Oh my...

I just read up on the basics of Kyoto School, and in particular "Absolute Nothingness", and I cannot thank you enough as this is the most relevant info I think I've ever gotten.

Some highlights:

"The topos of absolute nothingness is the ultimate “within which” all reality takes place."

"Absolute nothingness is infinitely determinable and its determinates form the actual world, but this “self-determination” occurs “without anything that does the determining,” like an agency without an agent."

"It cannot be called “absolute” unless it negates any particular determination of it and simultaneously enfolds them all. It is the universal of universals."

The way I read it is that absolute nothingness is everything and nothing. It exists without needing a creator to create it and is self-sufficient.

Thanks once again!

First time I'm hearing of it and from what you've explained I agree with it fully.

The prominence and influence of religion in Eastern cultures is much higher than that in the West, and I think it would be very beneficial to be raised in a society where spirituality might peak a greater curiosity in the unknown.

Thanks for the info, it's very much appreciated.

@apokrisis

"So the question is not "what is nothingness?". It is what does our attempt to conceive of nothingness then direct our attention towards. What is its "other" that we might have been missing."

'Nothing' is defined. It is not my intention to try and redefine the concept. I am trying to understand the implications of the definition. I didn't start this discussion solely because I believe it to be interesting.

There's no point on elaborating until the fundamentals are established.

@gurugeorge I'm really glad someone understands what I'm trying to convey.

"nothing is the possibility of something."

That's exactly it. That is the most efficient way to explain it. I wanted to have this statement critiqued but I thought it was too vague to extend to specific deductions that I've made if this statement were true.

I agree with you fully about the paradoxical nature of the concept. For most people, it's unfortunately a non-starter. I see it as an unexplored realm and believe that the idea can be reasonably discussed given certain restrictions are put on the statements. I think that in order for metaphysical arguments to be universally true, or at least hold some sort of merit, all indivisible constituents of the statement must also be true. So let's get down to the nitty gritty.

"But is that possibility not a something?"

What is something? Does it require an observer to exist? For example, would you say pi exists? Why or why not?