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.
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.As previously mentioned, if existence exists then it too should be able to have properties. Why not?
All things that have identity, including non-existence when it "exists".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?
True. "Here be dragons" (chaos).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.
[FONT="] Where is this existence, that I can hold it in my hand? [/FONT]Interesting.
Yet, this doesn't negate the idea that if existence exists, it can have properties too.
Last edited: