Define "being"

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Sean K

Um, did you guys get to the bottom of what 'being' was?

I read through the first few pages and then it digressed a little.

To answer this question you probably need to frame it a little better. People tend go off on all sorts of tangents talking about physical, spiritual, and extraterrestrial, and before you know it your talking about morality...

So, are we talking about the human physical being, or a state of awareness, or any entity that has choice, or an entity from outer space that can bless wishes?

I think someone said semantics at some point, and therefore it may be important to better clarrify the question.


(sorry if this was raised between pages 6 - 18, and sorry, I am not a philosophy graduate )

It is only because every one already knows what being is; but everyone wants to know what BEING is; and that is organic, and social; and negotiating organic and social being so that you can BE is the game behind the game.

[lost_at_sea]

Originally Posted by nameless

Perhaps 'being' is... not 'doing'?

Bergson argued that the 'actual' refers to the present - which is pure materiality. 'Existence' is (1) presentation to consciousness - or the present - and (2) the causal sequence that connects the before and the after - so existence must include the actual present and the virtual past - which means that Being refers to the fluctuation between the actual and the virtual - so in this sense, maybe Being needs to be defined in some sense not simply by actuality, bur rather in part by negatively or a lack?

[nameless]

Originally Posted by lost_at_sea

Originally Posted by nameless
Perhaps 'being' is... not 'doing'?

Bergson argued that the 'actual' refers to the present

I can see this, as the 'present' is all that there is. Beyond the present, the Now, is no'thing'. So the 'actual' is all there is...?

- which is pure materiality.

Woah! Certainly not from this Perspective. Besides, 'materialism' has long been scientifically refuted.

'Existence' is (1) presentation to consciousness

That is what we are, Conscious Perspective (soul). Consciousness, through/by/as us, as Perspective, can 'see' Mind.
So, I can see this too... Still Bergson?

(2) the causal sequence that connects the before and the after - so existence must include the actual present and the virtual past - which means that Being refers to the fluctuation between the actual and the virtual - so in this sense, maybe Being needs to be defined in some sense not simply by actuality, bur rather in part by negatively or a lack?

I can understand this Perspective, but from here, the notion of 'cause and effect' is obsolete. The 'evidence' is now seen as two (or more) features of the same event, synchronous. 'Sequentialism, linearity, time, before and after'..., are all local relics of particular Perspectives, not inherent in existence (other than as 'thoughts', of course). All moments of all existence for/in all Perspectives are synchronous, Now! All existence lasting for one Planck moment, one billion trillion trillion trillionth of a second! (There might have been a Big Bang, but nothing more, no 'linearity')

All existence, (= definitions/context) by necessity are defined both 'positively' and 'negatively', that which it 'is' and that which it 'isn't'. There can not be found any definitive place where 'one thing' actually leaves off and another 'thing' begins. Ultimately, to fully and completely 'define' any 'single thing' would require the entire Perceived universe at the moment of that definition.
One now wonders at the 'concept' of 'single things' that we have learned to accept...

[lost_at_sea]

The present is all there 'is' in terms of extended phenomena - what's most important is that existence is not bound to the actual 'present'. The virtual past must also be taken into account. So, the past is not nothing, but rather is in existence that evades the 'actual'. the terminology makes it seem like the 'actual' is all there 'is' - But Bergson argues that much more needs to be taken into account.

This is why existence includes both (1) presentation to Consciousness and (2) the temporal connection of the before and the after. Also, Bergson argues that we cannot equate consciousness with existence absolutely. In fact, he thinks that perception and consciousness are included in the external world and, therefore, are an extension of the body. So, we don't run into an immaterial element hidden behind material things, as Descartes and even Husserl did. Rather the immaterial element of existence rests in time. so Bergson's notion of spirit is more related to unconscious psychic states that are held together in time.

