DOTLAN EveMaps

u'V. THE ORIGIN OF NOTHINGNESS
IT would be well at this point to cast a glance backward and to measure the
road already covered. We raised first the question of being. Then examining
this very question conceived as a type of human conduct, we questioned
this in turn. We next had to recognize that no question could be asked, in
particular not that of being, if negation did not exist. But this negation itself
when inspected more closely referred us back to Nothingness as its origin
and foundation. In order for negation to exist in the world and in order that
we may consequently raise questions concerning Being, it is necessary that
in some way Nothingness be given. We perceived then that Nothingness can
be conceived neither outside of being, nor as a complementary, abstract
notion, nor as an infinite milieu where being is suspended. Nothingness
must be given at the heart of Being, in order for us to be able to apprehend
that particular type of realities which we have called n\xe9gatit\xe9s. But this
intra-mundane Nothingness cannot be produced by Being-in-itself; the
notion of Being as full positivity does not contain Nothingness as one of its
structures. We can not even say that Being excludes it. Being lacks all
relation with it. Hence the question which is put to us now with a particular
urgency: if Nothingness can be conceived neither outside of Being, nor in
terms of Being, and if on the other hand, since it is non-being, it can not
derive from itself the necessary force to \u201cnihilate itself,\u201d where does
Nothingness come from?

If we wish to pursue the problem further, we must first recognize that we
can not grant to nothingness the property of \u201cnihilating itself.\u201d For although
the expression \u201cto nihilate itself\u201d is thought of as removing from
nothingness the last semblance of being, we must recognize that only Being
can nihilate itself; however it comes about, in order to nihilate itself, it must
be. But Nothingness is not. If we can speak of it, it is only because it
possesses an appearance of being, a borrowed being, as we have noted
above. Nothingness is not, Nothingness \u201cis made-to-be,\u201d14 Nothingness
does not nihilate itself; Nothingness \u201cis nihilated.\u201d It follows therefore that
there must exist a Being (this can not be the In-itself) of which the property
is to nihilate Nothingness, to support it in its being, to sustain it perpetually
in its very existence, a being by which nothingness comes to things. But
how can this Being be related to Nothingness so that through it Nothingness
comes to things? We must observe first that the being postulated can not be
passive in relation to Nothingness, can not receive it; Nothingness could not
come to this being except through another Being\u2014which would be an
infinite regress. But on the other hand, the Being by which Nothingness
comes to the world can not produce Nothingness while remaining
indifferent to that production\u2014like the Stoic cause which produces its
effect without being itself changed. It would be inconceivable that a Being
which is full positivity should maintain and create outside itself a
Nothingness or transcendent being, for there would be nothing in Being by
which Being could surpass itself toward Non-Being. The Being by which
Nothingness arrives in the world must nihilate Nothingness in its Being,
and even so it still runs the risk of establishing Nothingness as a
transcendent in the very heart of immanence unless it nihilates Nothingness
in its being in connection with its own being. The Being by which
Nothingness arrives in the world is a being such that in its Being, the
Nothingness of its Being is in question. The being by which Nothingness
comes to the world must be its own Nothingness.'