Existence is better than non-existence

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Willamena
If by definition a "thing" must be in existence (agreed), and if we can only approach non-existence/nothing as a "thing", then we bring non-existence/nothing into existence in order to address it --more specifically, we bring it into existence by addressing it. "Hello, thing."

Now we have a basis for comparison.

I'm not quite sure how this is any different before. We are still comparing the concept of a non-existent thing with the concept of an existing thing.

Is there a distinction to be made between 'the concept of the existing thing' and 'an existing thing'?

Yes…

Getting serious, then, each thing that exists in actuality has an accompanying idea ("in our heads" as they say). The "concept" is the idea of that idea of that thing. Non-existence is not so different as one might think from existence. What makes us think it's terribly different is our expectations, which we only take note of when they exist, and tend to ignore when they don't exist.

If there is a "concept of non-existence" then there is also an idea of non-existence that has accompanied actual non-existence. We often forget, dismiss or overlook it, but non-existence does pop up from time to time (startlingly). When we address actual non-existence (through its idea, which we know) we bring it into existence. Our expectation is that, as it doesn't exist, we must take it for the Void, so we mistake it for the Void and hence we end up looking only at its concept.

Do you remember The Myth of The Sacred Chao (from the Principia Discordia, pg 56-57)? The above is depicted nicely in an excerpt from the Book of Uterus in that same publication (pg 63-65). It's the story of Eris and Aneris, and how they played with order and disorder.

As previously mentioned, if existence exists then it too should be able to have properties. Why not?

Because just as by definition a thing must exist, its existence is not distinguishable from the thing that exists (Eris is immediately and constantly pregnant). Existing, like non-existing, effectively has no identity of its own apart from its concept's identity and existence. It is axiomatic.

When you say "to claim existence as good is to value things by their identity", do you mean that this is a thing by thing assessment, or that all things that exist are assigned the quality of good?

All things that have identity, including non-existence when it "exists".

But neither would "you" miss experiencing things if you didn't exist. A non-existent "thing" can't want or need anything, which means it can't want or need existence.

True. "Here be dragons" (chaos).

Interesting.
Yet, this doesn't negate the idea that if existence exists, it can have properties too.

[FONT=&quot] Where is this existence, that I can hold it in my hand? [/FONT]

 

[Comet]

As good and bad or better and worse go hand in hand, so does the argument of existance and non-existance... it still takes "two hands" to the mind that lives in duality. Neither is better nor worse, neither is good nor bad.... One does not "exist" without the other, so it is a meaningless arguement on either side IMO....

 

[McBell]

If I were asking whether chocolate icecream was better than vanilla icecream, why would I need a third thing with which to compare the two? Wouldn't the argument be confined to just chocolate and vanilla?

The difference being that you can actually taste/evaluate/experience/etc. both chocolate and vanilla ice cream and though your opinion would merely be your opinion, there is a common basis for all to compare.

 

[McBell]

But non-existence is not "like" anything.

How do you know?

It is the complete absence of anything.

Actually, it is nothing more than the absence of existence.
It is merely your opinion that existence is everything.

I'm not quite sure how it could be defined any other way.

Nor am I.
However, I am willing to bet that your presented definition is not the only one that exists.

 

[Comet]

Originally Posted by Falvlun
I'm not quite sure how it could be defined any other way.

Nor am I.
However, I am willing to bet that your presented definition is not the only one that exists.

As the Monist on this site I must say you both miss the only point I could try to make to those that don't "understand":

Existence does not exist without non-existence! You view the two in a dualistic way! One is the same as the other... when one "sees" beyond that, they understand what I say. One is not "better" than the other, they are the opposite side of the same "thing". I guess I could only say that if one can see the COMMON GROUND on which they both rely (each other), then they can start to "see" what it is that they stem from....

To know that is to begin to understand that concept... to know that concept is to understand that any thing makes no sence at all... it is to move beyond our dualistic conceptions which are "false" so we know "truth"..... the same thing!

 

[Comet]

But non-existence is not "like" anything. It is the complete absence of anything. I'm not quite sure how it could be defined any other way.

Read the Rig Veda, Falvlun! The being and non-being are mentioned in that religious text... it is a start to understanding this matter.

 

[Falvlun]

Getting serious, then, each thing that exists in actuality has an accompanying idea ("in our heads" as they say). The "concept" is the idea of that idea of that thing. Non-existence is not so different as one might think from existence. What makes us think it's terribly different is our expectations, which we only take note of when they exist, and tend to ignore when they don't exist.

Expectations? I thought it was definitions that create the difference: the two concepts are opposites.

If there is a "concept of non-existence" then there is also an idea of non-existence that has accompanied actual non-existence. We often forget, dismiss or overlook it, but non-existence does pop up from time to time (startlingly). When we address actual non-existence (through its idea, which we know) we bring it into existence. Our expectation is that, as it doesn't exist, we must take it for the Void, so we mistake it for the Void and hence we end up looking only at its concept.

Things can exist as concepts without existing in actuality. Unicorns, for instance.

I'm really not sure how you can take non-existence as anything other than nothing. Again, I don't see this so much as an expectation, but a definition.

(And how can non-existence "pop-up"? If this were the case, wouldn't it no longer be non-existence?)

Do you remember The Myth of The Sacred Chao (from the Principia Discordia, pg 56-57)? The above is depicted nicely in an excerpt from the Book of Uterus in that same publication (pg 63-65). It's the story of Eris and Aneris, and how they played with order and disorder.

I had never read either of these before, but I do remember your grid analogy.

I particularly liked the 5 basic elements: SWEET, BOOM, PUNGENT, PRICKLE, and ORANGE.

What the heck?

Because just as by definition a thing must exist, its existence is not distinguishable from the thing that exists (Eris is immediately and constantly pregnant). Existing, like non-existing, effectively has no identity of its own apart from its concept's identity and existence. It is axiomatic.

If existence has no properties itself, then why do you consider it to be good? If the properties of existence are dependent upon the identity of the things that exist, then the existence of murder, would in fact, be bad.


[FONT=&quot]

Where is this existence, that I can hold it in my hand?

[/FONT]

Now, wait a minute. That's not quite fair. You argued that the concept of good, since it is a concept, can have properties, and that one of those properties is existence. Well, existence is a concept as well. You can hold it in your head.

 

[Willamena]

Expectations? I thought it was definitions that create the difference: the two concepts are opposites.

One might expect so; then again, one might expect something entirely different. We define things as we see them, and we see what we expect to see. As they say, it depends on how you look at it. We might see definitions one way one day, and another way another day.

Things can exist as concepts without existing in actuality. Unicorns, for instance.

They can, indeed; but then on the other hand, the actuality of this unicorn (as you've address it) is that concept. It "exists as a concept," and that describes its actuality.

I'm really not sure how you can take non-existence as anything other than nothing. Again, I don't see this so much as an expectation, but a definition.

Let's not underestimate the power to dismiss things arbitrarily. It can happen before we've realized, and in doing so there is nothing to realize. So we realize nothing, just as expected. So sad.

It's not necessary to take it as other than nothing --it's the same non-existence either way. In fact, our language makes it very difficult to take it any other way. We dismiss because our expectation is what we are taught in our process of developing language --that is, that existence "is" --and by repeated testing (speaking and writing "is" over and over in functional phrases and sentences) we accept this idea as so. What we are accepting is the idea that equates the existence of things with "is". Which is to equate reality with language. Language is reality, is the way we think and speak about things.

Language informs our entire worldview. We think we are individual entity-things separate from the universe-thing because in our formative years we learned to use the word "I" in a sentence. It works, "I" works very well, but we dismiss that that "I" exists only as a functional part of language. It has no reality of its own apart from its use in a sentence. Our worlds, viewed from this thing we call mind, are composed of ideas of things. All the ideas are viewed through this structure of language such that language becomes a filter that only lets what "is" through. We don't even have a means of talking about "non-existing" without treating it as a form of "existing".

