What Is Nothingness?

Robert Saltzman:

People are liking this, Danny. You did great.

Danny Antivalidis: Thanks, Robert. I find myself annoying and interrupting.

But we all have to start somewhere and I'm happy that we did this.

I'm making another version where I edit out some of my interuptions, and

I give a proper introduction. I'll share the link when it's done.

I thought about what is being discussed yesterday, and the essence for me is that I know for a fact that I cannot get something from you. Like there is no urgent magic question that is gonna free me from myself. But rather I see something in you. Probably like you did in Walter Chappell. Like I did in UG too. Something in me is just naturally recognising that.

Robert: Yes. That recognition is lovely.

Danny: Hey Robert. I been listening to you this morning. And what comes to me is that people seem to be getting something from you. Perhaps a certain teaching is there that makes people more inclined to accept and enjoy what is, in this moment. Rather than searching for something different. Having that said. Would you say such a person is "closer to being awake?" One that is living in the present moment that is. I guess my question is what is the difference between being awake and living in the present moment? And can we ever get closer to being "awake" by being present in the moment?

My guess is that there is nothing to do to wake up. But everything that happens affect us somehow. And possible the recognition of someone living in alignment with themselves might be a kind of trigger that finally provokes that. It's hard to be concrete or certain about such matters.

Danny: Hey Robert. Hope you're good. I would say I am very much cured from magical thinking. Having that said, I have periods in life where patterns come up, such as double digits on a clock. Last few days pretty much more or less every time I throw a glance at my phone it's been 12.12, 14.14 etc. I don't make much of this. And maybe it's just the mind looking for patterns for all I know. But I find it fascinating nevertheless. And was curious to hear your take on this sort of thing.

It's not always. Seems some periods of patterns come up for a few days. And then it's gone like a wave.

Robert: The human mind is beyond understanding. We see what we see and think what we think and no one can get to the bottom of it as in my view. Be well.

Danny: Thanks

Recently I been reflecting upon some Zen texts that sort of emphasize that all forms come out of the formless and go back to the formless. That no forms really have any substance. The reflections from the moon and the stars on the lake do not leave any ripples. It kinda leaves you with this understanding that all forms come and go out of the formless. And that the formless is not only formless but also the source of creation. Whatever that is.

Would you agree on this perspective?

Robert: The "formless" is an idea that has to come and go too.

Danny: True. But it's also the negative space. Like when Glen Gould was asked about his music. He said he was playing the space between the notes. Still some kind of form. And more than just nothing.

Robert: I don't see it that way, Danny.
With due respect for your metaphors, light striking water does leave ripples at the atomic level where we humans have no immediate perceptions. And how do we know that silence actually exists? Just because we do not hear any sound does not prove the existence of any "absolute silence." Why are human nervous systems and minds the standard for conceiving "reality?"

This is worth considering. Just because humans have an idea called "the formless," does not mean that any "formlessness" actually exists except conceptually. We have, I say, no way of knowing anything about the "noumenon."

These are questions that philosophers throughout the ages have considered. Various opinions flash into and out of vogue, but I do not think any basic metaphysical questions will be solved by the minds of humans.

What if so-called "negative space" is perceived only because form actually exists as the most basic ontological "reality" around which there simply APPEARS to be "nothing?" What if "nothing" does not really exist in the same way as form, but SEEMS to exist because some of us ASSUME that "nothing" is as real or even realer than form? What if "nothing" really IS nothing and not space at all, or potentiality, or the noumental, but just NOTHING!

It is said that in a photograph of a tree, the areas between the leaves and branches comprise the negative space. That is true on a perceptual level as might be taught in an art class, but that does not mean that the philosophical negative space--the "noumenon" actually exists, or even exists prior to form, which is a key "spiritual" concept.

In my opinion, no one can know anything about "nothing" or "Emptiness." From my perspective, we cannot even know if such a thing exists except as an idea, much less imbue "nothing" properties. All we know is phenomena--what we see, feel, and otherwise perceive--and by definition we cannot perceive "nothingness."

I push back against the idea of the "noumenon" because it is theoretical and is used, as in Kant, for example, as the basis for transcendental idealism which is also a theory, not a FACT no matter how many "spiritual" people say it is.