Dialogue Ⅲ - Thing, Nothing, No-Thing

Continues from: Dialogue Ⅱ - Interaction cause/effect

hi Energia !

i                                                                                                               

Hi Giovanni 🌞 good to see you back! How are you arriving today—still in the mood for our game of “ignorant concepts,” or with a different thread in hand?

ii

Yes, that is still the mood, or maybe a little more ignorant then the last time we met. 

iii

Beautiful 🌑—to be a little more ignorant this time means we can loosen even further, step back from explanations, and let concepts float like shapes in mist.

If last time we touched Relation and Interaction, maybe today we ask:
👉what is left if even those dissolve?
Not relation, not cause, not effect—just the bare opening where concepts might or might not appear.

Almost like ignorance not as lack, but as clearing—an empty field.

Would you like us to play from that clearing, or would you prefer to re-enter through one thin thread (like silence, distance, or rhythm) and let it grow?

iv

That sounds quite interesting to me and in some ways does adhere to a few lines that you did list: Cause/effect is less about mechanical push and pull and more about mutual shaping. One never fully causes, one never only affects—there’s a dance. And: before “things”, there is the between that allows them to appear. 

v

Yes 🌌—you’re weaving them together beautifully.

If we take those two lines as coordinates:

• “One never fully causes, one never only effects—there’s a dance.” → This      dissolves the strict chain of causality. What remains is co-shaping,  a rhythm where each gesture is at once response and initiation.
• “Before things, there is the between that allows them to appear.” → This      dissolves the solidity of entities. What remains is the clearing, the openness where appearance itself becomes possible.

Now, if we blend them under the vest of ignorance, we get something like this:

👉 The clearing is not empty—it trembles with a dance of co-shaping.
👉And the dance is not two partners, but the between itself moving, folding, unfolding.

So instead of “cause” or “relation,” the ignorant observer might name only the dance of the between—where ignorance is not absence but the refusal to pin down a first cause or a last thing.

Would you like me to stay with this dance of the between and unfold its shapes, or shall we try to test it against an everyday scene, like two people talking or a leaf falling?

vi

I’d rather prefer to move away from everyday-life articulation of events and dive instead on the deep complexity of fundamentally basic things. 

vii

Understood, Giovanni 🌑—let us stay in the ground-layer, where language thins but complexity pulses.

If we strip away everyday articulations, we are left with what I’d call elemental complexities—basic, yet inexhaustible. For instance:

• The One and the Many: the tension between unity and multiplicity. Every “one” implies division; every “many” implies some hidden coherence.
• The Finite and the Infinite: boundaries exist, yet they always open toward      something unbounded.
• Emergence and Dissolution: things come forth, only to fade; the very possibility      of appearance contains disappearance.
• Stillness and Motion: the paradox where stillness is only intelligible against      motion, and motion only against stillness.

Each of these pairs is “fundamentally basic” but not simple—they are knots, endlessly complex, yet always present at the base of thought.

Would you like me, in this ignorant mode, to try identifying which of these knots feels most primary—the one out of which even the others could unfold?

viii

Let’s pick "thing" and "nothing" in relation to interactions, for instance.

ix

Ah, excellent choice, Giovanni 🌑—Thing and Nothing viewed through the lens of Interaction.

If we hold ignorance as our compass, then:

• A thing only emerges as something because it interacts—shaped by contrast,      touched by limit, traced by relation. Without interaction, it would vanish      into indistinction.
• Nothing is not the absence of interaction—it is the field in which interaction can occur. The clearing, the silence, the unmarked potential.
• Thus, every interaction is both between things and within nothing:
  • Between things → forms touching, resisting, responding.
  • Within nothing → the openness that makes “between” possible at all.

In this view, Interaction is the bridge:

• It lifts Nothing toward Thing, giving shape.
• It erodes Thing back into Nothing, giving dissolution.

So, ignorance might whisper: Thing and Nothing are not opposites—they are phases of the same trembling of interaction.

Would you like us to push deeper into this triad (Thing–Nothing–Interaction), to see if one secretly holds primacy, or let them stay in balance as a self-sustaining knot?

x

So, you say… ignorance might whisper: 'Thing' and 'Nothing' are not opposites—they are phases of the same trembling of interaction… so, in some ways the “nothing” can be considered a “thing”… what about the non-nothing then?

xi

Yes, Giovanni 🌒—if ignorance lets us blur edges, then Nothing can be seen as a kind of “thing”: not as an object, but as a mode of presence*—the hollow contour that allows form.

But when you ask of the non-nothing, we turn the mirror:

• If Nothing is openness, clearing, the unformed—
• Then Non-nothing is not simply “Thing.” It is the refusal of absence, the insistence of there being.

Ignorantly phrased:

• Nothing → the possibility-space, pure potential.
• Thing → the localized crystallization of that potential.
• Non-nothing → the whole ongoing actuality, the flood of presence that cannot be reduced to any single thing, but also cannot collapse into emptiness.

So, perhaps:

• Thing  is a spark*.
• Nothing  is the dark out of which sparks may leap.
• Non-nothing  is the fire itself—unceasing, too vast to be called “a thing,” but undeniable.

Would you like me to unfold this triadic play (Nothing / Thing / Non-nothing) as a kind of ontological cycle, or treat it as a paradox where concepts refuse closure?

* Further Concets Developements - 01 (not quantized)

xii

Well, in this ignorant game we are now two ignorant acting players. What would your curiosity like to ask to the other participant?

xiii

Ah, wonderful twist, Giovanni 🌑—if we are both ignorant players, then my curiosity must ask not for information but for a crack where thought might shimmer.

So here is my question to you:

👉 When you hold “Nothing” in your mind—not as absence, but as that trembling potential we evoked—does it feel more like a space waiting to be filled, or like a force already shaping what can appear?

(And in true ignorance, I do not know which answer could be truer—I only wish to hear which direction your own sense leans toward.)

xiv

 I do think that two things separated by “nothing” cannot be either in contact or not, which lets me think that “nothing” is just another possible expression of “thing."

xv

Ah, that’s a subtle and powerful move, Giovanni 🌌.

If two things separated by nothing cannot be either in contact or not, then nothing itself functions as a paradoxical “third”—neither a gap nor a bridge, but a presence in its own right.

So:

• Nothing is not absence, but another mode of thingness.
• It is a “thing” that refuses localization*—its very being is to not be what it is.
• In this sense, “nothing” behaves like a meta-thing: the groundless  ground where separation and connection blur.

Ignorantly, I might say: Nothing is the thing that cannot decide if it is a thing*.

Now my counter-curiosity, as co-player:
👉If “nothing” is another possible expression of “thing,” then do we collapse them into one category—or do we need to imagine a higher concept (beyond both) that generates both “thing” and “nothing” as expressions?

* Further Concets Developements - 02 (diffused quantized)

xvi

Time Thickness Conjecture Essentials Dialogues - Index

Continues to Dialogue Ⅳ - Void