Now let’s go from ‘Subject’ to ‘True Nothing’.
Identifying and investigating every possible confounding of ‘Object as Subject’ is both laborious and very slippery. But identifying and investigating every possible confounding of a ‘Something as Nothing’ is straightforward, unambiguous.
The risk of error is hugely reduced, the odds of going astray, substantially minimized. Hence the need for the construct called: ‘True Nothing’.
I cannot have any kind of relationship, sensory, cognitive, affective or volitional with ‘True Nothing’. Any relationship I have can only be with the Concept of Nothing, the idea of Absence, the ‘Confounding of Something as Nothing.’
‘True Nothing’ says: ‘You cannot see me, smell me, love me or hate me, grasp me or recoil from me. You cannot think of me, appraise me, perceive me, comprehend me or remember me, give me features or properties or tendencies, foist names, attributes, aspects. qualities…
In particular, do not confound it with the Concept of Nothing, the Idea of Absence, an altogether-different animal. [As in the arithmetic condition: -1<0<+1; or such extensions as ‘Tending to Zero’ in Calculus.].
Nor: ‘Not-True Nothing’ with Consciousness, Everything, Infinity, and the like. It is a more elusive term [See: ‘Not’] sighted only in co-dependence with, as a necessary counterpoint to, ‘True Nothing’.
[Try working around the noun: ‘Wave’, itself a capture of fluid, ungraspable content, microparticles of moving water, yet comprehended without any virulent confusion.]
One famous modern philosopher referred to Nothing as a ‘Deep dark, emptiness’. A ‘Deep dark emptiness’ is not Nothing. It is simply: ‘A deep dark emptiness’.
If the ‘Backward Step’ is prematurely short-stopped, this later becomes the ‘Emptiness: Form‘ construct of Madhyamaka Buddhism; the ‘Being-Consciousness’ construct of Vedanthic Hinduism; the Nothing and Everything of Logic; the ‘I and Not-I’ of Language; the ‘Self and World’ of Model; the ‘God and Man’ of Religion, and so on.