I see your thinking on the notion of cause and effect, but I am hesitant on the idea that time does not exist. The problem is that, in conceptions of time taken both from Bergson and Heidegger, I conceive time to be the basis of Being in general - not of the world, but of ourselves. They both argued that if one were 'in' the now, there is no movement or process whereby the possibility of awareness could arise. Heidegger wrote something like, 'if there were just the present, Being would be Nothing' - Time gives rise to the possibility of Being. To be sure, though, I am not advocating time that admits of number and is used as a measurement of the physical world. Rather, it is something inherent to Being itself. In the world, there is simply a simultaneous presense or Now. But as partly constituting my Being as a 'thing' that is able to recognize its own self and interact in the world, i think time plays a serious role.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by lost_at_sea

The present is all there 'is' in terms of extended phenomena - what's most important is that existence is not bound to the actual 'present'.

There is no more to existence then this moment, Here/Now! Thats all. Now!

The virtual past must also be taken into account.

That is no more than memory fantasies. There is no 'past' in an existence consisting of synchronous moments.

So, the past is not nothing,

Correct, it 'exists' as 'memory'.

but rather is in existence that evades the 'actual'. the terminology makes it seem like the 'actual' is all there 'is' - But Bergson argues that much more needs to be taken into account.

I don't know who your 'Bergson' is, but as you present his thoughts, he is incorrect.

I see your thinking on the notion of cause and effect, but I am hesitant on the idea that time does not exist.

'Time' does exist, as a local 'appearance' of/in certain Perspectives.

They both argued that if one were 'in' the now, there is no movement or process

Exactly! In the Now, movement is impossible. But we seem to strain and twist to make our perceptions fit our conceptions. Naive realism is refuted/discredited, scientifically.

whereby the possibility of awareness could arise.

We are Conscious Perspective. Within our 'view' exists the appearance of 'motion'. Consciousness is the Ground of all Being, not the other way around.

Heidegger wrote something like, 'if there were just the present, Being would be Nothing'

'Being' is neither 'nothing' nor 'something'. Being, for a moment, 'is'.

- Time gives rise to the possibility of Being.

This sounds like an inability to distinguish 'appearances' from the true nature of existence, to distinguish what we perceive from what the evidence of science is revealing.

To be sure, though, I am not advocating time that admits of number and is used as a measurement of the physical world. Rather, it is something inherent to Being itself.

Yes, from local Perspectives, the term is 'time/space', one and the same, indistinguishable but by 'appearances', perspective.

In the world, there is simply a simultaneous presense or Now. But as partly constituting my Being as a 'thing' that is able to recognize its own self and interact in the world, i think time plays a serious role.

In/as a 'local' Perspective, you are certainly correct!
Peace

[lost_at_sea]

[quote=nameless;22419]There is no more to existence then this moment, Here/Now! Thats all. Now! That is no more than memory fantasies. There is no 'past' in an existence consisting of synchronous moments. Correct, it 'exists' as 'memory'.

On what grounds is a 'memory' a fantasy? Also, if you speak of 'moments', if there is just this moment, then how can the process of recalling a memory occur at the same time as the moment that is constituted in the memory? There is separation required in the possibility of the existence of a memory.


I don't know who your 'Bergson' is, but as you present his thoughts, he is incorrect. 'Time' does exist, as a local 'appearance' of/in certain Perspectives.


Please define Perspective on a 'local' level. Do you mean that Perspectives have the appearance of reality, but are not - and therefore are just illusions? Or, are they reflective of Nietzsche's Perspectivism? you seem to project the former, which is problematic because, just as you deny naive realism so assuredly, you are simply maintaining realism from the position of Science - which inevitably creates several more questions. On what grounds do we have objective access to the world/ourselves? Is there Truth? What is Science 'revealing'? In a sense, you seem to point out the very problem: All that perception reveals are 'local' Perspectives - we can't escape our own perception. So where is your/our access to Science and its revealing of 'actual' reality?


Exactly! In the Now, movement is impossible. But we seem to strain and twist to make our perceptions fit our conceptions. Naive realism is refuted/discredited, scientifically.


