horse, we are focusing our imagination, through our brain cells, into the shape of a green horse. We are the same.....still human, still sitting in our room, and yet, a tiny part of us is now shaped into a green horse image.

The Scripture is clear that God said.....and there was. The universe is made out of His Will, just as we will our minds to imagine a green horse. In that way, then, God wills Himself to be whatever He wants.......The result is the stars, the sun, the moon, earth, rivers, you and me.

As "cosmic" or far-out as that might seem, it is also the best explanation as to what the Scripture means when it says (Acts 17:28) that "In God we live, move, and exist"(!)

A God that is omnipresent is necessarily the totality of mere existence. There is no place where this God is not present, whether that be a place of something or nothing if you will, and, in the greater view of things, nothing doesn't actually refer to complete and total nothing when all is said and done. The deeper you look into the claim the more you began to realize that the reference is always to "something", granted that "something" may be a reference to the unknown, but just because "something" is unknown at the present time doesn't make it literally "nothing."

I cannot agree that Nothing (the absence of everything) is something. If it were something, then it wouldn't be Nothing.

That's the very point I'm making here. Whatever you tell me is "nothing", will always turn out to be "something" after all...

You seem to be mixing up language with the concept. The fact that we have to use words to describe Nothing, does not make the concept a "figure of speech". All it means is that we can't find any way to discuss it other than using language. The fact is that Nothing is impossible to grasp, since it is the absence of everything , including ourselves. We cannot imagine a universe in which we are not present, which is why we cannot grasp the concept of Nothing (the absence of everything). We can, though, grasp the concept of Nothingness (the absence of something/s), since we would be around to understand that things are absent. That is the Nothingnessof Eastern faiths.

I suggest you read my recently-published book: "Nothing Matters - a book about nothing" (iff-Books)., in which I set out these thoughts.

It sounds to me that your passing along ideas from the east and west that I've long since taken issue with and questioned greatly. I can imagine a universe without us, for starts. It's called imagining the standard model cosmology. I mean come on, you weren't serious were you? Maybe you were.

In anycase, the universe didn't have "us" for quite some time, obviously. We can grasp a universe without us quite well as a matter of fact. It was around long before we were born and will be around long after we die. We can also grasp a universe where there is only space and not matter. Just a black abyss with no visual point of reference to judge distance and location. No big deal so far. We can even imagine that the BB was nothing more than a black hole from elsewhere in the realm of existence which then burst out of a white hole causing all of the material universe to burst fourth from what would appear to be "nothing", but in reality was merely "something" going from one place to another. That's just modern theoretical physics and cosmology. We can imagine all sorts of "things", none of which ever trace back to any literal "nothing."

Something becomes something else over and over again:

So, God was something before anything and turned nothing into everything. Kazaam! I'd like to see that.

It reminds me of this story, for which the moral is that no one is hopeless.

Everyone wanted someone to do something that no one was doing but anyone could do. However anyone would need help from someone, and everyone left it to no one. Everyone blamed someone because anyone could do better than no one.

I have long been convinced of my non-existence. My mother has a copper art on a bookcase in her bedroom that I made when I was twelve with a lion and flowers and the words No one sleeps here.