The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

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.

Be that as it may, I assure you that it is not the case. Perhaps the similarities might be founded in the fact that the doctrine I am explicating here has its origins in pre-Socratic Greek, Indian and Chinese essentialism, and that Heidegger drew from some of the same sources? Or, perhaps it was because Heidegger was on to the truth, and since there is but one Truth, all descriptions of it must necessarily be identical. In any event, I have presented such a small portion of the overall doctrine that it would be impossible for one to draw such certain comparisons based upon so little material.

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.

While it is true that Being is the cause (both operative and constitutive) of all things, Being is not intrinsic to things, for things have only a relative existence, and like shadows, are entirely dependent upon other extrinsic things for their existence. In other words, relative entities are not real entities, but merely appear that way.

Yes but Being is not an entity.

Well, if Being is not an entity, then it follows that there are no entities at all, and if there is not that which exists antecedent to and independent of any particular thing, where then lies the origin and cause of the thing?

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.

On the contrary, I quite clearly defined the basis for differentiating between the two modes of Being, this being the difference between saying merely ‘that’ a thing is (its existential being), and saying ‘what’ it is (its essential characteristics).

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 am well aware of what I have said, and it is quite apparent that you have not understood it; but it does not follow that because you fail to understand a concept, that it is necessarily ‘nonsense’.

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.

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.

I have told you twice, and I shall not repeat myself again, I have little knowledge of the work of Martin Heidegger, and I do not wish to discuss it here. I have clearly defined the terms “existential being” and “essential being”, as I have employed them here, and I am quite willing do defend them; but I will not defend myself against someone else’s interpretation of the terms; nor will I be repeatedly called a Liar.

[Steven]

Being is not intrinsic to things, for things have only a relative existence, and like shadows, are entirely dependent upon other extrinsic things for their existence. In other words, relative entities are not real entities, but merely appear that way.

And why should they appear to us at all, unless it is necessary that we comprehend them within the context to which they are given to us? Your idealism is flat, lacks penetration and postulates upon concepts that are the very definition of irrelevant.

Interdependant, relative entities are the entire foundation of reality, for without differentiation through relationship there is nothing to Be. There can be no other reality nor form of entities than those possibilities differentiated by their relationship and defined by their temporality for existence makes no choices and is no process of cause. Being is not only intrinsic to things, but intrinsic to relationships, intrinsic to reality, for any and all in its factual manifestation is already intrinsicly existant. The only "thing" to which Being is not intrinsic is the impossible.

You are stuck in the methodical desconstruction of the properties of "things" in your misguided attempt to pierce the veil of "false" relative perception to find the truth of isolated individual existing forms, and in doing so you forever imprison yourself within the inability to comprehend the implications of existence as that which necessitates the factual manifestation of possibility through the mode of relative absolutes defined and differentiated by temporality, which in its entirety constitutes the Being of an entity and is irreducible for without this there are no entities.

You see, or rather you don't, that it is not in piercing the veil of relativity to find the truth of the isolated and deconstructed reality that leads to an understanding of existence, but that an understanding of existence as the fundamental, Universal factical "Is" of things, and things as the relative and temporal manifestation of possibility, Being, simply explains itself.

If there is existence, everything possible is necessary, and differentiated by their relationships. The question is, what else can there be?

Untill you learn to understand what you see rather than reject it, you will go nowhere. Relativity is not a flaw in perspective, it is a principle of fundamental importance to manifest existence. Every "thing" is absolute from its own perspective.

[Jehu]

Steven,

Although I would dearly like to respond to your comments, I must admit that I do not understand what you are trying to say - nor am I certain that you do. You cannot win a philosophical argument by merely objecting to what you think is being said, nor by trying to muddy the waters by introducing terms and concepts that have not be predefined. I have tried to respond to your concerns in the past, but it would appear that it is not a logical argument that your are looking for, but a contentious one, and I have no taste for that sort of nonsense. Consequently, I shall in future, respond only to those objections which pertain to what I have ‘actually said’, and where the said objections are rationally founded, and not merely your opinions.

[Iolaus]

Thanks, Steve.
Yes, I agree with everything you say. Although I am not sure if you answered the question I asked.

When I said that I, too, think in these terms: "an attempt to find the underlying, metaphysical mechanics of Being prior to physicality, which is an absolute flaw in its own right.",

I meant that I do often try to figure out some way, based upon what I know or my intuitions/imaginings about the fundaments of nature, by what process is it possible for existence to be? Is that what you meant by the above sentence?

So far, as you must know, I have drawn a blank.

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.

What question, I don't see it. You said my question is the question that underlies this site.

[Steven]

You seperate what a thing is from the fact it is and define these as modes of Being. Being is already a premise of the existence of a thing, and its physical and temporal relationships.

That you can say that existential and essential Being are distinct, that "quality" and "relationship" are distinct, that what a thing is is distinct from its fact is irrelevant. Being presupposes all of these things anyway.

Yet you continue to attempt to dissect some deeper mechanism from Being itself, and mire yourself in claims such as relative entities are not real entities.

Nothing you have said bears any relevance to reality, nor reason. Quite simply the fact of a thing is impossible without its form, and the form of a thing impossible without its fact. They are not divisible. Further, the Being of thing is not merely its fact nor its form, but its history, relationships and all its possibilities.

You quite clearly don't have a clue about the meaning of the Unity of Being. And you can refuse to answer me all you like, your rhetoric is meaningless.

Thanks, Steve.
Yes, I agree with everything you say. Although I am not sure if you answered the question I asked.

When I said that I, too, think in these terms: "an attempt to find the underlying, metaphysical mechanics of Being prior to physicality, which is an absolute flaw in its own right.",

I meant that I do often try to figure out some way, based upon what I know or my intuitions/imaginings about the fundaments of nature, by what process is it possible for existence to be? Is that what you meant by the above sentence?

So far, as you must know, I have drawn a blank.

What I meant is that attempting to dissect existence for further causal mechanisms or relationships is by definition futile. There is no source, process or cause. An explanation of existence can only come from understanding existence as existence, there is no deeper to dig as far as layers and processes within reality go, albeit for the conceptions of the mind the same cannot be said.

All the questions were are used to asking fail. All the links we are used to following end, and yet it remains literally the most in your face conundrum. If you are going to ask questions of existence, first make sure you have some grasp of what existence is, of what the implications of existence and the meaning of existence are, then make sure you ask new questions. Questions like, perhaps, "can nothing be itself?"

[Iolaus]

What I meant is that attempting to dissect existence for further causal mechanisms or relationships is by definition futile. There is no source, process or cause.

And yet I find that hard to accept.

All the questions were are used to asking fail. All the links we are used to following end, and yet it remains literally the most in your face conundrum.

Yes.

first make sure you have some grasp of what existence is,

Does anyone know?

"can nothing be itself?"

Nothing cannot be.

[Steven]

And yet I find that hard to accept.

Untill you come to a conclusion that satisfies your questioning you wont accept anything. The problem that I think you have, or perhaps the disagreement in ideas that would best explain your replies, is that you are thinking of existence as a physical entity itself, some kind of a whole like a Universe or perhaps an item that can then be dissected and studied to find the secrets of its origin.

Existence though is the very fact of a thing, it is not independant of entities and their components for those things exist, yet it is not itself physical. An entity can be dissected, but always its components exist themselves. Existence cannot be dissected for there is nothing more fundamental than existence, any mechanistic causation underlying existence would itself have to exist, simply repeating the enquiry ad infinitum, but there could be no mechanistic causation that underlies existence or is prior to existence, for then it would not exist. What is the question we ask of God, the creator of all things? We ask if God exists. We know that if the answer is yes there is God, and if no then no God. Without consciously exposing the concept, even the religious man puts existence before God. Does God exist, is God a part of this realm of the manifest?

The difficulty in finding accurate language to convey these concepts is legendary, it is ultimately a matter of realising that any conclusion you can come to on the origin of entities can be asked the question as to its existence.

Does anyone know?

Everyone knows to varying degrees, the question is can it be made clear?

[Jehu]

That you can say that existential and essential Being are distinct, that "quality" and "relationship" are distinct, that what a thing is is distinct from its fact is irrelevant.

The ‘fact’ that you are so conveniently overlooking is that we can and do differentiate between the 'quality' (substance) or a thing and its 'relation' (form). In fact, the form of a thing cannot be 'intrinsic' to the substance itself, for if this were the case, and the form of a pot were intrinsic in its clay, then all things made of clay would necessarily be pots. However, it is quite clear, even to the average fifth-grader, that a lump of moist clay will take on a wide variety of different forms. Therefore, there is no question that we can and do draw a distinction between these two aspects of a thing.

Yet you continue to attempt to dissect some deeper mechanism from Being itself, and mire yourself in claims such as relative entities are not real entities.

Yes, I do, and I think that you would do the same, if only you could put aside you preconceptions long enough to take a rational look at the argument.

Nothing you have said bears any relevance to reality, nor reason. Quite simply the fact of a thing is impossible without its form, and the form of a thing impossible without its fact. They are not divisible. Further, the Being of thing is not merely its fact nor its form, but its history, relationships and all its possibilities.

Again, Steven, this is not a rational argument, for you are merely stating what has already been establish: “that the substance of a thing can neither be perceived or imagined without that it has some sort of form, and that a form neither be perceived or imagined without that it is embodied in some sort of substance.

You quite clearly don't have a clue about the meaning of the Unity of Being. And you can refuse to answer me all you like, your rhetoric is meaningless.

I think I should prefer to let the other participant decide this question for themselves….

[Iolaus]

Steve,

Without consciously exposing the concept, even the religious man puts existence before God.

But existence IS God.

And for the very reasons that you explain.

it is ultimately a matter of realising that any conclusion you can come to on the origin of entities can be asked the question as to its existence.

Yes, I do realize that. That is why existence itself is the ultimate puzzle to me.

[Steven]

The ‘fact’ that you are so conveniently overlooking is that we can and do differentiate between the 'quality' (substance) or a thing and its 'relation' (form). In fact, the form of a thing cannot be 'intrinsic' to the substance itself, for if this were the case, and the form of a pot were intrinsic in its clay, then all things made of clay would necessarily be pots. However, it is quite clear, even to the average fifth-grader, that a lump of moist clay will take on a wide variety of different forms. Therefore, there is no question that we can and do draw a distinction between these two aspects of a thing.

So if we remove the clay we can keep the pot?

[divine focus]

What is the question we ask of God, the creator of all things? We ask if God exists. We know that if the answer is yes there is God, and if no then no God. Without consciously exposing the concept, even the religious man puts existence before God. Does God exist, is God a part of this realm of the manifest?

This is interesting, because we have been talking about two different modes of Being, or existence. It seems that asking if God exists is different from asking if God is part of the manifest. If there is a manifest realm, there must be a realm unmanifest that is also God. I propose a set-up similar to Jehu's where there are two modes or realms that make up one existence.

It adds on to Jehu's in that each realm consists of two other modes. On the absolute side, which I would consider the unmanifest, lies Thought (with a capital-T) and the 'water' element of Being. These are both modes dealing with a quality of universality and unquestionable truth. The questioning comes from the relative side, the manifest, along with the qualities of individuality and infiniteness. "Thinking" is the relative mode aware of Thought, while energetic emotion is aware of the 'water' of Being.

The relationship between the relative and absolute is interesting, especially on the "top side" of Thinking and Thought. The concept of "absolute" comes from the Thinking side, as Thinking is always in relation to this absolute. Thought doesn't actually differentiate anything from itself, so there is no need to create a label of "absolute." Thought is very subjective in this sense; it is basically the harmonic structure and inner workings of Being--the Laws, Truths, and Hamonic Efficiency. Thinking is much more objective and individual, as in, "There is us and there is the absolute." The absolute as seen from Thinking is very different from what Thought is able to see, so I can't say the absolute is Thought. I'd rather say it's a combination of Thought and the 'water' element.

Thought and the 'water' of Being also seem to be more long-term than the relative modes in terms of time. The relative modes are more involved in what is occuring now, immediately, than in what may occur hours or even eons into the past/future. A simple way to apply this set-up is to have the short-term you aware of the long-term. The long-term seems to be fully "aware" of the short-term within harmonic efficiency and within the intimacy of the 'water' element of Being.

The 'water' realm is the most difficult to talk about (read: "Think" about), most easily seen in that it has no name. It is the more deeply "psychological" or spiritual of the the two unmanifest realms, and as such is very connecting and unifying in an intimate and personal manner. It also deals with memory of a long-term nature, a memory of the distant past and far distant future.

Short-term memory is emotional memory, as in physically-felt energy (not psychologically-felt). This is the memory that Thinking works from, and it is a memory of the very recent past and an awareness of short-term future probabilities. Emotional memory seems to build on the long-term memory of the 'water' realm in terms of the past and focuses on creating preferred futures, now. It gives Thinking a basis for being, as the individual thinker has an individual emotional memory.

Thinking connects the individual to the rest of Being. It is not only thinking, actually, but all relational and associative action which may or may not have a distinct label. Telepathy, for instance, or receiving mental information about something just by looking at it would fall under the relative Thinking realm. All social and cultural conditioning would also be within this realm, including language. Basically, everything outside of yourself that affects what you see (with your agreement) as the ultimate relation, the absolute, is within this Thinking mode.

The main thing to understand within Thinking is that the short-term needs to be aware of the long-term. The manifest needs to trust the unmanifest. Thinking must be aware of Thought and trust that Thought is of the absolute, while emotion does the same with 'water.'

[Jehu]

The ‘fact’ that you are so conveniently overlooking is that we can and do differentiate between the 'quality' (substance) or a thing and its 'relation' (form). In fact, the form of a thing cannot be 'intrinsic' to the substance itself, for if this were the case, and the form of a pot were intrinsic in its clay, then all things made of clay would necessarily be pots. However, it is quite clear, even to the average fifth-grader, that a lump of moist clay will take on a wide variety of different forms. Therefore, there is no question that we can and do draw a distinction between these two aspects of a thing.

So if we remove the clay we can keep the pot?

As I have repeatedly said, ‘form’ and ‘substance’ (Gk ‘matter’) are not two separate things, but simply two complementary aspects of one and the same thing, and as a consequence, they can be neither perceived nor imagined without that both aspects are simultaneously present. Nevertheless, it is possible to differentiate between a form and its substance, for otherwise the mind would not be able to recognize a form such as an elephant, when it was embodied in some substance other than flesh and blood; that is to say, when rendered in wood, bronze, clay, or some other inert substance.

