Define "being"

@Aedes,

Aedes;75804 wrote:

You would have a self if you'd never seen another person in your life. You'd know the difference between you and the air, or the ground, or the trees.

I didn't say anything about spiritualism. I was talking about the spirit.

Yes, one of my favorite pieces of music, and I know it very well. Spirituality and spiritualism, as evinced by human passions and human passionate pursuits, does not depend in the slightest on whether the spirit is a metaphysical entity or whether it's a psychological construct -- because spirituality is born of how we feel about the spirit -- whatever it is.

First what constitutes Self? Small i? Big I? Or should we use the Greek Psyche which is Self/Soul?

The Spirit of what? The zeitgeist?

And yes it advisable to feel, for feelings are IMHO the consciousness of the body. So artists take the interiority of their lives and dress it up and externalise it so it can be presented to the world. Very brief and short view on art.

I disagree with you about how we perceive it though, I don't think that spirit is something that can simply be evoked, as part of a preconditioned or willed experience, it has to be perceived, without out consciousness generating the event.

Some times an interior response to an external stimulus does provoke it, like the Mahler 2 experienced in its full symphonic beauty and this has once for me generated an internal response that manifested though altered perception of the world around me. For Mahler its not just the music but what is in the music.

But then what about the aha moment of perceptive understanding? Is that a spiritual experience?

A large portion of 20th Century writers who were preoccupied with the spirit and spiritualism always projected it on to the world, think satori moment in The Razors Edge, Siddhartha by the stream. The event depicted always had an external stimulus which the character would then project back on to the world.

@saiboimushi,

Being in websters is defined as the quality or state of having existence

so a human being is "the human quality or state of having existence" etc. etc.

@vajrasattva,

vajrasattva;78010 wrote:

Being in websters is defined as the quality or state of having existence

so a human being is "the human quality or state of having existence" etc. etc.

The corollary of this is 'what is existence?' Because, as soon as you tie being and existence together you need to define 'existence' as well.

@hammersklavier,

We live in a mirror imaged make believe thought wave universe, made up of cycles of apparent time and motion. One half the cycle is in the unseen world of cause, the other half of the cycle is what we call the material world.
To try and understand the material world which is half the cycle is impossible, one must be fully aware of the whole cycle, to come up with any consensus of the how and the why of creation. Richard

@hammersklavier,

hammersklavier;78016 wrote:

The corollary of this is 'what is existence?' Because, as soon as you tie being and existence together you need to define 'existence' as well.

There is one big difference between what exists for us, and our existence as life and consciousness...What we think of being may well depend upon matter but it cannot be grasped except spiritually...We know we are going to die, and we deny... We think we are one... Yet, our lives are handed to us from life, as a part of a chain stretching back to the beginning of life...In fact, we are all matter, complex in our chemistry, unusual in our psychology, and not one little bit spiritual... Where else but in us can matter consider itself... Where else can the eyball of existence turn to gaze into the eyeball of existence???

@Fido,

Fido;78028 wrote:

There is one big difference between what exists for us, ?

Does "what exists for us" exist? I would think that is sometimes true, since, to say that something exists for us is no more than to say that we think that it exist, and often things that I think exist, do exist. For instance, I not only think that giraffes exist, but they do exist. On the other hand, Ponce de Leon thought that The Fountain of Youth existed (it existed for him) but it did not exist. See the difference?

@saiboimushi,

Being is my own defined reasoning would be common denominator of all subsistence and non-subsistence.

(Apology if I insert my answer based from the beginning question about being. Rather than answering the above one.)

@Ongbak,

Being is pure consciousness, the unseen half the cycle, existence is the other half the cycle, reflected into which we see as the material world Richard

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant;78205 wrote:

Being is pure consciousness, the unseen half the cycle, existence is the other half the cycle, reflected into which we see as the material world Richard

Then why is it that lots of things existed when no people existed, and when, there was no consciousness? The Sun and the stars existed way before people existed.

