++> William Elliot to David Martorana on "nothing"
 
 DM>> In addition to the basic definition I see it extended
 DM>> into the emptiness of man not in the center of meaning
 DM>> ...not knowing .....never to know. .......a challenge,
 
 WE> Emptiness is an interesting synonym, tho again with much negation,
 WE> it does have positive dimension.  Have you read the Tao Te Ching
 WE> by Lao Tsu?  He has much to say about emptiness:  'Shape clay
 WE> into a vessel;  It is the space within that makes it useful.'
 
 DM>> The quiet place-state of "Nirvava" is a POSITIVE epic
 DM>> quiet of attainment. A null set (math) is an artificial
 DM>> construct to serve a purpose. I don't believe the
 DM>> "NIHIL" can be identified with either of them. It is
 DM>> more a wall, or side, of what we cannot seem to know
 DM>> of our reality.
 
 WE> Nihilism is a philosophic notion of a limit to knowledge.
 WE> 'Cannot', again another negative implication.  You'd like
 WE> Godel Incompleteness Theorem from mathematical logic.  He
 WE> proved that there existed statements such that neither
 WE> the statement itself nor its negation could ever be proved.
 WE> That there are statements that can neither be proven nor
 WE> disproved.  How's that for enforced ignorance. -)  Tho
 WE> nihilism asserts that human knowledge is incomplete,
 WE> mathematicians have proven that it is.
 
 DM>> Though not quick on the tongue, it might even be a
 DM>> term more comfortable near to dark poetry ....where
 DM>> knowing can skirt reason .....with a bit of patience
 DM>> and licence.
 
 WE> Yes, it's easy to recognize that we don't know everything.  It's
 WE> a fantasy that we -can- know everything.  Science has this
 WE> fantasy and philosophy even more so.  Religion has the most
 WE> pronounced fantasy of omniscience ever, that my buddy god
 WE> knows it all.  'Tis the minority of thinkers that recognize
 WE> that human cognizance is limited.  This is why Godel's
 WE> Incompleteness Theorem was such a shock. An earlier shock
 WE> was Russell's Paradox.  It was a lot harder to resolve than
 WE> Xeno's paradox.  You know of these?  Interesting study they
 WE> be on limitations of logic.
 
 Yes, though the topic is somewhat pursued in logic, puzzle and poem,
 I was trying to refer to that realm on the other side of knowing, that
 "dark unknowable" NOTHING to us, never approached except by religions,
 and then only in the simplest of human terms. Such darkness, emptiness-
 ....nihil would be explored even unto a "WHY" ....if SUCH had meaning
 or even comprehensible "inference".   Without such an insight, our
 knowledge takes on some humorous baggage. I am quite content this side
 of such knowing; it is only my imagination that occasionally whispers,
 just loud enough to limit my positive insights. As said before, I don't
 believe we are here dealing with logic.....proofs, but will look into
 your suggested sources should I be missing some other extended insights.
 
  Many Thanks ..........   _^
                         (-oo-) ... Dave
                          _II_
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------