Page |1

“No-More” “No-Less”
Nothingness of Something

Introduction

In this thesis the aim is to expose more the primary text titled “Nothingness of

Something.” This is an expository paper so all the discussion is an exposition of the primary text

so everything the author discusses is based on his knowledge with the primary text. The title

“No-More” “No-Less” is a notion used to established in relation to the primary text.

The notion of “No-Less” is used to compare to the “Something” in the primary text. In

chapter one the focus is on the “Something.” This is an expository also of what “Something” the

“Lessen” is used to compare to because there is an object that actually cannot be lessen. There is

something in the “Less.” The something can be known through time because in time of the world

there is a “flow” that makes the knower to “stand” “under” the something. Because there is

“understanding” to the “something” existence is make possible because the notion of

“Understanding” is existential concept. The “No” is used to “Less” because only the something

can be understood in its totality in existence.

The second chapter discusses what “Nothingness” is all about. The “nothingness” is

compared to “No-More.” The “nothingness” was first discuss that the nature of “nothingness” is

non existence because there is nothing to understand not same as to something that exist because

of object present in “something.” Then “nothingness” was labeled to be prior to “something”

because before there is existing thing in something, the first experience is nothing that cannot be

understand according to the Time of the consciousness. The second chapter ended to conclusion

that “nothingness” cannot be understood because of the absent of the object. The notion of “No-
 Page |2

More” was used because everything actually returns to nothing, before “there-is” “nothing comes

first and after the “there-is” we still have to return to “nothing.”

The thesis ended in expounding the idea that “nothing is the ground of everything. Since the

“something” is grounded to the existence of the “I” the “I” has no ground but nothing. Therefore

the ground of everything is “Nothing.”

I. No – Less (“Something”)

a. There’s “Something” in “No – Less”

The notion of “No-Less” entails the existence of something. When we use “No-Less” we

denote that there is a presence of the object that cannot be deducted because the “Totality is an

existential construct applicable to something”1 we understand that something in its totality as

existing, and if that something can be deducted, then we cannot use the “No” as command to the

action that is to be “Lessen.” The “something” that cannot be lessened is present existing as

totality; it cannot be nothing because if that something is absent therefore we have nothing to be

deducted. If there is something therefore it is not nothing but if it is nothing it cannot be

something. Therefore the “Existence is essential to something.”2 “Nothing” “is” absent in

existence if that nothing is existing then it is not nothing but something already. Whatever

something it may be as long as there is a presence of the object it cannot be nothing.

1
Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr.. Nothingness of Something, (Iloilo City: SVFS Publication, 2010), 3.
2
Ibid, 4.
 Page |3

b. Knowing that “Something”

Knowing that something in the “No-Less” needs Time to understand. Understanding of

something is in the flow of time. Time is essential to the scope of understanding. To understand

entails seeing of the structure which is in above of where we “stand” “under.” The “flow” of time

in understanding makes that something developed; the understanding is flowing and changing

through time therefore the time makes the idea clear. What we have to understand should be

existing, because without such existence of what to be known object, the understanding is

impossible to happen. The existence of the something in its form makes it progress in the

consciousness because that something in its appearance became attach in our consciousness.

Attaching of the object in the consciousness make the understanding possible in progression. The

object that is something as it understood became clearer and clearer.

In the understanding of something, stability is impossible. What makes that something

stable is our own consciousness. When we try to “grasp” something it cannot be forever, but it is

temporarily stable. Therefore in understanding we should consider the “flow” of time that makes

the object free to “flow” in time and also we became open for the flow of thing in the something.

But still the “flowing” of time in understanding is continually flowing.

The existence therefore is a notion of something, nothing us non-existing and if existing

understood us something. That something is referred to be understood. That understanding that is

progressing not only stay put what it is but something to be known more. If something is existing

there is a present of the object that makes the understanding possible. In the concept of “No-

Less” something should be the first to understand. If there is nothing in that something we have
 Page |4

no object to be “Lessen” because “Lessen” denotes something that is existing. The existence of

that something that cannot be “Lessened” is flowing that makes the one who understand not to

synthesize the understanding of the something but to allow it to “flow” because what is in the

object that is not to be “Lessen” should be understand in the “flow” of time. Trying to grasp that

something by “instancing” makes what is not to be lessen to be unknown.

c. The Existence of “Something” But “No – Less”

Now if we really focus on the word “No-Less” the word “Less” denotes and reveal that there

is something present, it cannot be nothing because there is an object that is referred in “Less”,

but what is the relation of “No” in the “Less”? Does the “No” denotes also to nothing? Or the

“No” is referred to be related to “Less” as a command? What is clear by now is that there is

something present that is in the “Less” and that less is existing. The “No” should gave a

relevance to the something that is existing this could define the nature of something in “Less” or

command to it.

