Define "being"

@Paracelsus,

People are, and know they are, but when they want to define it seek the words of others. Why not define being by doing something. If it will not define your being it will redefine your being. We need do nothing to be at this moment. That is done. To be tomorrow we must plan for it, lay aside something for it, and work for it. Being today is done, and the result of past effort played out. Being tomorrow means we were here today, and willing, and able to prove it. The future makes the case for the past. To be, one must own the future. Who owns the future except in their dreams? Instead we grasp the future as we grasp the present, with a weak grip. To have the future we must cooperate, and to cooperate we must realize we are in life, in being together.

@Paracelsus,

Paracelsus wrote:

Sorry this just doesn't make sense if its a logic or word game you have me baffled. Zen koan? Sound of one hand clapping.

I thought that the intent of a philosophy text and its author was to educate liberate and set new paradigms of though in train. Even with a deconstructionist reading, must have gotten it wrong.

What makes Kant so difficult is that he argues his predecessors so well one might think that is how Kant thinks. By rehearsing what has gone before we are doing history, not doing philosophy.

@Fairbanks,

I'd have to see what Heidegger said on the subject of verification in Kant; but are you folks not confusing proof with evidence? All we know of life is being, and all we know of anything is being, but the meaning of being is that we must be for it to be. It, what ever it is, is evidence of us. Matter matters because life matters. To try to prove objective existence puts one in the position of levering an island from a raft. First find firm ground and sure footing.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I'd have to see what Heidegger said on the subject of verification in Kant; but are you folks not confusing proof with evidence? All we know of life is being, and all we know of anything is being, but the meaning of being is that we must be for it to be. It, what ever it is, is evidence of us. Matter matters because life matters. To try to prove objective existence puts one in the position of levering an island from a raft. First find firm ground and sure footing.

Hegel, Phen. of Spirit: First thing we know is 'there it is' and 'here we are.' But at that point what we know is unmediated, it is immediate. That's fine but no relation has been noted. It's just this, and we are just this. It is, simply, and we are, simply. Of course we can't leave it alone and we start relating, dividing. We say, it is and it is not us. A difference! A sort of symmetry, but not equal, the same but not identical. Next thing you know here comes Derrida and says the difference must be important somehow but is the difference something in itself?

@Fairbanks,

It is all well and good to consider being, truth, reality etc. Together they are a cosmic trip though our navels. Since we know we are, on slight evidence only, take it to the bank and trade it for a life. Our whatever. Being is not a single thing, but all we do with it. If all we do is examine it through minutia, well, then we die. It may be much to ask one philosophically inclined to take anything not proved as fact but where does the proof of anything not follow its acceptance as fact? We try to prove what we accept as truth before proof. No one tries to advance a theory believed before hand untrue. So what if being is untrue? Being is your story... Fabricate it as you please.

Let me see if I can correctly rephrase your question: Are we conscious of a difference between ourselves and all existence because there is a difference or because we are conscious, and so, different? Or perhaps... I our difference from the whole of existence greater than our consciousness, or only that we are conscious? Am I hitting close to the mark?

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

It is all well and good to consider being, truth, reality etc. Together they are a cosmic trip though our navels. Since we know we are, on slight evidence only, take it to the bank and trade it for a life. Our whatever. Being is not a single thing, but all we do with it. If all we do is examine it through minutia, well, then we die. It may be much to ask one philosophically inclined to take anything not proved as fact but where does the proof of anything not follow its acceptance as fact? We try to prove what we accept as truth before proof. No one tries to advance a theory believed before hand untrue. So what if being is untrue? Being is your story... Fabricate it as you please.

Physicists know there are no direct observations of quarks and other such partial particles, but from observation they may construct a theory that presumes quarks, a theory that is consistent with the data. Oddly, perhaps, this is not far from the construction of a reality presuming God, free will, and the eternal soul. It is not inconsistent with the data.

@Fairbanks,

Being is easy to accept since it is sooo immediate. The more junk we pile on that horse the more it disappears. Why should any one walk where they can ride? So, if I can believe being, but I cannot prove being then I cannot prove god or will by being. Actually I can't prove anything, but accepting being I can find greater degrees of certainty in almost anything. What do you think

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Being is easy to accept since it is sooo immediate. The more junk we pile on that horse the more it disappears. Why should any one walk where they can ride? So, if I can believe being, but I cannot prove being then I cannot prove god or will by being. Actually I can't prove anything, but accepting being I can find greater degrees of certainty in almost anything. What do you think

Proof is establishment of relation. But first establish that relation is possible.

@Fido,

Everything is a state of consciousness, if my concept of myself were different, everything in my world would be different. My concept of myself being what it is, everything in my world must be as it is, it's my reactions will tell my true state of consciousness.

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant wrote:

Everything is a state of consciousness, . . . .

What strange Weltanschauungen there are amongst clever people!
--Bismarck

@Fairbanks,

If being is a condition and not a state then it would stand to reason that it has specific attributes which all beings share. An aspect of the condition is consciousness and that consciousness is dependent upon the ability to perceive via the sense organs of the body and then engage in discourse on those perceptions via language to communicate with others.

Being does not exist as an intellectual exercise, which is what speculation reduces it to, but as a totality which has certain abilities which manifest themselves in relations with other beings and the world.

Perception through the senses allows the conscious mind to inquire, ruminate and form ideas and it is through the interchange of ideas based as they are in language that being is both lived and articulated to others and I have to admit I would never have thought that internet would actually allow Da Sein to manifest its self via the keyboard but then for all its intellectual confusion there are fundamentals of being which we all share and engage in so the very notion of seeking to define being becomes the object its self that is sought and exists in the temporality of the internet and this forum.

