Noumenon, NULL, Difference

The previous post is actually really basic... How rich am I? If I look at other people then I can say whether I am more or less rich than them and I can place myself in the pecking order. If I look at myself however then I am as rich as I am - there is nothing else to say. This sounds informative but actually it disguises the NULLness of answer. It is also always true that I am as rich as I am no matter how much wealth I have by comparison with other. So based upon myself I can never feel wealthy or poor... so if I do it is because I am comparing and that is something that wealth or poverty can't cure because no matter how much we have or how much we don't have there is always someone above and below us.... ergo poverty can only be solved in the mind... and this is true for all other things as well!

===

This goes for shopping as well. We have a conception of ourself. We place ourself in the ranking. Depending upon our state we may wish to rise or sink on tha ranking so we have desire. Yet having moved we are still in the ranking so the desire hasn't been satisfied. The experience of discovering underneath it all that we are still me.

===

n linking to Western Philosophy the point is that noumenon neither exist or do not exist they are NULL to all attempts at knowledge. To my knowledge that counts everyone in the west from Plato to the 1800's out of the game!! Then Hegel (1804) figureheads the escape...

===

So when Plato discusses the process of knowledge (via Socrates) he likens it to an impression in wax matching an object. In one way this is very revealing because it shows that knowledge is a negation of the "real" thing. But Plato's error in this analysis is to then match the object and the wax tablet to their own wax tablets and give us knowledge of them too! In his scenario we only have knowledge of the thing known, not the wax tablet and the "real" object as well ... these things are NULL in the event of knowledge. Thus we always escape the third man fallacy because, like Russel and Whitehead's theory of types in Principia, there is a strict control of what is in-context and what is out-of-context, and that which is out of context is NULL.

Its ok then to use the analogy of measurement of things because we are not implying a thing and a meter as separate entities from the measurement - if we try to measure the metre we get NULL.

===

Modern philosophy in Structuralism and more recently Strawson has this ideas of difference being the founding force of things - a network without nodes. But I always found this difficult to comprehend because it doesn't address the foundation problem that we are instinctively looking for concrete ontology and noumena. We are told of a network and then that the nodes are secondary - so we just negate the nodes that we already imagined. It seems easier to consider the idea of measurement of things and then the impossibility of measuring the standards.