[Steven]

This is interesting, because we have been talking about two different modes of Being, or existence.

And I have shown in my preceding post how existence is necessarilly holistic.

It seems that asking if God exists is different from asking if God is part of the manifest.

Only through a flaw in my descriptive terminology for when we ask if God exists, we ask if the Being of God is the same as other Beings.

If there is a manifest realm, there must be a realm unmanifest that is also God.

If the manifest realm is the realm of Being, then an unmanifest God is not God.

I propose a set-up similar to Jehu's where there are two modes or realms that make up one existence.

Following on from your line of thinking, if I understand it, the problem here is that of the modes or realms that make up existence, one is existence and the other is fundamentally incoherent and self refuting.

You see you follow on from here and describe existence in terms of things that exist, describing existence in terms of manifest and ummanifest things, failing to realise that the manifest and unmanifest either are what they are and existence remains fundamental, or the unmanifest is not what it is and existence remains fundamental.

The more you attempt to dissect existence, the more you must refuse to acknowledge the meaning of existence, and you return to a state of describing entities in terms of relationships and forms you are comfortable with, denying the fact that if what you say is ever to be correct then what you posit must exist.

I put it to you that the unmanifest as you call it is the explanation of the manifest but this is premised upon the fundamental coherence of existence, not a cause of the fundamental coherence of existence.

As I have repeatedly said, ‘form’ and ‘substance’ (Gk ‘matter’) are not two separate things, but simply two complementary aspects of one and the same thing, and as a consequence, they can be neither perceived nor imagined without that both aspects are simultaneously present. Nevertheless, it is possible to differentiate between a form and its substance, for otherwise the mind would not be able to recognize a form such as an elephant, when it was embodied in some substance other than flesh and blood; that is to say, when rendered in wood, bronze, clay, or some other inert substance.

But ultimately what you have been saying for the last 6 pages has no relevence to the entity in question itself, just your imagination. A specific entity itself is indivisible in its substance and form. Glad we could clear that up.

[mansman]

Jehu, this your subject so I address you,ok.
I dont know where begin!
Trying to understand, maybe I ask you if possible to sumrise you point in a sentence or 2?

Also looking above, Unity of Being, which "Being" is this you mean? Any being? any thing?
Or some god Being? or universal Being?
Ok you say Being is very unified. may I ask, what is alternative?
For instance, my being is One, got to be unified, what else can you imagine?

Maybe you mean all things together are in Unity, and this is the whole One Being? Is that it?

Next Jehu, why you tell all this? How does it help me to know? Or help YOU to know this?

Sorry my English, no helper today.
I try again if you ask me.
Please try to answer if you have time.
Good day!

last question, are you friend of owner of Forum? Do you beleive the same?

[Jehu]

What is the question we ask of God, the creator of all things? We ask if God exists. We know that if the answer is yes there is God, and if no then no God. Without consciously exposing the concept, even the religious man puts existence before God. Does God exist, is God a part of this realm of the manifest?

This is interesting, because we have been talking about two different modes of Being, or existence. It seems that asking if God exists is different from asking if God is part of the manifest. If there is a manifest realm, there must be a realm unmanifest that is also God. I propose a set-up similar to Jehu's where there are two modes or realms that make up one existence.

It adds on to Jehu's in that each realm consists of two other modes. On the absolute side, which I would consider the unmanifest, lies Thought (with a capital-T) and the 'water' element of Being. These are both modes dealing with a quality of universality and unquestionable truth. The questioning comes from the relative side, the manifest, along with the qualities of individuality and infiniteness. "Thinking" is the relative mode aware of Thought, while energetic emotion is aware of the 'water' of Being.

While the ‘relative mode’ of being may be further partitioned into (1) those things which partake of an ‘objective’ (actual) existence, and (2) those which partake of only a ‘subjective’ (imaginary) existence; the same is not true of the ‘absolute mode’, for if the relative mode is ‘pluralistic’ (many), then the absolute mode, being its complement, must necessarily be ‘monistic’ (one). This is in full accord with what we have already demonstrated to be the case: that all existential beings are fundamentally unified; for existential being does not vary from one thing to another, neither in it quality nor in its quantity; but is the ‘universal predicate’. Further, we have already demonstrated that relative mode of being must be intrinsic to the absolute mode – as is the content and its container; for there is no other relationship whereby we can rationalize the two modes; and so we cannot partition the absolute (container) without that we also partition the relative (content), but this would require that there be a third mode of being that might separate the two, and this would violate the law of excluded middle.

This may become clearer once you understand how it is that form is able to give rise to substance, and then embodies itself within that substance. I will describe the process as it applies to the evolution of written language, but I am sure you will see the parallels with the evolution of other classes of things – including the physical. Ultimately, the written language consists in two interdependent and complementary aspects, a quality (ink) and a relation (mode of distribution). The ink (substance), which is that aspect which the mind is able to apprehend (cognize), may be form-ed into a finite number of linguistic symbols, each with its own unique pattern (mode of distribution) which the mind can recognize, and each representing a fundamental element of human speak. Because the ink is fluid (watery), it is possible that a cognizant agent might cause the ink to take on a specific pattern, and once the ink has dried, it will retain that pattern. Then, by combining these fundamental element (letters), new entities (words) may be form-ed, each having it own unique pattern which the mind can recognize. Now, while it was ink that constituted the substance of the letter, it is letters that constitute the substance of words. Words then may be combined in their own unique patterns, and so give rise to potentially infinite variety of sentences.

In the world there are five kinds of substances, these five being: mentation, sensations, objects, properties and activities. These constitute the five fundamental categories of all things and were symbolized as aether/space, water, earth, fire and wind/air. I shall say nothing more on the Five Elements at this point, accept to say that they are not to be taken literally. However, with respect to their substances, mental entities (ideas) are constituted in other simpler mental entities; sensations, in other simpler sensations; objects, in other simpler objects, etc., etc.

[Jehu]

Jehu, this your subject so I address you,ok.
I dont know where begin!
Trying to understand, maybe I ask you if possible to sumrise you point in a sentence or 2?

Also looking above, Unity of Being, which "Being" is this you mean? Any being? any thing?
Or some god Being? or universal Being?
Ok you say Being is very unified. may I ask, what is alternative?
For instance, my being is One, got to be unified, what else can you imagine?

Maybe you mean all things together are in Unity, and this is the whole One Being? Is that it?

When I say ‘Being’, I mean all that there is; that is to say, all that can be either perceived or imagined.

Then, by the ‘fundamental unity of being’, I mean that since everything (for there is nothing which is not) partakes of exactly the same existential quality, and given that the quality of existence does not vary from one thing to another, but is exactly the same in every case, then there is no basis upon which to assert that there is more than one existent.

The alternative is a reality wherein there are two or more independent existents, but this is not logically tenable, for there would need be some third existent that separated the two, and then a fourth, fifth, sixth, ad infinitum; for whenever we add another ‘separate’ existent, we must add another ‘separator’.

Next Jehu, why you tell all this? How does it help me to know? Or help YOU to know this?

Perhaps the following analogy might help to answer your question; and I caution you that this is merely an analogy, and so will carry us only so far.

Imagine that the universe and everything that is in it, including you and I, are nothing more that the stuff of dreams. Now, just as when you are in the dream state, but do not know that it is a dream, your dream persona reacts to its dream world as though it were real; and so experiences fear, anger, jealousy and all of the other emotions. When something appears in the dream that poses a threat to you dream persona it feels fear or ever terror, and will try to run away or strike out at the threat. In other words, the dream persona will be swept along by the dream, helplessly reacting to everything that it encounters.

However, suppose that it were possible for your dream persona to become aware of the fact that it was merely a dream entity, inhabiting a dream world, and that in reality, there was only the dreamer. How would such knowledge change the experience of the dream persona? Would it still become frightened when something threatened it, would it still strike out at the threat knowing that it was only a dream? And how would it then relate to the other dream personas which it encountered? Would it not try to convey to those other seemingly cognizant entities, the true nature of their being. Would this knowledge not liberate them from their fears, and put an end to death itself?

last question, are you friend of owner of Forum? Do you beleive the same?

No, I have no connection to the owner of the Forum, and I am not familiar enough with his beleifs to say to what extent they accord with my own.

[mansman]

Jehu, this your subject so I address you,ok.
I dont know where begin!
Trying to understand, maybe I ask you if possible to sumrise you point in a sentence or 2?

Also looking above, Unity of Being, which "Being" is this you mean? Any being? any thing?
Or some god Being? or universal Being?
Ok you say Being is very unified. may I ask, what is alternative?
For instance, my being is One, got to be unified, what else can you imagine?

Maybe you mean all things together are in Unity, and this is the whole One Being? Is that it?

When I say ‘Being’, I mean all that there is; that is to say, all that can be either perceived or imagined.

Then, by the ‘fundamental unity of being’, I mean that since everything (for there is nothing which is not) partakes of exactly the same existential quality, and given that the quality of existence does not vary from one thing to another, but is exactly the same in every case, then there is no basis upon which to assert that there is more than one existent.

OK, but so that I dont miss anything you say, would you agree meaning above repeated?- you say "same quality" then say "quality not vary", seem to say same thing please correct if more than I see.
Then question is I have- how you measure and charactrize this particular "existent quality"?
And also how you prove to self 100% that no variety can be. Because impossible for anyone to test all things for similarity, right?
Also you say no basis to assert more than one, but my example is two fig trees which share one at least quality exactly the two of them, probably many qualities they share, but cannot deny share at least 1 quality that say a prune tree not have, still the two fig trees are two fig trees and not one being even though some quality identical, see what I mean? So maybe identical quality not force Unity of Being (me Im not sure to be honest only thinking out loud)

The alternative is a reality wherein there are two or more independent existents, but this is not logically tenable, for there would need be some third existent that separated the two, and then a fourth, fifth, sixth, ad infinitum; for whenever we add another ‘separate’ existent, we must add another ‘separator’.

Feel right to me.
Still, if universe never end (again feel right to me, I believe) maybe it possible or even "logically tenable" or even necessary for as you say to have infinite number of existents, never ending possibilities. Your thoughts?

Next Jehu, why you tell all this? How does it help me to know? Or help YOU to know this?

Perhaps the following analogy might help to answer your question; and I caution you that this is merely an analogy, and so will carry us only so far.

Imagine that the universe and everything that is in it, including you and I, are nothing more that the stuff of dreams. Now, just as when you are in the dream state, but do not know that it is a dream, your dream persona reacts to its dream world as though it were real; and so experiences fear, anger, jealousy and all of the other emotions. When something appears in the dream that poses a threat to you dream persona it feels fear or ever terror, and will try to run away or strike out at the threat. In other words, the dream persona will be swept along by the dream, helplessly reacting to everything that it encounters.

Very interesting Jehu! Who told you this? Are you Buddhist, or Indian (country India)?

Just help me so not mistake this moving idea, my dream persona is like an actor in the dream I having, is that correct? Just you mean one of the character in my dream. Im thinking now of my dreams but honest cannot say for sure if my "persona" (I use the quotes to show I not necessarily understand idea completely since not my idea) is one of the actors or charactors in my dreams at night, usually other people appear in my dream, not remember myself appearing. Still I understand you, your idea says the (all) figure(s) in all dreams are nothing realy. Just imagine if dream figure suddenly know, realize he just dream figure! amazing. nothing but temporary dream figure- Is this what you mean Persona?

However, suppose that it were possible for your dream persona to become aware of the fact that it was merely a dream entity, inhabiting a dream world, and that in reality, there was only the dreamer. How would such knowledge change the experience of the dream persona? Would it still become frightened when something threatened it, would it still strike out at the threat knowing that it was only a dream?

Maybe. If I tied up for real like movie I see recent night HBO and crazy man torturing me with most worst pain I have many times, sure of course I freightened next time I hear him coming near me with electric drill! But you not very afraid if happen to you? Can you be some superman? What solution you suggest when being hurt, should philosopher think "this not real, pain is not real, nothing to worry about" and then make you relax. Well I try someday but I have some doubts it works!

And how would it then relate to the other dream personas which it encountered? Would it not try to convey to those other seemingly cognizant entities, the true nature of their being. Would this knowledge not liberate them from their fears, and put an end to death itself?

Yes, so long as nothing stressing them at the moment.

So you feel this way, that you are just like a dream person and the only real thing is the dreamer. Then question is who is this dreamer, why it is dreaming, why dreaming of you and me, is someone (Greater) dreaming of IT, does IT feel IT not real too?

Who can say? In your picture there is two levels, there are two levels dreamer and dream entities, but who can say if not there are 3 levels? Real thing dreaming (your "dreamer"), dreaming of another dreamer which dreams up our particular world. Is not possible?

last question, are you friend of owner of Forum? Do you beleive the same?

No, I have no connection to the owner of the Forum, and I am not familiar enough with his beleifs to say to what extent they accord with my own.

What about reading his post and opinions so far, you find nothing so far to disagree with your philosophy?
Maybe you ignore his ideas but why I cant guess.
Anyone else here you agree with? Here or in your life where you live? Do you teach classes have students where you are? Can people come learn from you?
sorry so many questions, just ignore if too many!
Very grateful of you, you make me think and feel good these ideas, just hard to find proof, must have faith I guess :)
is true?

[Iolaus]

Steve,

The problem that I think you have, or perhaps the disagreement in ideas that would best explain your replies, is that you are thinking of existence as a physical entity itself, some kind of a whole like a Universe or perhaps an item that can then be dissected and studied to find the secrets of its origin.

I have indeed done that, an also seen the futility of it. Are you implying that you have somehow overcome this impasse?

Existence though is the very fact of a thing, it is not independant of entities and their components for those things exist, yet it is not itself physical.

This kind of sentence no longer makes sense to me. I used to think in terms of a material world and a nonmaterial world, but now I think there is no such division of reality. To exist is to exist. We humans on planet earth have certain perceptual capabilities, which are in no way adequate to perceive all of reality. Yet we sense that there is more to reality than meets our eyes, and thus we use magical terms for it.

And what did you think of my equation that Existence = God?

Jehu,

Nothing you have said bears any relevance to reality, nor reason. Quite simply the fact of a thing is impossible without its form, and the form of a thing impossible without its fact. They are not divisible. Further, the Being of thing is not merely its fact nor its form, but its history, relationships and all its possibilities.

