The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

I'm not seeing the need for "Being." If the absolute contains the relative and is aware of it, why is the absolute not "Being?"

‘Being’ is all that there is, the absolute and the relative are merely two interdependent and complementary modes of that one Being. When we speak of the absolute, we speak only of one aspect of Being, an aspect that cannot exist without its complementary aspect. Being, given that it consists in the union of that which absolute (awareness) and that which is only relative (knowledge), possesses the characteristics of both modes (cognizance).

If Being had only the characteristics of an absolute entity, then it would be forever immutable, and there could be no ‘being’, for being is a dynamic process wherein things change. If, on the other hand, Being had only the characteristics of a relative entity, then it would subject to perpetual change, and this could not be ‘being’, for the would be continuity between beings.

[Jehu]

Jehu,

I've been gone a few days, but I don't know where to go from here. I am not convinced (logically) of the need for awareness.

The logic of it is really quite simple: If we accept that there are entities that are real and entities that are not real, then it follows that those entities which are not real, must merely appear so, for what other meaning can we attribute to ‘not real’. Then, if they are ‘apparent entities’, it follows that there must be another entity (which is not apparent) wherein these appearances manifest, and which takes them to be real entities.

Now, as there are, by the law of excluded middle, only the two possible kinds of entities (i.e., absolute and relative), it follows that one of these two must be real (absolute) and the other merely apparent (relative), and that the real entity must be that wherein the apparent entity manifests, and the real entity must then be ‘aware’.

[Jehu]

Jehu, I am quite clear with your stand, even before what you have eloquently explained in this thread, but I would still like to know; If all is but ‘water’, then how, when and why did the first partition between any two definitive things arise? What caused it?

While it is true that there is everywhere only being, it is important to understand that there are two interdependent and complementary modes of being; and that it is the interplay of these two modes of being (awareness and knowledge) which give rise to that indefinite and continuous process we call ‘being’.

Now, if you are asking what is it that partitions itself into subject (awareness) and objects (knowledge), then the answer is ‘Thought’, for thinking and being are one and the same; and the principle which divides/unites the two is none other than the first principle of though – the ‘Principle of Identity’.

Or are you saying that only the class of ‘non-being’ could separate a THING like Being? Surely you are assuming ‘Being’ to be a thing, aren’t you? If you are, then ‘non-being’ is also a thing according to your opening paragraph of your opening post, for that too stands before the mind, and its meaning as well.

Let me reiterate that there is no ‘non-being’, for such a thing can neither be perceived nor imagined; thus they do not exist. Consequently, any division of Being is purely an intellectual one, and may be carried out only by a thinker; that is to say, those qualities or characteristics which we use to separate one thing from another are not their own, but are posited to the thing by that which is the ground of all being - awareness. Further, this separation is ultimately an illusion, for Being is fundamental one, and this is why the Principle of Identity states: Everything is the same with itself , but different from another.

[Iolaus]

Jehu

The logic of it is really quite simple: If we accept that there are entities that are real and entities that are not real, then it follows that those entities which are not real, must merely appear so, for what other meaning can we attribute to ‘not real’. Then, if they are ‘apparent entities’, it follows that there must be another entity (which is not apparent) wherein these appearances manifest, and which takes them to be real entities.

Now, as there are, by the law of excluded middle, only the two possible kinds of entities (i.e., absolute and relative), it follows that one of these two must be real (absolute) and the other merely apparent (relative), and that the real entity must be that wherein the apparent entity manifests, and the real entity must then be ‘aware’.

I think the problem is the two slightly different meanings of the word 'appear.'

There is, "You appear to be sad."

And, "When the volcano erupted, lava appeared."

One implies an awareness needed to perceive, the other does not. Of course, in the volcano example, there was indeed a perceiver, and a human one at that, but we can suppose that in the emptiness of space galaxies appeared, without being sure of an aware perceiver.

[Jehu]

I think the problem is the two slightly different meanings of the word 'appear.'

There is, "You appear to be sad."

And, "When the volcano erupted, lava appeared."

One implies an awareness needed to perceive, the other does not. Of course, in the volcano example, there was indeed a perceiver, and a human one at that, but we can suppose that in the emptiness of space galaxies appeared, without being sure of an aware perceiver.

Yes, but in supposing that in the emptiness of space galaxies appeared, one has slipped a cognizant agent in through the back door – so to speak; for supposing is the same as imagining.

[Sapius]

Jehu;

While it is true that there is everywhere only being, it is important to understand that there are two interdependent and complementary modes of being; and that it is the interplay of these two modes of being (awareness and knowledge) which give rise to that indefinite and continuous process we call ‘being’.

I do understand the two modes and that the point of interplay is where Being is, but I do not consider either mode any more real or unreal than the other, for one could not be without the other, nor the partition which makes them what they are; and since Being is all there is, nothing could be any more real or unreal at its core, but only through sentient comparisons and personal values.

As far as ‘arising’ of Being goes; Being already is however, and it couldn’t be otherwise, and you already know that, and since Being cannot be without those two modes, it is essentially imbedded in those two modes itself. It could only be from our perspective that we assume that Being “arises”, or there is “something” (like Being) that has two ‘aspects’, whereas Being couldn’t be a thing in the ordinary sense, since there is no such thing as non-being possible, (right?), hence being could not really have any particular “aspect” or mode at all; Unless, one means lliterally the ALL, infinitely, which would include the two modes, and any other aspect or thought that one could think or imagine. Hence they say, it simply IS; (since the opposite is impossible).

Further more, would you agree that Being always IS, irrelevant of our assumptions or logical conclusions?

Now, if you are asking what is it that partitions itself into subject (awareness) and objects (knowledge), then the answer is ‘Thought’, for thinking and being are one and the same; and the principle which divides/unites the two is none other than the first principle of though – the ‘Principle of Identity’.

So if and when there is no thinking, Being isn’t? Are you saying ‘thinking’ always IS, and that there is no such thing as non-thinking? Without memory, there can be no such thing as thinking, and I think, there are times during my sleep that I don’t think; what does Being turn into then? non-being? Is that possible while in deep sleep?

On the other hand, I was asking, IF, all is but water (Being), how the hell could it partition itself (into awareness and knowledge) when you claim that a thing cannot partition itself, just like the water cannot if that is all there IS. I have seen cells (unless that is not a “thing”) self-partition and divide its self; I wonder how that can happen?

Now since you say it is ‘Thought’, or thinking, which is the same as being, so how could a thing like ‘thinking’ (which is none other than Being) partition itself into awareness and knowledge when you claim a thing cannot partition itself. How does that happen?

Sap: Or are you saying that only the class of ‘non-being’ could separate a THING like Being? Surely you are assuming ‘Being’ to be a thing, aren’t you? If you are, then ‘non-being’ is also a thing according to your opening paragraph of your opening post, for that too stands before the mind, and its meaning as well.

Jehu: Let me reiterate that there is no ‘non-being’, for such a thing can neither be perceived nor imagined; thus they do not exist.

I understand what you are saying and agree, but according to this…

Jehu: There is no greater universe of discourse than is that which we call “being”, for whether a thing is perceived through the senses, or whether it is perceived through that mental faculty we call the imagination, such a thing necessarily exists, for it stands before the mind – as its object. For this reason, we cannot reasonable say that there is anything that does not exist, that is to say, not anything that may be designated or defined.

Does 'non-being' have no designation or definition? How does ‘non-being’ not stand before the mind, and what meaning would it have without some meaning designated to Being? In that sense, it does exist if what you say above is to be considered true. Thinking or imagining a thing that does not exist may be logically not possible, but it does stand before the mind, and its definition too. Isn’t it?

Consequently, any division of Being is purely an intellectual one, and may be carried out only by a thinker; that is to say, those qualities or characteristics which we use to separate one thing from another are not their own, but are posited to the thing by that which is the ground of all being - awareness.

Well, I’m not sure about that, unless you agree that a cow or a quark is an intellectual entity… however…

Firstly, how and when dose this ‘thinker’ (or the qualities) arise from this abyss of this indivisible Being that it may begin with intellectualization and thence the division of Being? …unless Being divided or partitioned itself into awareness and knowledge, or produced a “thinker” to do the dividing to begin with; whereas actually it can’t, since it is a thing like the continuous body of water and can’t self divide. Or, is it possible that the Qualities of awareness AND knowledge itself is what Being is?

I think Being without some partition already being there cannot be possible, so there cannot be, at any point of Being, that a partition does not exist simultaneously, which sustains the two interdependent and complementary modes between awareness and knowledge, and thereby at least a sense of Being, as in me for example, who further goes on to decide which is more fundamental or absolute!? Being or Partitions, or which mode of Being exactly? I might as well say, Partition is far more fundamental than Being, for without that, Being is not possible. You think I would I be wrong in saying that? Do you thing Being can be possible otherwise?

Secondly, if you are saying that ‘awareness’ divides up Being into things, so how and from where does this awareness come from, if it does not partition from Being itself? And same goes for knowledge, unless they are one and the same thing, which I’m sure you know they are not.

Further, this separation is ultimately an illusion, for Being is fundamental one, and this is why the Principle of Identity states: Everything is the same with itself , but different from another.

If separation is ultimately an illusion, then awareness and knowledge is ultimately an illusion, thereby thinking is ultimately illusion, which indecently is none other than Being, hence Being is ultimately an illusion, or its fundamentality of being “One”.

In my opinion, Being will always be in and off the Two (say awareness and knowledge as you understand it), and not, Not Two, ever. The bottom line is, without Two, One cannot be, and in fact, One owes its existence to Two, and it cannot be the other way around. One cannot reduce Being (exitence) to less then the two modes you speak of, (others call it Yin and Yang), otherwise, it isn't.

In the above light, I thing 'The Fundamental non-unity of Being' could be equally true, for what would happen if the two modes actually unite?

[Jehu]

I do understand the two modes and that the point of interplay is where Being is, but I do not consider either mode any more real or unreal than the other, for one could not be without the other, nor the partition which makes them what they are; and since Being is all there is, nothing could be any more real or unreal at its core, but only through sentient comparisons and personal values.

When I use the term ‘real’, I use it is its philosophical sense: “that which has an absolute [necessary] and not merely contingent [relative] existence.”; I am not saying that the one mode exists and the other does not; for there is no ‘non-existence”. Further, as I have already pointed out, terms such as ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ are interdependent and complementary, and so the one cannot be said to exist without the other; for what meaning can we attach to the term ‘real’, if there were not something that was ‘not real’?

As far as ‘arising’ of Being goes; Being already is however, and it couldn’t be otherwise, and you already know that, and since Being cannot be without those two modes, it is essentially imbedded in those two modes itself. It could only be from our perspective that we assume that Being “arises”, or there is “something” (like Being) that has two ‘aspects’, whereas Being couldn’t be a thing in the ordinary sense, since there is no such thing as non-being possible, (right?), hence being could not really have any particular “aspect” or mode at all; Unless, one means lliterally the ALL, infinitely, which would include the two modes, and any other aspect or thought that one could think or imagine. Hence they say, it simply IS; (since the opposite is impossible).

Further more, would you agree that Being always IS, irrelevant of our assumptions or logical conclusions?

Agreed! An entity such as is Being, given that it ‘self-caused’, is capable of neither arising nor ceasing; nor can it undergo any alteration whatsoever. It is just a Parmenides said, “It is, and it must necessarily be.”

So if and when there is no thinking, Being isn’t? Are you saying ‘thinking’ always IS, and that there is no such thing as non-thinking? Without memory, there can be no such thing as thinking, and I think, there are times during my sleep that I don’t think; what does Being turn into then? non-being? Is that possible while in deep sleep?

When I say ‘thought’ I mean that process whereby simple concepts are transformed into new and more complex ones; that is to say, the faculty of reason. I am not speaking of the human faculty, although the two are closely related.

On the other hand, I was asking, IF, all is but water (Being), how the hell could it partition itself (into awareness and knowledge) when you claim that a thing cannot partition itself, just like the water cannot if that is all there IS. I have seen cells (unless that is not a “thing”) self-partition and divide its self; I wonder how that can happen?

I do not think that you have fully understood the analogy. If a cell is said to have divided itself into two cells, then the two cells must be separated from one another by something other than themselves. Just as if I were to say that an earthquake had divided a single lake into two lakes, the two would necessarily have to be separated by something other than lake itself; a river for example, a marsh, or a stretch of land. Consider Leibniz’s ‘Law of Indiscernibles’: “If what appears to be two or more things have all their properties in common they are identical and so only one thing.”

Sap: Or are you saying that only the class of ‘non-being’ could separate a THING like Being? Surely you are assuming ‘Being’ to be a thing, aren’t you? If you are, then ‘non-being’ is also a thing according to your opening paragraph of your opening post, for that too stands before the mind, and its meaning as well.

Being is clearly not a ‘thing’, for all things are composite in nature, and arise as a result of the coming together of their pre-existing causes (other things); persists only so long as their causes persist, and cease whenever their causes cease or no longer hold together.

I understand what you are saying and agree, but according to this…

Jehu: There is no greater universe of discourse than is that which we call “being”, for whether a thing is perceived through the senses, or whether it is perceived through that mental faculty we call the imagination, such a thing necessarily exists, for it stands before the mind – as its object. For this reason, we cannot reasonable say that there is anything that does not exist, that is to say, not anything that may be designated or defined.

Does 'non-being' have no designation or definition? How does ‘non-being’ not stand before the mind, and what meaning would it have without some meaning designated to Being? In that sense, it does exist if what you say above is to be considered true. Thinking or imagining a thing that does not exist may be logically not possible, but it does stand before the mind, and its definition too. Isn’t it?

While ‘non-being’ does have a designation, is should not rightfully have, for it signifies naught, and every designation must have an existential referent – if it is to be meaningful. Further, what passes for a definition is merely a negation of all possible predicates; and given that a definition is ‘an expression of the essence of a thing’, then that which is without an essence cannot rightfully be defined.

To stand before the mind as an object (entity), a thing must have both a quality (substance) and a relation (form) – whether it be actual or imagined (remembered). What’s more, we must not think that merely because a thing does not exist is ‘actuality’, that it does not exist at all. Unicorns do not exist in actuality, at least not so far as I am aware, but they do exist is the imagination; for we can take them as an object of mind.

Well, I’m not sure about that, unless you agree that a cow or a quark is an intellectual entity… however…

If one accepts the fundamental unity of Being, and that there is not non-being, then if follows that no actual division of Being is possible; and so all divisions must be imaginary.

Firstly, how and when dose this ‘thinker’ (or the qualities) arise from this abyss of this indivisible Being that it may begin with intellectualization and thence the division of Being? …unless Being divided or partitioned itself into awareness and knowledge, or produced a “thinker” to do the dividing to begin with; whereas actually it can’t, since it is a thing like the continuous body of water and can’t self divide. Or, is it possible that the Qualities of awareness AND knowledge itself is what Being is?

Yes! Awareness (a relation) and knowledge (a quality) are the intrinsic elements of Being; therefore, Being does not need to ‘produce a thinker’, Being is a thinker (cognizant entity); and where there is a thinker there are also thoughts.

I think Being without some partition already being there cannot be possible, so there cannot be, at any point of Being, that a partition does not exist simultaneously, which sustains the two interdependent and complementary modes between awareness and knowledge, and thereby at least a sense of Being, as in me for example, who further goes on to decide which is more fundamental or absolute!? Being or Partitions, or which mode of Being exactly? I might as well say, Partition is far more fundamental than Being, for without that, Being is not possible. You think I would I be wrong in saying that? Do you thing Being can be possible otherwise?

Secondly, if you are saying that ‘awareness’ divides up Being into things, so how and from where does this awareness come from, if it does not partition from Being itself? And same goes for knowledge, unless they are one and the same thing, which I’m sure you know they are not.

If separation is ultimately an illusion, then awareness and knowledge is ultimately an illusion, thereby thinking is ultimately illusion, which indecently is none other than Being, hence Being is ultimately an illusion, or its fundamentality of being “One”.

To paraphrase Descartes: Even if everything that is perceived is a deception, the work of some omnipotent genius, there still remains that which perceives, and this ‘perceiver’ cannot be an illusion, for an illusion cannot be deceived.

In my opinion, Being will always be in and off the Two (say awareness and knowledge as you understand it), and not, Not Two, ever. The bottom line is, without Two, One cannot be, and in fact, One owes its existence to Two, and it cannot be the other way around. One cannot reduce Being (exitence) to less then the two modes you speak of, (others call it Yin and Yang), otherwise, it isn't.

I have never claimed otherwise!

In the above light, I thing 'The Fundamental non-unity of Being' could be equally true, for what would happen if the two modes actually unite?

You'll have to explain this one! I'm pretty certain this position is logically indefensible...

[Iolaus]

Jehu,

but we can suppose that in the emptiness of space galaxies appeared, without being sure of an aware perceiver.

Yes, but in supposing that in the emptiness of space galaxies appeared, one has slipped a cognizant agent in through the back door – so to speak; for supposing is the same as imagining.

No, I was simply trying to explain the two different modes of the word 'appear.'
Supposing and imagining are similar, yes, but beside the point.
Perhaps we should use the word 'be.'

In the emptiness of space, galaxies came to be.

Sapius,

Very good post. And, I think, is the true explanation of the Tao Te Ching passage I mentioned earlier:

The one begets two
The two begets three
and the three begets the ten thousand things.

The three being none other than the dichotomy of the one and the two, and the two being none other than the one, and the one being none other than the two.

[Jehu]

If you really wish to understand the meaning of Master Lao’s passage, you need only look the ‘Tai Chi Tu’, and the first principle which the symbol embodies – the ‘Principle of Interdependent Complementarity’.

The most common English translation of the Tai Chi Tu renders it the 'Ultimate Supreme Symbol', and indeed it is just that. It is clear from its ostentatious title that whatever referent this ancient symbol denotes, it is not one of trivial consequence, but one of the highest possible significance.. The Tai Chi Tu has its origin in the Taoist tradition, as a contemplation device or visual aid, employed to help the aspirant realize the true nature of being. Through the power of this astounding symbol, one is eventually able to penetrate deeply into the fundamental nature of all things, and in doing so, to make direct contact with the ground from which all things arise, and to which all things ultimately return. In fact, this “king of all symbols” is a key which, in the hands of a worthy aspirant, will unlock the door to the true nature of one’s own being; a nature that when fully realized, will free the aspirant from all strife and put an end to death itself

Master Lao tell us of the “true nature of being” in the opening chapter of the Tao Te Ching (The Way and its Power):

There is that which contains everything.
Before heaven and earth it is.
Oh, it is still disembodied, solitary, immutable, omnipresent, dynamic.
Thus it can act as the mother of all things.
Not knowing its true name we call it The Tao.

Lao begins with the statement:” There is that which contains everything”. This is an exceedingly important proposition for it tells us that all things are fundamentally unified within the confines of that which he calls, “The Tao”. That is to say, the five classes of things: mentation, sensations, objects, properties and activities, are all encompassed within the Tao, and so it follows that the Tao itself is completely unbounded. Therefore, that of which Master Lao speaks, is not to be construed as some kind of “thing”, but rather, as the totality of all things. This however, does not imply that the Tao is nothing at all, for that would constitute a nihilistic view of reality; nor should it be viewed as merely the sum of its parts, for it is undoubtedly more than just that. Rather, the Tao should rightfully be understood as Being itself; inconceivable, inexpressible, and completely beyond such modern physical concepts as: space, time, matter, energy, and motion.

Shall I continue my explication?

[Iolaus]

Of the nature of being or the topic of the thread? Why, yes.

As to what you've said about Tao, I agree with it. I'm all for finding out what I am, and as for putting an end to death! That is my quest.

[Sapius]

Jehu;

When I use the term ‘real’, I use it is its philosophical sense: “that which has an absolute [necessary] and not merely contingent [relative] existence.”;

So do I always speak in a philosophical sense, although I am not academically trained.

So, is ‘relative’ the opposite of ‘necessary’? Isn’t the ‘relative’ absolutely ‘necessary’ as well?

I am not saying that the one mode exists and the other does not; for there is no ‘non-existence”.

I know you are not saying that.

Further, as I have already pointed out, terms such as ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ are interdependent and complementary, and so the one cannot be said to exist without the other; for what meaning can we attach to the term ‘real’, if there were not something that was ‘not real’?

Similarly, what meaning can we attach to ‘being’ if there were not something that meant ‘non-being’? That ‘non-being’ itself is not possible is a different story. For example, on the level of ‘Being’ as we have come to understand it, ‘not real’ does not exist for me; what do you say to that? Yet the word/meaning and its counter word/meaning exists.

An entity such as is Being, given that it ‘self-caused’, is capable of neither arising nor ceasing; nor can it undergo any alteration whatsoever. It is just a Parmenides said, “It is, and it must necessarily be.”

Yes, it is, and must necessarily be, but unless one utterly discards the idea that ‘Being’ is a “thing”, which somehow remains somewhere in the back of the head, unnecessary mental attachments will keep arising. Tell me, why do you consider ‘Being’ an ‘entity’ which may or may not be capable of any thing at all? Being isn’t besides 'ALL that there is', so it is exactly 'ALL that there is', so what kind of ‘entity’ could it be on its own? Yes, it neither arises nor ceases, but it is not that IT is not CAPABLE of arising nor ceasing; the word ‘capable’ does not apply to it, for it is not an IT. Nor could “one” apply to it for the same reason, neither absolutely any description at all. You are actually trying to describe the Tao in a sense, which I don't think is possible, hence I have recomended that it be thrown out.

Further more, how come it is ‘self-caused’? Do think IT could? Only things may be caused, and since ‘Being’ is not a thing, it cannot be caused or even ‘self-caused’ as such, for beyond ‘Being’ is not possible, from which point it could act upon its SELF; it is NOT a SELF either, for there is nothing beyond it that it may be considered a SELF to being with. Additionally, what happened to the two modes that “it” is dependant on? In fact, I think we agreed “it” is exactly just that, so where exactly is "Being" by its "self" that it may participate in or practice causality?

Yet further more; Eternal dynamic alteration, in other words CHANGE, IS also Being itself, which is a mere interdependently (of course complimentary too) interactive dynamic process, and one could say that All is subject to change but not change itself, which is again but ‘Being’ itself, not that ‘Being’ is incapable of change, for change itself is Being, and that cannot change.

I do not think that you have fully understood the analogy. If a cell is said to have divided itself into two cells, then the two cells must be separated from one another by something other than themselves.

I deliberately gave an “empirical” example to show that such examples do not really work when it comes to ‘Being’, whereas, “empirical” as commonly understood, does not exist for me, since that too stands but in and off the two modes. Now, about the analogy; if you are fully aware that that two modes itself is what Being is, then how come they are the “modes” OF Being? Being isn’t any “thing” at all, so what exactly are we left with? Simply the Two, say Ying AND yang. In my opinion, it is our false ego that does not let go, (sub-consciously), the IDEA that Being is still a “thing” (a third one) that emerges FROM these two modes, whereas it is but the interactivity of those two modes itself, ecah possesing the quality of the other, but never uniting.

Consider Leibniz’s ‘Law of Indiscernibles’: “If what appears to be two or more things(,) have all their properties in common(,) they are identical(,) and so only one thing.”

My English is not that good so I didn’t really get it at first, but are my punctuations correct? However, carbon is a common property of ample of things, yet, none of them are “identical” unless of the same category; BTW, I consider absolutely every thing to be absolutely unique even if two things appear identical, for they could never ever occupy the same space/time point, that is, causal conditions, philosophically speaking. And with all due respects to Leibniz, what about the Law of Identity? Is a tree, a star, and I, one and the same thing? Is he saying that we throw out the mode of knowledge?

Being is clearly not a ‘thing’, for all things are composite in nature, and arise as a result of the coming together of their pre-existing causes (other things); persists only so long as their causes persist, and cease whenever their causes cease or no longer hold together.

Absolutely.

While ‘non-being’ does have a designation, is should not rightfully have, for it signifies naught, and every designation must have an existential referent – if it is to be meaningful.

But ‘non-being’ as a word, and its meaning, does stand before the mind, as does ‘being’, otherwise ‘being’ holds no meaning. You cannot even prove that ‘non-being’ is naught unless you can show what ‘being’ is; ‘non-being’ is as much meaningful as ‘being’ is, but logically proving that ‘non-being’ is naught, is a different story.

Further, what passes for a definition is merely a negation of all possible predicates; and given that a definition is ‘an expression of the essence of a thing’, then that which is without an essence cannot rightfully be defined.

What is a word but a pointer to its definition, and the word ‘non-being’ is being used all over this thread.

To stand before the mind as an object (entity), a thing must have both a quality (substance) and a relation (form) – whether it be actual or imagined (remembered). What’s more, we must not think that merely because a thing does not exist is ‘actuality’, that it does not exist at all. Unicorns do not exist in actuality, at least not so far as I am aware, but they do exist is the imagination; for we can take them as an object of mind.

Exactly, and so it goes for ‘non-being’, although it certainly does not exist in ‘actuality’.

If one accepts the fundamental unity of Being, and that there is not non-being, then if follows that no actual division of Being is possible; and so all divisions must be imaginary.

Sure, but what I am talking about is a step beyond this profound understanding. I am talking about – first there is a mountain, then it isn’t, then it indeed IS. Ultimately, “Division” IS Being too! How come, within a single post, one can forget the two necessarily (real) modes, which necessarily requires a real (necessary) division, ON the point of which ‘Being’ dances an elusive and yet an egotistical dance that keeps luring the intelligent?

I consider all divisions and their consequences absolutely real (necessary), and yet I am.

Sapius: Or, is it possible that the Qualities of awareness AND knowledge itself is what Being is?

Jehu: Yes! Awareness (a relation) and knowledge (a quality) are the intrinsic elements of Being; therefore, Being does not need to ‘produce a thinker’, Being is a thinker (cognizant entity); and where there is a thinker there are also thoughts.

For quality and relationship, a THING is necessary, and BEING is NOT a THING, so IT does NOT have "intrinsic elements". It has neither an intrinsic nor an extrinsic to begin with, so what elements could "Being" HAVE? ALL elements ARE Being itself.

Sapius: In the above light, I thing 'The Fundamental non-unity of Being' could be equally true, for what would happen if the two modes actually unite?

Jehu: You'll have to explain this one! I'm pretty certain this position is logically indefensible...

Could you please try that for me… I’m done for the day.. rather the night, actually..

I simply mean that Being is not possible without real (necessary) partition/separation eternally in place, and that the two “modes” (if you like), never ever “unite’.

Pardon unintentional mistakes if any.

[brokenhead]

Of the nature of being or the topic of the thread? Why, yes.

As to what you've said about Tao, I agree with it. I'm all for finding out what I am, and as for putting an end to death! That is my quest.

The one begets two
The two begets three
and the three begets the ten thousand things.

Thus the neccesary triunity of the Godhead, from which the ten thousand things (Creation) spring.

[Jehu]

So do I always speak in a philosophical sense, although I am not academically trained.

When taking part in a philosophical enquiry one should always try to use the appropriate language, for philosophy, like the sciences, uses terms in a highly technical way.

So, is ‘relative’ the opposite of ‘necessary’? Isn’t the ‘relative’ absolutely ‘necessary’ as well?

Again, the terms ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ have precise philosophical meanings.
That which is possessed of its own intrinsic causes (an absolute entity) partakes of a ‘necessary existence’, for if its causes exist, then entity itself must ‘necessarily’ exist – for that which is necessary and sufficient to its existence (its causes) exists. Consequently, the absolute entity is fixed in its being and forever unchangeable.
That which is dependent upon extrinsic causes for its existence (the relative entity) partakes of only a ‘contingent existence’, for although its causes must exist antecedent of and independent to the entity itself, the existence of the relative entity itself is ‘contingent’ upon the coming together of those extrinsic causes. Consequently, the relative entity is not fixed in its being and subject to continuous change.

Similarly, what meaning can we attach to ‘being’ if there were not something that meant ‘non-being’? That ‘non-being’ itself is not possible is a different story. For example, on the level of ‘Being’ as we have come to understand it, ‘not real’ does not exist for me; what do you say to that? Yet the word/meaning and its counter word/meaning exists.

Yes, I think I see the problem! Perhaps I could turn to simple set theory, and shed some light on the problem.
‘Being’ may be thought of as the universal ‘set of all sets’, for as everything is composite (having at least two defining characteristics), there is no difficulty in out thinking of things as sets essential characteristics. So, if we partition the set of all sets so that the one partition contains all and only such things that conform to a specified set of characteristics, then we will simultaneously give rise another sub-set which contains all of and only such things as do not conform to the said specifications; and these two sub-sets will complete one another in the set of all sets. Then, since every sub-set (thing) that we partition out must have a complementary sub-set (e.g., humans and non-humans), we habitually apply the same rule to that which we call ‘Being”, but we cannot rightfully do this, for Being is not a thing, and so it has no complementary aspect – for we have not partitioned the set of all set. Further, if Being did have a complementary aspect (non-being), then the two aspects would necessarily have to complete one another in some even higher universe of discourse; but there is no higher universe than ‘that which is’.

Tell me, why do you consider ‘Being’ an ‘entity’ which may or may not be capable of any thing at all? Being isn’t besides 'ALL that there is', so it is exactly 'ALL that there is', so what kind of ‘entity’ could it be on its own? Yes, it neither arises nor ceases, but it is not that IT is not CAPABLE of arising nor ceasing; the word ‘capable’ does not apply to it, for it is not an IT. Nor could “one” apply to it for the same reason, neither absolutely any description at all.

But ‘Being’ is necessarily on its own, for there is no non-being. Further, there is but one aspect of Being (the absolute) that is immutable, and Being derives this characteristics from this aspect (its operative cause); while for the other aspect (the relative), Being derives its ability to change; that is to say, the ‘appearance’ of change; for this change has only a relative existence, and is not real (absolute).

You are actually trying to describe the Tao in a sense, which I don't think is possible, hence I have recommended that it be thrown out.

What I am describing is the symbol meaning of the Tai Chi Tu, and as with any graphic symbol, it is a repository of knowledge – and so is subject to human understanding.

Further more, how come it is ‘self-caused’? Do think IT could? Only things may be caused, and since ‘Being’ is not a thing, it cannot be caused or even ‘self-caused’ as such, for beyond ‘Being’ is not possible, from which point it could act upon its SELF; it is NOT a SELF either, for there is nothing beyond it that it may be considered a SELF to being with. Additionally, what happened to the two modes that “it” is dependant on? In fact, I think we agreed “it” is exactly just that, so where exactly is "Being" by its "self" that it may participate in or practice causality?

