Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

What is Being?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#31    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,517 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:26 AM

Because I operate so intuitively, and through a lot of sensing & feeling, I have a difficult time following the conversation, but I think I have the gist of it. So I'm feeling that self is important, not as the star of the show, but as a necessary component of form function. In order for us to walk, talk, work, thing, etc. a sense of self is necessary. However, there have been times when I've been very aware of self, and at the same time experiencing self as extending outside my body and being a part of a greater whole;so self & consciousness work together to create an opportunity for this to occur. Each is necessary, as long as we have bodies, what differs among people is how and to what degree these two necessary components work together. And there's always fluctuation, too, I think. Anyhoo, maybe "field of being" is a helpful term. Field in terms of wave function and electro-magnetic and consciousness.

Being & consciousness are perhaps directed by or act within the physical laws of the universe, whatever they might be, so if that's true, then what are the parameters, or even, are there any parameters? Of even, how much choice do we really have about all this and how much is imperative natural law?


#32    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,401 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:58 AM

Beany, I think your "field of being" is an excellent term.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#33    Black Red Devil

Black Red Devil

    Mean as Hell

  • Member
  • 2,533 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • I would if I could
    But I can't, so I won't

Posted 19 April 2012 - 04:24 AM

View PostChloeB, on 18 April 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Okay, that gets my dog back into being, but so what you're saying is basically conscious, sentient right?  So would someone in a coma, in a state of unconsciousness not be in a state of being?  They are in a state of existence but not in a state of being?  

And that would lead me into my next question and all these does God "exist" debates......does something need to "exist" as we understand "exist" to be in a state of being?  Point being, God as a ground of all being, but existing isn't really what God is about...........maybe..........or I think, haha.

IMO, the key word is essence.  I rationalise it lick this,"Being" is conscience but essence is everything (including existence, conscience & rationale).  Essence is the output result of our brains interpretations.  Traditional philosophy and Sartre initially differentiate Existence from Essence.  Hey, what can I say, it's just my opinion but I believe essence incorporates everything.

Does this mean I put the dog back into Being?  Why not.  A dog exists, knows it exists (at least in it's simplest form of understanding) and some have a basic level of rationality .  The difference is, our brains are capable of interpreting signals from our senses in a more sophisticated manner.   If you were religious, you would probably reject this idea as being blasphemous because Being is a Metaphysical way to describe God.  We're the Sons of God while animals are just animals, so they don't belong.

The biggest puzzle for me is, why?  Why is our brain interpreting and perceiving?

We are each our own devil, and we make this world our hell

- Oscar Wilde

#34    Paracelse

Paracelse

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,074 posts
  • Joined:02 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:France

Posted 19 April 2012 - 05:12 AM

View PostChloeB, on 18 April 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Well if we are using being as an entity, which is what Heidegger was saying the problem is, then my dog is a being, but I like where you're going with this.  I would say my dog has a self, that is what he is, himself, his personality and ability to feel and have emotions is his self, but what he doesn't have is that observer of his thoughts, as we've said that awareness of his self, and that we might say is what Being is, which some might argue is something separate from self.
Last I checked it's called existentialism, although in my opinion there are plenty of people who have less self awareness than your dog. And this is why I believe Sartres was wrong when he wrote Being and Nothingness (L’Être et le Non-être)

Quote

View PostStarMountainKid, on 18 April 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Is being dependent on the self?  Is there a self at all, or is it an artificial construct of the mind? Who is aware of this self? Can the self be aware of itself? If our awareness is dependent on the existence of the self, what happens when the self disappears from our consciousness?

Have we ever had an occasion when we loose our sense of ourselves?  I've had the experience, for instance, watching a movie where for a period of time all there is is the movie, there is no separate me watching the movie. I think in this kind of experience our true being is realized. In Zen this may be called is-ness. Everything just is without separation. We loose our particular perspective, but we are not lost. In this we stand on the solid ground of true reality.

When The Buddha was challenged as to the legitimacy of his enlightenment, he reached down and put a finger to the ground around him. Then all the gods, angels and devils bowed to his authenticity. He had found solid ground to stand on.

The self is only awareness being aware of its particular perspective of the environment around it.  When we are purposefully defining everything relative to this particular perspective, we are inventing an environment that is artificial, and not the true being of our environment, nor the true being of our particular perspective.

Can we eliminate the duality of the observer and the observed? Can we separate the dancer from the dance? I think this kid of selfless awareness is useful for us.

"The true nature of reality is invisible, and cannot be understood by the rational mind," some Ch'an master said. We need our rational mind, but we also need a deeper understanding than rationally can provide.

This is my perception, anyway.

