7 Answers

  1. The classics have long thought of everything for us, the middle term connecting the dialectical opposites of something and nothing (or being and non-being) is “becoming”, that is, the transition from a state of non-being to a state of being. The peculiarity of this term is precisely its “fluid” character: after all, becoming is not quite something (because there is nothing yet, only something is happening), but at the same time it is not quite nothing (after all, something is already there, only it is not yet clear what exactly).

  2. Dear Boris Tot, nothing can be realized in something and die in it (as you write) . It is always itself, because it does not relate to REALITY. Nothing and something are precisely the categories of knowledge (philosophy), through which the human mind tries to explain to itself (and others) the paradoxical structure and functioning of the universe (different types of reality).
    Only two moments connect nothing and something – the moment of emergence from Non-existence, and the moment of disappearance (transition) into Non-existence. And the entire existence of concrete things (objects, phenomena, processes) occurs (unfolds) in Being itself. Therefore, nothing is conditioned in any way. The existing needs nothing only when its existence is completed (death, disappearance).
    Therefore, they (nothing and something) are in a relationship called cycles. Enlarging the image( model), we see the relationship of two entities-filled with many objects of Being, and empty unreal Non-Being, consisting of nothing. These two entities are permeated by cyclical interactions through nothing and something.
    It is pointless to use any reference systems, graphs, or other physical and mathematical models here. For they cannot in any way reflect what is not in reality-nothing and all Non-existence.

  3. ((explanation for crossing the void between different routes … Of course, with the “physical model” I bent .. it meant – “explain on your fingers”))

    let's start mentally with a certain moment that precedes the unfolding of being. as already mentioned, this is the great limit, and the moment of the primary division into Yang-Yin.

    imagine a table on which there is a pile of sand (the Great Limit), this pile is not structured, and we define being as the structuring of the pile, a certain ordering of grains of sand.

    the first is the criterion by which ordering is performed .. this is the difference that distinguishes Yang from Yin .. this is the most difficult thing in the whole story, since the Chinese do not define anything existing at the Limit level .. this is what modern scientists call the “big bang” from which the universe begins to form, while not determining the cause of this event.

    imagine that the only criterion that is available to us for dividing the heap is “what is on the right and what is not (what is on the left)”.. “There are changes in the Great Lawlessness.”

    after the first act of dividing (Changing), we just continue to do it further (Changing), access any smaller heap and divide it into right and left… until our entire pile turns into scattered grains of sand lined up in a single line …

    that's actually all, our existence has come to an end … “There is a Great Limit to Change.”. once cosmologists would have called this the “heat death of the universe” (now it seems that there is an active process of abandoning this principle).. we can't make any further changes, our principle is exhausted, and all the laws of the universe and world formation have been fulfilled .. The Great Mayhem is coming .. or Nonexistence.

    I am specifically simplifying and shortening Being, and not touching on its evolution and internal structure, since we are now considering the issue of trans-being.

    in fact, we were in the same situation as when we were standing in front of a pile of sand .. only now the sand is distributed .. in principle, nothing has changed, and we can continue to divide the sand on the right-left, and as if to repeat virtually the entire Existence, but slightly changing the sequence of accessing the piles .. for example, on the second clock cycle, divide not the right pile but the left one .. etc… adding variety to the sequence of accessing heaps .. but in the end, the result will be the same .. all the grains of sand will line up … all such Existences will repeat the worked-out principle, will be as if parallel to the first, virtual from the point of view of the beginning and end.

    when all the options and castling are implemented, we will somehow face the problem of a new Being .. and suddenly, magically, we notice that the grains of sand are not the same (as we thought before), but have different sizes .. this will be our new principle of separation … our new Yang-Yin .. the new “big bang”

    we set a new distribution axis, and divide the “heap” according to the new principle …. the resulting parts are also divided, etc.

    so until we come to a natural (in our human understanding) end and exhaust the possibilities of separation.

    the principles of “right-left” and “more-less” do not depend on each other, are not inherited, and are not interrelated, so you can apply them in any sequence .. That's why I'm talking about axis independence ..

    when the Limit of Changes “more-less” comes and all the grains of sand are distributed along the axis (vertical in the figure), it will be obvious for us to introduce another principle, for example, “darker-lighter” .. and history repeats itself again .. along the thirds of the axis, the grains of sand are distributed in the appropriate sequence until the Limit is reached.

    there can be any number of such axes-principles of distinctness-ten, one hundred, or a billion .. all of them can run on the same heap, separately or simultaneously, with a delay or instantly.. one Being does not know anything about the other Being, and each of the Beings is still dealing with itself and its virtual “brothers”.

    also, it is clear that the original pile was not a pile at all, but also a certain Limit of the previous Existence, and only we perceived it as a pile, because we did not initially know the order of grains of sand and did not see this order explicitly .. but it certainly was, and this is what allowed the Event to take place.


    of course, this (see above) “retelling” of Chinese cosmogenesis (article by the way curve) is incredibly simplified. we have no concepts or even close words of the language that would convey the essence .. the problem is primarily that we are used to seeing the world as atomic, as a collection of things, and the characteristics of things are of great importance to us .. The ancient Chinese saw the world as a set of connections, relationships between things, and often things were not present at all in reasoning, but only how they interact was taken into account.

    in the Chinese language, it is not uncommon to find a word denoting a complex sign by action , such as the hieroglyph for an animal that “broke an expensive vase” .. or as in general a set of counting words (peculiar suffixes) for “long thin objects” for example … in a literal expression it looks ridiculous for us sometimes – ” here are five kilograms of long and thin (without specifying what exactly)”.


    it is important to realize that you cannot try to imagine Being from the outside, from the height of the human mind and understanding, and all the models and schemes that we can imagine are determined by the presence of our a priori experience .. and at the moment of the Limit, there is nothing, no judgments or abilities, no categories or manifestations .. to develop a Limit theory, we can't even introduce any axioms or any basic concepts ..

