Nothing / Being: The notion of “NOTHING” is essentially a reference – obviously negative
– to something possible or existent, otherwise it would be meaningless and even inconceivable. Indeed, “NOTHING” indicates by definition the absence of something: it excludes one or many objects, or all objects, according to context; to speak of an intrinsic “NOTHINGness,” of a NOTHING in itself, without reference to the things which it excludes, would be a contradiction in terms. When a receptacle is filled and then emptied, there is a difference; now this difference is a reality, otherwise no one would ever complain about being robbed. If this “NOTHING” were in itself a “NOTHINGness” – if it had no “referential” character – there would be no difference between presence and absence, plenitude and vacuity, existence and inexistence; and every thief could argue that the “NOTHING” he produced in someone’s purse does not exist; the word “NOTHING” would be devoid of meaning just as the NOTHINGness is devoid of content. “Nothing,” envisaged in a concrete context, can in practice compete with “something”; while an intrinsic NOTHINGness cannot concretely be opposed to anything or be affected by anything in any way. And similarly space, if it were an absolute emptiness – if it did not in practice coincide with ether – could not comprise distance and separation, for a NOTHINGness added to another NOTHINGness – if this were conceivable without absurdity – could not produce a distance. A logically utilizable “NOTHING” has therefore NOTHING absolute about it; it is by definition relative to something, although in a negative manner. However, it comprises an aspect of absoluteness through the totality of the negation it represents: the difference between 1 and 2 is relative, but the difference between 1 and 0 can be termed absolute, with evident metaphysical reservations. A thing cannot exist half-way, either it exists or it does not exist; consequently, since there is something absolute about existence in relation to inexistence – this being the whole miracle of creation – there is likewise ipso facto something absolute about the negation or exclusion of something existent – not the negation “in itself,” but in relation to that which is negated or excluded; this is our well-known thesis of the “relatively absolute.”* The idea of “being” positively implies reality, and restrictively manifestation; we say “restrictively” because manifestation or existence represents a “less” or a limitation in relation to the Principle which is pure Being. In signifying reality, the idea of “being” evokes ipso facto the “good” and also the “more,” hence quality and quantity; but above all it evokes “presence.” As for the opposite idea of “NOTHINGness,” it implies first of all the “absence” of being, or impossibility, and more relatively the absence of determinate things; it also implies, by derivation and by analogy, the phenomenon of “less” and, in another respect, that of “evil.” But this idea can also be applied, quite paradoxically, to the transcendent or principial order: from the standpoint of the manifested world – hence from the standpoint of existence in the restricted sense of the term – all that transcends this world and consequently is free from existential limitations,^ is “NOTHINGness.” (* When one, two or three out of four candles are extinguished, the difference in luminosity is relative; but when the last one is extinguished, the difference is total, for it is that between light and darkness. ^ This is what allows negative expressions such as “the Void” (Shunya), “not this, not this” (neti neti), and other terms of the kind to be applied to pure Being, and a fortiori to Beyond-Being. All apophatic theology stems from this principle of terminology.) (GTUFS: HaveCenter, Universal Categories)