The question is, what do you mean when you say "the concept of non-existence" and the concept's "coming into being". What you mean may be very different than what someone else might mean. — Fooloso4

well, Non-Existence in the absolute sense of the word is non-existent, meaning that in the absolute sense of the word there is only Existence, but alas, in the relative sense of the word, there is the concept of non-existence, and it comes prepackaged with everything that comes into existence; so the question must be answered as to how the concept of non-existence comes to be when Non-Existence is not?

I assume you miss the irony. First, if you do not repeat the ideas of others then what your idea of the concept of non-existence coming into being is remains undetermined without further explanation. Second, if you are the mystic you fancy yourself to be then you would not be bound by the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. — Fooloso4

what I’m saying is that everybody thinks about beings but never about being itself, when wisdom is predicted on the knowledge of being itself.

the law of Identity and law of contradiction are eternal, and its impossible for this not to be so. If they weren’t concepts which pointed to essence, the essence of existence itself, the Essence of Existence could become Non-Existence from one moment to the next in time and here could be no continuation of existence in the relative sense. So Existence, the Essence of, must be equal to itself in each moment of time so long as it exists, and it exists eternally so the law of identity and contradiction are eternal.

Non-Existence in the absolute sense of the word is non-existent, meaning that in the absolute sense of the word there is only Existence ... — TheGreatArcanum

This has been discussed at least since the work of Parmenides. Strictly speaking there is only what is (to eon). Existence is not something that is, what is exists.

... in the relative sense of the word, there is the concept of non-existence, and it comes prepackaged with everything that comes into existence — TheGreatArcanum

Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. There is no one concept that comes along with each and every thing that exists. There may be various concepts regarding some one thing and various concepts regarding all things.

... so the question must be answered as to how the concept of non-existence comes to be when Non-Existence is not? — TheGreatArcanum

Concepts are human artifacts. When something dies and decomposes it no longer exists. When someone eats the last cookie the cookies no longer exist. You may have a concept of it existing elsewhere, but that "relative" concept of non-existence does not come "prepackaged" with everything that ceases to exist.

Once again, existence is not something that exists, as if in addition to all the things there are there is also this one other thing, existence. Non-Existence is not something that is not. What is not does not exist. But, as Plato points out, it can be said of what is that it is what it is and not some other thing.

what I’m saying is that everybody thinks about beings but never about being itself — TheGreatArcanum

Here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't know who "everybody" is, but those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself, and he is not alone.

when wisdom is predicted on the knowledge of being itself. — TheGreatArcanum

Do you mean predicated? Is knowledge of being itself the same or other than knowledge of the whole? Do you imagine that you are wise? That you possess the great arcanum of what is?

the law of Identity and law of contradiction are eternal, and its impossible for this not to be so. If they weren’t concepts which pointed to essence, the essence of existence itself, the Essence of Existence could become Non-Existence from one moment to the next in time and here could be no continuation of existence in the relative sense. — TheGreatArcanum

There can be no identity without difference. Are 'a' and 'b' identical? Is 'a is a' identical to 'a is b' or different? If 'a' is identical to 'b' then how can there be both 'a' and 'b'?

The term essence (essentia) was a Latin invention used to translate Aristotle's Greek ousiai. Aristotle's "first philosophy" is the study of "being qua being". It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance or essentia is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. The concepts of law of Identity and law of contradiction do not point to the essence of existence itself. They are principles of thought not of being. The "Essence of Existence" cannot become "Non-Existence" simply because what it is to be cannot be to not be.

This has been discussed at least since the work of Parmenides. Strictly speaking there is only what is (to eon). Existence is not something that is, existence is not something that is, what is exists. — Fooloso4

and ‘what is’ includes that which is perceptible, they which is potentially perceptible, and that which is not potentially perceptible. that is, the changing and actualized aspect of existence which I call the ‘Active Principle of Being’ and the unchanging aspect of existence which I call the ‘Passive Principle of Being’ Existence is something that is in the sense that it is born a verb and a noun because it has a changing aspect an unchanging aspect. My philosophy is a merging of Parmenides who says that therefore the subject “Existence” isn’t deserving of a predicate and a verb “is” because nothing changes in the absolute sense of the word; and Heraclitus who says that everything changes and nothing is unchanging. Both are true. It’s Essence never changes and will never change and its Quality is always changes.

Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. — Fooloso4

this is an assumption.

Concepts are human artifacts. — Fooloso4

another assumption even more wild than the first.

When something dies and decomposes it no longer exists. — Fooloso4

it returns to the potential for existence to be which is not nothing. so what is it?

When someone eats the last cookie the cookies no longer exist. — Fooloso4

if you’re going to define ‘existence’ as that which is in space and actualized, then of course, the cookie no longer exists. but the cookies Identity, that is, that internal changes which perpetuates it’s existence, live on after it dies, just the same as humans.

You may have a concept of it existing elsewhere, but that "relative" concept of non-existence does not come "prepackaged" with everything that ceases to exist. — Fooloso4

here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of logic and philosophy.

Once again, existence is not something that exists, as if in addition to all the things there are there is also this one other thing, existence. Non-Existence is not something that is not. What is not does not exist. But, as Plato points out, it can be said of what is that it is what it is and not some other thing. — Fooloso4

everything that exists can be represented by a set. so in all things, that is, all nested hierarchies of sets, are contained within a set which contains itself and does not simultaneously, the set of all sets must exists because all things have a contingent existence on something beyond it which also contains and precedes it; that is to say that the set of all sets exists so it must have an essence. no man hitherto (besides me) has been able to solve the nature of the essence of the set of all sets. Most philosophers, like the ones you hold up high on a pedestal, a pedestal supported by hardened feces, don’t even think that there is a set which contains all sets of contingent things. it’s no wonder than that your knowledge of existence is so limited and naive. What I mean by “Non-Existence” is that which has no essence whatsoever. What I’m saying is that which has no essence cannot contain that which does; so there must be a set of all sets.

Here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy. I don't know who "everybody" is, but those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself, and he is alone. — Fooloso4

here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy once again, because this is a quote from Heidegger . However, Heidegger himself talks almost exclusively about being in the world and not being itself in the absolute sense of the word. he doesn’t make positive claims about being itself if he even mentions it. I do, and I have strong arguments.

Do you mean predicated? Is knowledge of being itself the same or other than knowledge of the whole? Do you imagine that you are wise? That you possess the great arcanum of what is? — Fooloso4

it is knowledge of the whole, yes, of the essence of the set of all sets. that which contains, preserves, and disintegrates all things. I imagine that I will be considered the greatest philosopher of all time afterI die. I know you think that this is laughable, but you really you know nothing of my writings or what I experience within myself, so the joke is on you.

There can be no identity without difference. Are 'a' and 'b' identical? Is 'a is a' identical to 'a is b' or different? If 'a' is identical to 'b' then how can there be both 'a' and 'b'? — Fooloso4

right, hence the reason that which exists persists, and thereby has a different moment of time so long as it exists. a and b are identical if a contains b and b contains a; if a and b are mutually exclusive, or if one contains the other but the other not the one, they are not identical and one is contingent upon the other. a is a is not identical to a is b unless b and a have the same essence, or rather identity, where identity = quality (subset) essence. if a is identical to b, there can only be a=b, obviously. but since Identity has two aspects, there can be difference. this is basic stuff. stuff which hasn’t really been figured out because no one has created principles of epistemology and ontology, or if they have philosophers don’t use them for some reason.

The term essence (essentia) was a Latin invention used to translate Aristotle's Greek ousiai. Aristotle's "first philosophy" is the study of "being qua being". It seeks to know the causes and principles of being, that is, of substance (ousiai). Substance or essentia is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. The concepts of law of Identity and law of contradiction do not point to the essence of existence itself. They are principles of thought not of being. The "Essence of Existence" cannot become "Non-Existence" simply because what it is to be cannot be to not be. — Fooloso4

I don’t care what Aristotle says of them, my conception of what they are, and what being is not the same as his; nor does it have to be. He thought of the concepts, I’m assigning them difference essences than he did. The Essence of Existence cannot become Non-Existence because what it is to be cannot be not to be, I.e. E=E≠¬E; meaning that the essence of Existence is identical to what I call “Absolute Objectivity” that is, the unchanging aspect of Existence, that is, the Absolute Law of Identity and Non-Contradiciton.

these processes are controlling the body; if it is not true that the will can set the brain in motion, all of your wills and the words and actions that result from them happen by necessity or by chance and not by your own volition. and if there is an observer, that observer is just watching the will and the effects which follow from it as a passive observer and not an active agent. and when the brain ‘makes you stop thinking,’ you have no say in the manner, because you don’t have a will if it cannot start or stop brain processes. you are not the active agent of your thoughts by the passive watcher of them. this can be disproven in a few seconds through some phenomenological observation. it’s one of the most absurd positions ever held, and even more absurd that it’s considered to be rational by educated people. — TheGreatArcanum

It's not necessary that the will "set the brain in motion", all it needs to do is affect, or change the motions which are already there.

