Nothing

I

had nothing to post about, so I let it overcome me, and as far as I remember, this is my second impasse in my blogging pastime.

This time, though, I conditioned myself that I think up of some plausible reason as I went about blogging about Nothing. (Hey, don't be downhearted! Think of a future reputation: A blogger who posted about Nothing--twice!.)

My reasons are as follows:

First, I must confess I'm pretty good at doing Nothing. Second, I believe other bloggers, too, must have a lot of Nothings to post about, or come to a point with nothing to say. Besides, I imagine that at this very moment someone at the other end precisely at the point of wanting to read about Nothing. Something of a double coincidence of irony, nevertheless—I hope you bloghopper, whoever you are, wouldn’t mind.

Since Pluto was nothing of a planet, some people might have been disturbed. Well, I have. If I ended up trying to talk about Nothing, empirically, it might have been attributable to the failed planet.

To those who believe in empiricism, Nothing is more serious than it appears. The foundation of science is based on empiricism. It may be shocking to realize that at the heart of its very doctrine spreads an abyss of Nothing: nihilism; duh, “shocking” may be too harsh a word. But in any case, according to empiricism, scientific theories are not valid that can be falsified. All theories that are, are but temporary so until they are falsified. I think this is the point of immense oddity. If the purpose of science is to bring human kind to Knowledge, why have we chosen ourselves to (be led to) believe in the system that does not allow us to believe? We are only permitted to postpone falsification, at best. Such philosophers as Karl Popper let us two choices only: utter denial, or perennial Postponement. There is no arrival.

Nothing whatsoever! Thus most of us are people roaming about this Earth with a pair of double lensed glasses--one red and full of Falsification, the other reddish imbued with Postponement. We are disadvantaged—but we have been greatly biased by our own device. No matter what we see in this way, the living or the inanimate must be of reddish complexion. It is impossible for them to be otherwise. Why doesn’t it occur that we might as well take them off and see with Nothing filtering our eyes?