Define "being"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

salima
 
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2009 08:02 am
@saiboimushi,
methinks it would have to be a new thread...
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 06:36 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;94394 wrote:
Salima, I never notice a missing sky or painted backgrounds until I at least begin to wake up, like memester wrote about and you when you realize the person you are talking to is someone who is dead. And certainly when I have fully awakened, my realization of the lack of detail and consistency in my dreams becomes complete. You're very right that the dreamworld is better in some ways and has less limitations. One of the things that awaken me from dreams is the sudden realization of exceeding my limitations--"Hey! You can't do that! Oh. I'm dreaming." After which I sometimes doggedly try to return to the dreamworld and exceed my limitations again. :-)

I enjoy my time flying through the air; shapeshifting; revisiting places I have been, some of which are there no more; and enjoying the presence of people I have known and loved who are absent now from my waking world. I enjoy the fantasies of the dreamworld, and I have an intuition that some of it has a reality we do not fathom, a reality beyond the psychological and physiological implications we give our dreams.

I suppose if we are to talk long about dreams here, we should ask, "do our dreams, or the fact that we dream in itself, tell us anything about the nature of existence and reality?" What do we think?

Samm

If you could tell a story, and leave out every innessential detail, you would not have a fiction, but a dream... Details are the destruction of coherence, interest, and understanding...If you wish to be understood, write simple declarative sentences, and paint detail with a light stroke...The more pictures you put in your picture the more the scene will be dominated by frames...Judging from myself, my dreams do not tell me more simple stories than my life presents to me, but it cuts through the skin and meat right to the bone... I don't care if a dream fart has a smell if it does not get me to the understanding that in our dreams we live our lives as we cannot live in daylight so that in daylight we can live better, and with greater certainty...All change is an attempt at problem solving...I did not say it first, but for that I believe it no less; and one thing we must see in dreams is that change is the rule...Nothing in dreams can be said to be as in reality, and yet it is a demonstration of the extent to which we perceive the world through our forms, ideas, notions, and signs... This stands for that- is the story of the life of mankind...

---------- Post added 10-01-2009 at 08:43 AM ----------

salima;94397 wrote:
methinks it would have to be a new thread...

Sure...Being is energy; but then, energy is being...E=M X E...
 
prothero
 
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2009 11:59 pm
@SammDickens,
salima;94016 wrote:

so I see everything as having been manifested (I simply cant think of a more appropriate word than that) from the same source, but some we call animals, some plants, some minerals,etc. we call certain conditions life, death, illness, health, etc. so you can say it is being projected-what to call the projector? call it god, call it is-ness, call it That, call it harvey...
The source from which everything is manifested:
Does it have purpose, will, goals?
Is it a rational agent?
Is it a moral agent?

[QUOTE=salima;94016]I recall that I decided consciousness was not the best word to use; I have heard it called intelligence, when it is in the state of nothingness, and it becomes awareness after duality has occurred, since prior to that it couldnt be aware of anything-consciousness cannot be aware of itself, but only aware of an object. so I have read, anyway. and that by observing reflections of itself it can begin to know something of its own nature. [/QUOTE] Francis Harold Cook describes the metaphor of Indra's net from the perspective of the Huayan school in the book Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra:
"
Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infintely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.[7]




salima;94016 wrote:

it is all very significant I think that mankind has come to the conclusion quite often that what is most important is to 'know thyself'. it is also said that the reason for manifestation was for 'whateveritis that has no name' desired to know itself. these things I dont know and consider it nothing but speculation.
It is quite Eastern to look within. It is more Western to look without. Thus, perhaps science and technology reign in the west and spirituality and meditation reign in the East. Harmony and balance seem to be lacking.

salima;94016 wrote:

I usually dont think of everything as being enchanted, but it is-and thank you for reminding me! and i really dont think we disagree on anything...

The reenchantment of the universe.
Materialism and atheism attempt to rob the universe of its magic and mystery to turn something vibrant and responsive into something mechanical and machine like devoid of ultimate purpose or transcendent aesthetic and moral value.


