The trouble with the trilemma is that is speaks not of the
vacuousness of reality, but rather the vacuousness of itself. It
proves nothing on several levels. If you believe in it, then
nothing becomes something full of its own meaning.
It has definable boundaries and definitions. That makes it a
vacuous something that requires belief in the boundaries and
conditions that create the belief.
But the belief in the boundaries and conditions itself is
constructed. But of what is it constructed?
And so in a circle one goes. It's not that there's NECESSARILY
nothing per se but rather one is continually moving FORWARD in
this circle of logic incessantly and concluding:
a) There is no visible point in the center of this circle.
Doesn't mean that's all there is. It only speaks of its own
reasoning.
