The "other" can only be defined in the negative, it is, that which it is not. The "other" is not the self, or subject. B does not exist outside of the equation (A is not = to B), but neither does A exist independent of the equation. We see then that nothing arises independently, A and B are codependent and gain their being, or existence only in contrast, contradiction, dialogue, or relationship with one another. Other than that, they are nothing, yet let us look at this more closely.
What is nothing? It is the absence of substance. Since nothingness is only negatively defined then nothing and everything are necessarily linked in the same codependent relationship which we found A and B to be in. Oblivion and Eternity are therefore the same thing, in that they are binary "others". Let us think now what this means for theology and religion.
Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, why not prove or even accept that God does not exist. If opposites are linked so essentially then one can begin to see how God existing and God not existing means precisely the same thing. What then is the lesson learned from Nihilism? Why, God does exist of course, but only because God does not and cannot exist. By destroying God the Nihilist creates a more powerful God than could ever be imagined! A God that has become nothing and therefore becomes everything! A God that cannot be ignored!
I am not going to get dogmatic now...for this God is much too Godly to confine. This God cannot be limited to an ethical law, a "relationship" or even to philosophical speculation. This God truly is God, unlimited, unconfined and eternal. Sure I don't have the assurance that I can "talk with my bestest pal Jesus", or be assured that I have lived or believed properly so that I can "go to heaven", but I have the understanding, the peace, the stillness to simply BE. I can become free by dieing myself, "crucifying" my mind if you will, doing what Christ did, doing what he saw the "father" do. God Is, and that is all I need to know, which ironically yet perfectly is nothing at all...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
ooh...more written! i'll read this...and reply...just give me some time honey
i must say i'm a wee bit confused...with the A and B ness especially. perhaps i dont think artsy enough. but as for proving...one should never attempt to prove something, for nothing can be proved unless it is theoretically possible for it's opposite to be proved or disproved. and perhaps well..can you expand a little???
Hey! you guys are amazing. really. the subtle comedy is brilliant. I'm not necisarily referring to this post, but it makes me chuckle. La dolce vida!
Helianthus, methinks you are thinking about falsification! But, enough about psychology, for we all know that it gives supposed 'definate' answers that aren't necessarily true in a philosophical sense. If I used the example of black (A) and white (B) on a colour spectrum, I could show that although each colour displays independant characteristics, both depend on each other to exist as the absense of black would lead to absolute nothingness as white could not exist on its own. Only the combination of these two colours gives rise to all colours. Thus, white or black (A and B) cannot be independant as the absence of one of these would only give rise to one colour (aka, itself). My brain hurts...hopefully that made some sort of sense o.O
well, we have a few problems w/ this ma'am. falsification appears to be some weird psyc term not involving null hypothesis...and ....................black and white arent colors!!!!!!!
I think that my next two posts give more "concrete", if I am ever allowed to use that word, or if concretness even exists, examples of the ideas in this post. I love writing like a German with insanely improper english sentence structure, yaaaa.
Post a Comment