What does it mean to be?

[bkadoctaj]

As many of you know, I'm sure, Spanish has two (possibly three) forms of the verb "to be":

Ser - to be (used for definition/identification, description, origin)

Estar - to be (used for emotions, status, location/position)*

Hay - is/are there (has a conjugate form of "to be" in it)

* Estar is also the root/auxiliary/base of the present progressive tense.

For example: to be running (estar corriendo); to be reading (estar leyendo)

English has one form for these: "to be", with the questionable case of "to exist" as a potential second.

So what is being? Does being imply having an experience through time and space? Can being happen in an instant? Does being happen? Or is being happened to? Can being come from non-being? Is being implied by nonbeing? Must something "being" "be" known about? Why do we link definition/identification, description, origin, emotions, status, location/position, and current action through one verb: "to be"? In other words, what do you think "is" is?

[Maitereya]

well i cant put this into words that make sence, so this is my response..

[weedseed]

materialization--physical existence,

experience through time space is a result of being.

in an instant. definitely. if at first it wasn't, the point in which it is would be instantaneous.

does being happen? i'd say its happening.

physically, something cannot come from nothing. but metaphysically, supernaturally...

i'd say presence implies the state of being.

lets say there is a man in the rainforest. whether his existence is known to me or not he is still inherent.

definition/identification, description, origin, emotions, status, location/position, and current action: all symptoms of being.

is are am being


how are we? you could probably guess my opinion on that one.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by weedseed

materialization--physical existence,

experience through time space is a result of being.

You say experience is a result, but wouldn't it also simply be an aspect of being?

in an instant. definitely. if at first it wasn't, the point in which it is would be instantaneous.

It's so clear cut like that... :P But what I mean is, can you be existing now if you aren't the instant following "now"? What if you weren't the instant before?

does being happen? i'd say its happening.

By happen, I mean is being a happenstance? Or is being self-determined? Do we determine what is and what isn't, in other words?

physically, something cannot come from nothing. but metaphysically, supernaturally...

And ideologically... conceptually...

[Jimbozu]

I dont think we can really defining being yet. All we know is us, and to really understand something, you have to have more than one point of datum. Yes, to exist is to occupy a space, your existence is all of those little atoms that your made out of, but we have no idea what being is. The human conciousness is such an unkown that scientific exploration into the subject is almost non-existant. We have no idea what it really means to be concious, or what defines ourselves, because that selfhood of ours doesnt leave any trail, except in our memories, which is the most personal part of you. Your memories are all your own, no one can take them from you and abuse them without you giving them up. Until we understand our memories better, we wont be able to understand our conciousness.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Jimbozu

I dont think we can really defining being yet. All we know is us, and to really understand something, you have to have more than one point of datum. Yes, to exist is to occupy a space, your existence is all of those little atoms that your made out of, but we have no idea what being is. The human conciousness is such an unkown that scientific exploration into the subject is almost non-existant. We have no idea what it really means to be concious, or what defines ourselves, because that selfhood of ours doesnt leave any trail, except in our memories, which is the most personal part of you. Your memories are all your own, no one can take them from you and abuse them without you giving them up. Until we understand our memories better, we wont be able to understand our conciousness.

I'd agree only if I thought that understanding means KNOWING THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Sadly for me, I tend to think of understanding as making sense of something for ourselves... in other words, integrating our personal experiences.

[Jimbozu]

Then that isnt understanding. In any form of communication you are going to be bound by the limits of the language. In english, to understand something is to know when, what, where, how and why something happened. If your definition is differentiates from this, you aren't understanding it. By your definition to understand something is to personify it, to give it attributes that let you relate to it.

Im not trying to twist your words to mean something they didnt't, I'm simply trying to come to a come to a concensus on the vocabulary so that we can have true discussion on the subject, because what this would undoubtedly turn into is some kind of shouting match where neither of us interperets what the other is trying to communicate correctly, and it results in a shouting match.

Now as a response to I have to say, I dont think that your definition really allows you to NOT understand the state of being. Our state of being is US, it is what makes me ME and what makes you YOU. You cant really NOT understand that, because it is the only thing that is truly elementary. "you are." That is all we are sure about. (actually some people arent sure about it, but discussions on that phillisophical of a level can never truly be understood.) All of our other knowlege and experience comes from this base assumption, and so to try and qualify that assumption with further knowledge isn't really possible. ie, i cant prove that a triangle has 180 degrees in it by stating that a triangle is half of a square, and since a square has 360 degrees in it, a triangle must have 180.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Jimbozu

Then that isnt understanding. In any form of communication you are going to be bound by the limits of the language. In english, to understand something is to know when, what, where, how and why something happened. If your definition is differentiates from this, you aren't understanding it. By your definition to understand something is to personify it, to give it attributes that let you relate to it.

