Beyond Nothingness defends a single thesis: that Being, in order not to be nothingness, must be manifestable in principle. Manifestability is treated not as an epistemic requirement imposed from outside but as an ontological constraint that follows from the nature of difference itself — what cannot produce recognizable differences in any possible relational regime is indistinguishable from nothingness. The argument proceeds by what the book calls subtractive derivation. Rather than deducing consequences from a positive first principle (Spinoza), ascending to the conditions of experience (Kant), or describing the phenomenal datum (Husserl), it begins from the one thing that can be established negatively with necessity — the impossibility of absolute nothingness — and asks what must hold for whatever is not nothing to be something. Each condition is derived by showing that its negation collapses into indistinguishability from nothingness. From this follows a chain of constraints: Being must be determinative difference; difference must be manifestable; manifestability requires a second, heterogeneous pole — Consciousness in a strictly transcendental sense, not a psychological subject — without which determinate Being is a "mute monad"; and the only ontology compatible with these constraints is relational. The theory names the resulting position Relational Critical Realism and offers it as a fourth way beyond the theological, contingentist, and skeptical answers to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. It stands in the Parmenidean lineage of the necessity of Being — through Spinoza and Severino — while diverging on becoming and ontology, and registers convergences (offered as convergences, not proofs) with relational and timeless readings of contemporary physics. A second part extends the framework, with explicitly weaker modal status, to time, freedom, ethics, and the structural limits of knowing. The aim is not a total theory of Being but a map of constraints that narrows the space of coherent metaphysical alternatives without claiming to close it.
G. M. Prosperi (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: