What defines living? We don't even have a universal definition. So if all living things are a being, what exactly is a being? If it's something that can be, a rock fits.

It's tough to say where the cut off point is for consciousness, especially considering we can't *prove* anything else has a consciousness. And, even if we defined where the cut off point is for that, we've already established things can be alive without being conscious or aware. Amoebas (single cell organism) are considered alive but are not considered conscious or aware - they are, from most I've spoken to, considered a system, just like a computer program; Each unit is assigned to a specific task, and then completes it. But isn't that what our body does, just a million times over?

If we conclude an amoeba isn't aware, then essentially none of our bodies are aware, right? Somewhere between an amoeba and a human there is a difference, a formation of consciousness, but where does it begin? And no, it's not just a brain as developed as ours, because we consider insects to be conscious and aware, just like many other creatures.

What defines living? We don't even have a universal definition.

I define living, for me...You define living for you...We think it is objectively the same for each, and we know it is subjectively unique to each...

Professor Steven Rose in The New Penguin English Dictionary writes: " The characteristic of living organisms include the capacity to maintain a constant internal environment, to respond to and transform their external environment, to grow and develop, and to self-replicate, producing more or less identical copies of themselves. Living beings are thermodynamically open, driving energy from their environment in order to sustain and transform themselves, a process known as autopoiesis, or self-creation".

I am not aware of any animate substance created by human beings yet.

Being True

When subjective or personal truth equals objective or universal truth, Oneness is achieved.
Then while being One equally of this infinite Universe One's true being is minutely infinitesimal.
So much for ego!

=
MJA

Being is "Is!". As I am sitting her typing the words the words that land before my feet I realise that I am just getting my feet wet.

If subjective or personal truth would equal universal truth, we would have transcended this consciousness, and yes, the ego. If we knew, we wouldn't be able to communicate it, we would just be - the oneness you speak of (Let me clarify, that I actually do think along the lines of what you're saying, and perhaps I can elaborate in another thread)

However, for the sake of our current consciousnesses, not yet in line with whatever objective universe there is, if there is one, I'd really enjoy trying to ponder being. Let's see how enlightened we can become before joining with the oneness, if we do

We wouldn't be able to communicate universal truth? Well I Just did.

=
MJA

a- What is the scientific definition of "living"? Professor Steven Rose in The New Penguin English Dictionary writes: " The characteristic of living organisms include the capacity to maintain a constant internal environment, to respond to and transform their external environment, to grow and develop, and to self-replicate, producing more or less identical copies of themselves. Living beings are thermodynamically open, driving energy from their environment in order to sustain and transform themselves, a process known as autopoiesis, or self-creation".

I'm familiar with these points, however, as far as I know, there are some things we consider living that do not meet all of these requirements.

Additionally, there are some things we consider not living that do meet some of these requirements (ie. viruses can self-replicate and grow and develop

It's just very interesting we define things as being "alive", yet can't draw the line where life begins, or even what it really is.

During the history of the universe [and our planet earth] the change [by mutation] of molecular structures of the basic ingredients of inanimate chemicals [substance] have created animate substance [living organism]. And from the most basic animate form/substance [again with mutation and evolution combine with constantly changing external conditions] we come to where we are today.

What is "being"? Can one answer this question without a tautology? And if not, why?


Feel free to interrogate the assumptions behind these questions. I don't really mind how you approach the whole matter, as long as you can in some way satisfy my curiosity

boagie

Sorry don't agree with you here, the Self is no Tabula Rasa. I subscribe to a theory of Selfness which is post Jungian phenomenological in approach and incorporates archetrypal themes, which for arguments sake are in the basis of our DNA.

Even if the Self was a blank slate or sponge and is purely a social construction then our experience and memory is not just a mental construct. The body is a conscious entity and the body remembers and associates those memories with feelings which to me is the expression of the body's consciousness.

With human beings who are social actors we enter and exist the stage with different demands, wants and needs and no I am not reducing it all to desire and absence, and these demands of the small i determine the Ego projection we employ at the time to achieve those ends.

I do agree with your observation that things are defined by function but here we have to take into account the motivation of the I as Self as opposed to the small i of Ego.

But to bring it back to being, being is in the world and as such interacts with the world and other beings to define and situate it. Self is not being they differ, being is the totality which encompasses and anchors the Self in the world. Being is the totality of our lives while Self dare I say it is an essential function of Being, an integrated aspect which is then further divided by the Mind and then projected by the Ego.

What is "being"? Can one answer this question without a tautology? And if not, why?


Feel free to interrogate the assumptions behind these questions. I don't really mind how you approach the whole matter, as long as you can in some way satisfy my curiosity