The notion of “No” is related to the understanding of something that is to be grasp. What we

can only grasp is the existing object for we cannot grasp what none exists. Grasping is happening

when there is understanding in the “flow” of time. If we try to understand it in the “freeze”,

understanding is unattainable because we paralyze the time. There is no time so the

“understanding” is just an “instancing.” Then if there is instancing what we can only grasp is

totality of nothing. So grasping is not applicable also if there is nothing to grasp. So the “No” in

“No-Less” is not applicable to nothingness. But the “No” is that we cannot reduce the totality of
 Page |5

the something. “Totality is an existential construct applicable to something.” 3 The relationship of

the “No” to “Less” defines the nature of something that is understood in totality and can be a

command to the knower that the something is irreducible, it can’t be reduced.

II. No –More (“Nothingness”)

a. “No- more” as “Nothingness”

The second chapter of this thesis discusses what “nothingness” is all about. The notion of

“nothingness” is used to understand also what “No-More” that use in this thesis. In the previous

chapter, we focused on what “something” is and its relation to the “understanding” in the “flow”

of time and also trying to compare it to “No-Less” as something that cannot be reduced because

of the totality of grasping the existing object in that something.

To start this chapter, to understand “nothingness” is to make clear with idea that

“Nothingness can be “understood” as non existence.”4 What “understood” means in knowing the

nothingness? To understand is to consider that there is a “flow” in consciousness brought about

time. The notion of understand is literally to “stand” “under.” You are standing bellow of what

you are trying to know and knowing “under” there is a “flow” of consciousness; it is flowing

because what we understand does not stop on one grasp of understanding but continually flowing

and revealing. “This ‘flow’ of consciousness makes understanding possible for only in this

manner can understanding in time happens.”5 The “time” that is in the world, the time that is

3
Ibid., 3.
4
Ibid., 2.
5
Ibid., 1.
 Page |6

counted chronologically and has poles of before, present and after. When we go on through the

“flow” of our understanding then we focus on the essence of idea. Therefore “the ‘flow’ of

consciousness makes the understanding of understanding itself understood.”6 We are conscious

of the way of our understanding the thing we would like to understand and what we would like to

understand is the essence of the thing.

“Understanding” therefore is in the notion of “standing” “under” the things we would like to

know and this process of “understand” bound to the flow of time. Time makes the process of

understanding flow in consciousness, only in time we see where the flow started and where we

are focusing in the present.

Now we can see clearly that time is important in relation to understanding. But what if there

is no time in the process of understanding? Still it is difficult to understand because time is in the

process of “understanding.” “When we take the concept of time in understanding, we enter into

theoretical problems, for concepts are ‘products’ of understanding, and as such, is a ‘product’ of

the ‘flow.’”7 If understanding outside time is impossible same as to “flow” because “flow” is

product of “understanding” and this “understanding” is impossible also if there [is] no time.

Time makes possible the “flow” and without it there will be no “flow” there can only be a

“freeze” which is stagnant not moving but grasping without time. But the “freeze” is

contradictory to “understanding” because of absence of time. “There can only be ‘instancing’” 8

What about instance, what is it? “The ‘instance’ can never be ‘understood’ for the ‘instance’ ‘is’

6
Ibid., 1.
7
Ibid., 2.
8
Ibid.
 Page |7

just a ‘standing’ on ‘standing’ itself, a ‘freeze.’ It is just ‘standing’ that is ‘beyond’ the standing

we understood”9

Understanding also claims the “existence” as possible. “Existence is defined as a ‘standing

out.’”10 Understanding is standing out of something, to stand out of and standing is a position of

existing below the idea. When we think we exist. “Since understanding is an existential

construct, it happens in time – the worldly time.”11

Seems that understanding is possible through existence, existence therefore is required in

understanding something. “Understanding happens in time, time flows, and understanding is the

flow of consciousness in time.”12 The consciousness as the one who understand makes

understanding possible. There will be no understand if no one to understand and this

consciousness that understand is existing.