Which boils down to what Leo said earlier when he spoke of Blaise Pascal:  I think therefore I am (Je pense donc je suis)


In any case in order to really understand Heidegger one must first dive into the concepts of "Intentionality" of Franz Brentano.  After all Heidegger studied Brentano and of course Kierkegaard.

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither Benjamin Franklin
République No.6
It's time for a sixth republic.

#35    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,570 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:13 AM

Quote

I would say my dog has a self, that is what he is, himself, his personality and ability to feel and have emotions is his self,
And it is reasonably clear that this is something you have inferred from regularities in his behavior, from evidence that he has preferences and acts accordingly, and from shared warm-bloodedness, so you have a very direct idea how motivating thirst is, or being cold is, etc.

We then come to

Quote

but what he doesn't have is that observer of his thoughts, as we've said that awareness of his self,
On what basis would you infer that?

I am not at all sure that I "have" an oberver of my thoughts. As Philemon once said to Jung (which, relevantly enough for this conversation, is another way of saying that Jung once said to himself) thoughts happen to a person, as opposed to being an activity the person engages in.

Philemon himself was a thought, and was experienced by Jung as something that happened to him. So, there is a self-proving quality to Philemon's pronouncement, in the same way that Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" is self-proving.

There is simply no reason why the subject and the object of thought cannot be one and the same. (A point on which I am open to rebuttal, but until then, I feel confident about.) Thus, there need not be An Oberserver, except insofar as I am an observer of everything that happens to me, subject to the limits of my perceptual grasp.

Returning to Knight, he has apparently qualified to your satisfaction as an oberver of that which happens to him which you both can observe. As Leo has pointed out, there are differences in your sensory endowments. So, Knight has also presumably qualified an oberver of some things that happen to him which you cannot observe (and vice versa, to his satisfaction).

You cannot observe his thoughts. On what basis, then, do you infer that his thoughts are not part of the category "things that Knight can observe that I cannot," and instead place them in the category "Things that neither Knight nor I can observe?"

And yes, Chloe, I do take very seriously the hypothesis that all the warm-blooded animals have rich interior mental lives.
-

Edited by eight bits, 19 April 2012 - 09:16 AM.

Posted Image

#36    ChloeB

ChloeB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Female

  • “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” — Leonardo da Vinci

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:22 PM

View Posteight bits, on 19 April 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

And it is reasonably clear that this is something you have inferred from regularities in his behavior, from evidence that he has preferences and acts accordingly, and from shared warm-bloodedness, so you have a very direct idea how motivating thirst is, or being cold is, etc.

Absolutely, and even more advanced than cold and thirst.  Knight is a very emotional dog, part of why everyone loves him so much.  When people come over and hang out and talk, he loves it.  He's in the middle of everyone and gets on his back and flops all around like a fish and acts like a silly nut.  He enjoys people laughing at him, making them laugh.  I also call him my emotional sponge; he's absolutely miserable when I'm upset.  He's just very sensitive.  I woke up once with my whole bed shaking and it was him up there trembling and looking with this terrified look towards the kitchen, and all it was, was that the light above the sink, a fluorescent light was going out and flickering.  It totally freaked him out.  Once there was a guy over and he wasn't happy about it for some reason, and he pissed on the guy's leg.  I was mortified, but he may not can talk, but he can communicate.  But anyway, those are all parts of his personality, the things I see that make him, "him" and his "self".

View Posteight bits, on 19 April 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

On what basis would you infer that?

I am not at all sure that I "have" an oberver of my thoughts. As Philemon once said to Jung (which, relevantly enough for this conversation, is another way of saying that Jung once said to himself) thoughts happen to a person, as opposed to being an activity the person engages in.

Philemon himself was a thought, and was experienced by Jung as something that happened to him. So, there is a self-proving quality to Philemon's pronouncement, in the same way that Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" is self-proving.

There is simply no reason why the subject and the object of thought cannot be one and the same. (A point on which I am open to rebuttal, but until then, I feel confident about.) Thus, there need not be An Oberserver, except insofar as I am an observer of everything that happens to me, subject to the limits of my perceptual grasp.

I agree with that a lot, thoughts happen to a person, as opposed to being an activity the person engages in. I very much feel like that, because an activity a person engages in would indicate a willing participant and I do not feel like I am.  My thoughts run wild sometimes where I can't control them or turn them off, isn't that the point and training of meditation?  It's why I'm taking tai chi, to learn how to do that better or at least get a handle on it.  So with Philemon, he was a thought form of Jung's right?  But he wasn't Jung was he?  I mean when he says "thoughts happen to a person"....that in and of itself separates thoughts from the self, the person.  And if we say thoughts are happening "to" the person, that almost sounds like something not created by the person, but more like something being subjected on the person and see again, there we seem to have two separate things.


View Posteight bits, on 19 April 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

Returning to Knight, he has apparently qualified to your satisfaction as an oberver of that which happens to him which you both can observe. As Leo has pointed out, there are differences in your sensory endowments. So, Knight has also presumably qualified an oberver of some things that happen to him which you cannot observe (and vice versa, to his satisfaction).

You cannot observe his thoughts. On what basis, then, do you infer that his thoughts are not part of the category "things that Knight can observe that I cannot," and instead place them in the category "Things that neither Knight nor I can observe?"


I read Eckhart Tolle say, he lived with 5 Zen masters, all cats.  Knight is the same, he is pretty much always present.  He's not rapped up in the past or future, but he's a master of that "is-ness" SMK talks about and also that self that SMK talks about "is it real? "is it a fabrication?" and "is being dependent on that?  Well Knight really doesn't have that.  Another Tolle story he tells, about watching ducks in a park, ducks that got in a fight and after the fight, the ducks split up and they flap their wings really fast and release the excess energy and then float on their way peacefully, over and done with it, but a human doing that would obsess and replay the fight over and over, the possibilities of what might happen the next time they have a conflict, and in that kind of thinking....we kind of create an identity out of that, maybe in a sense we all make our own Philemon doing that, but I think there's some problems when we lose ourselves to that.  I mean that's why people do what they call soul searching right?  They're trying to strip all that away.  Knight doesn't have all that.  He does observe what happens to him and things I cannot see, yes, of course, but he's like the ducks, not like the human in the same situation, creating their own movie of the events and there is an observer watching that movie we make in our heads.  


View Posteight bits, on 19 April 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

And yes, Chloe, I do take very seriously the hypothesis that all the warm-blooded animals have rich interior mental lives.

We always joke that Knight is going to publish his memoirs one day, hehe.  I don't know what goes on in his head, I make guesses, but I do think sometimes we think we are the advanced species, but so often, they are our teachers.  I quoted this once on my profile:  “The great pleasure of a dog is that you may make a fool of yourself with him and not only will he not scold you, but he will make a fool of himself too.” - Samuel Butler.  That is Knight totally, and being a fool with a dog, you've thrown off all worries about judgment that we have with people and it is a true moment of presence, of that is-ness, of being fully in the moment when all that brain chatter, all our brain movies shut up and that to me is a true moment of Being.  Knight does that, not me, he brings that about because of who he is, his "self".

Edited by ChloeB, 19 April 2012 - 01:53 PM.

“You've gotta dance like there's nobody watching,
Love like you'll never be hurt,
Sing like there's nobody listening,
And live like it's heaven on earth.”
― William W. Purkey

#37    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:48 PM

View PostChloeB, on 18 April 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Could we say that Prime Substance is the ground of all being as we are talking about here?  I'm trying to think about what you said about wave function being the same as prime substance.  We'd save wave function is just a realm of possibilities, right?  When it collapses, then one of those possibilities becomes reality, correct?  And the multiverse is all the infinite excluded possibilities that our reality didn't collapse on, right?  I'm just trying to sort this out in my brain.  But they say for it to collapse, someone has to observe it right?  So is that the consciousness Max Planck is talking about?  We might have to get away from this word being, I'm afraid it's causing more confusion than clarification.

In Buddhism reality only exists when experienced.

When we gain information on the Prime Substance (trying to experience something) we cause being and non-being to seperate. The being we get to experience as reality while the non-being is excluded.


#38    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,517 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:55 PM

Is it possible the non-being, instead of being excluded, is experiencing something else or having the same experience in a different way?


#39    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:03 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 18 April 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

I'm not sure one can separate the two so easily. I know you are arguing this partly based on your appreciation that your dog has a 'self', but does it?

If your dog is not self-aware, then how can we say it has a self to be aware of?

Your dog is an entity, but I would argue that we cannot state it is a 'self'.

Our self, and our awareness of that self, would seem to be not separate as you propose, but our awareness (self-awareness) is actually dependent on the existence of the self. In this, the entire world/universe outside the Mind is our 'mirror'.

Back to the Buddhism.

The Prime Substance is a unification of being and non-beimg into a state called non-dualism. When we 'experience' that is to gain information the being and non-being seperate. This creates our reality (being) while all the other possibilities are excluded (non-being).

What becomes reality is dependant on the information we have gained. Thus our reality exists to prop up the information in our minds.

You seem to have reached the same conclusion another way.


#40    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:05 PM

View PostBeany, on 19 April 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

Is it possible the non-being, instead of being excluded, is experiencing something else or having the same experience in a different way?

