Unveiling Vacancies Void

7 Responses

1. John Baker
   26. February 2007 um 02:55

   The space of consciousness, init?

2. Glenn
   26. February 2007 um 05:10

   It depends on the vessel..

3. Glenn
   26. February 2007 um 20:57

   alternatively try
   http://www.myspace.com

4. Nils
   27. February 2007 um 05:02

   Physically, emptiness seems an invalid concept. A glass without lemonade is filled, with air. Space is not empty either. Nothingness, on the other hand , is a lot easier to comprehend and easier to work with: if there is nothing, it’s not part of the equation and therefore it has no influence.

   Metaphysically, I’d say that emptiness is filled with anticipation. Unlike nothingness, which isn’t there and never will be, emptiness is a concept for that which is about to hold something. John’s consciousness is a good suggestion, but I’d go for something like hope and desire myself. Maybe even urge.

   Eh?

5. Eve
   27. February 2007 um 22:04

   Well, that depends on how you look at the question. Here is how I choose to see it: Emptiness occupies all space that is filled with only empty lies… mentally constructed ideas about reality and the world….illusions…..beliefs about reality that are simply false and therefore empty….that is the space emptiness occupies. It occupies all of us that are not filled with the universal laws of nature and existence. Emptiness occupies materialism and hmmmm…. I can’t think of anything else right now.

6. Ron Russo
   28. February 2007 um 05:54

   Emptiness occupies the space of itself. The question is inherently unanswerable though since there is no ‘itself’. ‘Emptiness’ and ’space’ are not objects that have to deal with each other….(subject, object duality, etc.)
   Thanks, Travis for encouraging us think about it. What is your take on it?

7. Travis
   2. March 2007 um 14:12

   Thank you to everyone that replied with their perspective on the possibilities of this question’s meaning. Depending on how you interpreted the meaning of “space” and “emptiness,” obviously effected the outcome of your theory on it’s meaning. I don’t know what prompted me or inspired me to form this question one day, but ever since, it has intrigued me, and for that same reason I decided to post it, to invoke your mind and to cause you to think and explore, more so that, then to actually obtain the answer. However, I will post my own theory and perspective on what I feel this question implies.

   In order to understand the question, we must understand the meaning of “space,” “emptiness,” and “occupy.”

   I used “space” and “emptiness” in the question as synonymous terms. Both “emptiness” and “space” meaning emptiness, and emptiness being in it’s true form, being empty, no being, empty of even emptiness. “Occupy” meaning “to be present in.”

   So the question could be read as, “In what emptiness does emptiness occupy?” or perhaps, “Is emptiness present?” The catcher to the question is that “Occupy” implies that something is “present,” but “emptiness” implies a lack of presence. So we are sort of asking, “Is “not being present,” present?” However, there is nothing present to speak of as being present, at the same time the lack of presence seems to be eternal. Maybe it’s an oxymoron and/or a paradox. The lack of presence is always present, and at the same time it is not present.

   For me, it’s difficult to speak of emptiness because as soon as I do, I feel it is all to easy to lose emptiness’s value of “not being”, by speaking of it. I feel as if I may make emptiness present by simply speaking of it, but I know this wrong, for my thoughts do not take on form. If I think of an apple, and apple does not materialize in front of me. Therefore, the same must be true when I think or speak of emptiness. Emptiness does not become present by me simply thinking or speaking of it. It’s a mirage of sorts. Is it because my thoughts are on the same plane as emptiness?

   As you see, I do not have a definite answer to my own question, and it continues to ruse me.

Leave a Reply