Something Instead of Nothing

The reason for the existence of existence is the cosmic labor theory of value; each universe is a proletariat that produces a surplus of matter and energy… then the bourgeois forces of antimatter and entropy try to consume that surplus and destroy it.

youtu.be/flFyaguUqIo

Non existence cannot persist since Nature will not allow it so by default there always has to be some type of existence
And so it exists not merely because it can but also because it has to - whether it is also awesome is entirely subjective
It may be beyond human comprehension in any absolute sense but this can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else

This is the part however where a frame of mind is derived from an actual set of circumstances. Something [rather than nothing] is awesome as long as the life that you are living now from day to day is awash in meaning and purpose…resplendent with all manner of fulfillment and satisfaction.

Then you can set aside the time needed to contemplate somethingness more philosophically. And, then, on a level that transcends the mundane, you feel some “thing” in your head akin to a “spiritual” wonder that not only is there something that exists, but it is the something that you are living.

And it’s all so terrific! So fucking awesome!!

But: then you tumble down or stumble down into a set of circumstances that takes all this away. Your life has now become a shithole. Not only has your own personal somethingness become a cesspool of misery, but you couldn’t possibly care less to think about it all…“intellectually”.

As usual, encompassed in a frame of mind that appears to suggest that, if others don’t see how obvious this is, they need to be reeducated regarding the stating of a “simple fact”.

Thus, all that stuff accumulated in the gap between what he thinks he knows here and now and a complete and comprehensive understanding of all there is to be known about the existence of something rather than nothing at all, is not really that important to consider at all.

It does suggests that, but as suggestions go, they are merely powered by self induced perspectivism. They conveniently omit the program as a simulated paradigmn of transcendentially established adhesive embededness.
(Per Your. and Polanyi’s definition.)

Here is Polanyi’s definition analyzed:

Embeddedness

In economics and economic sociology, embeddedness refers to the degree to which economic activity is constrained by non-economic institutions. The term was created by economic historian Karl Polanyi as part of his substantivist approach. Polanyi argued that in non-market societies there are no pure economic institutions to which formal economic models can be applied. In these cases economic activities such as “provisioning” are “embedded” in non-economic kinship, religious and political institutions. In market societies, in contrast, economic activities have been rationalized, and economic action is “disembedded” from society and able to follow its own distinctive logic, captured in economic modeling. Polanyi’s ideas were widely adopted and discussed in anthropology in what has been called the formalist–substantivist debate.[1]Subsequently, the term “embeddedness” was further developed by economic sociologist Mark Granovetter, who argued that even in market societies, economic activity is not as disembedded from society as economic models would suggest.[2

Note: if doubt were to arise between e economic theory and ontological analysis of existence, let’s not forget that substantial of ‘subance’ can refer to both, in light of the passed up economic theory of the ‘ID’ by Freud.

But, if that objection fails any remediation, then , iambig, take Your definition as the most reducible and paradigmnal.

However here is an ontological tie-in, as a down to earth relevance to Capital and dispossession.:

Abstract
This article offers a substantive understanding of the variegation of capitalism, in an attempt to move beyond the current impasse in the mainstream varieties-of-capitalism approach. Drawing on existing conceptualizations of capitalism-society relationships, as well as on Agamben’s reconceptualization of the Foucaldian notion of ‘dispositif’, the article identifies the ontological ‘dispositifs’ of embeddedness, dispossession and subsumption, associating them with ‘purely relational’, ‘sovereignty-based’ and ‘dualistic’ ontologies of capitalism, respectively. The article argues that these dispositifs are instrumental in capitalism’s process of subjectification, laying the foundations for a renewed belief in capitalism even under the most adverse conditions.