Again, Steven, this is not a rational argument, for you are merely stating what has already been establish: “that the substance of a thing can neither be perceived or imagined without that it has some sort of form, and that a form neither be perceived or imagined without that it is embodied in some sort of substance.

I think I should prefer to let the other participant decide this question for themselves…

.

I think the above exchange shows that your views are in close accord at least in many spots. I have not seen a fundamental difference, and Sapius too, made excellent points. This has been one of the most interesting threads I have ever read here, as this question is more important to me than any other, and I have seen a lot of excellent input.

[Jehu]

OK, but so that I dont miss anything you say, would you agree meaning above repeated?- you say "same quality" then say "quality not vary", seem to say same thing please correct if more than I see.

By the ‘same quality’ I mean that existence is that one universal quality that may be predicated of all things, for we cannot reasonably assert that there 'is' (exists) anything that does not exist [law of contradiction].
When I say that this universal quality does not vary from one thing to another, I mean that either a thing exist or it does not [law of excluded middle], and one thing does not possess more of this quality that another thing.

Then question is I have- how you measure and charactrize this particular "existent quality"?

That which we call ‘existential being’ (the absolute) entails no differentiable characteristic that might be measured; for all differentiable characteristics belong to that mode we call ‘essential being’ (the relative).

And also how you prove to self 100% that no variety can be. Because impossible for anyone to test all things for similarity, right?

One must trust in one’s innate ability to reason, and in the primacy of the ‘three laws of thought’.

Also you say no basis to assert more than one, but my example is two fig trees which share one at least quality exactly the two of them, probably many qualities they share, but cannot deny share at least 1 quality that say a prune tree not have, still the two fig trees are two fig trees and not one being even though some quality identical, see what I mean? So maybe identical quality not force Unity of Being (me Im not sure to be honest only thinking out loud)

The ‘Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles’(part of Leibniz’s Law) states: “if what appears to be two or more things have all there properties in common they are identical and so only one thing.” In the case of your two Fig trees, even if the two trees were identical in every possible way, they would still be discernible by the variation in their spatio-temporal co-ordinates – which is an essential characteristic of any particular. However, as there is no way to discern between the existential being of one thing or another, then there is no basis to say that they are two different existents.

Still, if universe never end (again feel right to me, I believe) maybe it possible or even "logically tenable" or even necessary for as you say to have infinite number of existents, never ending possibilities. Your thoughts?

The notion of an ‘infinite number’ is itself logically inconsistent. The term ‘infinite’ means ‘unfinished’, and so pertains only to processes that are indefinite. If a thing is, then it is must be complete; that is to say, all that is necessary and sufficient to its being what it is (its causes), must be present. Therefore, although Being is boundless, it is not infinite - though it may continue infinitely.

Just help me so not mistake this moving idea, my dream persona is like an actor in the dream I having, is that correct? Just you mean one of the character in my dream. Im thinking now of my dreams but honest cannot say for sure if my "persona" (I use the quotes to show I not necessarily understand idea completely since not my idea) is one of the actors or charactors in my dreams at night, usually other people appear in my dream, not remember myself appearing. Still I understand you, your idea says the (all) figure(s) in all dreams are nothing realy. Just imagine if dream figure suddenly know, realize he just dream figure! amazing. nothing but temporary dream figure- Is this what you mean Persona?

By ‘dream persona’, I mean that in your dreams your cognizant nature embodies itself in a imaginary body, with all the attributes of a actual body, including sensual faculties; and it is this imaginary body that your cognizant nature takes to be your true self, when in fact, it is your cognizant nature that is your true self. In truth, the true nature of your dream persona, along with everything else in your dream, is of the nature of an illusion – mere appearance.

So you feel this way, that you are just like a dream person and the only real thing is the dreamer. Then question is who is this dreamer, why it is dreaming, why dreaming of you and me, is someone (Greater) dreaming of IT, does IT feel IT not real too?

Your question is quite appropriate from the viewpoint of a relative entity, and is no different than if the dream persona were to wonder who it was that was dreaming it; but this is to miss the point entirely. In every relative entity, and this includes the dream persona, there is an element which is merely apparent (knowledge), and an element that is real (awareness), and it is the interplay of these two interdependent and complementary elements that is the origin and cause of all beings.

Who can say? In your picture there is two levels, there are two levels dreamer and dream entities, but who can say if not there are 3 levels? Real thing dreaming (your "dreamer"), dreaming of another dreamer which dreams up our particular world. Is not possible?

As I said, reason alone can answer such questions.

What about reading his post and opinions so far, you find nothing so far to disagree with your philosophy?
Maybe you ignore his ideas but why I cant guess.
Anyone else here you agree with? Here or in your life where you live? Do you teach classes have students where you are? Can people come learn from you?
sorry so many questions, just ignore if too many!

