Monday April 30th 2012 Tim
'nothing' might be called oblivion. But oblivion is, I
reckon, conceivable. So it cannot be nothing in the sense of 'nothing.' I can easily see oblivion as a place, and sometimes I see it as a very happy place.
'Nothing,' on the other hand, is supposed to have no place at all.
And a person has to wonder if such a thing as 'nothing' exists, outside of something
like an incredibly irritating
response to the question, "What did you say?"
But I'd like to argue, the idea of
"nothingness," is primarily to do with an "I" not being
is a something an "I" can never actually begin to realize without first
constructing some kind of other place.
Whether this makes sense or
not, I suggest something like it has been central to thinking, back through the ages, all the way to the
trees. Beings just like you and I, constructing places that are
'not here.' And if we ourselves are not constructing them, then odds
are someone or something is attempting to do so for us.
Of course this other place
does not have to be a thousand miles away, in a bar on a desert island. It
can be as close to 'here' as tomorrow, or yesterday.
Then the agile minded, who is also a
smart ass, might point out that 'nothing' is actually more like
'here' because 'here' would not exist without both 'yesterday,' which can
only ever be interpreted, and 'tomorrow,' which is only ever a mathematical