he concept of *nothingness* is the particular mode of the human linguistico-neurological system when it selects the word *nothing* as an existential operator. *Nothing* is noun bereft of any denotatum used to denote the past, present and permanent absence of some unspecified entity or entities.
The cognitive intellection *nothing* is ALWAYS used as a non-existent *other* (a heteron) for purposes of *referring to occupied rather than unoccupied space* or vice versa.
The problem is some people naively asume that the very process of employing this ontological device neurologically instantiates *nothing* by the very fact that it
*appears to be* the opposite of *some thing*
The key to understanding *nothing* is the be aware that *nothing* is not *the opposite* nor a direct or indirect *antonym* of *something.*
As such is the case, no predication is possible in the case of the word *nothing.* Any predication *thought to be* attributed to the word *nothing* does not add to or provide any information about the concept of *nothing,* because *nothing* does not exist to be described, but merely adds to what can be said about the existential modality and neurological processes of he or she who thinks about the concept *nothing.*
There is no requirement to enter into a domain of quantum neurochemical explanations for an understanding of the basic features of thinking or making philosophical 'choices' regarding whether *nothing* exists or not, nor any other*decisions* for that matter. Choices are made on the basis of the relevant experiential information being available. The *choice,* if standing on the edge of a cliff, of whether to step out into the *nothingness* and the fact that we decide not to that, suggests that there is a basic understanding by the human brain that *nothing* does not exist and therefore cannot support the weight of a human being.
Even suicides who DO step out into the *nothingness,* do so in the knowlege that it will not support them, and like Hamlet (if he had decided that *not to be* was best for him) they will crash down upon the rocks below.
Considered from a strict ontological rather than a poetic point of view, Hamlet's phrasing of the ontological alternatives involved in committing suicide do not make sense. In spite of traditionalist opinion to the contrary, there is no such thing as*Being* – it follows of course that *non-being* does not exist either. One just cannot*not exist*. The suicide's aspirational condition of moving towards a new state of *not-being* is an uncatchable transcendental bluebird which flutters away the nearer his rapidly falling body gets to the rocks below.
There is no state of *not-being,*as both Parmenides and Einstein will rush to confirm. As it happens, and this may come as a surprise, there is no state of *Being* either - only *becoming*. There is only the state of being some changing THING. Pure existence without *essences* and *properties* is a physical impossibility. Shakespeare’s Hamlet either continues to exist as Hamlet Prince of Denmark, or the lifeless body of Hamlet continues to exist as the bloodied decomposing corpse of the dead prince sprawled upon the rocks below the castle walls. (In the play he actually died in the castle as is well known.)
Setting aside the fact that actually what we would be doing if we did launch ourselves over the edge would be to immerse ourselves in and rely upon a cloud of oxygen gas to buoy us up. Everybody on earth [apart from the mentally handicapped] understand that *nothing* does not exist and choose not to risk walking over a cliff to prove otherwise.
The primitive, deeply rooted philosophical illusion probably originated from the apparent *oppositeness* (rather than simple *otherness*) that is characteristic of certain basic human conceptions. The opposite of hot is cold, big and small, kind and cruel, beautiful and ugly etc. Primitive man mistakenly assumed that in view of this apparent oppositional paradigm *some-thing* must have an opposite called *no-thing.*
In other words the empty space where it would be possible for a *thing* to be ( if such a space-filling thing existed) is reified with the name *nothing.* To the human understanding all material objects are positioned in space or time. But neither space nor time are concrete things. If such human imaginings did exist , there would be an infinite regress. Space would have to be contained in another higher space. Time would be dated within another time. The realm of objects becoming other
(updated) versions of themselves has no place for the unsophisticated [naive] concept of *Being, * for no object can ever *be* but rather only *become* (in human terms) a newer version of its older self.
The concept of *Being* and *Nothing* has corrupted philosophy, and where corruption is found in philosophy there is usually an oaf called Plato behind it. The word *nothing* has wormed its way into human communication causing ontological havoc. *There is *nothing* in the fridge* suggests that a heteronic version of some [food] can be said to be in the empty fridge. *I have *nothing* to say,* suggests the person is in possession of something called *nothing* which they are either unwilling or unable to divulge. Heidegger, whose naivity never ceases to astonish me even said *nothing nothings*[or words to that effect] childishly comparing and trying to pass off as
*philosophical* a parlour-game play-on-words which compares *nothing nothings* to genuine noun-verb combinatorial statements, such as *flowers flower* or *pins pin,* cutters cut* *cooks cook* etc.