Copyright © 2019 by SAGE Publications

Only two days ago and in this very thread too did I genuinely acknowledge the limitation of my own knowledge and the humility that goes with such a revelation
But here you are once again implying that I possess some monopoly on wisdom and / or that which I do not know does not matter so makes no difference anyway

I make no claim to know more than anyone else and all I do is try to justify any statements that I do make THAT I HOLD TO BE TRUE as rigorously as possible
Thus me stating that how awesome the Universe is can be stated as a simple fact and nothing else is only true FROM MY OWN PERSPECTIVE AND NO ONE ELSES

SO WHAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THINKS IS FOR YOU OR THEM TO DECIDE UPON AS I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN MYSELF
As I have precisely zero interest in convincing anyone of anything so no one is under any compulsion to take anything I say as gospel

You seem entirely incapable of not applying straw man motivations to my reason for posting even after I have clearly demonstrated that they are totally false
Your own mind is so concerned with discovering the absolute truth that everytime I say something it disagrees with it assumes on my part some ulterior motive

So from now on could you restrict your comments to what I actually post and keep the pop psychology about why I post it to yourself if that is at all possible

I hope so as I have precisely zero desire to waste any more mental energy on having to remind you once again of everything that I have just said
So have a word with that mind of yours to make sure it remembers this time as it does seem to unfortunately have a rather unreliable memory

Hmm, no thats no how it went with me. I actually was close to dying of regret and misery when I came to the conclusion of awesomeness. How? Beats me but it goes to show, its a pretty strong truth.

Well (haha funny) I agree with it in broad strokes. The universe builds itself up bottom-up by the combined forces of individual worker-particles (valuers, givers, value-givers (see what I did there!!)) and then decadence (entropy) becomes a factor especially in closed (bourgeoise) environments.

Okay, you acknowledged that. But how then isn’t it reasonable on my part to suggest that the manner in which you conveyed your point above is not expressed as though you were asserting it to be an example of a “simple fact”?

I’ll leave it to others to either agree or not to agree with my own reaction.

All I can point out here is that is not how I reacted [subjectively] to the point you made. That frame of mind did not come through at all for me.

I have no idea what this is meant to convey regarding my reaction above. And my frame of mind here at ILP revolves almost entirely around attempts on my part to feel less “fractured and fragmented” in confronting human interactions out in the is/ought world. That and connecting the dots between this and the really, really big questions that revolve around things like something/nothing, existence qua existence and the quandaries embedded in the determinism/free-will debate.

No can do. From my frame of mind what we think philosophically is profoundly interwined in the manner in which I construe human psychology here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Which is ever and always related to my reaction to that which I construe to be objectivist thinking.

Sure, I may be completely off base here in reacting to you. After all, the gap between how you see me “in your head” and how I see you “in my head” is always going to be problematic to say the least.

But I can only honestly react as I do in fact react “in the moment” to any particular post. If that doesn’t sit well with others, they can steer clear of me here. Or, as with Karpel Tunnel, we can just agree to avoid responding to each other’s posts.

Iambigious,

Please refer to my above comments as to why a social psychological relevance may be more appropriate, or, down to earth. I suggested a philosophical psychology, a longer time ago, and was seconded by a past member Hume"s Choice, but it never caught on here.

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

In other words, name something believed to be a “necessary truth”, or something that is believed to be “natural”, and then criticise anyone who is foolish enough to feel awed by it?

People come to conclusions like this as though conclusions like this can be come to merely in the act of naming those things that they believe are or are not necessary truths or natural.

Why feel awe regarding the extraordinary facts that astrophysicists have compiled with respect to the universe itself. Billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars going back a “singularity” that commensed the Big Bang out of nothing at all?

Why feel awe in the face of the extraordinary technology all around us? Technology that, if those thousands of years ago were able to experience it, they would be simply dumbfounded.

From my frame of mind, the explanation here is dasein. That seems as “natural” a truth as any to me.

Yes, the definitional logic that is so vital to those who hammer a reality together out of a world of words. Then what is believed “in their head” becomes all that they need by way of an explanation able to be construed as a necessary truth. Even with respect to things – something out of nothing – they cannot possibly be privy to.

I’m sorry, but, as I explained to you on another thread, I am unable to refer to you regarding many of your reactions to the things I post. Why? Because I rarely have a clue as to what it is that you are attempting to say. I make my point. Then your point seems [to me] to be an exercise in irony. As though you were actually just mocking the ponderous “intellectual contraptions” of the “serious philosophers” here.

But that’s just me. If in fact you are not being ironic and are attempting to make what you construe to be an important point about my own point regarding something and nothing, I’m afraid you will have to choose different words.

