Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by radarmark, Jun 13, 2013.
You know, the more I learn, the more I agree with you.
Hi all —
'Being' in my somewhat Thomist metaphysic is tripartite:
Being in itself: there is intrinsically something, something 'is', the Scholastics used the latin term esse to signify the is-ness of something.
Aside: I also adhere to the Eriugenian distinction that things are, or are not, depending upon whether they are perceptible to the intellect (which for Eriugena organises the data from the senses).
Being as itself: Almost synonymous with the above. The scholastics would say a being (esse) is, according to its act (actus). Being and act are inseparable, as the first act of the being is to be.
Being in relation: In the above two, being knows itself according to its act of being, and acts according to the being it is (be it a man, a tree, whatever).
This latter is not simply the product of a man happening to notice he's on a planet, etc., etc. Relating to other being is intrinsic to human nature, and not mere inquisitiveness, the drive is too strong and too sustained to be that. It is the gift of self to the other, and the reception of the other by the self.
I still agree, although i would perhaps argue that for something to be left is the product of being-in-relation. If a memory is left, something has to be there to receive and record the memory?
I still agree. That shift is, top me, one of relation. The continual return to the question 'who am I?' and 'who art thou?'
Sorry, don't know Wilbur.
Agreed, but it would be, to me, a great sadness to say 'contemplation is happening' or 'being is happening' without wondering who or what contemplates ... or am I being too simple?
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but are we not over-complicating a simple idea. Hume's definition still requires an individual 'thing' to collect and store the 'contents', and the 'contents' collected and stored, no matter what their labels, are never quite like the thing that's collecting and storing them ... and intrinsic to that thing, prior to and in relation to the content received and stored, is a way of thinking or perceiving 'itself' which is unique, as it does not perceive anything else in quite the same way.
Surely one can? The way we perceive 'my' consciousness is unique in regard to the way we perceive the consciousness of every other human being we meet?
I agree (I think).
It seems to me that if there is contemplation happening, there requires subject and object.
Having introduced atoms, I would go on to say physical elements, compounds, a corpus, a creature ... Paladin said above "we are inherently part of the landscape we survey" and I quite agree, with a twofold proviso that there is still an eye, an 'I', and a landscape, a viewpoint that is coherent to itself, and that one cannot separate the mental and the physical, as if the mental faculty was some extraneous 'being' that is housed in a physical 'being'.
Oh dear ... more research to do ... sorry I can't offer a more cognisant response.
Can't argue with that.
Yes. But that point of view is, I would suggest, the key to the mystery.
Murleau-Ponty said: "True reflection presents me to myself not as idle and inaccessible subjectivity, but as identical with my presence in the world and to others, as I am now realizing it: I am all that I see, I am an intersubjective field, not despite my body and historical situation, but, on the contrary, by being this body and this situation, and though them, all the rest.” (Phenomenology of Perception)
Very good reply, will cover as soon as I get my entry on time done.
See, I believe both Thomas and Paladin are assuming being. None of the arguments from Plato until now really proove the concept. Why, it is a metaphysical issue. Same for the concepts of self and consciousness.
It really goes back to time. Plato (and nearly every Western philosopher since him) postulated that time was dependent on space and being. It was either a relation (the modern view) or a digression from perfection (Forms) to world. And world merely a shadow of true forms.
I am just saying reverse those assumptions and postulates. "Time preceeds reality" (per Prigogine). "Becoming incompasses being" (Heraclitus and Whitehead).
This will be a very fun and profitable conversation.
Meanwhile try this Being and Becoming in Physics and Item 4 in Adventures in Unfashionable Philosophy (Felt; U of Notre Dame Press; 2010), which should get the discussion off on both a scientific and metaphysical big bang.
What would be really sad is if you ever felt pressured to do otherwise, and no there is nothing simplistic about genuine inquiry. Indeed, this was the practice Nisargadatta Maharaj was given by his guru.
I think the conventional sense of subject and object are part of our life and part of our understanding. I also understand that in moments of meditation the line between subject and object can become blurred.
Mediation teachers often speak of this particular stage of meditation as one only those who have a stable ego organization can reach, thus as Engler (1984) argued, you have to be somebody before you are nobody.
That is second of the Sankara's realities, 'Pragmatic' (Vyavaharika). Philosophers play with words (Murleau-Pontry, etc.) - 'Shabda Jāla' (Maze of words).
Agreed. As I see it, that's part of the third definition of being, being-in-relation. In a 'Newtonian' way of thinking, the relation is always between two closed systems, what we're discussing here is, I suggest, an open system — a bit like the Quantum thingy about a particle and a wave.
I like your figures in a landscape analogy — we are part of the landscape, which coalesces into 'hard data' when we focus our attention on it. At its most basic this is forensic empiricism. But there are other ways of seeing.
I would say 'becoming' and 'being' are to each other as wave is to particle?
I am working on an answer. Being and becoming are not really like the term "wavicle" (both wave and particle). You might check out Michal Heller's rap on ontology. The problem is that both time and location are, at the level of basic physics, not fixed or "local".
Heller, if you remember is the Jesuit who is a very important cosmologist, a rather high Vatican observatory staffer, a Pontifical Gregorian University theologian and professor of philosophy at the Pontifical Academy of Theology. Interesting guy, one of the few (along with D.R. Finkelstein, who interest is quantum logic) who really understands the issues of noncommutative algebras. Heller is to general relativists as Finkelstein is to quantum theorists. High praise, from me, I went to Ga Tech to have DRF as an advisor.
Paladin post #33 on this thread:
Adi Shankara and Gaudapada are, for me, the two most significant philosophers of Vendata. The notion of “self” they express is very close to Hume’s, Whitehead’s, Bohm’s, and mine. The notion of “I” as a separate entity continuing in time has no subject. Is it me at birth? Before birth? In my 20s? Now? When “I” am dead?
No, instead this “self” is a nexus of memories, thoughts, emotions and relexions (all the West considers “part of the self”) which is continually changing through spacetime.
Thomas post #35 on this thread:
Why not? Can you point to it in spacetime? No? Then it occurs in a void… or at least not in spacetime (an therefore not empirical—falsifiable, or verifiable in any manner).
Paladin post #37 on this thread:
Pretty close, but I through out all sense or notion of being (I basically have never experienced either).
Aupmanyav post #39 on this thread:
Originally Posted by Thomas
To refer somewhat unfairly to Parsons, to say 'contemplation is happening' doesn't really adequately answer the question. Contemplation doesn't happen in a void ... ?
Firing neurons, atoms, nuclei, quarks, information, action, decision; yep, all happening (in a prepared testbed like my typing and deciding what to type). It is here and now, in spacetime, hence it cannot be in a void. In this Universe voids do not exist.
Originally Posted by Paladin
From that perspective there is still a certain sense of being, and being an integral part of what is happening.
Perhaps, but why postulate it? It just adds unprovable complexity.
Thomas post #42 on this thread:
Separate names with a comma.