By ‘self-caused’, I mean only that it is possessed of its own intrinsic causes, and so is not caused by anything other than itself: its own intrinsic nature.

Yet further more; Eternal dynamic alteration, in other words CHANGE, IS also Being itself, which is a mere interdependently (of course complimentary too) interactive dynamic process, and one could say that All is subject to change but not change itself, which is again but ‘Being’ itself, not that ‘Being’ is incapable of change, for change itself is Being, and that cannot change.

Indeed, all things are subject to change, for they cannot remain the same for more than a single instant; but things are not real (absolute), and so it follows whatever changes the appear to undergo are not real either.

Now, about the analogy; if you are fully aware that that two modes itself is what Being is, then how come they are the “modes” OF Being? Being isn’t any “thing” at all, so what exactly are we left with? Simply the Two, say Ying AND yang. In my opinion, it is our false ego that does not let go, (sub-consciously), the IDEA that Being is still a “thing” (a third one) that emerges FROM these two modes, whereas it is but the interactivity of those two modes itself, ecah possesing the quality of the other, but never uniting.

Yes, Being is not a ‘thing’, for all things are composite, and therefore, divisible; while Being is not composite (not two separate things) and so is indivisible.

My English is not that good so I didn’t really get it at first, but are my punctuations correct? However, carbon is a common property of ample of things, yet, none of them are “identical” unless of the same category; BTW, I consider absolutely every thing to be absolutely unique even if two things appear identical, for they could never ever occupy the same space/time point, that is, causal conditions, philosophically speaking. And with all due respects to Leibniz, what about the Law of Identity? Is a tree, a star, and I, one and the same thing? Is he saying that we throw out the mode of knowledge?

Yes, this is the point exactly: if there is anything at all that can be predicated of one thing, but not of another, then they are two different things; and this includes there spatio-temporal co-ordinates.

But ‘non-being’ as a word, and its meaning, does stand before the mind, as does ‘being’, otherwise ‘being’ holds no meaning. You cannot even prove that ‘non-being’ is naught unless you can show what ‘being’ is; ‘non-being’ is as much meaningful as ‘being’ is, but logically proving that ‘non-being’ is naught, is a different story.

One can prove that there is no “non-being” simply by applying the Three Laws of Thought; and without the laws of thought, there can be no meaning enquiry.

What is a word but a pointer to its definition, and the word ‘non-being’ is being used all over this thread.

Yes, I know, and it greaves me…

Exactly, and so it goes for ‘non-being’, although it certainly does not exist in ‘actuality’.

On the contrary, ‘non-being’, by its very definition, does not stand before the mind; for that which “is not” can be neither perceived not imagined.

Ultimately, “Division” IS Being too!

Yes, but ‘division’ is only a relative being.

For quality and relationship, a THING is necessary, and BEING is NOT a THING, so IT does NOT have "intrinsic elements".

Quality and relationship are the requisite elements of any ‘entity’, while a ‘thing’ is only a relative entity; which is not a real entity, but merely appears to be one – to the mind.

I simply mean that Being is not possible without real (necessary) partition/separation eternally in place, and that the two “modes” (if you like), never ever “unite’.

[/quote][/quote]Existentially, both the absolute and the relative are one and the same, however, essentially they are two; for if these two modes were possessed of exactly the same characteristics, then we could not differentiate between them.

[Jehu]

Returning to the Tai Chi Tu:

The fundamental unity of being is symbolized in the Tai Chi Tu by the infinite circle, the all encompassing sphere of Being, past, present and future. In the Christian tradition, this idea of the fundamental unity of all being is best described by Jesus, when he said, “ I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, that which is, that which was, and that which is yet to come. Was Jesus simply trying to tell his disciples that he, along with everyone and everything, were never truly separate from the one True Entity (Being)?

Heaven and earth symbolize the two interdependent and complementary elements which comprise the nature or composition of the Tao or True Being. However, in the line, “Before heaven and earth it is”, Master Lao tells us clearly that the Tao is more than the merely the sum of its parts, but that which gives rise to heaven and earth. In other words, the Tao is the repository of its own originating and sustaining causes, and so is its own inherent reason for being.

The use of black and white in the two hemispheres of the infinite sphere, the Yin (white) and Yang (black), represent the two complimentary aspects of Being; white being the sensation which we perceive when light containing the full spectrum of frequencies (colours) impinges upon the eye, black representing the absence of all such frequencies. The black and white dots represent the interdependent relationship that binds the two aspects together as one; each aspect being the root or cause of the other. The Buddha spoke of this strange relationship as the “not-two nature of reality.” By this he meant, that the nature of reality cannot rightfully be said to be one, for it comprise two differentiable qualities, nor can it be rightfully said to be more than one, for these two qualities are interdependent, and so cannot exist on their own; but only in unison. Hence, there can be no good without that there is also evil, no right unless there is also a wrong, and so on. Heaven and earth are not, however, opposites, as is commonly thought, but complements. The term “opposites” implies a dynamic struggle between two apposing forces wherein one will win and the other lose, while the term “complementary” implies a dynamic harmony between two cooperative forces. Thus it may be said that the Yin and the Yang complete one another in the entity that is the Tao, and so are necessary and sufficient to its being.

[Steven]

This thread is premised upon several fundamental misinterpretations of Heideggar, which is no difficult thing to achieve.

You state that there is a fundamental unity of Being a priori to all things that determine things for what they are.

You then posit that there are only two fundamental modes of Being, that of "quality" and that of "relationship" and that taken together we have the fundamental principles of an entity.
You posit that there are only two means of causation of these modes of Being, the self contained and the externally produced.
You state that there are classes of things that can be defined, and "instances" of things that require a fuller description.

There are many other examples of such propositions and statements.

What you fail to do is provide a single framework of the unity of Being that unifies the Being of Quality and the Being of Relationship, the Being towards the World, the Being There; you have failed to grasp that the underlying unity of Being is not divisible into categories, that it is specifically and purposely used in this manner to explain to the reader the underlying unity of Being and the use that illuminate its meaning.

You have confused the Existential Being and Existentiell Being as being two distinct categories of Being that are literal, when these two words infact represent the deficiencies in marrying an existential, ontological analytic of Being with its existentiell and ontical immediacy. The fundamental unity of Being, the title of this topic and something you have stated repeatedly, is the very concept you dispense with and battle against, it is the very fundamental notion that you have failed to grasp in the true sense with which its was meant to be conveyed, but this is a deficiency in the deliverence of the concepts making up the arguement, and remains a deficiency in philosophical language to this day.

There are no two distinctions in Being, there are no multiple distinctions in Being, there is only Being. Avoiding the fundamental unity of Being only runs up against the necessary inclusion of its prerequirement to any factical nature. There IS existential Being, there IS essential Being, there IS quality, there IS relationship. It IS not possible to avoid the a priori unity of Being.

What IS this IS? What is Being? It is the distillation of historicality and potentiallity into a set of categories of "quality" and of "relationship", so far as I understand Sein Und Zeit. It is a particular mode of the unity of an entire factual history of all factuality and an entire potential future of all possible outcomes into a particular means of comporting or relating to others. The Being of a Thing is not, contrary to both ontical and ontological analysis, simply its "current" "quality" and "relationship" but is necessarilly its entire history and all quality and relationship and its entire future and all quality and relationship.

The fundamental Unity of Being is not an existential ontological philosophy, nor existentiell ontical science, but penetrates deeper than both to explain that Time is the fundamental horizon within which Being must and only there can Being be fully, understood. And once you grasp that arguement you realise that it is self evident, which is what Heideggar has been saying since page one.