Note to others:

How would you translate his point above as it relates to the points that I am making in regard to the post that he is reacting to – my exchange with surreptitious75 ?

Below his username he gives his location as Mysterium Tremendum which translates as : awe inspiring mystery
Whether his posting style is a consequence of this one cannot say but it is definitely mysterious if nothing else

I think what he could mean is that sometimes ones world view can be determined more by how one sees it rather than actually studying how it really is
But his prose is so inscrutable that I truly have no idea how accurate this interpretation is and any elaboration may prove to be just as incomprehensible


Mysterium Tremendum also invokes Dionysus and Nietzsche so a couple more clues there to help you along the way

I may need to clarify. The idea, of psychology(individual) is more prone to be prepossessed, by multiple subsets, that define an individual, simply possessing more social roles-hats, resulting a shift from individual to social psychology.

The variability between different levels of philosophically nominal individual psychology -perspectivism, will layer out more parallel, or contabilate structural differences, to come up with new forms , in some cases, to try to coincide with generally long held suppositions.

Social psychology offers such medium, wherein such differences, can be brought down to earth.

Individuals persist in perspectivism, the mind 75 correctly signals toward

Social psychology is closer to philosophy the psychology and then philosophy is from psychology. The gap is narrowed, and a more realistic paradigm can be constructed, which in turn would be more akin to bring it down to less conceptual levels , I. e bring it down to earth.

Social psychology applies less depth , and more normative inter-cultural derivatives, and it is, what has developed into ‘group’ therapy.
Individual analysis, on the other hand has less functional philosophical utility, functionally more devoid of application.

For that reason, language analysis tends to shift methodology into ‘sense’ and sensible goals.
Therefore, on the supposition that more common sense has more resemblance to social constructions of reality, it may loose some such function with philosophical constructs which have less group function.
Nihilism, being a product of phenomenal reduction, works the opposite way, and hence the elementary conntraindicated method works against it’s underlying structural process.

In fact the work against each other. Less structural complexity in social psychology tends to mediate between individual and social levels.

Again, this is only my own personal reaction – the embodiment of dasein – but explanations of this sort are just intellectual gibberish to me.

Let’s try this:

Provide me with a particular example in which you are interacting with someone and the conversation shifts from what you are doing to an understanding of how this something might be understood given that nothing at all may once have been a factor.

My own understanding of nihilism here – an existential contraption – presumes that in a No God world, the meaning we ascribe to what we are doing – discussing the Trump presidency, say – may involve actual consequences in our lives, but these consequences seem unable to be linked to any essential meaning or purpose in what is presumed to be an essentially meaningless universe.

This then goes back to the presumption that whatever existential meaning I impart here will always tumble down into the gap between what I think I know about the Trump presidency and all there is to be known about it going back to an understanding of existence itself. Which would necessarily include the extent to which nothing at all may or may not be applicable.

And, of course, the presumption of some measure of autonomy/free will on my part.

Now, how might your own assessment of nihilism above be understood in this more substantive/descriptive sense?

Ok. Let’s start with the Trump presidency, and how that, which include everything assumed and known about him ,( where what is available are ostensibly distinct to what is known) plays a part.

Here is the first problem we face. My own assessment may or may not follow the guidelines You are following in part, with both belonging to the larger set of our common understanding.

Then, take other’s understanding, until all members of the planet are included in 'everything known about it.

Individually, we may know a limited amount of information about him, and our common sense is a measure of how big the pie of sharing that .
What is this common sense that ostensibly connects our partial senses?
Here is where the boundary between senses and knowledge overlap.
Such overlap determines the partially differentiated sense between knowledge and sensation.

Ok. The point is, the overlap includes no absolutely determined boundaries between individual and common knowledge/sensation. There is no absolute break between them, or how much partially differentiated substantial/formal content vis.belief and knowledge .

This is the first entry point.

Trump is struggling with this very notion of establishing credibility between truth and fake, and there is a parallel here with it, and he is relying on common sense to form a consensus of opinion between the particular man at the voting booth in 2020, and how this common sense effects his choice .

The first entry point one could consider the precept.
The second the action resulting from it.