With all due respect, I have little interest in merely comparing opinions, for nothing I have said will have any impact upon those who do not make the effort to realize the truth for themselves. To simply accept someone’s opinion as to the nature of reality, does little more than give one a false sense of security; but it will not free them from fear or distress.

Very grateful of you, you make me think and feel good these ideas, just hard to find proof, must have faith I guess:is true?

I am most profoundly pleased, and I hope that you will continue with our enquiry, for there is much ground still to be covered. However, if we must have faith, and I believe that we must, then we must put our faith in reason, and not in some teacher or their doctrine – however good it may make us feel.

[Jehu]

But ultimately what you have been saying for the last 6 pages has no relevence to the entity in question itself, just your imagination. A specific entity itself is indivisible in its substance and form. Glad we could clear that up.

What I have been saying these past six pages has not such much to do with ‘my’ imagination, as it has to do with the ‘faculty of imagination’, and with the fact that we perceive nothing except through the mediation of that interpretive faculty. For this reason, is may be rightfully said that, in so far as any of us can be certain, the things that we perceive are nothing more than phenomena (appearances); and that to posit the existence of some external entity as the origin and cause of those appearances is pure supposition. Further, what I have been saying is relevant to all entities, whether they be absolute or only relative, and the fact that you are apparently unable to grasp these concepts, does not render them invalid.

Surely you can see that we are able to differentiate between the top of an entity and its bottom, or its inside from its outside, and that neither of these necessitates that we actually divide the entity, so why then would you think that to differentiate between the form and substance of an entity, that the two aspects must necessarily be separated. But this is exactly what you must have though, for I have never stated that the two were separated, and so it follows that you simply failed to understand what I was saying; or perhaps, you never bother to read what I had to say. In any event, I hope that this does clear the matter up, for I would like to get on with the enquiry.

[Iolaus]

Where were we?

[Jehu]

Where were we?

It is difficult to say, as I have had exchanges with six or more different people, but have received no confirmation as to whether or not they accepted my supporting arguments. Perhaps I could get some feedback as to what are the main sticking points for those who wish to proceed, and then I can work toward bringing everyone up to the same stage - before we go on. Then if we can proceed together, we can help one another to discern the implications of each new piece of knowledge.

[Iolaus]

Well, I'm pretty much with you up until the acceptance that cognizance is the prime reality. I'd like it to be - but I am not convinced.

[mansman]

Very grateful of you, you make me think and feel good these ideas, just hard to find proof, must have faith I guess:is true?

I am most profoundly pleased, and I hope that you will continue with our enquiry, for there is much ground still to be covered.

Jehu, to follow you better and form good response back I find necessary to ask you to keep the text you wrote first that I comment on and that I carry along on my post. This way there is at least 3 exchanges, sometimes two of yours and one mine, sometime one yours two mine. Or even 4 or 5 would be better when complicated idea discussed. Your answer not simple to understand, because your language and way you use words new to me with many words you use,. until Im more used to your style and word definition, please keep, no..."retain" (thank you Mr Webster!) more text, I need sometime to re-read your older text to understand the newest one much better. Ok, Understand?
Maybe after 2, 3 weeks I catch on you can trim your text again.
(but dont hold breath!)
haha

So do me great favor will you,-- re-send last post you write, this time retain as I describe above?
Hope not to busy you. May be easy job I think.

Then I go back and give complete response best I can to all parts as you like.
You good guy for an American!
haha

[Jehu]

Well, I'm pretty much with you up until the acceptance that cognizance is the prime reality. I'd like it to be - but I am not convinced.

I suspect that this is because you have not yet grasped the full implications of what it means to be a ‘relative entity’. A relative entity is one that consists, not in itself, but in the ‘relationship’ between at least two other things, and if that relationship is broken, the thing then ceases to be. Plato tried to convey the relative nature of things in his ‘Allegory of the Cave’, wherein he liken the objects of perception to ‘shadows’, for shadows are not what they appear. Shadows arise, persist and cease, not in accordance with their own intrinsic causes, but as a relationship between two extrinsic causes: a light source and an opaque object; the light source being that which renders the shadow perceptible to the mind (its constitutive cause), and the opaque object being that which the mind recognizes as being the shadow of a man, a gun, a rabbit, etc.; that is to say, it ‘identity’(its operative cause). When we are small children, we do not understand the true nature of shadows, and for this reason, we sometimes take them to be actual entities, and we become frightened. By what mechanism then does a patch of shade shadow become an entity (distinct existent), if not by the interpretive power of the cognizant mind?

Now, once the nature of the relative entity is fully understood, one realizes that there must be a cognizant agent present in order that a relative entity can arise, or persist, and given that there is only the two possible kinds of entities (absolute and relative), it follows that it must be the absolute entity that is cognizant. Consequently, it may be asserted that the essential nature of reality (the absolute) is cognizant.