What you are doing is to attempt to use a description of Being as an explanation for Being, but in doing so you are destroying the key fundamental principles not only of Heideggars work but of all understanding and thinking of existence. You cannot define existence in components, but you are right to say that existing entities are necessarilly composed of "quality" and of "relationship". These are not seperate "modes of Being" or seperate "types" of existence, they are untill otherwise explained merely facets of physical manifestation shared by all known and conceivable entities that must necessarilly be so in order for their existence to be known or to have relevance and meaning.

But without the proper exposition of the meaning of existence, much like that of Being, such an arguement would be pointless.

[Sapius]

Jehu;

Again, the terms ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ have precise philosophical meanings.

And so does ‘Being’ and ‘non-being’. I understand and do not in any way disagree to the fundamentals; however, I am looking at it from a step beyond from not only when the definitions, but the ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ itself have been established.

In any case, I think Steven and you speak the same language, so I would just like to add..

What I’m saying is that the ‘necessary/absolute’ AND ‘contingent/relative’, are interdependently necessary for “being/existence” (irrelevant of what we call “it”, but if we do, then the complementary word/meaning exists) to be what it is, and that that interdependency is what is sensed as “Being”, and is nothing special or out of this world, because “it” cannot, helplessly be otherwise. So one should stop thinking of “IT” as “Being” as well, otherwise one is necessarily thinking of it as a “thing”, for that word/meaning cannot be without its complementary word/meaning. It is but a matter of dropping an egoistic attachment of valuing one thing (absolute) over another (relative), for one cannot really be without the other, that the struggle and lure of hanging on to the knowledge of this unison itself disappears, and one becomes purely awareness and knowledge, submitting to the fact that that actually is none other than Being, without being mentally attached to the word/meaning of Being ITSELF, which however in, was, and will be, in any which case; in and off awareness and knowledge that is, which similarly cannot be otherwise, otherwise Being isn’t, which is again absurd.

There can be no name to this IS-NESS actually, and someone representing this IS-NESS, intelligently said it in words – I am that I am. Or, all that one can think or imagine, I am not that. Or, the Tao that can be named, is not the Tao, Or, whatever really… as long as the meaning is realized.

S: What is a word but a pointer to its definition, and the word ‘non-being’ is being used all over this thread.

J: Yes, I know, and it greaves me…

I know what you mean, but please don’t, for without the word/meaning of ‘non-being’, how else could we realize Being? And, IMHO, realization is what matters, and not Being or non-being itself.

As Samadhi frequently quotes, what we are ultimately left with is, carry water chop wood.

Glad to see you work so hard, Jehu; I will keenly pay attention to your discussion with Steven.

[Steven]

What I’m saying is that the ‘necessary/absolute’ AND ‘contingent/relative’, are interdependently necessary for “being/existence” (irrelevant of what we call “it”, but if we do, then the complementary word/meaning exists) to be what it is, and that that interdependency is what is sensed as “Being”, and is nothing special or out of this world, because “it” cannot, helplessly be otherwise. So one should stop thinking of “IT” as “Being” as well, otherwise one is necessarily thinking of it as a “thing”, for that word/meaning cannot be without its complementary word/meaning. It is but a matter of dropping an egoistic attachment of valuing one thing (absolute) over another (relative), for one cannot really be without the other, that the struggle and lure of hanging on to the knowledge of this unison itself disappears, and one becomes purely awareness and knowledge, submitting to the fact that that actually is none other than Being, without being mentally attached to the word/meaning of Being ITSELF, which however in, was, and will be, in any which case; in and off awareness and knowledge that is, which similarly cannot be otherwise, otherwise Being isn’t, which is again absurd.

I somewhat agree with the main thrust of this point, but there is ever present the danger of getting carried away into exuberant, unsupported over elaboration at the expense of setting down in clarity and precision the concepts, propositions and conclusions making up the arguement.

The Being of Thing is not a Thing itself. Being is the conception of the a priori immediacy of things, that all things that exist are Being of those things. The problems arise when one attempts to a Thing out of its "natural environment" to study the "components" of its Being. All things are already predefined by the history of their components. There is no secret essence in the Being of a "book" for example, its history within its environment already defines the entirety of its form. The question of its Being is almost without fail taken out of this context, asking the question of what gives this thing its form and characteristics in itself while denying the very environment that precisely gives a thing its form and characteristics.

In ignoring the factical history and environment of a thing while one asks the question of its Being, one does not ask a relevant question, for what is Being asked of is imaginary and relates in no way to a factical entity, in other words of asking the questions of real objects in real environments, not erroneous concepts in denial of relationship and history.

The question of the meaning of Being is to draw attention to the fact that the very meaning of the question of Being is premised upon a factical entity within its factical environment produced by its factical history. This unity provides the Being of this entity with its factical characteristics and its factical relevance. Being is not isolated and individual, but Temporal and "towards" other things.

The question as to the composition and means of Being, the "essence" that provides an entity with its Being, can all be answered with science, up to a single and highly obvious point.

Thus in the means with which we attempt to find the answer as to the immediate nature of Being, we deny what gives an entity its form and characteristics, and attempt to ask what gives an entity its form and characteristics in isolation. In asking this particular question we purposely deny what give us the answer. We run around in circles untill someone comes forward and tells us we need to deconstruct the history of ontology, because it is built upon false premises.

It is astonishing as to how so many people in such a simple way have been delluded for millenia. You cannot take the question of the meaning of Being out of its context.

[brokenhead]

On the contrary, ‘non-being’, by its very definition, does not stand before the mind; for that which “is not” can be neither perceived not imagined.

Not so sure about that. It has a definition, after all.

Is non-being the same as nothingness? Is it the same as zero? Zero is a much more recent concept than any of the natural numbers, and as such formed a bridge to the "appearance" of the whole numbers (positive or negative integers and zero.)

I once saw a T-shirt with the word "BEING" crossed out. "Non-being" does stand before the mind in that sense, as a memory of being that has been subsequently removed or negated. As such, it stands before the mind in two stages. But then so does "large" necessarily stand before the mind in two stages, as it is meaningless without a conception of something that is small. Saying "my house is large" to a homeless person would not mean the same absolute thing as it would if it were said to Paris Hilton.

Therefore, in a very real sense, "non-being" can be both perceived and imagined, as it does not matter what occupies the first mental stage. The "non-being" of a mansion is the same as the "non-being" of a bum's cardboard box. We can therefore say it in fact has a more precise meaning than many other words.

[Sapius]

On the contrary, ‘non-being’, by its very definition, does not stand before the mind; for that which “is not” can be neither perceived not imagined.

Not so sure about that. It has a definition, after all.

Brokenhead, FYI, that was not me, but Jehu responding to me, but however, I don’t think you really understand what Jehu means by that. He is not talking about the word or its meaning, which is the map, but he is talking about the territory itself.

[Jehu]

This thread is premised upon several fundamental misinterpretations of Heideggar, which is no difficult thing to achieve.

With all due respect to the work of Martin Heidegger, with which I am on vaguely familiar, this thread is not based upon his work - misinterpreted or not. Rather, it is based upon a rational enquiry into what we may reasonable say with respect to being, and what we may not.

You state that there is a fundamental unity of Being a priori to all things that determine things for what they are.

Actually, I have never claimed that the unity of Being is “a priori” to all things, I have said only that things (relative beings) are an intrinsic element and essential cause of that which we call ‘Being’.

You then posit that there are only two fundamental modes of Being, that of "quality" and that of "relationship" and that taken together we have the fundamental principles of an entity.

I did not merely posit that there were only two possible ways in which an entity might be constituted, but demonstrated it to be so in accordance with the Law of Excluded Middle – for if a entity does no contain its own causes, then its causes must lie elsewhere.

What you fail to do is provide a single framework of the unity of Being that unifies the Being of Quality and the Being of Relationship, the Being towards the World, the Being There; you have failed to grasp that the underlying unity of Being is not divisible into categories, that it is specifically and purposely used in this manner to explain to the reader the underlying unity of Being and the use that illuminate its meaning.

