Understanding Our Nothingness

[William777]

Hello World:

I have been thinking about the following quote from the CCC:

327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God “from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.”187 (296)

Note that the above quote addresses creationism. It fascinates me that something (the world) can be made out of nothing.

And, yet, I was also thinking about how many of the Saints have contemplated their own nothingness. I am not an expert in the Saintly interpretations of nothingness, but (in general) it’s interesting to wonder whether there could be a connection between the nothingness of creationism and human nothingness.

It seems like when the Saints refer to their own nothingness they are referring to letting go of their identity. God is everything to them, and they are nothing.

But the fact that the world was created out of nothing is equally interesting. Perhaps there is a connection between letting go of one’s identity and a creative act? I realize the two stories of creation in Genesis refers to everything in the universe being created at once, whereas I am speaking of human creativity, but I still wonder if there may be a connection.

Anyone?

 

[Phaedra777]

It seems to me that when the saints contemplate their own nothingness, they are acknowledging that, of themselves, they are nothing. Everything is due to God.

Even in human “creativity”, humans start with something created (from nothing) by God.

 

[Waiting]

I think when we stand in the presence of God, our nothingness will be strikingly apparent, and yet we are everything to God – we are his children!

 

[paduard]

It seems to me it is difficult to comprehend what nothing is; for in such contemplation one is contemplating something?

 

[William777]

It seems to me that when the saints contemplate their own nothingness, they are acknowledging that, of themselves, they are nothing. Everything is due to God.

Even in human “creativity”, humans start with something created (from nothing) by God.

Well… what if one’s ego got “stuck” on and attached to an idea… Then one couldn’t get to the next step, unless one let go of that idea… unless one sacrificed onesself in the first place to get to a new onesself in the second…

In so far as the pertain to truth, all these ideas are really God’s ideas, as he created the basic realities underlying all things… so we have to let go and sacrifice the first idea to kind of open ourselves up to accept the second idea… kind of like if your stomach was full - you’d have to wait awhile before you could eat more… well, if your soul is “full” of ego, then you have to get rid of that ego… i.e. sacrifice your ego, clear your mind and become nothing… in order to open one’s spirit up to receiving new things from God…

I guess that’s like what I am thinking…

The question seems to be how this could be a creative act in human terms?

 

[Michael19682]

Thanks for the question. I find it a pleasure to answer you. I work significantly as a creative artist and I see what you are trying to get at with your connection between human creativity and letting go or identifying with your nothingness. If we consider that journaling, or artistic study of any kind, is an attempt to “get at the root” of things, to discover their’s or the subject’s true nature – than it all makes sense. If as you say and as the scriptures attest God made the world from a barren void of nothing, then that very nothing is the root of our material nature; at least as humans would describe the process in linear terms,i.e. beginning middle and end.
However true it may be that we are motivated to discover truth in artistic study, by the same token it should be remembered that the very materials we use to create are gifts of God, himself. There is a kind of mathematical recursion in this act of creation, a functional person calling on his God given materials, themselves a function of his functional creator. Where the recursion or re-calling ends is anyones guess, and the attentive detail paid to an interweaving of themes be they color, line, or verse, usually distinguishes the masters from the dilletantes who work, or pant like tired dogs, alon-e. To stop the process, which many artists acknoweldge is a disease of sorts, is to say that the final product is “Good enough”. But the inquiry, for the true artist, never ends in this life unless age or disability interferes.
Our rootedness in nothing is ironically what many artists say of their finished product. They enjoyed making it, but can’t believe it is theirs! I sometimes read my own longer fiction and poetry and simply stand in disbelief that that plot ot those stanzas came from moi. Seriously, it is a lot like what psychologists call depersonalization or whatever. If the work is good, it belongs to God and all of man – since the most skilled and worthwhile art is about men (and) women. For the creator of art, his discovery of the nothingness or void is both what impels him to create again and again, and what is for him mystifying – the nothingness that is not God’s nothingness – for God is fullness – but a nothingness of art, which is a nothingness that he has discovered, that is his in a very real sense. Again, good art cannot be full, because the gospel has already given us all we need of truth for our study. Unfortunately, we are all sick to a one degree or another. Creating and finding our personal nothingness makes us feel like a god, but let’s face it, moth and decay will eventually destroy it all.
Lastly, I would keep in mind for further thought that the something we are is not necessarily “derived” from the nothingness out of which God created. For me, the phrase “out of nothing” could simply mean that he cast his creation “into the void”. I don’t know that it means any kind of transcendant reconfiguration. After all, we are Catholics here and we believe in transubstantiation. This is a mystery. It cannot be spoken or understood fully except by reception of the sacrament. The initial creation of the universe is a good analogy, but creating art is by extended analogy ‘prayer’ at best. In fact, some artists expose themselves to profanity and obscenity in their work, thus diminishing its value as art. iow’s, some art is sin – true creation had no such possibility qua its basic virtue, (see freewill threads).