On what ground is movement impossible? If this is reference to Zeno's paradox, there is a problem. The only reason the paradox works is because there are specified intervals existing separately in a spatial trajectory. However, in movement there is no mathematical intervals that intercept the process and make it divisible. Rather, movement evades prepared spatial intervals and, therefore, does not admit of division. It is a paradox only as a math problem and not in movement itself.


We are Conscious Perspective. Within our 'view' exists the appearance of 'motion'. Consciousness is the Ground of all Being, not the other way around.

Again, if we are conscious Perspective, how is science possible? Also, on what ground is Consciousness the Ground of Being?

[nameless]

Originally Posted by lost_at_sea

On what grounds is a 'memory' a fantasy?

Ever hear of the 'false memory foundation'? When kids (or anyone) have 'implanted' memories of events that did not happen and parents have gone to prison based upon such, would you consider such a memory to be considered a 'fantasy'? 'False'?

On second thought, I will reservedly retract the 'fantasy' comment, as it is not up to me to determine that the 'reality' of another is a 'fantasy' (according to the common meanings of 'fantasy'). Your reality is your reality whether we share perspective or not. Unfortunately, people have been sentenced to prison on the 'limited realities' of others. Some, obviously, more 'limited' than others.

Also, if you speak of 'moments', if there is just this moment, then how can the process of recalling a memory occur at the same time as the moment that is constituted in the memory? There is separation required in the possibility of the existence of a memory.

In the Now moment, the universe is complete, with us and our memories, Here/Now. Whatever memories we have in mind arise synchronously with the moment.

I don't know who your 'Bergson' is, but as you present his thoughts, he is incorrect. 'Time' does exist, as a local 'appearance' of/in certain Perspectives.


Please define Perspective on a 'local' level.

Perspective is 'local'. 'Perspective' is, by definition, limited to locality.

Do you mean that Perspectives have the appearance of reality, but are not - and therefore are just illusions?

No, Perspective is 'reality'/existence, but incomplete, limited to locality and 'breadth'.

..you are simply maintaining realism from the position of Science -

No again, I am saying that the 'real' is manifested in and as Perspectives (us), uniquely to each Perspective, every moment. That of which you are aware is 'reality'; if pink elephants are what you are seeing, then that is 'reality'.. for you. There is no 'one size fits all' reality as some scientists like to 'fantasize'. I use 'fantasize' in the sense that a local 'reality' is thought to be 'universal'. Universal, perhaps, to one's own unique universe at/of the moment.

On what grounds do we have objective access to the world/ourselves?

We do not have 'access', we are part and parcel of the universe of the moment that we perceive. Our universes (and 'selves) of the moments are manifested in and as we 'observe' as Perspective. We observe 'Mind'. 'Mind' is 'quantum possibility wave field/undifferentiated potential/chaos/perfectly symmetrical...'. That which is perfectly symmetrical can have no 'qualities' that can change, and all qualities can change, are dualistic and contextual. It is by the inherent limitations of Perspective that the 'undifferentiated potential' can be 'differentiated' into all possibilities, all possible universes, by all possible Perspectives.
No'thing' can be, that is not observed by Perspective. Everything seen by Perspective, exists. Everything exists. Existence is context. The perfect symmetry of Mind can have no inherent context.

Is there Truth?

If one wishes to equate 'Truth' with 'Reality' (and I have no problem with that), then there is nothing but!
The best 'definition of 'Reality' that I have heard is; "Reality' must rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of universal permanence." Perfect symmetry.

What is Science 'revealing'?

Local phenomena, for 'local' Perspectives.

In a sense, you seem to point out the very problem: All that perception reveals are 'local' Perspectives - we can't escape our own perception. So where is your/our access to Science and its revealing of 'actual' reality?

Beyond the momentary manifestations of/as/to our Perspectives, there is no 'actual-one-size-fits-all-Perspectives-reality' perceivable to Consciousness.

Exactly! In the Now, movement is impossible. But we seem to strain and twist to make our perceptions fit our conceptions. Naive realism is refuted/discredited, scientifically.


On what ground is movement impossible?

