This was exciting reading and a fascinating exploration. You make compelling points in demolishing the idea of “nothing.” And I understand better your neo-Kantian perspective.

Comparing what you say about noumena to phenomenology suggests two partially overlapping perspectives. Kant might say there are noumena but we know nothing about them — other than they are the source of phenomena, as you possibly suggest?

A phenomenologist might say there are phenomena and what is “behind” them is speculative or metaphysical in the negative sense — in other words, whether or not there are noumena, let’s decline to talk about noumena.

Characterizing the two perspectives this way could easily be mistaken. I can imagine the concept of noumena being more subtle or nuanced than this, and am very curious to understand it further.

The late Heidegger I don’t think talked about nothingness and seemed to say that Being was his complete ontology — there is Being, and that’s it — as if to say we are (or we are “in”) Being, and as Dasein, non-Being or nothingness is incomprehensible — there is no meaningful intuition to be had of it.

If this is a reasonable interpretation, it seems to accord or be consistent with the thrust of your piece, and it might be a more *parsimonious* perspective to “eliminating” nothingness, compared to a critique of a linguistic, epistemic or otherwise human-centered perspective — which I totally agree with and applaud making. I’m curious and hope to understand your thoughts on the above. Thank you!