----- Original Message ----
From: david buchanan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, September 5, 2010 12:02:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] An inquirey into "be-ing"
Dave said:
It is not at all clear to me what the topic is. It's hard to think of a word
that's more vague than "Being". Sometimes being just means existence, anything
and everything that is, as opposed to non-being, which is nothing at all.
Sometimes it refers to the essence of a person, whatever that is. Sometimes a
being is any sentient organism, sometimes any organism or life form and
sometimes any thing is a being in the sense that it exists.
When you start talking about "being as one" I think we might be entering the
realm of theology or at least some all encompassing vision or reality.
I mean, maybe it would be helpful to back up a bit and explain what it is
you're
talking about, exactly.
Full disclosure: the term has always bugged me. Either there is something deep
that I'm missing or the whole notion is as empty as I think it is.
Ron:
Aristotles point exactly, which is where he starts his arguement about what is
meant by using
the term. Much in the same way W.James approaches the matter with the
rationalist and the empiricist.
He makes an arguement against the rationalist conception of both the
mathematical variety and the
theological variety with the explanation of what we mean when we say we "know"
something.
In some places it uncannily resembles what James explains in "pure experience".
The inquiry I hope to pursue is a reflective look at how this idea influenced
history how taking
a rationalist point of view in the context did as much harm as good and open up
a dialog
which will hopefully inspire some reflection on the matter of the expansion of
rationality.
It's not that the term is empty of meaning, in fact it is one of the most basic
roots of meaning.
> Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 07:14:10 -0700
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [MD] An inquirey into "be-ing"
>
> It has been understood for quite some time that experience
> or "be-ing" is varied,many, dynamic and in flux.
>
> And in hindsight we must ask ourselves if the idea
> of "being" as equivalent to "one" has bore fruitful
> consequences.
>
> The school of thought in the west from the Pythagoreans
> to the Platonist to the Aristotelian empiricists take
> "be-ing" as "one" whole unit.
> The Platonists and Pythagoreans conceived of it as
> a primary being of the universe, while the Aristotelian
> understood it as predication of meaning. What it meant
> when we say that something "is" in terms of definition.
>
> The discussions revolving around this issue are many
> and varied.
>
> But the question that is avoided is not whether or not
> the idea of "being as one" is technologically superior
> but rather is "being as one" better evolutionarily
> than "being as in flux" and dynamic.
>
> Is this technological superiority better evolutionarily?
>
> This would be a great place to begin the discussion.
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
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/md/archives.html
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/md/archives.html