The Kantian allusion Trump touched upon was the transcendentalky changed objects of reference, whereby he could change constituent opinions across the board, by real and disguised forms of communication.This is why he had to discredit the press, and shift testing validity of the meaning of words from common understanding to changing opinions through changes of what literally constitute : democracy, due process, equal rights, checks and balances-toward relational terminology: rather then fixed ideas in the constitution of how language is represented in themselves.

If he is able to do this, and he has been to a large extent, then opinion change is established relationally, on grassroots levels: literally down to earth.

That Kantianism implies a central position, the changes of. dynamic relationships changed the rules. Variability in axiomatic referentiality is used in simultainity, to reinforce the signals constituents to interpret , shifting centers toward newly formed balances.

This has been done successfully up until now, however gun control, attempts at corporate control , the wall, reversal of foreign policy successes , has back pedaled policy as they remains in a cloud.

The last or the third gateway to this problem of something or nothing is the most difficult because it has to show the effective use, function of the prior two, the phenomenon or the perceptive form of representing Trumpism as political objective, from a structural point of view as consistent with the effect on a third phase.

For this, revert to a more familiar theme, that of abortion.
Abortion has political undertones, as per the value of life, in its most axiomatic or self included form, stretching Your observance to the rights and freedoms of the individual. In fact, the all inclusive Catholic set of values dictates the terms of existential absolutes, of moral predication, whereas Trumpism is clad in the usual political quagmire, based on correctness the sense of sets of variable value judgements revolving around ethical senses of constitution.,ll Constituting , and constituency.

The second gateway of political expediency, is more prone to be represented by constituancy, constituting the opinions of variables of political outlook.

What is central in the prior? It is the question of what determines the quality of the embryo which is considered a complete human being. That question revolves around a phisiologycal constitution, and in essence of is variable by degrees.
That the embryo goes through similar resembling phases as the various phenotypes in the ordinate human development from fish like creatures to human forms, matter of factly presents a particular phase , as when the embryo is more human then it’s prior animal phase of development.

Since You assert a god-less universe, it can be fairly safely said, that an abortion at a certain phase, before it resembles a human form, is not yet a human being, but mostly animal.At this stage, the abortion can be declared morally justified.

Ethically, like logically, the opinion tests mostly on principles of political expediency, and it becomes a matter of relative perspective, to ask the question, if it is a human being. Ethically, politically, religious institutions can be evoked, and thus it becomes a matter less of constitution, then one of constituting by constituancy. It no longer belongs in the first tier of an existential dilemma, that of concerns of basic science in its their reduced form, but with various ethical concerns about rights and freedom to act, in accordance with multitudes of relative perspective and context. Hence it becomes not an ‘existential’ problem, but an essential one, determinitive with questions of belief, for the most part. This way it is not a dynamic inquiry adjacent and formative one with perceptive analysis, but a preceptive opinion based conclusion, devoid of a model of assessment like that in the first one.

The shift from a politically loaded inquiry as that of Trumpism , to a Darwinian analysis , would place the former into a post adaptation position, where the same methodology cannot be used to the latter, literally because the features of Darwinian adaptation are based on very clear adaptive mechanics of structural changes, whereas adaptation in political terms imply adapting mass political designs and aims. …

Philosophically, these designations, are more often then not subject to reified constructions, whereby they can be manipulated. They can not be said to form structural hierarchies corresponding to basic structures, but are predicated on subjective constructions of manipulated reality.

Hence, Trumpism belongs in the third tier, and relationability to existential questions relegate to a minimum level of observation (phenomenal)

If, political correctness and expediency imply an inherent set of dynamics, this could be shown to be based mostly on false derivitives or, falsely guided ones. Some people live in made believe castles in the sky, such as - today’s Trump statement that he is akin to a prophet or something of the Jews, because of taking leading political roles such as moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

There are no factual basis to support such tweets, and transcendental -political objects may not go to conclude a solution , simply, because of the will to overcome any dissent.

Abortion does revolve around morality over standard ethical consideration, and that is why Wade vs. Roe stands on a slippery slope, a slope that regresses the quality of argument into conflation and nonsense.