(And how can non-existence "pop-up"? If this were the case, wouldn't it no longer be non-existence?)

Just so --we'd bring it into existence, in order to think and talk about it. Reality conforms to language. And it's hard to describe, because language cheats (as does Eris, in another story). There "is" something, rather than "is" nothing. If I tried to empower a thing in its non-existence, I would end up communicating that it's "not" (not there, not anything).

We are taken with existence, it's shiny, we notice it. Non-existence is rather opaque by comparison. (Ironically, that leaves existence to have a transparency that we entirely fail to see the universe through.) It "pops-up" not as something different than existence (because it isn't --as existence isn't a thing, neither is non-existence), but as the realization that the existence and non-existence (reality) of things is but the language we use.

If existence has no properties itself, then why do you consider it to be good?

Post #33 redirected that "good" to be a property of the identity of existing things, and I support the idea that it's good despite seeing the perspective Comet mentioned that does not distinguish one as "better" than the other. Here is why: armed with our power of language, we peer through the transparent "existence" to "know" (organize) a thing in reality, and this shiny illusion normally masks any ability we might imagine to peer through opaque "nonexistence" and "know" a thing as chaos. We are made to order --which is to say, ordering is what we do best, creating order out of the chaos, "making sense" out of the world.

It's the light that comes through the window to illuminate our "little rooms", not the darkness. (Leonard Cohen moment. )

If the properties of existence are dependent upon the identity of the things that exist, then the existence of murder, would in fact, be bad.

If "bad" is a property of murder... but I don't see it as being that. I see the "bad" as being a value we arbitrarily place on that particular killing act we call murder. And it is arbitrary --I've seen good people, even on these forums, advocate killing child rapists, for instance, without a second thought.

You argued that the concept of good, since it is a concept, can have properties, and that one of those properties is existence. Well, existence is a concept as well. You can hold it in your head.

Yeah, I probably did; sorry if I'm confusing you.

 

[McBell]

Originally Posted by Falvlun
I'm not quite sure how it could be defined any other way.


As the Monist on this site I must say you both miss the only point I could try to make to those that don't "understand":

Existence does not exist without non-existence! You view the two in a dualistic way! One is the same as the other... when one "sees" beyond that, they understand what I say. One is not "better" than the other, they are the opposite side of the same "thing". I guess I could only say that if one can see the COMMON GROUND on which they both rely (each other), then they can start to "see" what it is that they stem from....

To know that is to begin to understand that concept... to know that concept is to understand that any thing makes no sence at all... it is to move beyond our dualistic conceptions which are "false" so we know "truth"..... the same thing!

I understand your position.
I just happen to disagree with it.

 

[AlsoAnima]

Existence is better than non-existence.

Yes, however that doesn't imply that it is true.

 

[Comet]

I understand your position.
I just happen to disagree with it.

...and what is your position? As Willa has said, a perception is a distorted thing indeed....

(Glad you at least understand my position!)

 

[logician]

Nonexistence is very simiiar to being unconscious.

 

[Willamena]

...and what is your position? As Willa has said, a perception is a distorted thing indeed....

(Glad you at least understand my position!)

"Distorted" isn't a word I'd use.

 

[Comet]

Willa:

One might expect so; then again, one might expect something entirely different. We define things as we see them, and we see what we expect to see. As they say, it depends on how you look at it. We might see definitions one way one day, and another way another day.

In fact, our language makes it very difficult to take it any other way

Indeed I agree with you, that is what I meant when I said "distorted"

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Existence is better than non-existence.

It seems to be such an intuitive statement. It has recently popped up in a couple of threads as a side debate, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own.

So, what do you think? Is this statement valid? Why or why not?

Hi Falvlun, invalid!

The proof of existence is to exist and know it, and the proof of non-existence is to not exist and not know it. To judge whether existence is better than, or worse than non-existence, you who presently know that you exist, would need to cease existing to compare, but in non-existence it follows that there is no consciousness, and with no consciousness, there is, no way of making a comparison between the consciousness of existence and the non-consciousness of non-existence.