    Yang-Yin have no properties other than mutual exclusion-yang is not yin .. and yin is not yang .. the pair seems to have embedded the original separation, and this is a forced measure. by whatever principle (from our point of view) we do not start the division (or it itself would not have started) will always be obtained Yang-Yin .. because they themselves do not know how they differ from each other (they do not know what is right-left or more-less).

    inside Being (until the pile is disassembled and the “heat death” has not occurred), a lot of processes are taking place based on the primary division of Yang-Yin .. after the manifestation of promatter , the principles of sequence, interconnection, time and space, consciousness and memory, reason and deception, visual arts and dance, superconsciousness and divine omnipotence appear … “all the darkness of things” arises after the primary separation (if and when it is overcome) .. everything further is already a matter of technique .. of course, there are certain difficulties, usually associated with variation .. for example, it is indicated that there are EIGHT possible variants of parallel existence that have the same primary principle of separation (the same Yang-Yin), but at the stage of manifestation of materiality (materiality), the worlds may diverge … this is roughly how our scientists talk about matter and antimatter , but the Chinese could have 8 types of them (from 5 to 14 according to various calculations).. that is, on our matter somewhere there may exist seven antimaterials, which are antimaterials and to other antimaterials (each to each).

    such cosmogenesis (based on connections) also has the property of “similarity” and is applicable to objects on different scales (in our words – cosmos, microcosm, macrocosm, etc. – basic fractal or principle).. that is, the principles of the development of Being are applicable to the development of a country, a person, and any categories … but here you need to take into account that just as the universe can fart and immediately collapse, so a person can push harder and not get smarter .. The “step-by-step development principle” does not guarantee the completion of ALL stages .. there may be 20 grains of sand in our pile, or a billion .. what will determine both the variability and duration of progressive development.

    I don't know if I somehow managed to convey that the Limit is not a transition point .. this is the beginning and end of any existence .. but the separateness of being from each other is not determined by the Limit, but by the principle of separation and organization of being within itself (the uniqueness of Yang-Yin)..

    the answer to the question about the causes of our “big bang” or primary separation and going beyond (into our being) is somehow clear… there are versions of a certain minimal excess tension that any existence creates .. like bubbles inflating, pushing, bursting, and thus producing forces to inflate other bubbles .. it turns out like a self-boiling substance .. the bubbles are different every time, but the soap is always the same, as it were, dissolved in water, and it is the properties of this soap that make the solution bubble … but again, this is all from our human analogy.

    and the question of the initial beginning still hangs .. as well as the question of the possible end of all this boiling.


    the Chinese discussed the issues of parallel and holographic universes and antimatter and fractal dimensions a couple of thousand years before the Europeans, but unfortunately their traditional philosophy died out. already in the 12th-14th century, philosophical agony arose (and degradation began even earlier), erroneous edits of traditional views were made, Taoists appeared (as a natural philosophy current), Confucianism will no longer return (in its pure form).

  4. Essence, in Hegel. There is just a reflection of nothing that defines something, which, being a mental thing, is formally nothing.

    Although vryatli you podoytet

  5. We understand that Nothing is realized into Something and dies in it, and Something without Nothing is impossible.

    At the same time, I believe that both Nothing and Something are non-existent categories, but this is not important in this case.

    I would like to call this bundle a general term, but my infirmity does not occur to me, except for the Spanish-Portuguese Compilade. I don't even know why.

    I would be grateful for your help in overcoming the problem that has hit me.

  6. They don't have any unity! Nothing flows into something, but is simply absent.
    Hegel invented the unity of pure being and pure nothingness in a fraudulent way, when he threw out all concrete content from being and remained.. with nothing!
    In the real world, there are only things that merge into each other. We can only speak of nothingness in a relative sense: a certain nothingness, the nothingness of some something. And pure nothingness-it is NOT THERE

  7. Take, for example, a glass of water with an ice cube.

    There is no difference between water and water, so water to water is emptiness and Nothingness. And ice is solid for water.

    The correct term for their unity is “transition to another aggregate state”. And without antagonism.

    Water for water – “Nothing” This “nothing” flows into Something (ice). “Something “(ice) does not exist without “Nothing” (water), because it is the same water H2O, only in a different aggregate state.

    We understand that Nothing is realized into Something and dies in it,

    Not necessarily. A tin soldier dies in a fire, only for a child who mistakenly thinks he is a soldier and not tin. But the adult knows that the tin soldier is tin and no one dies.

    The form changes, but the essence doesn't.

Leave a Reply