@Richardgrant,

Hi,

I guess I would say that being is the ability to create or sense material or non-material forms - or what Sheldrake would morphic energy fields. Thus in a sleep state, one would be creating dreams (non-material morphic form) and would also possibly be sensing them in the form of some emotion.

In an awake state, the creation and sensing would be different for each person.

Rich

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;78218 wrote:

Then why is it that lots of things existed when no people existed, and when, there was no consciousness? The Sun and the stars existed way before people existed.

Nothing existed before the concept of existence existed, because only in that fashion could meaning be assigned to existence...We all believe the stars existed before us, and we all know they never existed before we set our eyes upon them... With life comes knowledge, and knowledge like life is finite....So tell me what came first; the being or the meaning???They are one and the same...As an analogy, one is the reflection of the other, and if that is true, the object, the vision, and the reflection all exist at the same moment... It exists because we exist, and we exist because we exist....There is no division between us...There are only forms...The form is being this instant, and meaning in the next, but it is one or the other, and nothing else...

@Fido,

Fido;78232 wrote:

Nothing existed before the concept of existence existed, because only in that fashion could meaning be assigned to existence...We all believe the stars existed before us, and we all know they never existed before we set our eyes upon them... With life comes knowledge, and knowledge like life is finite....So tell me what came first; the being or the meaning???They are one and the same...As an analogy, one is the reflection of the other, and if that is true, the object, the vision, and the reflection all exist at the same moment... It exists because we exist, and we exist because we exist....There is no division between us...There are only forms...The form is being this instant, and meaning in the next, but it is one or the other, and nothing else...

There are no concepts without people, so there is no concept of existence without people. But, in any case, we all know that there was a Sun, and the Moon, and the stars, and many other things, before there was any mind. Concepts are irrelevant. If you don't believe me, look up carbon dating.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;78273 wrote:

There are no concepts without people, so there is no concept of existence without people. But, in any case, we all know that there was a Sun, and the Moon, and the stars, and many other things, before there was any mind. Concepts are irrelevant. If you don't believe me, look up carbon dating.

How do we know it??? We know it with our being as we know our being, with consciouness...So with without consciousness what do you know, and what exists if you cannot say it exists...Exitence is not just an infinite thing in itself, but is also our judgement...No judgement equals no being...

@Fido,

Fido;78330 wrote:

How do we know it??? We know it with our being as we know our being, with consciouness...So with without consciousness what do you know, and what exists if you cannot say it exists...Exitence is not just an infinite thing in itself, but is also our judgement...No judgement equals no being...

Astronomers and physicists tell us that the Earth and the planets antedated human beings and consciousness by many years. I prefer to believe the scientists.

@kennethamy,

All my studies lead me to come to the conclusion that there is only here and now, no past, no future, everything that happens unhappens in the here and now. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction created simultaneously. Eternity is within mans consciousness, the One Mind of all that is

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;78331 wrote:

Astronomers and physicists tell us that the Earth and the planets antedated human beings and consciousness by many years. I prefer to believe the scientists.

Then why not believe the Pope???Every one is an authority...

@Fido,

Fido;78232 wrote:

Nothing existed before the concept of existence existed, because only in that fashion could meaning be assigned to existence....

This does not make any sense! Different cultures have consistently over time assigned meaning to life in their own fashion. Primitive cultures found meaning in their existence in the natural world and sought answers to define the meaning of their Being through the rhythms of the natural world.

We are somewhat more sophisticated and seek meaning in a diversity of fields. For some the meaning of being is defined through their religious affiliations. But others myself included define Being is that which is, the essential essence of our existence.

And to throw a Spaniard in the works, if Self is regarded as a social construct is Being? Or is Being an essential element of our lives the foundation of the house in which we dwell.

@Paracelsus,

Paracelsus;78350 wrote:

This does not make any sense! Different cultures have consistently over time assigned meaning to life in their own fashion. Primitive cultures found meaning in their existence in the natural world and sought answers to define the meaning of their Being through the rhythms of the natural world.

