NO language system goes to the heart of Nothingness. Language is SOMETHING - and as far as I can tell it’s the SAME something has been giving meaning and definition to ALL the debates you’ve been making (even on nothingness itself). That SAME language ceases to exist in nothingness. Why not incorporate that into a new epistemology, instead of trying to incorporate Language (SOMETHING) into nothingness? ‘Nothingness’ and ‘language-on-nothingness’ are very different, essentially, by definition, nothingness cannot be SOMETHING: but the very definitions of nothingness ARE SOMETHING?
We all forgot language is SOMETHING!! Nothingness CANNOT be something. Therefore, nothingness CANNOT be language no matter how convincing.
’
real, language represents a lot. But all of the language I’ve heard does not exist at nothingness.
Hmm…maybe I can show you.
[b]NOTHINGNESS:[/b]
Darn it! Nothingness cannot even be spatiotemporal!
Nevermind.
Ok, if language always falls short of nothingness (or gets nowhere in nothingness). Why can’t there be a linguistic epistemology that language always falls short (or gets nowhere) in nothingness? One thing is for certain, it is irrefutable nothingness cannot be something… so how do we epistemologically determine language is NOT something? If language is not something only then can we know nothingness - impossible?
Anyone seen the Never Ending Story?
“A hole would be something - no, it was nothing!”
’
There are many languages. Every species of animal and plantlife has its own language, the earth and the universe has language. Rocks water minerals all have language. Within all of those languages, all and nothing is described.
’
Perhaps the reason it is a paradox is because we don’t even understand being properly. So we’ve got a misconception of being and we’ve got a misconception of nothingness. Maybe these two misconceptions really are proper opposites, and a true conception of being would be such that it can’t have an opposite.
Hooray. Maybe you’ll stop posting about nothingness now.
A good explanation of why nothingness isn’t:
Reality Principle - The real universe contains all and only that which is real. The reality concept is analytically self-contained; if there were something outside reality that were real enough to affect or influence reality, it would be inside reality, and this contradiction invalidates any supposition of an external reality (up to observational or theoretical relevance).
The Principle of Linguistic Reducibility - Reality is a self-contained form of language. This is true for at least two reasons. First, although it is in some respects material and concrete, reality conforms to the algebraic definition of a language. That is, it incorporates (1) representations of (object-like) individuals, (space-like) relations and attributes, and (time-like) functions and operations; (2) a set of “expressions” or perceptual states; and (3) a syntax consisting of (a) logical and geometric rules of structure, and (b) an inductive-deductive generative grammar identifiable with the laws of state transition. Second, because perception and cognition are languages, and reality is cognitive and perceptual in nature, reality is a language as well.
Our language developed a result of our interaction with the language of the universe. Therefore, language is incapable of describing nothingness.
At least that’s how I’d look at it as far as the CTMU goes.
since we exist, we cannot possibly know or imagine nothingness. nothingness would not be experienced or known. by the same token since language exists it cannot possibly talk about nothingness.