I think nothingness has a self. If it has no self it has no reality no true-ness.
It’s self just has no ‘I’ or ‘form’
Who says there needs to be an ‘I’ or ‘form’ to have a self?
Why does there have to be anything at all to have a self. Why isn’t nothingness the ultimate self?
self = relative to what you are
that means nothingness has EVERYTHING relative to its own being.
We as humans cannot say that.
’
I’m saying the ‘self’ is only relative to itself. Can nothingness be relative? Relative to itself ONLY. (As being relative to anything else would simply NOT exist in nothingness) the self of nothingness is purely a ‘relative self’ - it cannot be relative to a mind, or relative to a body, or relative to an I, or relative to form, it cannot even be relative to a thing… but relative to itself alone?
To answer your question, being relative to a ‘thing’ would be impossible. But being relative to itself does not need something at all.
damn, can’t I just call it Absolute already?
damn I could’ve just said this:
Nothingness has EVERYTHING Absolute in its own being.
The word already exists as Absolute. Sorry for the confusion.
’
Real,
I conclude that states cannot exist without a self.
tortoise, in this case what I mean by ‘self’ is being relative to any given being… in the case of nothingness, if you read the above posts, you’ll already know I rejected the concept of Nothingness being relative, and instead replaced it as it being Absolute.
In this case, a state or condition of nothingness is dependent on the self of that reality (or the reality of nothingness). If you take away the ‘self’ or the reality of nothingness you can no longer have the state insofar as the state is dependent on the reality of itself… the ‘self’.
I don’t think that question has anything to do with a state needing a self and a self needing a state. A state needs a self for the same reason a state needs something. IN this case, the state is nothingness so therefore the self is nothingness…
Is that what you’re asking? the intent is not so much a material self - we are dealing with nothingness.
We’re not talking about the physical self Tortoise, of course that’s not my real definition.
If I were to talk about ‘the corporeal self’ i would have to have comments like ’ absolute in the sense of I am but relative in your wants needs and views of other forms or beings’ - if your criticizing that approach then I can offer no more than to say you have a relative view as well. so that view, yes, encompasses all of the types of self… it is just too vague to give example on what exactly is relative or Absolute.
nothingness is not a state of the self or thing . nothingness is the complete absence of of anything at all . therefore nothingness has no properties inwhich to build a state of something or a thing ON.
Huh?
You gotta be kiddin me.
I get the picture.
Satyr, the only reason why I’m picturing nothingness as a state is because I see no possible way there can be nothingness whatsoever in the universe or even in existence.
Ok, lets drop this because I can never prove there is a state or self to every reality -
your right , but your approach is awkward.
tortoise, I agree. frankly, I think theres enough evidence that non-language is null. You cannot identify or analyze without language. If a wall or ‘you before birth’ was confronted with ‘are you there’ there would be no answer… Put your wildest imagination to work with ‘did you know anything?’ and your answer would quickly be NO. Of course, knowig something either takes language or feeling… and having neither, well, you get the picture.
don’t you see you have IMAGINED nothingness but in the physical reality , the Universe , nothingness does NOT exist. and that is the bottom line
then define " state " as you define it
It’s best if you drop it because this is shaping up to be embarrassing.
There is no self as there is no nothingness.
No nothingness? That’s something we’ve already covered. 1) Nothingness exists as a concept. But: 2) nothingness cannot exist…
What of it?
think about it