I do see now how this Nihilsum doesn't actually provide anything for thought for lets say theoretical abstraction because it has no base at all, thus not very 'useful' or positing anything to our being and not. I also don't even think I understand it anymore or if I did, I think so but it expanded itself.

Aristotle beat you to it. — Wayfarer

I see but the Nihilsum would resist teleology entirely if I recall, because it is without resolution or trajectory. The Nihilsum is not about what could 'become' but about ehat exists as an in between and this in between being unresolvable. It wouldn't be moving towards any sort of resolution.

The Nihilsum is without movement or an end goal but also full of movement and the end goal teleologically. This makes it not fit into the traditionals of Aristotle.

Are you speaking of a category? Or are you speaking of things that fall within this category? — Patterner

neither, the nihilsum is to be beyond categorization, rather than being a 'something' or a 'nothing' it occupies a space between these, directly challenging either/or thought. The paradoxical nature is its most crucial 'attribute.'

There are already well-developed systems of nonclassical logic that have at least a third value, so nothing new in that. — Banno

The Nihilsum would operate outside the boundaries of nonclassical logic though, including systems with a third value as well. It resists these fixed logical frameworks and exists in a ‘possible space’(not perhaps a physical one, but a place where new understandings can form(lacking logical struturd at all)) where paradoxes can occur without relying on true or false values. This meta logical space transcends established logic, allowing for the coexistence of contradictions.

What does existence and being mean under the Nihilsum? — Corvus

The Nihilsum attempts to challenge the understanding of existence and being by occupying a space that is neither fully ‘something’ or ‘nothing.’ It resists the either/or of categories that we people have used to define existence. Rather than being a specific state of being, it exists as a construct, that of which is meta-logical and transcends these boundaries. Its existence lies not in what we can categorize, but in its inherent ability to defy those categories. By existing in this paradoxical ‘state,’ the Nihilsum forces us to rethink ontological frameworks, where opposites are often required to be mutually exclusive.

What does the Nihilsum propose the solution for the problem? — Corvus

The Nihilsum suggests the law of noncontradiction is insufficient to account for existence. This Nihilsum doesn’t offer a direct and definitive answer to existence but rather presents a ‘space’ where contradictions and ambiguities can exist simultaneously. This opens a realm where truth is not fixed, and meaning cannot be contained by traditional categories.

Do you think your notion of Nihilsum provides a way to critique empirical realism? — Joshs

The Nihilsum would reveal how empirical realism obscures what exists outside of clear definitions and also resists being stapled as something or nothing and, in doing so, critiques the very attempt to reduce the richness of reality to resolved notions.

Thank you.

The Nihilsum attempts a neologism combining the Latin nihil and sum. I can now see I sort of just dived in straight from the start. The Nihilsum would be a concept that exists(or of existence) between the categories of something and nothing by being neither fully one nor the other but instead exists as a paradox that resists clear categorization. I'm trying to say it is itself which creates this paradox of clear definition. It's not definite.