Dear JP,

«once you make the assertion, “we do not even exist”, then I think you absolutely preclude the possibility of any further meaningful interaction.»

There is deep truth in what you say, a truth which does not even depend on what I assert or on what you think as a result.

Let alone a "meaningful" interaction - ANY interaction (meaningful or otherwise) is not possible unless there are two distinct interactors.

So are there really two of us?

For practical purposes we claim (or more accurately, pretend) that there are two of us.
That is not the absolute truth, far from it - in absolute terms that statement is false, but in relative terms I refer to the above claim as a transactional truth, because without it no transactions would be possible... and we do, so it seems, like to transact... even if it means that we need to introduce some ignorance for that purpose, to obscure the absolute truth that we are one.

Yes, in order to interact and engage, which is something we both seem to enjoy, we need to set the truth temporarily aside, we need to shut one eye so to speak, but let us not shut both eyes, let us not become so absorbed and lost in our conversation that we forget the truth so completely that we then later find it difficult to remember.

Sorry Yuyutsu – but I cannot see how that makes any sense. It seems to be just one contradiction piled upon another. You seem to be saying something but in the end, for me at least, it is all just a meaningless word salad.

Dear JP,

I think I understand why you see contradictions - we commonly think that the truth is only one, that if something is X then it is not Y.

But in reality there are several levels of truth.

In my first example, we call something a "wave", which is true on some level, it is not an utter lie, yet that truth is superficial and soon stops to be true as that wave breaks down and merges with the other waves of the ocean.

On the other hand, a deeper truth sees the same as "water", and water remains water for much longer than a wave remains a wave.

Even water does not remain water forever, so likewise one can refer to the same as "oxygen and hydrogen" - that is an even deeper truth and even more permanent.

And so on, one could call the same "a salad of protons, neutrons and electrons", or even "a salad of sub-atomic particles", or following Einstein's E=mc², one could go even deeper and call it "energy". The deeper we go, the more true our statement - but also the less practical it is, and less useful for verbal transactions.

The assertion that we are two separate existing entities, is a practical one and is true on some superficial level, yet if we are after deeper and lasting truth, then ultimately we are not two, we are not separate, we are one, only God is.

Nihilism cannot be contradicted on superficial terms, superficially it seems correct, but only until we dive deeper towards fundamental truth, only then it is exposed as false.