And on that note I think it more pertinent to ruminate and in doing so actualise a Becoming in the world and live that.

@saiboimushi,

To me, being is whatever the human, non-human senses, and perception happens to make of it. The recognition of any single thought or idea is an observation through the bodily senses, something made of the same base chemicals, and matter as that which it senses. To put any single description to it, would not do it justice, for the evaluation itself is a perception, and opinion, that can likely not ever be proven. To be able to do this would be to ultimately validate the nature of existence undeniably- ultimately a task you must complete to be able to complete the task. The understanding offered by the human brain alone, may very well be incapable of attaining a solid understanding of any particular theory, and is ultimately swimming about in a reality of it's own creation, let alone capable of the comprehension of existence, or lack there of. Then again it may be much, much simpler than this. Still, the very fact that we will never truly know either way shows the human brain is indeed, imperfect to some extent.

@nameless,

You raise some very good arguments. Thank you. However,

nameless;22679 wrote:

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 am not able to agree with your statement that the universe is complete.

The experience of reality is created in the transfer of energy from a field of potential to the manifestation of that potential. Being part of this field of potential, matter is not divisible from it. However in order for matter to exist it must fluctuate between two states: It passes from a unified field of potential into a physical manifestation that we perceive as separate from this field. To state that the Universe is complete would suggest a static state in which this transfer of energy does not happen. This activity of 'Creation' is continual, and not static, otherwise even the illusion of division would not exist.

In order for a 'mystical' perspective to join a mechanical perspective it is essential that we resolve this paradox in our perception, this cannot be done by denying existence* on the part of the 'mystic' or by denying the existence of a unified source for reality on the part of the 'mechanic'.

I would further add that the illusion of movement is the transfer of energy as perceived through physical reality; under such conditions movement, time and memory are synonymous, they are the perception of the same action.

We are masters at inscribing our memories into our physical environment, just as the Universe has 'written' the memory of its own existence into its physical structure. But the seed is only a conscious memory, once the tree has grown. The past exists no more than a seed exists once it has become a tree. We know only that a seed must have once existed because we have the tree as its witness. Likewise the future exists only as a potential just as a seed holds inside a potential tree.

This most elemental form of consciousness, that of the interaction of energy with its potential form of material existence, or expressed in the physical plain: the structured interaction of two or more physical particles which create a third, unique potential, describes, in mechanical terms the state of being. That which exists because its ordered structure, its consciousness, brings it into existence.

Life exists through this perceived separation, and like its antecedent, matter, every particle is continually brought into a state of material being. From this material state of existence energy is re-disbursed into a field of potential. Light on the waves ...

Transpose this same reasoning to material terms, or even in spiritual terms if one is so inclined: Being is that which is.

(*On a personal note, nameless, I suspect, like myself, you have followed the tenant that the ego is an obstacle to achieving the resolution to this paradox. However, the ego needs to exist in order to fulfill a purpose, and it is once we recognise this purpose, and allow it to fulfill its potential that we can begin to release the need for ego. Thus resolving the paradox.)

@Paracelsus,

Paracelsus;28323 wrote:

... consciousness is dependent upon the ability to perceive via the sense organs of the body and then engage in discourse on those perceptions via language to communicate with others.

This is a misperception. Consciousness is not dependent upon the ability to perceive via the sense organs. This is cognition. Consciousness is an element of cognitive reasoning, but they are not one and the same. Consciousness is a structured reaction of an element, whether organic or inorganic, to its environment. I posit that this consciousness is inherent to every force which interacts with its environment. Every structured reaction implies consciousness.

@Paracelsus,

Being: process and processor! A lot of protoplasma with an urge to reproduce. An expression of the condition of nature. Chemistry conscious of itself. Ah, but what of, the enduring stone?

@Fido,

As Descartes so simply once thought in a stove in Ulm: "I".

=
MJA

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

This is an excellent beginning, and you may indeed have avoided a tautology. But if you are right, and being truly is consciousness, then what shall we say is consciousness?

To "live": is to experience consciousness as an organism
To "exist": pertains to any "being" that is experiencing "consciousness"
"Being": pertains to any persona experiencing "consciousness"
"consciousness": is the threshold to perform abstract reasoning through language

@saiboimushi,

saiboimushi wrote:

What is "being"? . . .

Being is the first, basic, and primary theme of philosophy. Is that a tautology?

@Doorsopen,

Doorsopen;29339 wrote:

This is a misperception. Consciousness is not dependent upon the ability to perceive via the sense organs. This is cognition. Consciousness is an element of cognitive reasoning, but they are not one and the same. Consciousness is a structured reaction of an element, whether organic or inorganic, to its environment. I posit that this consciousness is inherent to every force which interacts with its environment. Every structured reaction implies consciousness.

Consciousness implies a cognitive subject who is able to perceive the world and act upon it. Cognition is a function of consciousness for consciousness is not just mired in the mind but in the totality of being.

@Paracelsus,

Paracelsus;29401 wrote:

Consciousness implies a cognitive subject who is able to perceive the world and act upon it. Cognition is a function of consciousness for consciousness is not just mired in the mind but in the totality of being.

If I grant your definition of consciousness, what may I call the quality of two inert, inorganic elements that react to one another, and through this reaction form a third entity. For example what may we call the acceptance on the part of a hydrogen atom, when it joins with two oxygen atoms to become water?

I still posit that this reaction is the elemental form of consciousness, and does not require cognitive effort on the part of the atom, nor does it require cognitive effort on some outside force. It is inherent to the structure of the atom itself.

Philosophy Forum

Define "being"

Quick Links

My Account

able2know