It's not necessary that the will "set the brain in motion", all it needs to do is affect, or change the motions which are already there. — Metaphysician Undercover

in which case there is still freedom.

but few here have the ability to think for themselves, only to repeat the ideas of others. — TheGreatArcanum

And yet:

My philosophy is a merging of Parmenides ... and Heraclitus — TheGreatArcanum

Parmenides who says that therefore the subject “Existence” isn’t deserving of a predicate — TheGreatArcanum

Where does he say this? What does "deserving" mean here? If you say that there is an "unchanging aspect of existence" that is a predicate of existence. Perhaps you meant that existence is not a predicate.

In any case you ignore the point: existence is not something that exists.

Concepts do not come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence.
— Fooloso4

this is an assumption. — TheGreatArcanum

As is your claim that concepts do come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence.

Concepts are human artifacts.
— Fooloso4

another assumption even more wild than the first. — TheGreatArcanum

There is nothing wild about it. It is only when one accepts some version of the assumption that thought and being are the same that concepts are reified.

it returns to the potential for existence to be which is not nothing. so what is it? — TheGreatArcanum

Do you imagine that there is a realm of potential to which things return? If "it" has the potential to exist it does not exist in actuality. Do you think the cookie still exists that has been eaten? Whatever transformation the cookie undergoes "it" no longer exists.

if you’re going to define ‘existence’ as that which is in space and actualized, then of course, the cookie no longer exists. — TheGreatArcanum

Existence and what exists are not the same.

but the cookies Identity, that is, that internal changes which perpetuates it’s existence, live on after it dies, just the same as humans. — TheGreatArcanum

The internal changes do not "perpetuate" it's existence. Whatever changes it undergoes it is no longer a cookie. The cookie is not identical to what it becomes. If you think otherwise I wonder what you are eating.

What I mean by “Non-Existence” is that which has no essence whatsoever. — TheGreatArcanum

Here you violate Parmenides warning against speaking about what is not. When you say "that which" you are identifying something. Non-existence is not a that with no essence. "That" refers to something.

here you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of philosophy once again, because this is a quote from Heidegger . — TheGreatArcanum

I have not quoted Heidegger. "... those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself" is not a quote from Heidegger.

However, Heidegger himself talks almost exclusively about being in the world and not being itself in the absolute sense of the word. — TheGreatArcanum

This is simply not true. Heidegger distinguishes between being and beings. That is fundamental to his philosophy. Being in the world is Dasien's mode of being.

I imagine that I will be considered the greatest philosopher of all time after I die. — TheGreatArcanum

This gives new meaning to Plato's claim that philosophy is divine madness!

I know you think that this is laughable, but you really you know nothing of my writings or what I experience within myself, so the joke is on you. — TheGreatArcanum

I know of your writings what you have said here. I don't think it is laughable, I think it is delusional. That is no laughing matter!

Where does he say this? What does "deserving" mean here? If you say that there is an "unchanging aspect of existence" that is a predicate of existence. Perhaps you meant that existence is not a predicate. — Fooloso4

he doesn't have to say it, it is implied in the other things he says, if the all is one, there can be no distinction between subject and predicate, unless the subject and the predicate are one, which is what my philosophy entails.

n any case you ignore the point: existence is not something that exists. — Fooloso4

right, the word existence points to the essence of existence; the essence exists, the word is just a pointer to the essence.

As is your claim that concepts do come "prepackaged" with everything that comes into existence. — Fooloso4

my claim is self-evident; that you cannot have the existence of multiplicity without the prior distinction between the concepts of one and many; meaning that the concepts one and many, or likeness and distinction, to name a few, necessarily precede the existence of the universe. Also, the abstract laws of logic necessarily precede the existence of the things that they limit. fools often proclaim that the abstract laws of physics are constructions of the mind of man, and this is true, that the laws of physics created by man are not the true laws, but representations and estimates of the real laws; which are abstract concepts that limit and precede the existence of the objects that they limit; now, the laws themselves, cannot limit, they are the reason for the limitations of things, and in between them there lies intentionality.

