That is kind of you, Alexander, to mention me in this article. I am honored.
Let me show what is going on by dividing the human reality in which we live into two parts:
- The natural state
- The artificial state
Words belong to the artificial state, and so much more belongs to the artificial state. Yet there is a gray area because there are words pointing to something real (tree, car, person), and there are words that are artificial in essence (everything, nothing).
Everything is an artificial word because it does not contain any details. To talk about details, we must abandon the all-inclusive word Everything and jump to the specific system in which the details are told. Everything is not a system. Contrast this with the blue sky on planet Earth, which is a detail, part of a larger system.
The best example I can think of to express this in a different manner is with 1 + 1 = 2 and how empty of a truth that is. Nothing real is mentioned here, except for the structure. It is not worth one second of our time to discuss 1 + 1 = 2 because there is nothing there. By itself, this is all inside the artificial state.
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. Now we are talking in words that connect to our natural state. The mathematical structure is still there, but this time it is part of the natural state and is no longer found in the artificial state.
--
Nothing and Everything are words of the largest concept. Both of them. Something really special and weird happens when we engage ourselves at this largest of levels: We are not making sense with these words, while there is no problem understanding what is said when someone uses these words. So, a bunch of examples to help wrap the mind around what is going on.
In ancient times, 1 and 0 were not considered real numbers.
The minute we walk into the largest level there is, something weird happens. Why? Because the universe in which we live became a material universe just once. It did not repeat.
Like a vase that broke, it cannot get broken once again (a piece can get broken again, but the vase was not re-instituted for that to happen).
That means that if we see an omelet, then there is no reason to have a discussion how that omelet can still be considered to be whole. Anyone with a brain would agree that the omelet is ALL the evidence we need that the egg broke. And any person who wants to make the egg whole somehow should be laughed at and their physics degree taken away.
We can talk about everything, yet it will not be something natural. For instance, Everything is conjugated as if it is singular, and that is of course very weird.
In short: the contents and foundation matter. If we do not distinguish between the artificial state and the natural state, then we can engage ourselves in endless conversations that do not make sense because nothing will ever be part of the artificial state and the natural state both at the same time, and then being the exact same either way.
--
Let's quickly investigate a few different systems.
The religious realm starts at the top, for instance, with the one-and-only God. Everything else falls in line (or folks expect that all will fall in line). That is a system, while we started from top position.
The scientific realm starts at the bottom, with evidence, observations and data. Only then, while standing on that gathered evidence do we make the next step up, sometimes even a jump. Yet we should always land on the scientific grounds. That is a system, and notice how we do not hang off the top shelve in science.
Philosophers are found in between both systems, in their own system. They do not jump to the top (they can sometimes, as you show with your very good article) and they do not start with the bottom (they can and actually like to point to the bottom). Philosophers start with concepts.
And concepts hang mid-air. We can talk about the concepts in any which direction we like. Yet to have clarity, we must declare the foundation from which we speak. Is the concept religious in essence? Is the concept scientific in essence? Is the concept expressed with a natural state in mind, or with an artificial state in mind. We must declare the system or we said nothing worthwhile at all.
For instance, blue in the paint store is something different from blue on the couch with the shrink. The context makes the word true.
--
I'll finish this with the envelope and the postal person.
Write your name on an envelope, your address, city, country, planet Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe, and hand it to the postal person.
Pay close attention, because the postal person declares that 7 items provide directions, but the 8th item, the Universe, is not helpful in any way for delivering the letter.
The largest level human beings can conjure, for instance the Universe, will show us a non-functionality in essence.
Obviously, the word points to something we all know is real. That is not the issue. The issue is that we have reached the ultimate outcome of words. At the highest levels, a word will always be non-functional, simply because it points to the all-inclusive state.
The egg is the all-inclusive state, and no egg will become an omelet by itself. Ever. The whole is the whole is the whole, and not the parts.
So, the largest of levels that we conjure in the artificial state has no choice but to show its artificial nature. The word at the largest of levels is shown to be a word indeed and cannot be used to declare anything functional about the natural state. Rather, it is just artificial. We understand the word Universe, but in a way it is like 1 + 1 = 2, and the actual items gathered under this artificial umbrella are all words that belong to the natural state: stars, planets, galaxies, space, etc.
Systems must be set apart for the words inside the system to be truthful. No system mentioned at all (note that Universe is not a system)? Then there is no natural state.
Thanks again, Alexander, for mentioning me in your article. 50 claps for you from me : - )