Clearly, the unity of Being may indeed be divided into categories, for I have done so; nevertheless, I have said from the beginning that such divisions are purely intellectual endeavours, for Being is ultimately indivisible.

You have confused the Existential Being and Existentiell Being as being two distinct categories of Being that are literal, when these two words infact represent the deficiencies in marrying an existential, ontological analytic of Being with its existentiell and ontical immediacy.

I’m relatively certain that I have not confused the concepts above, for I am quite certain that I do not even know what an “Eistentiell” is.

The fundamental unity of Being, the title of this topic and something you have stated repeatedly, is the very concept you dispense with and battle against, …

If this is in fact the impression that you have gotten, then either you have failed to follow the logical progression of the enquiry, or you have failed to understand the argument itself.

There are no two distinctions in Being, there are no multiple distinctions in Being, there is only Being. Avoiding the fundamental unity of Being only runs up against the necessary inclusion of its prerequirement to any factical nature. There IS existential Being, there IS essential Being, there IS quality, there IS relationship. It IS not possible to avoid the a priori unity of Being.

Again, I have never claimed that either existential being ‘is not’ or that essential being ‘is not’; and if no distinction can be made between the two, how is it I am are able to draw a distinction? Now, if you say the such distinctions are purely imaginary, I will agree completely - but distinctions they are nevertheless.

What IS this IS? What is Being? It is the distillation of historicality and potentiallity into a set of categories of "quality" and of "relationship", so far as I understand Sein Und Zeit. It is a particular mode of the unity of an entire factual history of all factuality and an entire potential future of all possible outcomes into a particular means of comporting or relating to others. The Being of a Thing is not, contrary to both ontical and ontological analysis, simply its "current" "quality" and "relationship" but is necessarilly its entire history and all quality and relationship and its entire future and all quality and relationship.

The fundamental Unity of Being is not an existential ontological philosophy, nor existentiell ontical science, but penetrates deeper than both to explain that Time is the fundamental horizon within which Being must and only there can Being be fully, understood. And once you grasp that arguement you realise that it is self evident, which is what Heideggar has been saying since page one.

What you are doing is to attempt to use a description of Being as an explanation for Being, but in doing so you are destroying the key fundamental principles not only of Heideggars work but of all understanding and thinking of existence. You cannot define existence in components, but you are right to say that existing entities are necessarilly composed of "quality" and of "relationship". These are not seperate "modes of Being" or seperate "types" of existence, they are untill otherwise explained merely facets of physical manifestation shared by all known and conceivable entities that must necessarilly be so in order for their existence to be known or to have relevance and meaning.

Since we are not discussing the merits of Heidegger’s philosophy in this thread, I will forgo any further comment on these paragraphs; except to say that I have never claimed that there were two “separate” modes of Being, but only that there were two “interdependent and complementary” modes.

But without the proper exposition of the meaning of existence, much like that of Being, such an arguement would be pointless.

On this point I fully agree, and so I offer the following:

There is much confusion, among laypersons and philosophers alike, as to what exactly it means to say that something ‘exists’, or how the concept relates to the similar notion of ‘being’.

Many hold that the term ‘exists’ may rightfully be applied only to those entities (beings) as are generally deemed to be real; that is to say, only such things which can be: (1) perceived immediately by the senses; and (2) which are accessible to more than one cognizant agent; and (3) which are capable of continuation even when they are not observed – although it is doubtful that this last criterion can ever be verified empirically.

This is an erroneous interpretation of the term, and one that reflects the general predilection toward one of those logically indefensible metaphysical worldviews which are generally called: ‘materialism’, ‘realism’ or ‘physicalism’.

The notion that material entities alone exist, may be traced back to Aristotle’s overturning of the tenets of his teacher, Plato; who held that of the two interdependent and complementary aspects which comprise an entity: ‘form’ (relation) and ‘matter’ (quality), that it was matter which was the superior aspect – a defeat which was based, not upon deductive reasoning, but upon inductive inference and rhetoric devices such as the “appeal to self-evidence”.

Aristotle falsely reasoned that because it was matter that rendered a thing perceptible to the mind (by way of the senses), that it was ‘self-evident’ that matter was real, and that form was merely a mode of distribution embodied within matter – which was its true origin and cause.

This argument, although appealing in its simplicity, failed to take into account the fact that it is the form of a thing (material or otherwise) which determines what sort of thing it is (i.e., its identity), and which renders the thing recognizable to the mind.

Further, it failed to consider the fact that matter is equally dependent upon form for its existence, since an entity can be neither perceived nor imagined without that its matter embodies some sort of form; even though that form may be an indeterminate one such as: a blob, a clump, a streak or a puddle.

Nevertheless, it was a metaphysical account which accorded fully with the way that things “appear” to be constituted, and so was not a difficult sell; especially among the philosophically disinclined.

Materialism then took it rightful place among such other “self-evident” notions such as that the world is flat, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth – for is it not clear to any man who has eyes to see?

To understand the true meaning of the term ‘exist’ one must go back to the per-Aristotelian meaning of the term, and consider its Latin and Greek roots; and then it will be clear that the term simply means ‘that which can be either perceived or imagined’; in other words, to exist is to be an object of mind.

That this is the appropriate interpretation of the term “exist” is evidenced by the fact that the term ‘existence’ has its origin in the Latin ‘ex(s)istere’, from ‘ex ’, meaning “out of” and ‘sistere’, the reduplicated form of ‘stare’, meaning “to stand”; and this has its origin in the Greek ‘sta’, meaning ‘stand’.

What’s more, this same Latin root (stare) is at the core of a number of other closely related terms including: ‘substance’, ‘resistance’ and ‘persistence’ - to name but a few; terms which when examined as a linguistic group, render a clear sense of the underlying concept that they denote – stasis or stability.

Then, if we examine the contemporary meaning of the term, ‘matter’, we will find that it comprises two interdependent and complementary ideas; ‘mass’ and ‘extension’: mass being that aspect of a material thing which renders it perceptible to the senses (matter), and extension (spatial or temporal) being that aspect whereby a thing derives its identity (form).

Further, if we examine the notion of ‘mass’, we will find that it is simply a measure of ‘inertia’: a material object’s ability to resist any external influence that might alter its shape or state of motion; in other words, mass is ultimately a measure of a material thing’s resistance to change or stability.

To ‘exist’ then is to ‘standout’ to the mind, as a recognizable pocket of stability in an otherwise turbulent sea of sensations; and for this reason, we cannot reasonable assert that there is anything that does not exist; that is to say, not anything that may be either perceived or thought about (imagined).

[Jehu]

What I’m saying is that the ‘necessary/absolute’ AND ‘contingent/relative’, are interdependently necessary for “being/existence” (irrelevant of what we call “it”, but if we do, then the complementary word/meaning exists) to be what it is, and that that interdependency is what is sensed as “Being”, and is nothing special or out of this world, because “it” cannot, helplessly be otherwise.

Again, I do not wish to beat the point to death, but it is of the utmost importance that we understand that such terms as “non-being” and “non-existent” are logically inconsistent; and that as Being is unbounded, there is no place for “non-being” either within Being – which would violate the law of contradiction; or outside of Being, which would then delimit Being. Therefore, let my try once again, from a linguistic angle, and see if we cannot overcome this erroneous notion.

That which may be rightfully named must have both and existential aspect (must exist), and an essential aspect (a set of defining characteristics). The reason for this is that it is the linguistic function of a name to give rise in the mind of a listener or reader, to a unique set of characteristics which are essential to the recognition of that which is named; and it is in this way that a term conveys a meaning. Now, the term “non-being” has neither an existential referent (for it does not exist) nor any defining characteristic (for what characteristics could it possibly have). Therefore, when we hear the term “non-being”, it gives rise to no recognition, and thus it conveys no meaning whatsoever.