[QUOTE=Samm;94172] You say you "see everything as having been manifested from the same source" and so do I. This implies that it must arise from an unmanifest state, a hidden and potential state of being. [/QUOTE] How does the phrase "potentiality becoming actuality through process" strike you?
One can also talk about Plato's forms imperfectly represented in the Material world ?
Gods primordial nature (incorporating all of possibility and value)?
The "real" world is just the "primordial or potential being" experienced or actualized?
Without "the ground of all being" "the creative potential" there would be not an "actual world"?

[QUOTE=Samm;94172] In our experience, there are two categories of things-that-are-experienced. Some things we experience belong to a shared realm where apparently many conscious beings all exist and interact within the same extended dimensions of space and time. We call this shared realm "the universe" (or the world). Other things that we experience belong to a private realm to which each of us conscious beings has exclusive access. In this private realm are our thoughts and reflections, our memories, our imagination with its many facets, and our feelings (which rather cross over from one realm to another). Here, there is time because there is process and change, but there is no space. We often call this realm of private experiences the mind (or the self). [/QUOTE] Dangerously close to Descartes, dualism (res cogitans and res extensa). The question for dualism always has been how can or do the two interact?


[QUOTE=Samm;94172] When we say something is real, we mean not only that it exists (which all things-that-are-experienced do) but that it exists as a body in that universe, the shared realm of experiences. If we say that something is imaginary, we mean that it exists, but only in the private realm of the mind as a fabrication of the imagination. [/QUOTE] I object to the notion that "subjective experience" does not "exist". In fact subjective experience is the one thing of which we would seem to be certain "cogito ergo sum". The problem seems to be precisely in the form of materialism or scientism in which the claim is that "subjective" experience is an illusion or an epiphenomena of matter or just "imagination". It is precisely the notion that we are only "material" beings to which "spirituality" objects.


[QUOTE=Samm;94172] While we may question which realm is the home of things-that-are-experienced, there are no such questions about that-which-experiences. It is us. We are inescapably aware of our own consciousness, our own something-that-experiences, but we can never experience the consciousness of another being. The seer cannot be seen. Sounds spooky and mystical don't it? The ghost in the machine, the thing in itself, the unknown knower. That's us. We can be dead certain that we exist because we are dead certain that we experience, and you can't experience if you don't exist. But everyone else? That we gotta take on faith. [/QUOTE] Most people happily concede that other humans have "interiority, mental experience" by reason and analogy but not by scientific method. Most pet owners allege that higher animals have mental experience, emotions, etc. As one works ones way down the "chain of being" or the "chain of existence" at some point most people begin to allege that "interior subjective experience" ends but it is always an arbitrary divide between what experiences and what is inert and insensate.

From Wikipedia
There are qualia involved in these mental events. And the claim is that qualia seem particularly difficult to reduce to anything physical.[1]
Thomas Nagel, himself a physicalist, first characterized the problem of qualia for physicalistic monism in his article, "What is it like to be a bat?". Nagel argued that even if we knew everything there was to know from a third-person, scientific perspective about a bat's sonar system, we still wouldn't know what it is like to be a bat.
Frank Jackson formulated his famous knowledge argument based upon similar considerations. In this thought experiment, known as Mary's room, he asks us to consider a neuroscientist, Mary, who was born, and has lived all of her life, in a black and white room with a black and white television and computer monitor where she collects all the scientific data she possibly can on the nature of colours. Jackson asserts that as soon as Mary leaves the room, she will come to have new knowledge which she did not possess before: the knowledge of the experience of colours (i.e., what they are like). Although, by hypothesis, Mary had already known everything there is to know about colours from an objective, third-person perspective, she never knew, according to Jackson, what it was like to see red, orange, or green. End Wikipedia
[QUOTE=Samm;94172] But here's the rub. The only real things are conscious (experiencing) things. What does not experience is not real, and we got no way of knowing what is experiencing except us. But if something is experienced as being in the universe by more than one of us, and seems to be interacting with the other things around it, we are prone to consider it real until we find out otherwise. Also, the more like us in appearance and action it may be, the more likely we will accept its reality. otherwise, we rely on the evidence of our senses ("Show me!"). [/QUOTE]
Well any materialist (and materialism is the dominant metaphysic in the scientific technical west) will object to the notion that "what does not experience is not real". Personally I think all "actual entities" do prehend or perceive and that existence is not definable except in relation. There is innate perception of other entities which is not sensory perception. Any "actual entity" "thing which exists" must possess both mental and material attributes. Science can only observe and study the material attributes. Science thus consistently and inherently provides only a partial and incomplete picture of "ultimate reality". Reminds me of Spinoza for whom God has infinite attributes but humans are only able to perceive two of Gods attributes (mental and material) (Descartes res cogitans and res extensa).


[QUOTE=Samm;94195]Sorry. My realization, as simple and obvious as it should be, had escaped me until I was posting. There is only one thing-that-experiences, only one, and that is spirit (the name I give to existence itself. Because spirit is outside time, I assumed it could not experience. But it does experience, only not as we do. It is the observer within all beings in all universes at all times, but it experiences everything at once--a simple summary awareness of boundless potential and boundless memory all in one. There is no change, no process, only totality.Please forgive my silliness here. Samm [/QUOTE] There is a notion of God as that "eternal and actual entity" which takes into his being and preserves perfectly all of the worlds experience. The ultimate purpose of the world is the creation of experience, of value. Your life is meaningful in so far as you contribute to the creation of divine value and your experiences are perfectly preserved in the immortal life of the divine. Another way of phrasing the same concept.
 
salima
 
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2009 03:30 am
@prothero,
prothero;94716 wrote:
The source from which everything is manifested:
Does it have purpose, will, goals?
Is it a rational agent?
Is it a moral agent?


The "real" world is just the "primordial or potential being" experienced or actualized?

Without "the ground of all being" "the creative potential" there would be not an "actual world"?

Most people happily concede that other humans have "interiority, mental experience" by reason and analogy but not by scientific method. Most pet owners allege that higher animals have mental experience, emotions, etc. As one works ones way down the "chain of being" or the "chain of existence" at some point most people begin to allege that "interior subjective experience" ends but it is always an arbitrary divide between what experiences and what is inert and insensate.

Well any materialist (and materialism is the dominant metaphysic in the scientific technical west) will object to the notion that "what does not experience is not real". Personally I think all "actual entities" do prehend or perceive and that existence is not definable except in relation. There is innate perception of other entities which is not sensory perception. Any "actual entity" "thing which exists" must possess both mental and material attributes. Science can only observe and study the material attributes. Science thus consistently and inherently provides only a partial and incomplete picture of "ultimate reality". Reminds me of Spinoza for whom God has infinite attributes but humans are only able to perceive two of Gods attributes (mental and material) (Descartes res cogitans and res extensa).


your first three questions about the source: i dont sense those things, but they may be there. it has been reasoned that nothing in our minds or this manifestation could exist unless it were already present at least in potentiality within the source from which it comes. it could be here in a twisted convoluted even perverted form i think, though. and i think it is rare, if not impossible, to reach the purest form of things; i.e. ideals of truth, beauty, and again if there are ideals of what we perceive as positive there must also be ideals of the negative...hatred, envy, etc. yet another way of looking at it is that at the source there is nothing but the absolute itself which is formless...how can it have any attributes whatsoever? so i dont know the answer to your questions.

the real world i would see as the potential being 'experiencing' rather than 'experienced'. i see no reason to believe there is anything that does not experience since everything is actually that potential being-i see no separate individual beings manifested, only a projection more or less. so since i see no 'things which exist' or 'actual entities' or even any delineation between 'real' and 'false' i have fewer questions...and less answers.

as for what can we perceive of the source? we can perceive whatever is possible through our five senses, our mental capacities, and i believe also our emotional centers. there may be other yet unnamed faculties through which we can perceive that source. but no, i dont think we can ever hope to completely perceive it in its entirety

---------- Post added 10-02-2009 at 03:04 PM ----------

hmm...the concept of actualization is in reverse i think. the absolute (source or ground or god) is already actualized in its potentiality. we here in our attempts at actualization are reaching towards the wholeness of it all, i think...the light behind the projection...?
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 10:14 pm
@prothero,
prothero asks:
How does the phrase "potentiality becoming actuality through process" strike you?

Gods primordial nature (incorporating all of possibility and value)?
The "real" world is just the "primordial or potential being" experienced or actualized?
Without "the ground of all being" "the creative potential" there would be not an "actual world"?
-----------------------
Potentiality does become actuality through process. That phrase is spot on. Gods primordial nature? The "real" world...no; the limitless potential of unmanifest being is made manifest (actualized) through the interactive process of experience. The actual world we experience is nothing more than the manifestation of "the creative potential" of the ground-state of all being.
_______________________________
prothero says:
Dangerously close to Descartes, dualism (res cogitans and res extensa). The question for dualism always has been how can or do the two interact?

---------------------------
Minds exist in isolation in their realm of being. The space-time world of shared experience provides a means whereby minds, having their existence in isolation, can create a body in the shared realm, allowing them to communicate and otherwise interact with the bodies of other isolated minds. The shared realm of experience is only a means whereby minds that have their native existence in total isolation can achieve some means of intercourse with other such minds, by their actions and words, etc.
_______________________________

prothero says:
I object to the notion that "subjective experience" does not "exist". In fact subjective experience is the one thing of which we would seem to be certain "cogito ergo sum". The problem seems to be precisely in the form of materialism or scientism in which the claim is that "subjective" experience is an illusion or an epiphenomena of matter or just "imagination". It is precisely the notion that we are only "material" beings to which "spirituality" objects.

-------------------------------
I agree with you that subjective experience exists. Whatever experiences and whatever is experienced must exist; otherwise, experience could not occur, could it. My friend, Theoretika, the unicorn, exists; else, how could I see and hear her? George Washington does not exist, but stories tell that he once existed, and evidence suggests that these stories are probably true. But it is our common understanding that George Washington was real, while Theoretika is not. I can see and hear Theoretika, but I've never seen or heard George Washington, only seen paintings and such of him. But he is said to have been a flesh and blood person who interacted with many people during his life. Theoretika has never interacted with anyone but me. So we suppose that George was a conscious being, like you and I, while Theoretika is probably only a contingent being whose reality to me is an illusion, although this is by no means absolutely conclusive.
______________________________

prothero says:
Most people happily concede that other humans have "interiority, mental experience" by reason and analogy but not by scientific method. Most pet owners allege that higher animals have mental experience, emotions, etc. As one works ones way down the "chain of being" or the "chain of existence" at some point most people begin to allege that "interior subjective experience" ends but it is always an arbitrary divide between what experiences and what is inert and insensate.

-----------------------------
The alternative to acceptance of other people is solipsism, and not many of us want to go there. But I recognize that our acceptance, although based on very credible evidence, is not certain and requires a degree of faith that similar actions are indicative of similar motivations and choices.

I assume anthropocentrism in our tendency to quickly attribute actions to motives unlike our own. We hear someone call for help, and we reason that they feel distress. We see a bird eat, and we suppose that the bird is hungry or feeding its family. We see a rock drop to the ground, and we imagine that it is not responding to the tug of gravity, because its only a rock.

I see the continuity of conscious response to experience from the first quantum particles to human perception, not distinct procedures but only vastly diverse in complexity of the same procedure.
__________________________________

prothero says:
Well any materialist (and materialism is the dominant metaphysic in the scientific technical west) will object to the notion that "what does not experience is not real". Personally I think all "actual entities" do prehend or perceive and that existence is not definable except in relation. There is innate perception of other entities which is not sensory perception. Any "actual entity" "thing which exists" must possess both mental and material attributes. Science can only observe and study the material attributes. Science thus consistently and inherently provides only a partial and incomplete picture of "ultimate reality". Reminds me of Spinoza for whom God has infinite attributes but humans are only able to perceive two of Gods attributes (mental and material) (Descartes res cogitans and res extensa).

They might object, but only because they do not agree with me that everything real in this universe is a conscious being--that includes every quantum particle, every atom and molecule, every cell and organism. It seems that you do rather agree with me. I think I agree with you that we possess both mental and material attributes. I know we are conscious beings at our root, but conscious beings are wont to experience, and I believe our experience of the mental realm may be more fundamental to us than our experience of the material (physical) realm. Thus it is that we may have a "soul" and that our soul may endure throughout many lifetimes. It is a thing upon which further to consider.
____________________________________

prothero says:
There is a notion of God as that "eternal and actual entity" which takes into his being and preserves perfectly all of the worlds experience. The ultimate purpose of the world is the creation of experience, of value. Your life is meaningful in so far as you contribute to the creation of divine value and your experiences are perfectly preserved in the immortal life of the divine. Another way of phrasing the same concept.


I see the truth in these words.