There is nothing wild about it. It is only when one accepts some version of the assumption that thought and being are the same that concepts are reified. — Fooloso4

its very simple. being is awareness, thought is the object of awareness; the former is the essence of being, the latter is its quality.

Do you imagine that there is a realm of potential to which things return? If "it" has the potential to exist it does not exist in actuality. Do you think the cookie still exists that has been eaten? Whatever transformation the cookie undergoes "it" no longer exists. — Fooloso4

yes, actuality cannot return to nothing; nothing does not possess the potential to contain actuality. If "it" has the potential to exist, it does not exist in actuality in the present moment, but can exist in actuality in the future. after the cookie has been eaten, it is no longer actualized; however, since existence cannot forget, its essence doesn't return to non-existence, but to potentiality, that is, according to my philosophy an absolute memory.

The internal changes do not "perpetuate" it's existence. Whatever changes it undergoes it is no longer a cookie. The cookie is not identical to what it becomes. If you think otherwise I wonder what you are eating. — Fooloso4

the internal changes of things do not exist for themselves, but for something else; that something else can be nothing other than the quality of the object as it is perceived by the senses, and also, the function object as it relates to nature as a whole. the cookie always remains a cookie so long as it is actualized; and if there were not an aspect of the cookie which were unchanging, it could become a tree, or a cow, or a blade of grass from moment to moment in time. the cookie does not possess the potential to become anything other than a cookie, or become non-existent in the relative sense; maybe you're eating cows and trees? I'm only eating cookies, and if i set the cookie in a jar for 100 years, and them come back to eat it, lo and behold, it's still a fucking cookie; how is this concept so hard to understand for you? that the essence of a thing remains unchanged so long as it exists. one can grab the cookie and toss it like a throwing star and use it as a weapon; but still does not change its original, universal essence, only its essence relative to myself.

Here you violate Parmenides warning against speaking about what is not. When you say "that which" you are identifying something. Non-existence is not a that with no essence. "That" refers to something. — Fooloso4

well, if that which exists necessarily has an essence, that which does not exist cannot have an essence; I only need to know the essence of existence to know the essence of non-existence; so I'm not speaking of nothing; only of the law of non-contradiction which applies to nothingness, for if there is nothingness, then nothingness is not something. it cannot be spoken of in correct terms using language, and this is because it doesn't have an essence.

I have not quoted Heidegger. "... those who have read Heidegger know that he talks a great deal about being itself" is not a quote from Heidegger. — Fooloso4

I've read enough of his work to know that he thinks something comes from nothing, and that's all one needs to know to know that his philosophy isn't worth much. He also denies the existence of Husserl's Transcendental Ego, so I'm not with him on that either. I see him as a philosophical propagandist more than anything.

This is simply not true. Heidegger distinguishes between being and beings. That is fundamental to his philosophy. Being in the world is Dasien's mode of being. — Fooloso4

he distinguishes, but concentrates only on being and not being itself. he doesn't establish the essence of being itself and then use that essence to interpret the essence of being in the world, as he should. this is my method. the correct method. otherwise we're trying to give meaning to beings in the world without knowing the context in which they exist, and the essence of that context then could change our knowledge of those objects once discovered; so knowledge without knowledge of the whole isn't really knowledge but speculation.

This gives new meaning to Plato's claim that philosophy is divine madness! — Fooloso4

yes, we know each other personally. You wouldn't understand, because you are not yet mad, and judging by your conception of what is and what is not true, you'll be stuck here for a long, long time.

I know of your writings what you have said here. I don't think it is laughable, I think it is delusional. That is no laughing matter! — Fooloso4

well, considering the fact that you just got owned in debate by a man who's studied philosophy for two years, you don't know much!

To borrow a phrase from Nietzsche, if I were to attempt continue trying to have a reasonable argument with you would be to be unreasonably reasonable.

People should stop taking The Great Arcanum seriously. I’ve never heard such gobbledygook in all my life. I will say that his approach is very effective at driving people away from theism and that is not a bad thing. There is no place in philosophy for calling people “fools” and “propagandists”. When he said that about Wittgenstein I knew he was a nut.