Now if the understanding is happening through time and existence, there should be

something to understand. The something that should be understood is the object to the one who

exist and understand or the knower. Impossibility happens when we understand and no object is

revealing to understand. Here comes nothingness, the situation of absent of the object to

understand. “Since nothing does not exist, we cannot understand it, for understanding understand

only objects that exist.”13 Now we return to our main topic, understanding happens in existing

9
Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr.. We: “Nosology” of Communion, (Iloilo City: SVFS Publication, 2010), 64.
10
Domingo Rafael Alimajen Jr.. Nothingness of Something, (Iloilo City: SVFS Publication, 2010), 2.
11
Ibid., 2.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
 Page |8

object in the “flow” of time if nothing exist no understanding to happen because there is no

object to know about.

The notion of “No-More” compared to “nothingness” makes existence clear. When we say

“more” there is something that cannot be counted or mountable. There is existence at first but

when we use “no” the existence of something, already absent as an object to understand. “No-

more” is nothing.

b. “No – More” before “There – is”

In the previous chapter we tried to explore first how we “understand” and it requires

“flow” of consciousness in time, the world time. The explanation extends more on the existence

of something as the object of understanding and if there is an absent of something to understand

the “understanding is impossible and there is “Nothing” as inexistence of the object to

understand. Now if we understand something to understand, the question is what comes first the

“something” or “nothing”?

“Nothing is the ground of something.”14 When we claim that “I” is grounded to

something because the “I” is the one who understand or understander then something is useless

without the “I”, who will understand that something and if there is no presence of the

understander. Then, where did the “I” grounded about? The “I” has no groundings. So if “I” has

no groundings “something” is grounded also to nothing.”The ‘I am something” is nothing,

making the something exist as nothing.”15 “Nothingness” becomes the ground of something

because the first experience is nothing before there is something. Also as we claim that

14
Ibid., 8.
15
Ibid.
 Page |9

“something” is grounded to “nothing” what comes first is the grounding and the grounding of the

two: “I” and “something”, [is] “nothing.”

This connects also to the “Understanding” as process in the “flow” in the “time.” Without

time the understander cannot understood only “instancing” therefore before “understanding”

there is no “flow” in the time of the world. “Nothingness is ‘primordial’ because it [is] even

[before] time. It is ‘primordial’ in the ‘time’ of the time of the world, which is the ground of our

sequential time of the world.”16

Then we concluded in this paragraph that “something is the ‘after effect’ of nothing when

something exist.”17 The existence of the object to understand make the something starts to reveal.

Before the “There – is” the absence of the “is” or the something [is] experienced. “No-more”

does not just make the thing absent after it is present but more so on the absent of the thing

before present situation.

c. Knowing the “No – More”

Then when shall we start to understand the “No-more”? To understand “No-more” we could

not make the something as the ground of nothing because before the something [is] nothing. The

inexistence is prior to the existence. Actually there is nothing to understand to “No-more”

because there is no “flow” of time in nothing, only in something. Therefore we could not explore

the “nothing” because the object or something is absent in “nothingness” because if we

understand that nothing, it cannot be “nothing” anymore but it becomes “something.”

16
Ibid., 9.
17
Ibid.
 P a g e | 10

“Since, something does not exist, we cannot understand it, for understanding understands

only objects that exist.”18

III.“No – More” – “No – Less”

a. The “No” is Prior to the “More” and the “Less”

In the last chapter the conclusion begun to conclude that prior to “something” is

“nothing.” The existence of “something” is grounded to nothing, before everything exist; the

something and the “I” they come first from nothing. Since the something is grounded on “I” and

the “I” is grounded on “nothing” therefore everything is grounded to nothing. In this chapter let

us go deeper on how did the “nothing” becomes prior to “I” and “something.”