Im not trying to twist your words to mean something they didnt't, I'm simply trying to come to a come to a concensus on the vocabulary so that we can have true discussion on the subject, because what this would undoubtedly turn into is some kind of shouting match where neither of us interperets what the other is trying to communicate correctly, and it results in a shouting match.

Only a shooting match if you're trying to hit me. :P I'm just throwing ideas out there. That's all I do.

Now as a response to I have to say, I dont think that your definition really allows you to NOT understand the state of being. Our state of being is US, it is what makes me ME and what makes you YOU. You cant really NOT understand that, because it is the only thing that is truly elementary. "you are." That is all we are sure about. (actually some people arent sure about it, but discussions on that phillisophical of a level can never truly be understood.) All of our other knowlege and experience comes from this base assumption, and so to try and qualify that assumption with further knowledge isn't really possible. ie, i cant prove that a triangle has 180 degrees in it by stating that a triangle is half of a square, and since a square has 360 degrees in it, a triangle must have 180.

You're right, though. I'd say that by my understanding of the word "understanding", you really couldn't not understand. After all, understanding in the way I said it is perception-integration. Do you consult ideas with others before you adopt them always? If you don't always, sometimes you must choose to accept something based on how truly it rings with your experiences, personally. We all do this, always. :P

lol The definition of a triangle includes it's 180-degree nature. Do you know of a recognizable triangle not defined in such a way?

As for this: "That is all we are sure about. (actually some people arent sure about it, but discussions on that phillisophical of a level can never truly be understood.)"

Good thing my definition of understanding solves the troubling problem of denying our existence haha.

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

You say experience is a result, but wouldn't it also simply be an aspect of being?

experience isn't really appearance so i'd probably lean towards no. (that sounded wierd)

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

It's so clear cut like that... :P But what I mean is, can you be existing now if you aren't the instant following "now"? What if you weren't the instant before?

yes?

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

By happen, I mean is being a happenstance?

I think you already know that I won't chalk up "being" to chance.

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

ideologically... conceptually...

touche

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by weedseed

experience isn't really appearance so i'd probably lean towards no. (that sounded wierd)

You couldn't appear the way you do unless you were you, meaning you had gone through all of the personal experiences you consider yourself as having gone through. In other words, you couldn't appear to be "you" unless you really were "you" and considered yourself to be a single entity capable of integrating all of your personal experiences.

I think you already know that I won't chalk up "being" to chance.

Yeah, and I w/c/shouldn't force you. I enjoy the spirituality behind our existence, and I see no need to deny it either. Chance, however, works only within linear time. And since time with chance is linear, how could there be a choice anyway? One moment follows another... each moment is defined by how the last ended. In other words, each moment is relative to the last, in linear time especially. Where's the room for deviation? Where's the room for de-linearization? Isn't everything simply centered around What Is Now? It's all relative from NOW and HERE.

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

In other words, you couldn't appear to be "you" unless you really were "you" and considered yourself to be a single entity capable of integrating all of your personal experiences.

You cannot appear to be anything if you are nothing. Appearance is a reflection of being. What you appear as is irrelevant in this sense. Something cannot appear as anything other than what it is. This does not change the fact that without being, you cannot appear (or appear to be being).

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Chance, however, works only within linear time.

Why? Is it possible that chance was a choice?

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by weedseed

You cannot appear to be anything if you are nothing. Appearance is a reflection of being. What you appear as is irrelevant in this sense. Something cannot appear as anything other than what it is. This does not change the fact that without being, you cannot appear (or appear to be being).

Appearance may be a refraction, actually. In other words, a distorted representation of certain "recognizable" aspects of the object's essence. And, a thing can appear to be there even if it's not there: hallucination. Who's to say humanity as a whole doesn't hallucinate all the time (ack! the Universe... existence...)? And who's to say the hallucinations aren't real anyway? Can't disprove them.

Why? Is it possible that chance was a choice?

I'd say you get a chance to make that choice.

[bkadoctaj]

Bizzump!

[scoobydooby67]

"to be" is to give off vibration.

whether you are a person, plant, rock, or chair.

"to be" is energy.

[Demari]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Who's to say humanity as a whole doesn't hallucinate all the time (ack! the Universe... existence...)? And who's to say the hallucinations aren't real anyway? Can't disprove them.

I'd say you get a chance to make that choice.

that argument can't be true because any human being on this earth, who was 'normal' senses i.e seeing/hearing, will see the same thing at the same time as ANY other person. obviously we couldn't all be hallucinating in sync with each other right? if that was the case than the hallucinations themselves would be reality