Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

If there is only something, then is this something a thing, as in there is some thing existing?

He doesn't understand that for a thing to exist there has to be an absence of another thing for a thing to occur.

For a thing to exist there simply has to be a thing to exist.

Introducing absence here, as with the introduction of nothingness with relative nothingness, only serves to complicate and confuse the matter.

In essence you are claiming to determine what is by what is not. However such does not follow. What is is determined by what is. What is not is not, thus is not determining.

You are attempting to explain being through non-being, through absence of being. That does not clarify understanding, it convolutes understanding. Being is explained by what is, not by what is not.

A tree occurs because it is not a car.

A tree is a tree because it has characteristics of a tree. A car is a car because it has characteristics of a car. Qualities, things are referenced to contrast and compare other qualities and other things. Things are relative.

This absence of a thing is a relative no thing. He argues that absence is a thing, and he is right, but it leads him to a paradox as the absence of a thing is a 'relative nothing' thus nothingness exists.

Relative nothingness is a misnomer. Relative nothingness does not involve that which does not exist but rather that which is located or identified elsewhere. What relative nothingness actually implies is relative absence or contextual absence, terms of which accurately convey the idea.

Relative nothingness is an awkward, forced concept. Nothing is forced into the equation although only things are involved. At no point is nothing or nothingness itself actually present or actually identified. Things are identified, things are compared and contrasted with other things, not with nothing. Presence is involved, absence is involved yet those are not the same as nothingness. The term nothingness is needlessly and inappropriately attached to an already sufficient concept of relativity.

How does one even use such a term? “There is relative nothingness”? “There is a relative nothingness of funds”? “There is a relative absence of funds” is much more practical.

[Fairy]

You are attempting to explain being through non-being, through absence of being. That does not clarify understanding, it convolutes understanding. Being is explained by what is, not by what is not.

But there is no knowledge of 'what is'

'what is' is ineffable...'what is' is an inactive latent absolute aka (pure potential)

'Being' is not explained by 'what is' ..That would be like saying: ( 'what is' ) already knows ('what is' ) before ('what is' ) is known.
There is no prior knowing of something aka (pure potential) before it is actualised as known, but even as some'thing' is known, that 'thing' would just be an idea.

While knowing is always instantaneous, as and when knowing arises one with the knowing. What is known can only be a THING, and things know nothing of reality.


No 'thing' can define 'what is' or, every 'thing' defines 'what is'
Knowledge is made up of relative ideas. What is an idea?


You are attempting to explain 'being' through 'knowledge' which is a thing that knows no thing.

[daniel j lavender]

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

So, if 'things' are finite, and, 'Existence' is infinite, then 'Existence' is NOT A 'thing'. Well to "daniel j lavender" anyway.

Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or the whole. Existence, being unlimited, is both part and whole. Review the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the original essay.

A thing is limited yet still [part of] existence. The unlimitedness of existence includes the limitedness of things.

[daniel j lavender]

You are attempting to explain being through non-being, through absence of being. That does not clarify understanding, it convolutes understanding. Being is explained by what is, not by what is not.

But there is no knowledge of 'what is'

Philosophy, physics, mathematics, are you discounting those things?

'what is' is ineffable...'what is' is an inactive latent absolute aka (pure potential)

Your first statement contradicts the second and vice versa.

You are attempting to express what you claim cannot be expressed. The only way around that is to claim you were not attempting expression however that is observably the case.

'Being' is not explained by 'what is' ..That would be like saying: ( 'what is' ) already knows ('what is' ) before ('what is' ) is known.
There is no prior knowing of something aka (pure potential) before it is actualised as known, but even as some'thing' is known, that 'thing' would just be an idea.

While knowing is always instantaneous, as and when knowing arises one with the knowing. What is known can only be a THING, and things know nothing of reality.


No 'thing' can define 'what is' or, every 'thing' defines 'what is'
Knowledge is made up of relative ideas. What is an idea?


You are attempting to explain 'being' through 'knowledge' which is a thing that knows no thing.

You are entangled in matters of sequencing and extending that confusion externally.

All of those complexities concern conscious beings.

Existence simply is. Known or unknown.

Existence is, things are to be known and unknown.

Similar points are discussed here:

viewtopic.php?p=748671#p748671

viewtopic.php?p=747846#p747846

viewtopic.php?p=746564#p746564

[Fairy]

DjL … I have a question, if like you say, NOTHINGNESS is nonsensical, and can never be. Then is that saying also part of “infinite existence”, and so can be, can exist?

[daniel j lavender]

DjL … I have a question, if like you say, NOTHINGNESS is nonsensical, and can never be. Then is that saying also part of “infinite existence”, and so can be, can exist?

Relative nothingness is nonsensical.

Nothingness is a contradictory concept. The concept exists. A concept is a thing. A thing is [part of] existence.

Nothingness is an abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

It is apparent you have changed your username from one previously used. We have already discussed these topics: viewtopic.php?p=654347#p654347

[Age]

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

So, if 'things' are finite, and, 'Existence' is infinite, then 'Existence' is NOT A 'thing'. Well to "daniel j lavender" anyway.

Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited.

As I have SAID and WRITTEN here, 'Existence is infinite, AND, eternal. JUST LIKE 'Life', and the Universe, are ALSO infinite, AND, eternal, AS WELL.

Existence is not limited to only one thing or the whole.

AND AGAIN, to "daniel j lavender" 'Existence', Itself, is NOT A 'thing'.