Dual Slit experiments show that once its known which path the atom took it no longer produces an interference pattern. I dont know the Buddhist stance on your question.

However Buddhists teach people to return their minds into a non-dualist state (what they call oneness). Therefore the non-being isnt lost otherwise people wouldnt be able to return their minds into that state.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 19 April 2012 - 02:12 PM.


#41    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,517 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 19 April 2012 - 07:26 PM

I understand the dual slit experiments. However, I'm not willing to limit my thinking to the current explanations postulated & demonstrated by current quantum mechanics theories. Because current quantum mechanics theories are no more the end all/be all of science any more than Newtonian science is. It's in its infancy, and I don't want to turn it into dogma.

I'm not a student or practicioner of Buddhism, or of any religion or spiritual tradition, but my inner wisdom & intuition tell me that every one of us is exactly where we're supposed to be doing exactly what we're supposed to be doing at any given time. I stay away from dogma that tell us we need to be something other than how we are, that we need to undergo some sort of education or change or experience or rite or ritual in order to attain happiness, fulfillment, enlightenment, or heaven/nirvana. And I'm allergic to traditions that promote the idea that all life is suffering.

If I had my own church, the service would be come as you are and join in the celebration.


#42    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 4,401 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 20 April 2012 - 01:43 AM

Beany said:

I'm not a student or practicioner of Buddhism, or of any religion or spiritual tradition, but my inner wisdom & intuition tell me that every one of us is exactly where we're supposed to be doing exactly what we're supposed to be doing at any given time. I stay away from dogma that tell us we need to be something other than how we are, that we need to undergo some sort of education or change or experience or rite or ritual in order to attain happiness, fulfillment, enlightenment, or heaven/nirvana. And I'm allergic to traditions that promote the idea that all life is suffering.

If I had my own church, the service would be come as you are and join in the celebration.
I stay away from dogma, as well. However, I think some sort of education or experience is necessary for us, or we just keep running over the same ground, and for some of us it is an unhealthy or destructive repetition.

I agree that we are exactly where we're supposed to be, and that realizing our place is a good starting point to see ourselves clearly. But what are the internal motives that have placed ourselves there? This, I think, we must also realize. If we are dissatisfied with our place, we may want to reach out for some method of change.

Even if we are satisfied with ourselves and our place, there is always room for improvement.

The Buddha said all life is dukkha, usually translated as "suffering". This is not an accurate translation, as there is no English word that satisfactorily defines dukkha. Dukkha can mean suffering, but also anxiety, dissatisfaction, impermanence, boredom, social conditioning, even happiness, as happiness is subject to change.

Clinging to these temporary psychological conditions is dukkha, too.

Your church is a good idea, and I'm all for it, but without some form of psychological or spiritual realization, what happens when a gang of Hell's Angels join the celebration, who are doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing?

I just think we all can use some authentic nudge to open our eyes to ourselves. We don't have to follow any tradition, but some understanding beyond what we are currently aware of can be helpful.

Edit: only two 'k's in dukkha.   :unsure2:

Edited by StarMountainKid, 20 April 2012 - 01:45 AM.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#43    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,517 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:20 AM

I think one of the most common and destructive ailments in society is the notion that in order to be worthy we must strive to be something other than what we are in the moment, that this is necessary in order to gain love or approval. And that life is full of suffering, we are born into sin, that we must overcome something in order to be worthy. As a Wiccan, I believe life on this planet is one of the best, if not the best, gifts that we have been given, and that we are to celebrate each and every day, that we are all part of the divine, and therefore have innate value and lovabilitly. Sure, we can all be "better", I suppose, but whatever we are lacking doesn't imply a lesser value. My philosophy is inclusivity and celebration, love, kindness, compassion.


#44    ZaraKitty

ZaraKitty

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I can see it in their eyes, they've already died.

Posted 20 April 2012 - 04:58 AM

Thinking about this too much, trying to comprehend existence, the universe, time.. the complexity of everything is astounding.  :mellow:

The internet is a series of tubes, and those tubes are full of cats.

#45    Beany

Beany

    Government Agent

  • 3,517 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

  • If music is the most universal language just think of me as one whole note. Nikki Giovanni

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:04 AM

It does seem to be complex, doesn't it? I can't wrap my mind around it, it goes just so far, then comes to a screeching halt. Maybe the psychological or spiritual manifests itself when the mind is quiet, maybe it's not a case of searching or looking or being actively engaged, but one of simply letting go and seeing what manifests, letting it reveal itself, whatever it is. I'm thinking that opening ones self is passive, but also less restrictive, as there are fewer parameters or preconceived expectations. What works for me is to have a quiet mind and an open heart.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users