A net search (scroogle dot org) on the 'impossibility of motion' will provide different Perspectives in support of this impossibility. It is Perspective, like looking at the still frames of a movie in a certain way gives rise to the 'illusion' of motion, so the still frames, the 'Tapestries', of the momentary universes, and memory, give rise to the 'same' illusions of 'motion' and 'linearity' necessary for the illusion of motion. One Planck moment is has nothing that can be considered as 'duration', by definition. As moments are quantumly discrete and synchronous, nothing can 'evolve', nothing can 'change' except to a 'linear Perspective'. There are other Perspectives besid4es the linear. All possibilities are 'actualized' as/by Perspective.

If this is reference to Zeno's paradox, there is a problem. The only reason the paradox works is because there are specified intervals existing separately in a spatial trajectory. However, in movement there is no mathematical intervals that intercept the process and make it divisible. Rather, movement evades prepared spatial intervals and, therefore, does not admit of division. It is a paradox only as a math problem and not in movement itself.

Zeno (among others, as a web search will find) has shown, logically, that motion is impossible. One cannot even take the tiniest of steps as that in itself would require the crossing of 'infinite gulfs' over 'infinite time'' the 'gulfs' between quantumly discrete moments. The only 'paradox' is that it is so counterintuitionally in violation of the 'evidence' of our senses, that most either refuse outright to give it any credit because they 'know better', or desperately stretch and twist the 'facts' to make it fit (like the mathematicians who offer their intellectually dishonest and emotional 'convergence'; .99999... = 1 nonsense). 'We' try too hard to find (post facto) 'validation' for our 'naive reality' with which we egoically and emotionally identify. Science does not support it. Do the search, you might find some interesting and mind expanding reading. Careful of cerebral stretch-marks! They can be addicting!

We are Conscious Perspective. Within our 'view' exists the appearance of 'motion'. Consciousness is the Ground of all Being, not the other way around.

Again, if we are conscious Perspective, how is science possible?

Science is part of the manifested momentary universes, as is baseball, thoughts, dreams, memory... all Here/Now, Complete in the universe (Tapestry, not movie) of the moment. And again, in and of the moment is science a 'reality', but all 'local' to the Perspective.

Also, on what ground is Consciousness the Ground of Being?

If you seek a scientific explanation, see the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. There are other disciplines (mysticism, for one) that have 'known' this for millennia Science is finally dealing with the Consciousness that it has feared and attempted to ignore (empirical objectivity) for so long. Any science that does not make the critical updates that qm has revealed and offered, will become obsolete.
Richard Feynman once said that; "Quantum mechanics comes on as so off-the-wall that only a mystical state of mind can even begin to probe it's mysteries!"
On many 'grounds'...

[Binyamin Tsadik]

Being is the ability to interact with the world. Being is existing. It is a gift that we are all very lucky to have been given.

[William]

Originally Posted by Binyamin Tsadik

Being is the ability to interact with the world. Being is existing. It is a gift that we are all very lucky to have been given.

What is unlucky? I feel the same, but when I hear someone else say it, the following question arose. If those who have being are "lucky", what does "unlucky" mean.

William

[Fido]

Originally Posted by William

What is unlucky? I feel the same, but when I hear someone else say it, the following question arose. If those who have being are "lucky", what does "unlucky" mean.

William

We have a lot of references to luck, fortune, grace and fate in our daily lives. What is scarry is when economist and presidents use the word, and you can sometimes hear it. It reminds me of that old joke where the Bishop, Monseignor, and Priest won first, second, and third prizes in the church raffle. And the Priest say's: Aint I lucky. If we are depending upon luck in this day and age it is because we are pushing things beyond the failure point. A bridge fell into the Mississipee. Was that luck? Were all the people who didn't die lucky? When the bridge didn't fall on any given day were the people lucky. We are all betting and all gambling because we are absolutely right that only luck can save us. It reminds me of the reference in Plato that we have foresight which we lose when we begin to hope against hope. Who has the courage to face life without hope. Only that one with every interest in survival who leaves as little of his life to fortune as only he must.