Yes I can, provided that you agree to my thesis that our thoughts exist and especially the nothingness exists as well - exists without “having affect” of course ( ) -, but I know that you don’t agree to that thesis because you are saying that “exist” means “having affect”, so that “existence” is “affectance”. Would you agree to the thesis, that other people don’t agree to your definition of “existence” as “affectance”?
Nothingness has no affect, else it would be no nothingness. And if nothingness were no nothingness, then we would have to find another word for nothingness, and we soon would have find one because we can think nothingness. Nothingness has no affect, but exists, at least in our thoughts, and our thoughts exist as well. That all depends on the definition, so your definition has to be a different one - and is a different one (I know) -, but if your definition is right, then you have to exclude nothingness from your definition of “existence”.
I don’t believe that but I also don’t deny that it is possible. If someone believes that, I would not say that it is absolutely wrong to believe that. Remember that we are philophising, and the philosophy has not resolved the problem of the subject/object dualism. The science can’t resolve it anyway, and I think the philosophy probably neither.
Don’t get me wrong because I don’t think that your ontology is false, but you have to admit that it depends on your definition of “existence”.
Yes, as I said.
Does God exist? Does the unmoved mover exist? Does the unaffected affect exist?
It is possible that the nothingness is God, or the unmoved mover, or the unaffected affect!