It seems logical. The Notion of "Everything" is 1st person in the sense
that one, any one, can find itself within it. Nothing, on the other hand,
only makes sense as seen from some external vantage point, hence it is 3rd
person. This is probably naive, but it makes the whole structure "hang
together". For example, the idea of conservation, ala "you can't get
something from nothing", is a truism for the simple reason that it is not
consistent to have some concept that is definite, a "something", to be
dependent on a Nothing. The notion of something requires an "other" against
which it is distinguished; there is no "other" in Nothingness.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: contention: theories are incompatible
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:00:04PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi James and Russell,
Could a middle ground be found in the notion that "something" is a
differentiated piece of Nothing, where Everything (1st person notion) and
Nothing (3rd person notion) are one and the same?
Intriguing. Why do you say Everything is 1st person and Nothing is 3rd
Violations of the notion
of conservation only seem to obtain when we conflate the 1st and 3rd
This seems likely.