Our bodies are emanations of our minds. The universe is comprised of all the bodies of all the conscious beings (the minds) sharing it. Time is change, process; and all change is the effect of the actions of the bodies of the minds that share the universe. Every action is the manifestation of a choice. Every choice is the manifestation of the character of the mind making the choice that it will enact. Every character is the manifestation of some part of the infinite potentials of spirit. Its all a great cycle between manifesting and acting (yang) and experiencing and remembering (yin).

Now there's a bunch of wild conjecture that you will not accept unless you already have pondered the subjects, as you seem to have done.

Blessed be, prothero
Samm
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2009 10:51 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;94985 wrote:
. It seems that you do rather agree with me. I think I agree with you that we possess both mental and material attributes. Samm

In many respects our views are the same but different.
The pragmatic results of our respective worldviews world be quite compatible.
Diversity is divine. Had god wanted us all to be the same?
I think the divine is a little loose on morals but high on novelty, creativity and value.
I might explore our differences later but for now. Peace be with you.

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 11:15 PM ----------

Oh what the heck, I guess I am just in the mood for this sort of discussion

Samm;94985 wrote:

Potentiality does become actuality through process. That phrase is spot on. Gods primordial nature? The "real" world...no; the limitless potential of unmanifest being is made manifest (actualized) through the interactive process of experience. The actual world we experience is nothing more than the manifestation of "the creative potential" of the ground-state of all being.
Paul Tillich referred to god as the "ground of all being" others refer to god as the "essence of existence". Western religious notions tend to see god as personal, rational and moral. Eastern religious notions tend to see god in more amorphous nebulous or neutral terms. The "potential of unmanifest being" sounds a little eastern to me. I am more Western.


Samm;94985 wrote:

Minds exist in isolation in their realm of being. The space-time world of shared experience provides a means whereby minds, having their existence in isolation, can create a body in the shared realm, allowing them to communicate and otherwise interact with the bodies of other isolated minds. The shared realm of experience is only a means whereby minds that have their native existence in total isolation can achieve some means of intercourse with other such minds, by their actions and words, etc.
This sounds a little too dualistic for me. The realm of mind separated from the realm of matter (space-time)? I am a neutral monist (mind does not exist separated from matter) nor vice versa. Mind and matter are the two poles of ultimate reality (inseparable). Science gives you access to the material aspects of reality but the mind aspects of other "entities or organisms" are not directly available through the scientific method. You know that other "beings" can have mental experience though through your own direct experience. The spectacle of scientists trying to explain away their own experience as illusion, non reality, non existent or imaginary is amusing in a way.

Samm;94985 wrote:

The alternative to acceptance of other people is solipsism, and not many of us want to go there. But I recognize that our acceptance, although based on very credible evidence, is not certain and requires a degree of faith that similar actions are indicative of similar motivations and choices.
The interiority, subjective experience, perceptions of other "actualites" are not directly available to us. We attribute such "experience to them on the basis of analogy of form and function. Materialism is a fundamental error but dualism is not the answer either.

Samm;94985 wrote:

I see the continuity of conscious response to experience from the first quantum particles to human perception, not distinct procedures but only vastly diverse in complexity of the same procedure.
I see "experience" non sensory perception (Whiteheads prehension) to the depths of nature. I take pains to indicate we are not talking about high level functioning like human "consciousness" but more primitive mental properties from which higher forms of mentality are derived in sufficiently complex systems or organisms.
__________________________________

Samm;94985 wrote:

They might object, but only because they do not agree with me that everything real in this universe is a conscious being--that includes every quantum particle, every atom and molecule, every cell and organism. It seems that you do rather agree with me. I think I agree with you that we possess both mental and material attributes. I know we are conscious beings at our root, but conscious beings are wont to experience, and I believe our experience of the mental realm may be more fundamental to us than our experience of the material (physical) realm. Thus it is that we may have a "soul" and that our soul may endure throughout many lifetimes. It is a thing upon which further to consider.
I think that what "real" ultimate reality always has two aspect or poles (mental and physical) a dipolar view of reality. I also have a dipolar view of the divine (potentiality versus actuality). I try to keep my philosophical ontological speculations separate from but compatible with my religious speculations. The speculation that primitive properties of mind are inseparable from matter and are pervasive and wide spread in nature (philosophical ontology) is different from the speculation that there is some kind of unified cosmic mind or spirit which directs or influences the evolution of the universe (philosophy of religion).


