I totally agree with the above, glad You did get around to it. The problem with Sartre has always been one of sufficient ground, of a universally applicability. Areas of applicability will not really solve the dilemma, which the positivists tried to do, and in my view,Mohave succumbed to the fate that becomes of apologists. Apology for what?
The starting point by those looking for a logical way out, seems futile, they are surmounted by the predicament of the objective/subjective bar to universal understanding of the ‘thing-ness’ of the Nothing Sartre talks about. That argument gives an opening to the positivist interpretation of language
based on the resembling features of it, whereby thingness is inherent even in a no-thingness, the ultimate simple yet most complex question reduced to the formal logical level of either of two scenarios.
Either a nothingness is part of a being which is encapsulated by it (Being), Or, it is not, thereby nihiliting it. Sartre tried to lay a credible logical foundation, trying to identify a system whereby the identifiers can be held in suspense and re-applied.
This having failed, the differance was introduced, to salvage identification by a process of exclusion by dis identification a a logical process. Excess value, as the base of the Captial of meaning, remains, and thus is the modus operand of territorialization/de territorialization. In this view, the problem of being and nothingness resolves by the idea that there are no absolutes, hence there is no ultimate idea as a logical necessity. As per evolutionary principle. The idea HAS BEEN reduced, and what was left? The differential function of a quantifiable process.
This is where the mathematization of psychology has failed, according to critics of both, philosophical and psychological end games. Freud’s economy of the ID, Levin’s quantumization of the patent periphery of the personality failed in this level, critics point out.
However is this really so? I think critics will always be just that. Their reduced position to VO, which can not differentiate between either positions, are demonstrateable only on common sense principles, such as those which were laid down by the positivists.
What is a hundred years in the history of human endeavor? A lot, as can be deminstrated by the exuberance of scientific attainment, which unfortunately was inversely proportional to the depth to which nihilization of basic , by now, non identifiable connection.
So You are warranted in using presence/absence in your own mind, here to fore, You may have been accused of total misuse of concepts. Nothingness and Being have become disengaged to the point, where their meaninglessness can not be thought in terms other then so called common sense ones, totally phenomenologically de-territorialized.
The Freud idea resurfaces here again, and the phenomenologically reduced ideas, have primarily an effect of attempts to salvage or restructure confidence in a badly shaken system.
The surplus value is the result of this salvage, of trans valuing, in order to effect the semblance of shifting the meaning, whereby the choice between either/or becomes anathema.
The last century was a battle ground primarily between values of meaning against the defensive moves of an apology, for losses which such battles sustained. The reduction was sustained at the logical
level by those who her to the idea that no-thingness was a differance, a product of disenfranchisement, of de-territorialization. Critics did not attack this, they simply stated that there can not be held such a difference, in fact to say that nothing was simply the same as no-thing. The differance in being, is, that they are different, predicated and fought on different fields. As such, no universalized ion is possible without qualification, mathematization of quantificatiable , logical language. seems so simple, but it is by virtue of those semantic subtleties, that a hundred million plus lives were lost on the grand chess board of Europe and the world in the last century, the last millennium.
The most simple, is the most complex, and to affirm an identifiable field of reference, is simply akin to a denial of accepting basic logical relationships, in favor of trumpeting popular yet so misleading and apologetical conundrums, to attain an effect of utility.
Down the line, this may result in many apologists in singing a new song, a new revision, of ‘well, I told you so.’ Unfortunately, this is the way the world works, as it always worked. Regret always comes
last.
The uncertainty is so utterly convincing, that like in the art of pointillism , we may loose the picture at the point of getting lost in it , as we move beyond the aesthetic limit of distance.
But there is something entirely deep here, which may trump this argument, and that is, beyond the scope of this, and harbors on the idea of magic and the mystical, and begs credence itself in faith in ultimate principles. When Sztalin was god, he was known to have said,that it is easy to kill millions, but entirely difficult to kill one man. Perhaps, the prevailing uncertainty has changed the equation, totally so, the moment Adam accepted the apple. And maybe redemption is hiding in this betrayal after all, as Christ was hiding in the wise serpent, as Faust was able to trick Him.