On indifference and nothingness

[harvey]

beingandquirckiness.blogspot.com … rence.html

[heavenly_demonic]

hi!
I wonder…why do you say buddha, nietzsche and cioran are alike?

[Lollipop_King]

harvey
A few comments:

“If indifference is the opposite of love, it is also the opposite of hate, and thus love and hate, having the same opposite, are one and the same thing.”

Love and hate are certainly “the same thing” as they are both emotional reactions or relationships of the observer to the observed.

They have different expressions, goals, strategies and, often, contradictory motives but are both similarly reactions of becoming to the unknown potential/change {space/time}.

The underlying emotion in both is fear – the anxiety of an emerging consciousness to the mystery of its own becoming and the need to preserve it.

The mind either pushes away, creating a distance of identity, or it pulls towards itself, creating a nearness of association.

In both cases anxiety is assuaged either by running from it (disassimilation) or running to it (assimilation).

In the first case the unity, and the mind that is produced through it, finds identity through intolerance and separation from what is alien to it or unknown to it.
In the second the unity, and the mind that is produced through it, finds identity through tolerance and unification from what is alien to it or unknown to it.

But nothingness, in other words what doesn’t exist, is no more the inverse of anything than the inverse of itself, since it doesn’t exist!

No more or no less than somethingness exists.

In essence all value judgments are comparisons of becoming.

I am said to exist or not to exist in relation to another who is in the same predicament as I, to a lesser or to a higher degree.
I am a process which can only imagine and hope for and strive for inertness.

Since nothingness, as an imagined, imprecise concept denoting an absolute void, cannot be said to exist or not without contradicting itself then nothing more can or should be said about it.

Consciousness is a product of flux and as such can only conceptualize and comment on what is like it, using metaphors and symbols (language) it is familiar with.
It can only speak about what is like it.
And what is like it is the universe in flux.

But similarly since somethingness, as an imagined imprecise concept denoting an absolute being or perfection, cannot be said to exist or not without contradicting itself then nothing more can and or should be said about it.

Existence is the intermediate state between these two imagined, imprecise absolute concepts.
Extreme concepts used by the mind to make sense of itself, its surroundings and its place within them.

Only here much can be said, as logos attempts to lay before us a presence and make sense of it.

It is already not convenient to signify being, but the representation of “what is not”

…or “what is”.

Yet, given that indifference is the absence of sentiment, it is the non sentiment par excellence!

It is non-everything, par excellance.

Exactly in the same way that silence is not the inverse of noise but the absence of noise, illness the absence of health, and finally evil the absence of good, and in no way the inverse…

I would have said “health is the absence of illness” since all is in a state of incompleteness and decay - resisting.

And in all these cases the “absence” is never complete but an evaluation based on our awareness.
I speak of silence when I cannot perceive sound, even if sound might be present but inaudible to me.

To get back to “indifference”, the final prestidigitation consists often in assimilating indifference (or apathy or non affectation) to contempt.

Contempt is not indifference.

I can only be indifferent, to whatever degree a being can be so, in relation to what does not affect me; towards what I am independent from.
Contempt is a result of dependence.

[harvey]

The underlying emotion in both is fear – the anxiety of an emerging consciousness to the mystery of its own becoming and the need to preserve it.

Notice that people are federated much more easily through a consensual hatred than through love? It’s curious, hate satisfies itself, whereas that is not the case with love. Sometimes we realize that we really love when the person is absent, whereas with hate it’s almost always when the one who we hate is present that we realize that we don’t hate him as much as we thought. Hate is not at all qualitative : it is turned towards “evil”.

Exactly in the same way that silence is not the inverse of noise but the absence of noise, illness the absence of health, and finally evil the absence of good, and in no way the inverse…

I would have said “health is the absence of illness” since all is in a state of incompleteness and decay - resisting.
[/quote]

[/quote]

Illness is the absence of health, and a surgeon has never repaired a broken leg other than by reference to a healthy leg, else the patient would leave the operating room for example with a pitchfork in place of a leg, according to the artistic inspiration of the surgeon. This signifies that the model of medicine is a good, i.e. health, and illness is the absence or “emptiness” of this good, which we then endeavour to bring back to its original state.

For a living body, illnesses and wounds are nothing more than being deprived of health. When these wounds and pains are treated, it is not to chase them off somewhere else but to make them disappear completely.