Simultaneity, regarding the OIC's origins

[anagogy]

Though 'No-thing' is possible, it is paradox, it can be, but will still be some-thing, it is not the TRUE ABSOLUTE ABSENCE OF, where a Void, or Primordial Void, or absolute Lack of Being is occurring.  It is simply another Unit for the Creator, it is 0, and I appreciate it and extend love out to even that contextual absence of, that illusion that is still being that is paradoxically not/is.  Nothing, is still Something.  Do you understand how I'm thinking?  No-thing, is still Some-thing because it is named, it has context added, it is imagined, it is outer space, it is a vacuum in space, it is the center of a black hole, it is everything to some people, nihilistic, pointless and empty, nothing worth it, and it is nothing to others, no sign of emptiness and nothingness.

Nothing does exist, and I will lovingly hold in that belief and tell you that not only will I remain in this belief, but point out that this belief actually adds up with yours.  You are saying that an absolute lack of being is impossible.  I agree.  You're saying an emptiness is not possible, I wholeheartedly disagree.  You then refer to it as attenuated truth, is that not 'something' then?  Nothing as Something is not Nothing, it is exactly what I said it is, a paradox, Something/Nothing.  A Somenothing of Attenuated Truth that aids the Light in the exact way you described.

You come off very forthcoming and powerful with disagreeing with another line of reasoning.  Saying it cannot be.  I just want to point out that All I Truly Know, is that I know nothing.  With this logic in mind I try to tread carefully when telling others that they're wrong.  I actually dislike doing so, I think there's a more positive way to approach the matter.  That however doesn't mean I don't refer to exactly what you're doing though, because it works.  It's powerful and insightful.  But I am too, I like to think anyways.

I believe in Simultaneity, that agrees with Unity and Infinity in design and concept.  It does not allow for whatever word you would use for the term void, without actually existing or not existing, but simply unbeing.  I think Doctor Who called it the Forgotten or Never-Were's?  No, wait, a better idea is the episode where the Dalek's build a Void Ship in order to set off a Reality Bomb to literally wipe out all Creation making them the One remaining Being -braingasm-
The concept simply cannot be for it all, Nothingness, Void, Emptiness, it all has context, inference, meaning, referent, it is attached, conceptually it is attached, contextually it is attached, it can manifest, it can Be.  But that other thing, that true emptiness and lack thereof beingness.  I don't have a word for whatever that is.  I don't know what to call it because it is not something I dare try to believe.  To mistake Nothingness for that is the madness I've read a few people have already gone through on this forum.  I'm one of them.

I must thus, fiercely contest that notion that the Nothingness I refer to is the nothingness you speak of.  As I said, you speak of something I do not have a word for.  Something you speak of I do not believe can be thought of.  I do think, I really do think Doctor Who had the closest concept to this idea, those things that Never-Were, that once were, but now have gone out of existence, have become gone, and never-were.  I do not think that is possible or true or real.  If anything, if there is a hellish empty void-pit of maddening horror, a real hell (which I don't but it's sometimes fun to imagine I guess).  The very center of it would be the closest thing to whatever that is that you speak of.

The problem with "nothingness" existing is that if nothingness exists, it is then "something", and certainly not nothing.  Nothingness cannot exist for that logical reason alone.  Having a word for a hypothetical state of infinite lack makes it sound like it can exist, like some sort of object, but by its very definition, it cannot exist.  If it does exist, then it is not nothingness.  Do you see my point?

This is why there is something, as opposed to nothing.  "Nothingness" is just an idea existing in "somethingness".  A mere abstraction of thought or language.  You can't imagine it.  You can't experience it.  I apologize if I come across like I know or something.  I don't mean to sound presumptuous or arrogant in my knowledge, I just speak from a place of what I perceive to be strong intuition.  These answers I give resonate with the core of my being, so I speak powerfully about them.  My perspective could change one day, who knows.  But I speak emphatically about what I perceive, and if it doesn't resonate with others, I respect that whole heartedly, and wish them well on their journey of understanding.  But at the same time, I will depict how I see it, and I won't shy away from pointing out where anothers point of view doesn't make sense to me.  And of course, I expect them to do the same.

In my opinion, all "simultaneity" means is that everything is NOW.  Time is a construct.  I don't see it as necessarily supporting "nothingness", logically speaking.  Everything is NOW, because NOW is all that exists.  Past, present, and future all simultaneously existing in the eternal NOW.

Now, I do believe in "no-thing-ness", but not "nothingness".  There is a massive difference between them.  Beingness, is different from "consciousness", which is more similar to what we would call "mind".  Beingness is closer to what we would call "spirit" and you could think of it as consciousness which has liberated itself from subject/object relationships.  The distance between subject and object has completely collapsed here.  Nondual consciousness as it were.  This no-thing-ness is seemingly empty, because as unity, it is the combination of all things in the universe combined, all opposites together, canceling each other out, or balancing each other to the point where an unfathomable emptiness and silence is there, which is pregnant with all possibilities that could be.  Unpotentiated intelligent infinity.  But I wouldn't call it a void, definitely more like a plenum.  The void, I contend, is actually an imaginary one.  That Which Is potentiates the illusion of duality by imagining there is an opposite to That Which Is.  So it potentiates an illusion of That Which is Not, which is the imaginary void I refer to.  This allows for experiences of duality to come into being for a time.  But like all beginnings, it has an end.  But once that end is over, That Which Is keeps on trucking along in its eternal NOW.  

It is free to explore duality again whenever it chooses.

Beingness is like the backdrop of all existence.  The nondual back drop.  It is like when two oppositely charge particles collide and come together.  They don't stop existing, but rather become a synthesized energy.  The Beingness is no-thing-ness that has no opposite, but it is not nothingness.  Nothingness does not leave room for anything to BE.  

Beingness is intangible, but all tangible forms exist within it.  They only appear in separation in duality.  In "mind".  Unity is like a clear still pond.  The tangible things are distortions of light, distortions of Beingness, distortions of the clear still water.  Refractions of light that appear to temporarily exist when the pure light of Beingness is refracted by attention to an imaginary opposite.  When the focus is withdrawn, the refractions of thing-ness disappear as apparent realities.  So in pure Beingness, no "thing" can be perceived, so people confuse it for a void.  Understandably so.

It is just infinite awareness.  

I think a lot of our disagreements in this thread are semantical in nature.  I'm always searching for more pithy or eloquent ways of describing metaphysical things.  I feel that is very similar to someone who has very refined taste in music.  They can hear a beautiful piece of music, but if it sounds slightly off pitch, they can't help but notice it.  It is not good or bad, we are all just speaking from our own unique places of relativity.  It just gets difficult when trying to use form (like language) to describe the formless (Beingness).  Distortions are inevitable, which, I suspect is why many masters utilize the "neti, neti" (not this, not this) approach to describing the absolute.  

It is easier to describe what it is not, than what it is.