There is a difference between beings and capital B Being.
Absolutely. But what is
it, this difference? Is Being just an abstraction of/from all that beings have in common, which is nothing but
the unity that makes them individual (quantized/framed) beings
? Of course, being is also existence, but what isn't that we can speak of?
---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 12:58 AM ----------
Thinking again about my understanding of prothero's comments I see that actual Being and possible Being are related to each other as is a line (or curvy line) to a plane.
Or one could also argue that possible being is actual "non"-being, also known as concept or time (or man qua man). The now, or present being, in this perspective, is spatial, and only spatial. The past and future are "here" (an abstraction, a strange word...), but not spatially.
(Thus "nonbeing") It seems that discussions like these, as one example of the language is man is time theory, transcend the glyphs they are spatially "carried" by.
---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 01:00 AM ----------
well equations may do for approximating the physical properties of objects but I think words do better for the realm of human experience.
Generally I think you're right, but it has been a nice little excursion thus far. Metaphors are oily, and offer the rainbow of qualia. I think of number as words that have been bleach. Still, the terseness of mathematics has certain advantages.