HTCG 01d

We continue with Chapter 1.

Section C: Non-being

Part 1: In Greek Thought

In order to logically corner the Sophists, Plato sought to define being further by defining non-being. It’s not simply the negation of being; it includes things merely imagined but not real. Thus, a broader definition is that non-being is defined as anything except being. Just as darkness is simply the absence of light, non-being is defined by what it is not. It is not being.

Part 2: In Hebrew Thought

We’ve already seen that finding matching terms and thoughts in the Hebrew is tricky.

Boman finds parallels to being versus non-being in the Hebrew concept of “word” — dabhar. Typical of Hebrew fuzzy logic, that includes deeds and concrete objects that result from the word. There is a Hebrew concept of “not-being” — lo-dabhar. Rather than being a null set, it is rather something opposing life, and sinister. Vain words (i.e., lip-service) are a threat.

That’s because they are inherently deceptive. A false word may well be deceptive or even seductive, but is not simply absent; it is vanity. It provides none of the blessings it promises. It is futility, identified by the pain it causes when you trust in it. Boman offers several Hebrew words that carry similar connotations with different flavors: hebhel (puff of wind), sometimes combined with tohu to signify futility. You’ll also see combinations with shaw or bohu. There is the broad image of ineffectiveness of these vanities.

It is not quite like the western notion of chaos, because for us chaos is something very real and effective. For the Hebrew mind, it is just senseless fluff. Boman tries to bring this together with Plato’s definitions, but it doesn’t work too well. For the Hebrew, things are personal in the sense of relational. It’s always a matter of the role a thing plays, as if all things were alive.

Then he chases a rather useful tangent about Buddhism and it’s “yin-yang” outlook that negation and non-being is a positive thing in the balance of reality. Thus, the Greek and Hebrew are actually much closer to each other by comparison, in seeming to agree on the surface, at least, the non-being is inherently bad.

We’ll break here because the next section is quite long.