Samm;94985 wrote:
Our bodies are emanations of our minds. The universe is comprised of all the bodies of all the conscious beings (the minds) sharing it. Time is change, process; and all change is the effect of the actions of the bodies of the minds that share the universe. Every action is the manifestation of a choice. Every choice is the manifestation of the character of the mind making the choice that it will enact. Every character is the manifestation of some part of the infinite potentials of spirit. Its all a great cycle between manifesting and acting (yang) and experiencing and remembering (yin).
I think that humans have true and meaningful free will, and thus moral responsibility and agency. Thus I would agree that mind has real (albeit limited) agency in the world. In some sense I think the notion that mind partially creates reality is correct although for me matter and mind are inseparable aspects of "reality". When I am having a religious discussion I generally say I see "everything" as a "manifestation of the divine" or an "emanation of spirit" but again that is separate from advocating the ontological metaphysic of process philosophy or the neutral monism of "panexperientialism". One can support process philosophy and "panexperientialism" from a non theistic position. Materialism and mechanistic determinism seem to exclude any meaningful form of theism.
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 08:25 am
@saiboimushi,
saiboimushi;11753 wrote:
What is "being"? Can one answer this question without a tautology? And if not, why?


Being is a root-level category. Therefore, it cannot be defined.
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 09:56 am
@Shlomo,
Shlomo;95796 wrote:
Being is a root-level category. Therefore, it cannot be defined.



Hello, Shlomo! I'm the village idiot, I guess. (Come to think of if, how would I know? :perplexed:) Anyway, I wanted to ask, what is a root-level category and why haven't they been marginalized with all the other people of conscience? (Sorry. My sense of humor(?) is flying off on me this morning.)

Seriously, (he clears his throat and shakes his head), what is a root-level category and why can't they be defined? Also, since Saiboimushi does not ask for definition, can his questions still be answered?

Samm
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 11:15 am
@SammDickens,
Hello Samm,

Samm;95844 wrote:
Also, since Saiboimushi does not ask for definition, can his questions still be answered?


My understanding of 'Define "being"' is asking for definition. I might be wrong of course, so please explain me the true meaning of Saiboimushi's post.

Samm;95844 wrote:
Seriously, ... what is a root-level category and why can't they be defined?


Humans make definitions by splitting categories into subcategories/subclasses or kinds. For example, cat is a subclass of mammals, table is a subclass of furniture, philosopher is kind of thinker.

Now, if we move up the tree of classes, we can take a path like this: cat > mammal > animal > living being > being.

Or: ontological concept > philosophical concept > concept > intellectual being > being.

If you can provide something above being, and also specify what makes being just a particular case of this 'super-being', then you hold the key to triumphantly closing this thread.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 06:11 pm
@saiboimushi,
Beings makes yez faat!!!
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 06:35 pm
@Shlomo,
My bad shlomo, I was looking at the body of the first post and ignoring the title which had the subtle heading **DEFINE BEING**, all cleverly concealed right out in the open where no-one would think to look...least of all not me. :-)

Also thanks for explaining "root level category" for me.

Samm

---------- Post added 10-07-2009 at 07:41 PM ----------

This is a quick reply from a slow wit, fido. It took me five minutes to figure out your "beans make you fa_t" post. :brickwall:

y'got me!
Samm
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2009 08:29 pm
@saiboimushi,
All this beating of a dead horse with a car door is sooo pointless... It seems like everyone is walking around with a definition of being... Everyone knows what being is, and no one can prove what being is...
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2009 12:53 am
@Fido,
Fido;95929 wrote:
All this beating of a dead horse with a car door is sooo pointless... It seems like everyone is walking around with a definition of being... Everyone knows what being is, and no one can prove what being is...


If "everybody knows", but nobody can explain what he knows, maybe at lest few can honestly admit that this is beyond human understanding, instead of beating the dead horse... I hereby confess that I don't know what it is, and I am certain that only God knows.
 
