On 8/17/09, 3:09 PM, Joseph Maurer wrote:
Hi Ham and all, I have not the slightest idea how you put words together. "Being" for me is a participle form of "I am". "Existing" is the participle form of "I exist". I have always thought that "being" and "existing" were different concepts from general to particular. There is much more to my being than existing. I accept that Consciousness is the level of being proper to society. My visions and dreams are individual, outside of society. I accept that society is more structured than my dreams and visions.
I'm sorry my vernacular is confusing to you. 'Being' is, as you say, the present participle of the predicate "am" as applied to the first person singular. As a nominative, however, it also means "the quality or state of having existence," which applies to any or all beingness. When we speak of the "ground of being," it is this meaning that is usually inferred. And since what exists has being, and vice-versa, I view these two terms as synonomous.
You say there is more to your being than existing. Is this because you ascribe experience to being and not to existing? I should think the cumulative life experience of any individual is descriptive of his/her existence. Also, you confuse me with the statement: "Consciousness is the level of being proper to society." Consciousness is the cognitive awareness of an individual. Unless "proper" adds some "collective" significance to this assertion, I don't see how consciousness per se has anything to do with society.
Equating "Essence" with God, makes communication impossible as there is no definition for a word without "Essence". I AM THAT I AM does not seem to be an essential definition. I do not accept Pantheism. I am an individual responsible to myself, society, truth, and goodness.
As the primary source, Essence is ultimately accountable for definitions, words, the individuals who invent them, their consciousness awareness, and the universe itself. How does this make communication impossible?
"I am that I am" is recorded in scripture as God's response when Moses asked for his name. I disagree that this is "not an essential definition". In fact, it expresses the very idea of a "primary source" by implying that God is unique in its self-sufficiency. Eckhart, an agnostic, characterized the 'Divine One' by the Germanic equivalent of 'IS-ness'. The German theologian Cusanus theorized God as the "not-other". The Persian prophet Zoroaster founded a religion based on a divinity described as "the One uncreated Creator."
All of these euphemisms are insightful, but I don't believe the uncreated source is describable in human terms. I prefer the term 'Essence' because it connotes unconditional primacy and potentiality without invoking any kind of theism.
By the way, I respect your personal credo as you've expressed it. The MoQ is sadly lacking such an individualistic perspective.
Thanks, Joe. --Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