In the previous chapter, something becomes something because there is a thing or object

to “understand.” Now what we can say to something is nothing, “The ‘somethingness’ of the

‘understood something’ is nothing and even the ‘somethingness’ asserts its ‘somethingness’ it

confirms its nothingness.”19 The more the “something” asserts that there is “something” the more

it returns to nothing. Because when something asserts the more the nothingness reveals, because

this returns to the notion that before the “something” is nothing therefore the “nothing” asserts its

primer over the something. “The ‘I’ exist and, more so, the ‘I am something’ are nothing. To

18
Ibid., 9.
19
Ibid.
 P a g e | 11

asserts ‘I am something’ and ‘I exist’ makes and ‘loses’ its ‘somethingness,’ and the more the ‘I’

realizes its nothingness it makes the ‘I’ ‘Nothing.’” 20

Nothing [is] simply nothing. Nothing [is] nothing because of the absence of something

and if in nothing something emerges then it cannot be nothing but it becomes something. Us

something can be understood because there is “flow” of Time in “consciousness” of the knower

then “nothing” has no time and “flow” of “consciousness” in it. There is no understanding in

“nothing” for object [is] not present in the nothing, there is no understanding but only

“instancing” of nothing. “The ‘instancing’ of nothing [is] ‘instancing’ of nothing, for only

nothing can be ‘instanced’. If something is understood and nothing [is] ‘instanced’ then nothing
21
‘instances’ nothing.” There is a difference in the primer of the something and nothing. If we

analyze what comes first the “nothing” or “something” what comes really first is “nothing” on

the other hand something can also comes first if we will view it in the other use of time. “The

‘somethingness’ of the ‘I-am-something’ is related basically to its ‘instantial’ origin, the nothing.

In the order of time (that is why it is primordial) it is something, but beyond time it is nothing.” 22

The time uses in the primordially of “something” is the time of the world, but there is beyond

time in the world, “nothing” comes first because there is no Time because the a “flow” of Time

[is] used in understanding and understanding is only used to something.

To conclude this chapter, what really matters most is the “nothing.” Everything starts and

return to “nothing.” Before “something” there [is] nothing and when there is something time

cannot contain “I-am-something” for long. The “something” will return to “nothing” as its

20
Ibid., 9.
21
Ibid., 10.
22
Ibid., 10.
 P a g e | 12

essence. If we analyze the “No-more” and “No-less” in the two there is nothing. There is

“nothing” before an object that cannot be “lessen” and because there is “No-more” it returns

really to “nothing” there is something but it returns to “nothing” that is why we use “No-More”

because nothing left everything returns nothing.

 P a g e | 13

Conclusion.

Making this thesis is not just easy thing; this is like entering into the Mystery of reality in

life. Understanding is just normal to those who use to think and who mind that even the

fisherman and farmer those who work in labor who uses their understanding cares in analyzing

how they understand. But without these theses who can think that not all the time we use our

mind we really understand and really know. This is a kind of mystery in daily living that we use

our way of understanding but we do not even know in the process that we come up to the idea

that what really the thing is.

Nothingness of something is the overhaul of life. One way or another our experience will

tell us that life has many experience of something and nothingness. We can consider

relationships, what moves man to establish relationship with others was actually because of

experience of nothingness. The experience of nothingness will move person to find someone to

experience something. When we get out to our nothingness then we exist because we stand out

of something to understand. The relationship with others is a process of understanding on which

we try to understand others in the “flow” of time in the world. The long the man understands

something the deeper he knows the something. But surely the experience with something will not
 P a g e | 14

hold long in time, our relationship with others will return to nothing then we stop understanding

others. The return to nothing is also the experience of losing someone in life. Our being in the

world also speaks about our being existing as stewards, entrusted to the things in the world. If

we try to understand our being entrusted actually we do not own creation only caretaker

therefore we are totally nothing by our own. Our life is in the flow of time in this world as long

as we understand we are in the “flow” therefore we are capable to understand only when we let

go in this world and we get out to the “flow” of time in the world and we are in existing because

we have nothing to understand because we are outside the time. But who thinks nothingness is

eternity, the time in the world is measured but in nothingness there is no time no poles of present,

past and future everything is not time bound. We become free from time in the world and what

remains is the Time in the consciousness, the time that not measured. This is where we all come

from the nothingness before our birth and still nothingness in our death.
 P a g e | 15

Bibliography
Alimajen, Rev. Fr. Domingo Rafael Jr. Nothingness of Something, Jaro, Iloilo City,

Philippines: St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary Publication, 2010.

Alimajen, Rev. Fr. Domingo Rafael Jr. We: “Nosology” of Communion, Jaro, Iloilo City

Philippines: St. Vincent Ferrer Seminary Publication, 2009.