Emerald Paradox
 
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2009 01:59 am
@Shlomo,
Shlomo, I believe you have a definite point in how we categorize things in order to understand them. Your tree model is exactly how we define things, by using other things to define our original item of discussion. To find what is the parent category of "being", I think it is important to understand the connotation that the word "being" implies. Usually if something does not exist, we consider it to be non-existent, and "being" to many people I'm sure requires existence of some form. Earlier someone mentioned the whole "potentiality" of something existing as a means for it to be a "being". I really do believe that the potential invention is indeed different from a realized invention, seeing as how the latter has at least one trait the former does not. The idea of a thing and the thing itself are different things, even if varying by one trait such as physical manifestation. That being said (Pun intended), being encompasses all that exists, therefore leaving at least one thing out of existence... Non-existence... Most would likely argue that since I am able to speak of non-existence, it exists, however going back to my example of the idea of invention, and invention itself, the thought of non-existence and non-existence itself are two different things. Being, to me, is equivilent to existence. From this we inch closer toward that parent category, however, by identifying one idea pointing toward some entity (or lack thereof in reality) outside of the scope of "being", we recognize that there must be a parent category to house both "being" and "non-existence". Keep in mind, that when I speak of these two I mean the "actual" forms. Things "being" are either in idea or manifested physically, and "non-existence" being the manifestation of the idea synonymous to "beings" that have come to manifestation.
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2009 02:26 am
@Emerald Paradox,
Emerald Paradox;95967 wrote:
... we recognize that there must be a parent category to house both "being" and "non-existence".
.

Well, we can do that step to the parent category hosting both being and non-being - If by non-being we mean something that still does not exist, but is about to come into existence. To unite both, we need just a little thing - cancel time. Then we come to the parent category which is Eternity.

OK. Now, who will define Eternity?
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2009 10:20 am
@Fido,
If we all know what being is, then you must agree with me that being is the ability to possess attributes, properties, or other characteristics that essentially describe or define the being. What does not exist, therefore, cannot be defined or described, and any significant change in the descriptors of a being may represent a transformation of the being's identity. How am I doing, Fido?

Samm

---------- Post added 10-08-2009 at 11:21 AM ----------

But, Shlomo, is God a being? :-)

Samm
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2009 02:59 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;96027 wrote:
But, Shlomo, is God a being? :-)

No. God is the Creator of beings.
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2009 04:10 pm
@Shlomo,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samm http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
But, Shlomo, is God a being? :-)

No. God is the Creator of beings. __________________
Knowledge is relative. Ignorance is absolute.

Oh, then we must surely make an effort at defining "being", for I fail to see how a God who lacks being can create anything. That which is not, cannot do.

Samm
 
Shlomo
 
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 12:08 am
@SammDickens,
Samm;96069 wrote:
Oh, then we must surely make an effort at defining "being", for I fail to see how a God who lacks being can create anything. That which is not, cannot do.
You have a couple of logic leakages in your statement, Samm:

1. God has created all beings but not Himself. Therefore, He is not a being.

2. Not being something does not mean lacking that something. If you are not a computer, that does not necessarily mean you lack computer. Also, lacking a Fiat but having a Mercedes does not impede driving.

To alleviate your situation vis-a-vis God, I will give you a tip: God is greater than man. Even greater than you. Try to think of it seriously. He is not a creation, He is The Creator. All the knowledge you have accumulated up to now is about creation, not about the Creator, so it is absolutely helpless when you start speaking about God.

God bless you Samm
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Fri 9 Oct, 2009 02:37 am
@Shlomo,
Sorry, Shlomo, but I thought this site had a religion section so we could distinguish arguments for the existence of God from arguments that may be made without reference to the divine. I too believe in the Great Goddess (my version of deity), but I don't think you need my evangelism here, do you?

To be is to exist. Anything that exists may be called a being. And in fact, to say that something is not a being, very strongly suggests that it (God in this case) doesn't exist. Your use of the word being is more equivalent to the word "creation". But that is a most uncommon usage of the word being, at least in my experience. In fact, at another site where we talk a lot about God, an interfaith site that I frequent, we identify God as the source of all being. I agree with that description of God, but you see, I don't think that I should force the idea of Divinity onto a secular philosophy site. It doesn't mean that, for me, God doesn't exist, it only means that I am respecting the design and regulations of the forums.

I hope that you will grant that I may rightly say God exists, or at least we can take our discussion to a religion thread site.

Samm
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 01:20:33