New religion of Nothingness

[wise47]

Above the being of the Father resides the highest and most heavenly non-existence of Nothingness. Nothingness is actually the supreme God, or rather the Mother-Goddess, and creates everything. The Gorgias theory can be recalled here, but this would be its new and more interesting version.
Why you sleep at night. Because darkness is inactivity, also passivity, femininity. Darkness and Nothingness is passive, which is why it can take the form as if of a woman. For us humans, Nothingness takes the form as if of a goddess, a woman-mother, but this image should not be taken too literally. In fact, the statement that Nothingness is a woman should be treated as a pictorial metaphor. Nothingness also means freedom and liberty. Mystery is darkness. Nothingness is darkness. Nothingness is the deepest mystery. The doctrine and religion I have presented may seem beautiful because Nothingness and Darkness are beautiful. I would propose creating a new religion of Nothingness and building temples and sanctuaries of Nothingness, about ultramodern architecture. The religion of Nothingness should be considered the most important of all, the temples and sanctuaries of Nothingness the most important. Nothingness is the supreme God, the Mother-Goddess.
The condensation theory of Nothingness assumes that everything is just a condensed form of Nothingness and Darkness. Nothingness and Darkness as the Mother of all gives birth to the cosmos from the seed of the primeval singularity. This singularity was created by God the Father. The Father himself probably emerged from Nothingness and Darkness. Perhaps Nothingness contains the firstfruits of space itself. And matter is woven from space.



digram. Nothingness is darkness. Symbol of new religion of Nothingness.

The analysis of supercosmic darkness leads to the conclusion that existence is light. This is the secret of stars and galaxies that they are light. Light is the opposite of darkness. The light considered is actually white, so we can also deal with the play of white and black. Light is also life, without light there is no life and, further, intelligence. Intelligence itself and consciousness can be described as light. Darkness is passivity and light is activity. So passive and active factors.
So we would be dealing with dualism, which, however, explains nothing. Monism is another thing. The basis of light is darkness, light is born, it is created from darkness. So what we end up with is all encompassing darkness. Let me refer to this concept as the doctrine of Darkness. Darkness provides the answer to the riddle of existence. Being is light. Darkness gives birth to the answer to the riddle of everything, just as it gives birth to everything.

(the above text is from year 2024)

People interested in creating and organizing a new religion of Nothingness, please contact me at the following e-mail address: podgorniakgre@gmail.com

about the author, My name is Gregory Podgorniak (brn. 01.1977, Szczecinek, West Pomerania, Poland). I am working on field of natural as
well as social sciences. During philosophical studies at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan (1996-1999) I was actively act in student scientific organisation, got a scientific scholarship, and one from my articles titled Circulus vitiosus and fourfold petitio principii in the system of Descartes was published in Humanistic Drafts of Publishing House of Humaniora Foundation in Poznan, no. 6, 1998. Unfortunately certain fate events made impossible to me continuing studies to master's and later doctor's degree. Thence I was forced to be content only with a title of bachelor.
Thanks to deep and penetrating researchings I was able to establish indisputably some number of my past incarnations reaching of ancient period, these data are certain, these incarnations are: Auguste Comte (1798-1857) French philosopher and sociologist, Edme Mariotte (1620-1684) French physicist and meteorologist, Bodhidharma (5th or 6th century) buddhist patriarch, Aenesidemus (1 st century BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Arcesilaus (315-241 BC) Greek sceptical philosopher, Gorgias (485-380 BC) Greek sophist.

[spot]

Would it be helpful to suggest your presentation is dogmatic rather than open enquiry? You state a position as fact rather then describe observations from which a synthesis can be attempted.

If you could highlight an enquiring passage in which you're interested in developing understanding rather than dictating your solution we could discuss that as an enquiry.

[wise47]

If you could highlight an enquiring passage in which you're interested in developing understanding rather than dictating your solution we could discuss that as an enquiry.

Are you referring to the excerpt from the first post ?

[spot]

If you could highlight an enquiring passage in which you're interested in developing understanding rather than dictating your solution we could discuss that as an enquiry.

Are you referring to the excerpt from the first post ?

Absolutely. It's the only excerpt I have access to. It's the excerpt I commented on.

If you want comment on your solution rather than discussion toward shared consensus, I can do comment for the time being. But my initial request, which you deflected, remains valid: "If you could highlight an enquiring passage in which you're interested in developing understanding rather than dictating your solution we could discuss that as an enquiry".

So, as a secondary issue, comment:

To associate darkness and nothingness with femininity, passivity, and motherhood, while presenting light to represent masculinity and activity, is categorically misogynist. I'd regard that as inevitable since it uses gender words and performative attributes.

To condense anything out of nothingness is to refute every dictionary meaning of nothing or nothingness that I have encountered. If you could show a recognised and at least potentially authoritative definition of nothing or nothingness which includes such a possibility we could at least bridge this definitional barrier. Or do words exist as raw material where destroying their meaning becomes a creative act? I can see no other reason for obliterating common ground unless your position has century-old roots in Dada. Which, if it does, is perhaps laudable, but does wreck any exploration of your subject matter.

In presenting blackness as the symbol of your new religion of Nothingness you're planting your presentation in monotheist territory. You present good and evil, black and white, this and that, your reality is division. It's extremely Islamic. If any roots of Christianity still exist as dogma then it's extremely Christian too but I suspect Christian dogma is a historical dead theory these days, while Islam has never had any populist alternative. I'd suggest reality demands an inclusive view, not a theoretical position which cannot be observed. Anyone, after all, can invent anything if it has no observable attributes.

"Nothingness is a woman should be treated as a pictorial metaphor" + "Nothingness is darkness" as representational iconography? This is Andrew Tate territory. This isn't religion, it's hate-crime. What residue of meaning remains in your assertion of feminine and masculine that can possibly have a socially acceptable outcome? Or are you going to assert female and male are not attributes of people, just of foundational deities?

On the other hand, if you could highlight any enquiring passage from your first post in which you're interested in developing understanding rather than dictating your solution we could discuss that as an enquiry.

[wise47]

I propose this passage:

The condensation theory of Nothingness assumes that everything is just a condensed form of Nothingness and Darkness.

If the foundation is Nothingness, and there is also Being, then it must be a form of Nothingness. It seems the only possibility here is condensation.

[spot]

I propose this passage:

The condensation theory of Nothingness assumes that everything is just a condensed form of Nothingness and Darkness.

If the foundation is Nothingness, and there is also Being, then it must be a form of Nothingness. It seems the only possibility here is condensation.

If you could highlight an enquiring passage in which you're interested in developing understanding rather than dictating your solution we could discuss that as an enquiry.

You're very much a write-only poster.

Your statement, if meaningful or applicable to reality, demonstrates the foundation cannot be Nothingness. Which I would sympathise with if we're talking about the universe in which we live.