 

[William777]

There is a kind of mathematical recursion in this act of creation, a functional person calling on his God given materials, themselves a function of his functional creator…

It’s interesting you refer to recursion.

I’ve been studying Theresian Lectio Divina lately, as well as the CCC’s more general thoughts on the meditative vs contemplative aspects of prayer; meditation preceding contemplation; and the primary distinction between meditation and contemplation being that the meditative phases (which lead to contemplation) are dis-cursive, not re-cursive.

I’m not disagreeing with your assertions. It’s just interesting to note the root of dis-cursion and re-cursion are the same.

There are different shades of meaning of the two words throughout history. The general difference seems to be discursion is a sort of wandering, whereas recursion (as you suggest) is a more precise and directed return. I’ve consulted with different people about the meaning of discursion, and, as it is within metanoia/repentence to continually “return to God”, so they say the discursive phases of meditation are supposed to “point back” to God. My only contention to their responses is that - if the discursion is just a “wandering”, then it would seem recursion is a better word than discursion. However, discursive meditation may involve more a “cleansing”, so a wandering might be appropriate, as if to let one’s mind loose the dirt of everyday worldly matters. Discursion in this sense would then not be a directed return to God, so much as a general letting go, which might predispose one to being receptive to God.

Anyway, I’m not sure I understand everything you are proposing, but I’ll return to the tread to offer it further consideration.

Ty.

wm

 

[Michael19682]

Depending on the actual path in space a recursion takes, I would venture to guess that it might LOOK like a discursion on its suface. Take a maze traversal, as one example. A recursive pattern that doesn’t “know” its end point per se. E.g. We know we are going to heaven, just the details of life that are a mystery from the onset.

 

[JDaniel]

Hello World:

I have been thinking about the following quote from the CCC:

327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God “from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.”187 (296)

Note that the above quote addresses creationism. It fascinates me that something (the world) can be made out of nothing.

And, yet, I was also thinking about how many of the Saints have contemplated their own nothingness. I am not an expert in the Saintly interpretations of nothingness, but (in general) it’s interesting to wonder whether there could be a connection between the nothingness of creationism and human nothingness.

It seems like when the Saints refer to their own nothingness they are referring to letting go of their identity. God is everything to them, and they are nothing.

But the fact that the world was created out of nothing is equally interesting. Perhaps there is a connection between letting go of one’s identity and a creative act? I realize the two stories of creation in Genesis refers to everything in the universe being created at once, whereas I am speaking of human creativity, but I still wonder if there may be a connection.

Anyone?

William:

A long time ago, the void, i.e., the vacuum of space was considered ‘nothing’. Except of course within or in the proximity of a star, planets, a comet, or a meteor. At that point, we were coming up against ‘something’. Where stars, planets, comets, and meteors existed - and perhaps immediately surrounding them - was ‘something’. But, just a short way away from that mass, was again supposedly the vacuum of nothingness.

