Define "being"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

boagie
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2008 09:36 am
@Doorsopen,
Doorsopen wrote:
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.


Doorsopen,Smile

It is wonderful when you have a thought that no one else seems to think reasonable and you come upon a chap like yourself who expresses that same idea. Yes, reaction is the basis of their being anything at all, it is consciousness itself. The nature of reality is that it is relational, and reaction establishes all relations. There is no such thing as action, there is but reaction, perhaps you will not agree, but it will make for an interesting dialogue. Have you expounded upon this idea in previous posts, if so, I will backtrack to get the feel of where you are coming from. I think we have agreement here, but perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, we will see.
 
Richardgrant
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2008 09:43 pm
@Doorsopen,
Doorsopen,
For me 'being' is pure consciousness - the one mind of all there is, the creator within, it is the only thing that is real. I Am, a divine immortal invisible soul centered in a physical body made up of thought waves of motion. There is nothing real exist in the material world, where every thing is a reflection only of pure consciousness - Being.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 04:12 am
@Richardgrant,
Richardgrant wrote:
Doorsopen,
For me 'being' is pure consciousness - the one mind of all there is, the creator within, it is the only thing that is real. I Am, a divine immortal invisible soul centered in a physical body made up of thought waves of motion. There is nothing real exist in the material world, where every thing is a reflection only of pure consciousness - Being.


Physical is REAL. This is the world of Action. Separation from this world is False. The soul is in the body for a reason: To influence the body, to influence reality and to elevate it and perfect it.
Why would the soul enter reality if reality were false?
Why would you not just kill yourself now and leave all of this falsehood?

I don't know what happened in your past that would make you want to separate yourself from reality and cleave to the world of souls. But you are in the world for a reason. So live here now. There will be a time for life in the next world.

Quote:

ד,כב [יז] הוא היה אומר, יפה שעה אחת בתשובה ומעשים טובים בעולם הזה, כחיי העולם הבא; יפה שעה אחת של קורת רוח בעולם הבא, מכל חיי העולם הזה.


Translation
Quote:

It is better an hour of good deeds in this world, than all of existance in the upper world, Even though an hour in the upper world is more beautiful than all of life in this world. [Pirkei Avoth -- Ethics of the Fathers (4-22)]


Yes, the upper world is more pleasureable and this world may be filled with pain. But it is still better to do an hour of good in this world than all of the pleasurable existance in the world of souls.
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 11:44 am
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik wrote:
. . . Why would the soul enter reality if reality were false? . . .

Smile
I have become highly suspicious of why questions. While physical scientists seem to like the form, in the rest of the world it presumes purpose. Inquiring into an apriori purpose of the soul begs the question. Plotinus laid out the position from a pietistic viewpoint 2000 years ago and Kant said 200 years ago we can surmise all we want on this but we can only refute each other.

Being cannot be defined, since it is the original metaphor that comes before all else including metaphor. (Paraphrase Derrida)
 
Doorsopen
 
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 01:51 pm
@Binyamin Tsadik,
Binyamin Tsadik;29965 wrote:
I don't know what happened in your past that would make you want to separate yourself from reality and cleave to the world of souls. But you are in the world for a reason. So live here now. There will be a time for life in the next world.


I believe I understand Richardgrant's point of view. There is a particular stage of spiritual development, particularly for a Christian, which calls upon the ego to sacrifice itself as a sublimation to the Divine. Furthermore, If a Christian has sought Buddism as a guide to spiritual development not offered in the orthodoxy of the Christian church, he will come to see reality as an illusion, an obstacle that must be sacrificed to obtain enlightenment. I have shared this perspective. Naturally this concept, according to Buddist philosophy must also be overcome as an illusion of existence.

This sense of sacrifice is not present in Kabbalah, which teaches instead a sense of awe towards the Divine. It does not seek to crush the ego to attain the Divine Will. On the contrary ego is called upon to serves that purpose.
 
Doorsopen
 
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 02:21 pm
@boagie,
boagie;29652 wrote:

There is no such thing as action, there is but reaction, perhaps you will not agree, but it will make for an interesting dialogue. Have you expounded upon this idea in previous posts, if so, I will backtrack to get the feel of where you are coming from. I think we have agreement here, but perhaps I am jumping to conclusions, we will see.

Thank you for the kudos! I hope it still applies after the whole 'falsity of altrusim' debacle ... I was seeing a metaphoric red after reading the thesis and just jumped in for the attack! Anyway:

We agree, to a point, that reactions are an essential component of physical reality. However, I believe it necessary to balance my view by submitting that there is also creation, which is an action. When the hydrogen atom, and the oxygen atoms meet, their natures are reacting to one another. Once they are joined and have formed a molecule of water a third element has been created. This is an active force which responses to its environment in a distinct way that its components do not, it is therefore a newly created action which structures subsequent reactions to its own nature.
I am a proponent of a Universe which is in a continual state of creation, (forgive me Stephen Hawkings:surrender:)
 
Richardgrant
 
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2008 03:07 pm
@Doorsopen,
I am a proponent of a Universe which is in a continual state of creation, (forgive me Stephen Hawkings:surrender:)[/quote]
Doorsopen, yes I see the universe is in continual motion, my understanding of it is that it's the rhythmic balance interchange between opposites that give us apparent time and motion. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. My studies lead me to understand that we live in a thought wave, mirror imaged universe, where everything is a reflection of itself.
 
Doorsopen
 
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 05:15 am
@Richardgrant,
Richardgrant;30091 wrote:
Doorsopen, yes I see the universe is in continual motion, my understanding of it is that it's the rhythmic balance interchange between opposites that give us apparent time and motion.
We agree as long as we can distinquish between the motion which may or may not have had its original cause in the distant past with the big bang and the motion caused by a continuing action at a subatomic level. But if I may infere from your statements: these are likely to be one and the same but on vastly different scales, at least in our perception of these events.

Richardgrant;30091 wrote:
for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
I will have to think about this. When solid form, (or dense wavelengths) meets solid form they repel one another with an energy equal to their impact. But in wave theory we see this is not always the case, a wave of energy may pass through another without any effect whatsoever to either trajectory. This would imply perhaps: That action/reaction requires mass and a trajectory. OR: That action is the transfer of energy from one state to another.


Richardgrant;30091 wrote:
My studies lead me to understand that we live in a thought wave, mirror imaged universe, where everything is a reflection of itself.
As an abstraction I absolutely agree. But like all reflections what we are perceiving is the same reality in reverse. This suggests that on the one hand there is substance and on the other, the mirrored counterpart, potential substance. Where these forms impact is creation, or action, or the transfer of energy from one form into substance; different means to express the same concept really. Both are real and are defined by the other.
However, I am also aware that this may prove to be a very simple analogy which describes the formation of reality, but a far more complex structure describes reality itself. If everything with substance has its mirrored counterpart reflecting itself there would be a prismatic system of waves responding to every other wave. The human mind and body then may be said to form a model of the Universe, with each atom of each cell and its mirrored counterpart fluxuating between substance and energy to form a complex structure with each component enfolded within others ... very simple beginning growing ever more complex.
 
Binyamin Tsadik
 
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:21 am
@Doorsopen,
Doorsopen wrote:

This sense of sacrifice is not present in Kabbalah, which teaches instead a sense of awe towards the Divine. It does not seek to crush the ego to attain the Divine Will. On the contrary ego is called upon to serves that purpose.


Of course you must nullify your own ego in order to do the will of God. The major thing that comes into conflict with keeping any commandment is Ego.
The entire task that we are to preform every new years, is the acceptance of the Divine Yoke. Which puts our own selves on the side in order to accomplish the higher will.

There is a concept called 'Bitul' which means self nullification and it is not just found in Kabbalah but in Prayer and in many other aspects of life.
Also Humility is very much stressed as a favourable character trait.
Humility by definition is the nullification of Ego.
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:32 am
@Richardgrant,
Richardgrant wrote:
. . . we live in a thought wave, mirror imaged universe, where everything is a reflection of itself.

:perplexed:
It might be that our job is to keep the universe running. While our politicians, scientists all, attempt to deal with Global Warming (it is -3 today in this second coldest October in 105 years in Fairbanks) we see the universe is facing heat death, which is to say will run down and go cold and dark in a few more years. This thought is not pleasing and we need to solve the problem so we don't have to imagine a Great Nothing.
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 08:33 pm
@Doorsopen,
Doorsopen;29644 wrote:
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.


Life may be made up of the atomic particles but that does not mean that inert particles on their own have consciousness and or combing two to make a third constitutes conscious perception on the part of that third element.

Consciousness is part of the human condition it is dependent upon a being who is able to perceive the world.

And how pray tell does water have consciousness?
 
Doorsopen
 
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 07:43 am
@Paracelsus,
Paracelsus;30851 wrote:
Life may be made up of the atomic particles but that does not mean that inert particles on their own have consciousness and or combing two to make a third constitutes conscious perception on the part of that third element.

Consciousness is part of the human condition it is dependent upon a being who is able to perceive the world.

And how pray tell does water have consciousness?


The human condition may be aware of itself and form perceptions which are based on this awareness and subsequently react to this experience, but this does not entirely define consciousness. It is only a very narrow view of our observations concerning consciousness.

Water is also 'self-aware', not in a cognitive sense, but in the sense that it remains true to its inherent structure, it 'knows' what it is and responds in a consistent way with elements in its environment. When its structure and potential transformative potential react with other elements in its environment consciousness is present.

My thinking and logic on this subject are seeking to define the elemental forms of 'memory' which provides structure, of 'future', which defines the potential state of being or of 'becoming', and of the structure of reality in a state of 'being'.
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 12:08 pm
@Paracelsus,
Paracelsus wrote:
Life may be made up of the atomic particles but that does not mean that inert particles on their own have consciousness and or combing two to make a third constitutes conscious perception on the part of that third element.
. . . And how pray tell does water have consciousness?

Smile
Fortunately that is not a philosophy question. Whether hydrogen is capable of consciousness, which it clearly is in certain circumstances in combination and might be all by itself for all we know is interesting enough but outside physics, biology, and psychology, too. The question might be whether the power of consciousness resides in the electron shell or the nucleus or in some deeper substructure and that would be the constituting basis of the new professional discipline of Electrology.
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 04:53 pm
@Fairbanks,
Fairbanks;31162 wrote:
Smile
Fortunately that is not a philosophy question. Whether hydrogen is capable of consciousness, which it clearly is in certain circumstances in combination and might be all by itself for all we know is interesting enough but outside physics, biology, and psychology, too. The question might be whether the power of consciousness resides in the electron shell or the nucleus or in some deeper substructure and that would be the constituting basis of the new professional discipline of Electrology.


Then lets just stay on course with the notion of consciousness as a holistic frame work of which sensory perception is a component of that consciousness. As for psychology, yes there are elements of it which intersect with philosophy in particular questions concerning Self of which i believe that being is a manifestation of that Self, in the here and now and here I am speaking of being as part of an overall totality of existence which can be divided into constituent parts for example. What is Ego and how does that relate to being? Is it a component or is Ego just a function of Mind? And wherein does Mind fit with Being?
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 05:37 pm
@Paracelsus,
Paracelsus wrote:
. . . What is Ego and how does that relate to being? Is it a component or is Ego just a function of Mind? And wherein does Mind fit with Being?

Smile
Freudian or Lacanian?
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2008 08:37 pm
@Fairbanks,
Fairbanks;31241 wrote:
Smile
Freudian or Lacanian?