Is abortion arguable? Yes, but not on a level of politically inclination. .
Is Trumpianism arguable pro or con? Yes but with logic that is constituted of a science of actually derived political terms, more determinative on a sense of power, for it’s own sake (nothing) then on any directly attributable logic.

Since existential arguments offer a priority over the essential questions surrounding those of designating the forms within, such as changes in constituting structural dynamics and replacing them-
(For instance the post dialectical materialism that defines the period after the fall of communism, does or should require an antithetical formation of a new structural unity?) -puts the constitution in the form of a new designation of terms of least or most functional utility of a new type of governance, -is such a question.

Is the renewed Kantian revival, merely a litmus test, or a feedback mechanism into the structural basis of moral questions , generating structural changes within a unified world stage, or is it indicative toward widening of national boundaries, as a work in progress, with min/max applications of internal/ external control?-remains clarification…

The some thing/nothingness of nomenclature designated can spell this out, more objectively (constitutionally) or with less (congressionally), from a dynamic center, is again a product of relative-relationally fed back information/data.

I tried to shift toward the minimum of logos, and a maximum of down to earth examples, to satisfy Your requirements, however the interact, either/&/ or, on a more or less conscious-subconscious state of delivery. So not: the nothingness and lack of material justification and presence of it must play a part. Of, should.

As You may have noticed, I avoided giving You the impression which argues pro or con particular interpretations of nihilism. Such an attempt would entail the adoption of contrariness to either the political or the psychological bias inherence. Long ago I affirmed my conditional relevance and resemblance that is inherent on a neo-Kantian resurgence, albeit toward it’s more complex Leibnitz’ mode of proceeding. That is of differential and integral processes fed back within various modes of representation, as progressive, and ultimately, will resolve It/themselves , introjectively, settling issues with standard paradigmn variations.
The longer I think about it , the more agreeable Peacegirl’s proposal becomes viable.

Note to others:

I give up.

If anyone would care to, please connect the dots between the points I raised to him and the points he raised with me.

As they relate to your own understanding of a possible relationship between nihilism and something rather than nothing.

As that analysis might be situated out in the world of actual human interactions.

That’s basically my own world view in regard to 1] “I” wielding value judgments amidst conflicting goods in the is/ought world and 2] grappling with “metaphysical” questions as big as this one.

There is what you believe and there is what you are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

But: regarding such questions as “something instead nothing” or “something out of nothing” in particular, no one is really able to demonstrate much beyond the gap between what “I” think I know here and now and all that can be known/must be known about the existence of existence itself.

Unless of course there is another more sensible way of thinking about it that I am not yet privy to.

For some reason, I keep coming back to the idea that meno is just being ironic. On the philosophy board, he is merely exposing the “intellectual contraptions” of particular “serious philosophers” a la the “the Sokal affair”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Or maybe there is an aspect of his personality that needs to be seen as an “intellectual”. As what he construes a “serious philosopher” should sound like.

Or is he just another run-of-the-mill pedant?

But that’s all purely conjectural on my part. And, no doubt, others [like KT] have a similar assessment to “capture” what they think makes me tick here.

“The Fundamental Question”
Arthur Witherall

This in and of itself is intriguing given the somethingness that we appear to live in now. There are “real thing worlds” that we all just take for granted. The life that we do live on planet earth in a solar system revolving around our own star.

But we exist as a result of the evolution of life on earth culminating [so far] in minds able to imagine worlds that we think up in our head. But: In imagining the world in ways other than as it is, we can set about reconfiguring that real world into the one more in sync with the one we imagine. The real world and the worlds that we imagine then become intertwined over the course of time into ever evolving and changing historical and cultural communities.

For example, as the means of production were evolving in the Middle Ages, mercantilism in sync with a burgeoning world trade prompted folks to imagine very different human interactions. They then set about to reconfigure the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. Then capitalism [through the industrial revolution] prompted others to imagine a socialist alternative.

That’s how it works in this particular somethingness. A snapshot of the real world today is always intertwined with minds that are imagining the world in a different way.

And given that this is what preoccupies most of us, the part about nothingness is always able to be dumped onto one or another back burner.

No one is obligated to believe anything at all regardless of how rational it might actually be
What individual minds think is entirely up to them including that which is not at all rational