Since then, physics is pretty sure that space is more or less a “soup.” There is no place in space where something doesn’t exist. In what we once considered a vacuum, are photons, quantum particles, gases, “dusts,” and whatever else might find itself floating around unfettered by other things, including gravity. Ontologically, there is no absolute nothing. But, is this true of that place within the electron shell, or between the particles of the nucleus? Is that something, or, is it nothing?

Let’s consider the atom. It consists of a nucleus and one, or more, electrons somewhere out there in a “shell,” where it can resonate. Now, within its nucleus are protons and neutrons. These particles, typically fermions and bosons, are separated by some sort of distension that consists of nothing. In fact, the average electron shell - which consists of only one electron, as in the case of hydrogen - is typically 50,000 times larger than the entire nucleus. Now, what else is in that shell with that single electron - except perhaps a photon or two. Seal that atom in a two inch thick lead box, and there aren’t any photons either. Nothing that amounts to “mass.”

Now, Is that “nothing,” or is that God?

God bless,
jd

 

[Michael_Mayo]

So much of what we think we are, are really just movements within us (thoughts, feelings, sensations, memories, etc), even the Ego. At some point God calls us to pass over it into the Holy Darkness.

The* Mystical Theology *of Pseudo-Dionisius, *Journey of the Mind Into God * of St Bonaventure and of course the works of St John of the Cross deal with this apophatic journey.

That “emptiness” is really our mysterious connection to God. From it comes all creativity.

 

[Michael19682]

It’s interesting you refer to recursion.

I’ve been studying Theresian Lectio Divina lately, as well as the CCC’s more general thoughts on the meditative vs contemplative aspects of prayer; meditation preceding contemplation; and the primary distinction between meditation and contemplation being that the meditative phases (which lead to contemplation) are dis-cursive, not re-cursive.

I’m not disagreeing with your assertions. It’s just interesting to note the root of dis-cursion and re-cursion are the same.

There are different shades of meaning of the two words throughout history. The general difference seems to be discursion is a sort of wandering, whereas recursion (as you suggest) is a more precise and directed return. I’ve consulted with different people about the meaning of discursion, and, as it is within metanoia/repentence to continually “return to God”, so they say the discursive phases of meditation are supposed to “point back” to God. My only contention to their responses is that - if the discursion is just a “wandering”, then it would seem recursion is a better word than discursion. However, discursive meditation may involve more a “cleansing”, so a wandering might be appropriate, as if to let one’s mind loose the dirt of everyday worldly matters. Discursion in this sense would then not be a directed return to God, so much as a general letting go, which might predispose one to being receptive to God.

Anyway, I’m not sure I understand everything you are proposing, but I’ll return to the tread to offer it further consideration.

Ty.

wm

Thanks again William. I wanted to return to the part of your answer that involves meditation, because that is something I have done quite a bit of in my past. I only have to say that patterns recur in meditation for me as you suggest they do in general. Take a pattern like a-b-a-b-b-c. Because ‘c’ is the newest of the terms it often seems like the thought or image ‘c’ is what we might call the center point, or where we have in your description been ‘led back to God’. I have found that the longer I sat down to meditate, the more I find that ‘c’ is itself what might be called ‘fractionated’. In other words, what appears to be God is provisional. Until we start asking, “What is this god” I have found in meditation. I or anyone can look deeper into its meaning. Then the discursive part begins again. But that gateway into the Godly discursion that begins anew, is at the thought ‘c’. In that way a symbol is created for ourselves. Fortunately as Catholics we have a range of symbols that tradition has provided. The beauty of God is his unity in three. When we focus on any of his persons, the other two are present to capture our wandering mind like a net. The story of his Son can be thought of in meditation as something which leads…to Him.

I like this verse, which he said, I hope, to remind me that it his force of spirit which not only is the substance of the meditation, but its animation as well:

John 14:26 The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that * told you.

so sorry if this response is discursive, William.*