Neither Post Jungian. Whilst I have studied Lacan at University found it stimulating and engaging in a limited manner. I prefer the post Jungian approach to psychology.And as a post Jungian, and here I stress the notion of individuation which is the actual point of departure with Jung and just uses the framework he articulated.

As for Freud well, I do not believe that the unconscious is the realm of the repressed, Forbidden Planet summed it up 'monsters from the Id'(Really).

I subscribe to the view that the unconscious is actually seeking to become conscious through the Self seeking to exert influence upon the Ego/Mind dynamic.

Have I dammed my self as a heretic?
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2008 01:47 pm
@Paracelsus,
Paracelsus wrote:
. . . Post Jungian. . . .
Have I dammed my self as a heretic?

Smile
Not mainstream. We must be mainstream to attract grants, excepting avant-garde artists and political philosophers. Literary critics wouldn't attract grants anyway. The Freud/Lacan dichotomy was intended to question whether the Self arises from within a person or if it is a reaction or creation in society. If it matters to anyone besides those who write theory and those who review and critique theory.
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2008 02:42 pm
@Fairbanks,
Fairbanks;31431 wrote:
Smile
Not mainstream. We must be mainstream to attract grants, excepting avant-garde artists and political philosophers. Literary critics wouldn't attract grants anyway. The Freud/Lacan dichotomy was intended to question whether the Self arises from within a person or if it is a reaction or creation in society. If it matters to anyone besides those who write theory and those who review and critique theory.


Yes it does matter because Self is elementary to Being. Being is Self made manifest though its actions and while I subscribe to the Self:eek: I think that we as individual Beings are formed from a two fold process that which is intrinsic to our being and that which in turn is affected by the social relations which in turn develop the Ego or small i.

By the way those comments about attracting grants your not an academic are you? and for that matter my experience of lecturing at University Jung is the flavour in creative art departments.
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2008 05:49 pm
@Paracelsus,
Paracelsus wrote:
Yes it does matter because Self is elementary to Being. Being is Self . . . .

Smile
Some branches of philosophy seem to mention Self and some don't. The ones that do seem to be intertwined with psychology. In Being and Time Heidegger tried to at least ask the question of being, not beings, not the being of a being, but the being of being. That was his oldest question from his very beginning and he tried to discover what the pre-socratics said about it, which is interesting in that he gets into the language, very useful for reading Derrida. Self doesn't seem to enter into it, except for the Dasein whatever that is, which sees things in his world as things, such as a hammer and doesn't see them until they become hammers, that is they have no being until the Dasein gives it to them. Also, the Dasein finds itself in the world by interaction with Others, feedback. This I think is Lacan's point, that the Self is created, or found, in the social world. Freud wouldn't say that, but would say that the Self evolves naturally in the familiar stages, presumably even in the absence of society. Lacan is right, I think ,in that we can't know ourselves until we are in situations and see what we do.
 
Paracelsus
 
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 12:40 am
@Fairbanks,
Fairbanks;31477 wrote:
Smile
Some branches of philosophy seem to mention Self and some don't. The ones that do seem to be intertwined with psychology. In Being and Time Heidegger tried to at least ask the question of being, not beings, not the being of a being, but the being of being. That was his oldest question from his very beginning and he tried to discover what the pre-socratics said about it, which is interesting in that he gets into the language, very useful for reading Derrida. Self doesn't seem to enter into it, except for the Dasein whatever that is, which sees things in his world as things, such as a hammer and doesn't see them until they become hammers, that is they have no being until the Dasein gives it to them. Also, the Dasein finds itself in the world by interaction with Others, feedback. This I think is Lacan's point, that the Self is created, or found, in the social world. Freud wouldn't say that, but would say that the Self evolves naturally in the familiar stages, presumably even in the absence of society. Lacan is right, I think ,in that we can't know ourselves until we are in situations and see what we do.


At present I have begun to read Being and Time just past the hammer you mention.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 07/19/2024 at 07:44:39