Existence, being unlimited, is both part and whole. Review the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the original essay.

A thing is limited yet still [part of] existence. The unlimitedness of existence includes the limitedness of things.

BUT 'Existence', Itself, is STILL NOT A 'thing'. Well TO "daniel j lavender" anyway.

[daniel j lavender]

Existence is not limited to only one thing or the whole.

AND AGAIN, to "daniel j lavender" 'Existence', Itself, is NOT A 'thing'.

Existence is a thing and all other things.

[Eodnhoj7]

....so is absence the lack of a thing?

Absence concerns reference to a subject, to an existent thing and its location. The subject of reference is not nonexistence or nothing; neither nonexistence nor nothing have location or presence to be referenced in such a way.

Absence is not necessarily lack of a thing. Absence concerns a subject, time and location. All things involved are still things and present in some capacity.

So the absence of a tree in a specific location is a tree....

[Eodnhoj7]

If there is only something, then is this something a thing, as in there is some thing existing?

He doesn't understand that for a thing to exist there has to be an absence of another thing for a thing to occur.

For a thing to exist there simply has to be a thing to exist.

Introducing absence here, as with the introduction of nothingness with relative nothingness, only serves to complicate and confuse the matter.

In essence you are claiming to determine what is by what is not. However such does not follow. What is is determined by what is. What is not is not, thus is not determining.

You are attempting to explain being through non-being, through absence of being. That does not clarify understanding, it convolutes understanding. Being is explained by what is, not by what is not.

A tree occurs because it is not a car.

A tree is a tree because it has characteristics of a tree. A car is a car because it has characteristics of a car. Qualities, things are referenced to contrast and compare other qualities and other things. Things are relative.

This absence of a thing is a relative no thing. He argues that absence is a thing, and he is right, but it leads him to a paradox as the absence of a thing is a 'relative nothing' thus nothingness exists.

Relative nothingness is a misnomer. Relative nothingness does not involve that which does not exist but rather that which is located or identified elsewhere. What relative nothingness actually implies is relative absence or contextual absence, terms of which accurately convey the idea.

Relative nothingness is an awkward, forced concept. Nothing is forced into the equation although only things are involved. At no point is nothing or nothingness itself actually present or actually identified. Things are identified, things are compared and contrasted with other things, not with nothing. Presence is involved, absence is involved yet those are not the same as nothingness. The term nothingness is needlessly and inappropriately attached to an already sufficient concept of relativity.

How does one even use such a term? “There is relative nothingness”? “There is a relative nothingness of funds”? “There is a relative absence of funds” is much more practical.

It, the presence of nothingness as relative nothingness, doesn't complicate matter but rather expands it and points to your thesis having a full range of definitional paradoxes.

You are trying to avoid paradox and no philosophy in the course of history has proven to due so within a complete consensus.

[Eodnhoj7]

Existence is not limited to only one thing or the whole.

AND AGAIN, to "daniel j lavender" 'Existence', Itself, is NOT A 'thing'.

Existence is a thing and all other things.

If existence is a thing then what other thing does it compare to for it to be distinct, as it encompasses all things? If it compares to itself it is fragmented, if it compares to nothing then nothing is an existing thing, if it has no comparison then it is nothing...so what is its comparison that allows it to be a thing?

[Eodnhoj7]

DjL … I have a question, if like you say, NOTHINGNESS is nonsensical, and can never be. Then is that saying also part of “infinite existence”, and so can be, can exist?

Relative nothingness is nonsensical.

Nothingness is a contradictory concept. The concept exists. A concept is a thing. A thing is [part of] existence.

Nothingness is an abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

It is apparent you have changed your username from one previously used. We have already discussed these topics: viewtopic.php?p=654347#p654347

Nonsense exists.

[Eodnhoj7]

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

So, if 'things' are finite, and, 'Existence' is infinite, then 'Existence' is NOT A 'thing'. Well to "daniel j lavender" anyway.

Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or the whole. Existence, being unlimited, is both part and whole. Review the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the original essay.

A thing is limited yet still [part of] existence. The unlimitedness of existence includes the limitedness of things.

If existence is unlimited, and we only sense limits, than existence (by your definition of it) is nonsense.

[Age]

Existence is not limited to only one thing or the whole.

AND AGAIN, to "daniel j lavender" 'Existence', Itself, is NOT A 'thing'.

Existence is a thing and all other things.

So, if 'things' are finite, and, 'Existence' is meant to be A 'thing', then, HOW EXACTLY, can the 'thing' 'Existence' NOT be finite and supposedly be infinite?

Which part of your CLAIMS, here, are False and Wrong, and which parts are not. Obviously they ALL can NOT be True and Right.

[Fairy]

DjL … I have a question, if like you say, NOTHINGNESS is nonsensical, and can never be. Then is that saying also part of “infinite existence”, and so can be, can exist?

Relative nothingness is nonsensical.

Nothingness is a contradictory concept. The concept exists. A concept is a thing. A thing is [part of] existence.

Nothingness is an abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

It is apparent you have changed your username from one previously used. We have already discussed these topics: viewtopic.php?p=654347#p654347

This subject is obviously a subject that’s endless, so it’s hardly going to be resolved anytime soon, well not until everyone involved in the debate is able to fully comprehend what you’re saying.

So back to the subject….another question i have for you is: ……. Is “ infinite existence “ illusory? An illusion?