The nowhere existing unconscious not-being is necessarily inexistent -- absolutely nothing. Only in relation to this un-being it is meaningful to talk about everything. This is how that which doesn't exist becomes a necessary foundation to the existence of that which is, because this is how also that which exists becomes absolute, but not necessary, because only that which doesn't exist can't be stopped from not being.
Even when something is, the nothing isn't. The fact that there is something that exists doesn't change this, whatever that something is. The nothing is real therefore everything can be without limits. This is fundamentally true: The absolute difference between that which exists, and that which doesn't is immediate and absolute. That which is, is not nothing, it is something, therefore, it is the corpus we can study, what we have, because that which isn't can't be studied. Still, the nothing, as everything else, can be thought of, and it can be understood. Actually, it is even easy, if not the easiest thing, because, as a fundamental binary opposite to everything, it is the most simple thing we can talk about with this abstract language of ours tha,t thus allows us to talk about something abstract that doesn't exist as a referent.
Everything is infinite, because outside of it there is only nothing, a nowhere. This hardly consitutes a limit, as it categorically doesn't exist.
Wherever we look, we see something, and for one, we can maybe see space, a distance between things, that lends us something to refer to when we talk about this nothing, like when we talk about darkness as lack of light, the space where something can be, but is not there, not necessarily. That abstract emptiness will hover there pregnant with possibility, without limitations of time and open to more dimensions than what we can think of. There everything is possible, but not necessary.
Of course, it is not so simple when we think of this nothing as a quantum nothingness (one that can be compared to, contrasted to a metaphysical nothing because a quantum state is something that can be imagined not being, but still something), or begin from the dimensionality of the zero. But, all the more, the zero is also a dimension, and as such it, is also a quantum state, and that fundamental dimension is the non-limit that defines everything as limitless also in terms of physics.
We can say that everything thus relates to nothingness, but what do we then really mean? Perhaps it means that whatever we think, doesn't have to be exactly as we think it is, because nothing is limited to our perception of it. Or maybe it is just something that our abstract language allows, that thus creates this illusion that the nothing has features, when we in fact, we should be talking about non-features. Just as when we talk about the zero dimension, we in fact relate that to the dimensions that are possible because of this nothing. But we can't assume that we know anything about the existing dimensions based on this nothing, because it doesn't predicate anything, it just allows them the possibility, in fact, infinite potential.
We can picture the absolute binary of everything and nothing, and have this singularity of being as opposed to nothing, and contrasted to this nothing, everything becomes singular. Does it then mean that everything is singular? Or does it also mean that, as there thus can be one thing, there can be a second thing, and that, in relation to the first and nothing, it also means that there could be a third, the nothing being always an open possibility, and presents thus a factor that adds infinite potential to everything?
Rendering everything infinitiely complex and thus infinitely relative, like the axis of zero around itself, a paradox of infinite potential, this nihil is a non binding statement, but as such a statement that makes all crimes not necessary, the will free, and our responsibility full. What we make of things is limited by nothing, therefore we are not excused by any fundamental necessity. Yes, it is, thus, a hard line that draws this zero, that holds all light and conceals it, leaving us no right and wrong, but relative preferences to define ethics by our own relations, leaving us to be defined by our own free will or lack thereof, a lack that is just as passive as the zero, and thus allows everything as a limit equal to nothing.
Like choosing to be at the zero state, a non being particle, and thus not even individual. As it is not necessary to be, and your body, however limited, has that option, but that in relation to everything your body allows you. In fact, it is not that being is without meaning because it is relative, but that it is meaningful, because it is as relative as your body. Meaning itself is derived from relations, from context. You could say or do whatever or nothing the next moment, thus making the statement that you have no limits, but if it was truly random , it could be anything, that is so closely related to being nothing, and always an option, but that is equally always a resignation. You resign what you could be in these conditions where it is possible for what you are to be something, and not anything.
Paradoxically, this unnecessity, leaves us, in deed, with the question `to be or not to be?´ and we get to choose every moment according to what we want to be within this context that gives us meaning as opposed to nothing. The context within which we are real by our relativity, the blessed limit between what we are in relation to the infinite potential of imagination that is so close to nothing, because there everything is possible, and where, without a body, a perspective, we would lose ourselves becoming at one with the infinity that opens from nothing. What we are as humans, our relation to the world, and to each other, these makes us something.The nothing does not need to be proven by an act of whim, as if nothing matters, because it does.