We are somewhat more sophisticated and seek meaning in a diversity of fields. For some the meaning of being is defined through their religious affiliations. But others myself included define Being is that which is, the essential essence of our existence.

And to throw a Spaniard in the works, if Self is regarded as a social construct is Being? Or is Being an essential element of our lives the foundation of the house in which we dwell.

Let me try to explain it, and see if I can do better... Being is meaning... When we say death, or nothing it is not that these exist, but that we find meaning in them, so to us they are real, and exist...But to mean some thing, what ever it is must mean to some one... To say it existed, or anything existed before us to find meaning in it is simply an expression... Time, putting all of reality in perspective means something to us, and for the obvious reason that life is time...Can anything really have meaning, which is to say, Being, without us to find meaning in it??? We cross the line when we consider eternity because the object is not the impossible task of finding meaning in the meaningless reach of time, but is to give meaning to our own material existence... Think of the philosophers contemplating the distant stars as a means of reaching spiritual godhead, to travel through the spheres to the seventh heaven, and leave the great raft of mankind to their earthly fates...It was not universal meaning they were seeking, but individual meaning, and that meaning was the sum of their being...So it is with all of us... What ever we may think, when being is gone, meaning is gone...

@Fido,

Fido;78373 wrote:

Let me try to explain it, and see if I can do better... Being is meaning... When we say death, or nothing it is not that these exist, but that we find meaning in them, so to us they are real, and exist...But to mean some thing, what ever it is must mean to some one... To say it existed, or anything existed before us to find meaning in it is simply an expression... Time, putting all of reality in perspective means something to us, and for the obvious reason that life is time...Can anything really have meaning, which is to say, Being, without us to find meaning in it??? We cross the line when we consider eternity because the object is not the impossible task of finding meaning in the meaningless reach of time, but is to give meaning to our own material existence... Think of the philosophers contemplating the distant stars as a means of reaching spiritual godhead, to travel through the spheres to the seventh heaven, and leave the great raft of mankind to their earthly fates...It was not universal meaning they were seeking, but individual meaning, and that meaning was the sum of their being...So it is with all of us... What ever we may think, when being is gone, meaning is gone...

I disagree that Being is meaning, we endow our life/being with meaning. We experience the world and we ruminate upon our existence and in that process we create meaning, which enhances our lives though broadening our conceptual framework.

Being does not automatically endow lived life with meaning. How can it?

Life exposes us to concepts which circulate and at the point of engagement with the concept we are able to study and analyse it. Does it work does it contribute to my life in any way shape or form?

The circulation of concepts creates meaning in a discursive or textural manner. Ideas are the currency of thought and they circulate in the world, ergo this forum is one of many nodes which form the basis for the circulation of ideas. A forum like this is where people exchange their ideas and give voice to the conceptual framework of their lives.

For example if I write a book on philosophy of the Self, and state the Self is not a social construct but an intrinsic element of my Being, then the ideas contained therein will circulate within society or the academy and they will be discursively engaged, debated and subject to textural analysis.

Once this process begins it matters not if I continue my existence for the ideas I have expressed are in circulation. The meaning contained in the concept does not need the originator of the concept alive to continue its own existence isn't that what the history of philosophy teaches us?
Time evolves both Being and our ability to comprehend ideas that produce meaning. This is the growth of the intellect. I wasn't reading Deleuze at 20 it took me time to develop the skills required to read and interact with other philosophers before I could come to that point. As for time I would recommend you study Bergson and his concept of duration.

Maybe there are universal meanings or if you wish to go further Ideas, concepts that provide meaning which could potentially exist as either Platonic forms or on a Deleuzian plateau. And it is through the engagement of ideas that we add to the overall dimension of meaning, after all do you think that Being existed before it was conceptualised? And if so in what shape or form? Being is a concept a construct we can actively speak of. That is what the currency of ideas is all about, discursive practice which generates meaning and value to our lived sojourn.

@Paracelsus,

Quite the opposite...It is with our lives that we endow meaning... How much meaning do the dead endow???

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know