So one should stop thinking of “IT” as “Being” as well, otherwise one is necessarily thinking of it as a “thing”, for that word/meaning cannot be without its complementary word/meaning. It is but a matter of dropping an egoistic attachment of valuing one thing (absolute) over another (relative), for one cannot really be without the other, that the struggle and lure of hanging on to the knowledge of this unison itself disappears, and one becomes purely awareness and knowledge, submitting to the fact that that actually is none other than Being, without being mentally attached to the word/meaning of Being ITSELF, which however in, was, and will be, in any which case; in and off awareness and knowledge that is, which similarly cannot be otherwise, otherwise Being isn’t, which is again absurd.

There can be no name to this IS-NESS actually, and someone representing this IS-NESS, intelligently said it in words – I am that I am. Or, all that one can think or imagine, I am not that. Or, the Tao that can be named, is not the Tao, Or, whatever really… as long as the meaning is realized.

If you have noticed, I have taken great pains not to refer to Being as “thing”, for indeed it is not; nevertheless, it is an entity, for it comprises the requisite elements of an entity (quality and relation), and so partakes of a distinct existence. Unfortunately, as it is only things that may be perceived or imagined, it follows that most natural languages evolve to handle only the five classes of thing: mentation, sensations, object, properties and activities; and that which can be neither perceived not imagined is thought to be “non-existent”. This however, is not the case.

[brokenhead]

Back to that T-shirt I saw with the word "being" crossed out.

Therefore, when we hear the term “non-being”, it gives rise to no recognition, and thus it conveys no meaning whatsoever.

Only out of context. Like on the T-shirt.

[Steven]

With all due respect to the work of Martin Heidegger, with which I am on vaguely familiar, this thread is not based upon his work - misinterpreted or not. Rather, it is based upon a rational enquiry into what we may reasonable say with respect to being, and what we may not.

Irrespective of what you claim, anyone familiar with the work Being And Time will recognise in your posts exact replicas of Heideggars phrases, arguements and analysis of Greek etymology. The only differences between your contributions to this thread and Heideggars work, besides the native language, are length, depth and conclusions. Everything else is not merely similar, but exactly the same.

Actually, I have never claimed that the unity of Being is “a priori” to all things

Therefore, being is the one “universal predicate”

If you have noticed, I have taken great pains not to refer to Being as “thing”

I have said only that things (relative beings) ....

things (relative beings) are an intrinsic element and essential cause of that which we call ‘Being’.

You have it backwards, Being is the intrinsic element and essential cause of that which we call "Things". Things cannot relate to Being without Being themselves. Any component, any relationship must itself Be before it can have any relevance, it must "Be" if it is to be of a factical nature. The Being of "quality" and the Being of "relationship" is the same fundamental Being of different categories of entities.

I did not merely posit that there were only two possible ways in which an entity might be constituted, but demonstrated it to be so in accordance with the Law of Excluded Middle – for if a entity does no contain its own causes, then its causes must lie elsewhere.

Yes but Being is not an entity.

Clearly, the unity of Being may indeed be divided into categories, for I have done so;

You have divided the essential characteristics of Things into categories. You cannot divide Being into a category of Quality for then one asks about the Being of Quality, and finds it to be the same fundamental question of Being as the Being of relationship, or the Being of Things in general.

nevertheless, I have said from the beginning that such divisions are purely intellectual endeavours, for Being is ultimately indivisible.

Such divisions are intellectual nonesense, for in the first you divide entities and claim to divide Being, and in the second you refuse to ask the question of the Being of the constituants.

I’m relatively certain that I have not confused the concepts above, for I am quite certain that I do not even know what an “Eistentiell” is.

If this is in fact the impression that you have gotten, then either you have failed to follow the logical progression of the enquiry, or you have failed to understand the argument itself.

Again, I have never claimed that either existential being ‘is not’ or that essential being ‘is not’; and if no distinction can be made between the two, how is it I am are able to draw a distinction? Now, if you say the such distinctions are purely imaginary, I will agree completely - but distinctions they are nevertheless.

The distinction you draw is an erroneous distinction, you take the words "existential" and "essential" or in the original work "existentiell" and determine that these must be two distinct literal modes of Being, and you come with "quality" and "relationship" to fit into these two modes of Being.

The entire process is a flaw of the highest order, for the meaning of "existential" is not physical and literal anyway, it is to do with the perception of the constructions of existence.

I will state right here that "existential Being is not" for existential Being is a philosophy of Being, or Being within a philosophy.

"Essential Being" or in the original work "Existentiell Being" is the literal Being, and the two concepts are framed in this manner to draw distinction to the fact that all prior philosophy of Being has dealt with removal of entities from the context and an attempt to find the underlying, metaphysical mechanics of Being prior to physicality, which is an absolute flaw in its own right.

"Quality and Relationship" themselves are categories of entites that when found or explored must be asked the question of their Being. These are not two examples of independant Being or of distinctive Being, but examples of the Being of two entities that are themselves not the same. The fact I am here is the same as the fact you are here.

You divide entities and call it a division of Being because entities are called Beings, but you completely miss the point as to the question of the Being of anything itself, including what you have just produced with your division.

Since we are not discussing the merits of Heidegger’s philosophy in this thread

Ha! You sir should go back and try again to grasp the complexity and richness of Heideggars vocabulary, bearing in the mind the fundamental principle of the indivisable "predicate" Being.

To Be or not to Be, that is the question.

[Iolaus]

Steve,

an attempt to find the underlying, metaphysical mechanics of Being prior to physicality, which is an absolute flaw in its own right.

Could you explain that a little. This is a possibility I've thought about. But keep it in normal language if you can.

[Steven]

Could you explain that a little. This is a possibility I've thought about. But keep it in normal language if you can.

To get straight to the point the question of Being is the end of infinate regression, for it is a question of the nature of immediacy, a question of the fact that things are. There are no mechanics that are not premised on Being what it is they are, hence premised upon Being itself. No matter what solution you come up with for your equations, no matter what grand monisms or dualisms you conceive of, no matter what God you pray to, the question of Being what it is they are will always come next and will always underline and define their existence.

Heideggar provides an excellent description of Being, a great exposition of its factual meaning under the horizon of time, but he provides no explanation of Being; the epitome of the work of his life was to struggle with exposing the question of Being and the meaning of Being in its factual, immediate state, because this he said was the fundamental requirement prior to attempting to explain Being.

It is a difficult concept to explain because it is so self-evident, so self-evident that it is the basis upon which all other thought and action follows, things are, and therefore it cannot be defined nor explained by means of comparisons and relationships and descriptions. Look at something, see it is there, and understand that no matter how much you study this thing and learn its history and its components, you will never from this thing itself, or from any other thing, learn how it is that anything can actually be; anything you can possibly learn is already premised upon the fact that it is.

Everything is already premised upon Being. You can study a star all the way down to its fundamental components and all you will have done is analyse the components of this star. You will still be asking at the end of it, when faced with the fundamental components of entities themselves, how it is that they exist. There is no mechanism you can possibly find that comes prior to its own Being, you cannot find a principle or rule or law or deity that is not premised upon actually Being. It is the foundation.

This question of Being is essentially the full stop of Science. It marks the end of the causal processes and mechanistic principles we are accustomed to, it is the question that underlies this very site, and you are surely aware of the "axiom" A=A that enjoys the rounds here, but you will surely not be aware of the question as to the a priori Being of A=A for no such question gets asked here. The question of Being itself shows that something fundamentally different to what we are used to thinking defines the very fact that we are. It requires a completely new way of conceiving "how" for there can be no answer to the question of Being that is not already premised upon Being. The base nature, not of existence, but that is existence, is fundamentally different to anything else we can comprehend for it is the predicate of all.