Shouldn't we define 'Existence/Being'?

[sameandnot]

ok, dmstifik8tion. i see your point.
In, fact, this seems to be your main pont:

Objectivity [is] the application of reason to determine the facts about reality.

please recognize that i am only speaking/examining very logically.
as logic is the foundation of reason, we will note that the examination is purely rational, and thereby, we can say that it is perfect for determining facts about reality.

now, "Objectivity is the application of reason to determine the facts about reality."

as i said in another post:

physical reality is not an equivalent term as objective reality. this is key.

objective reality, is the subjective movement to "make objects" of the perceived/physical world. see the difference?

objective reality is a human invention, whereas physical reality is the world in which humans have defined "objects" as separate entities (themselves being one). The only thing that suggests a world of separate entities is a crude form of perception of the human mind. (which is the common way of human perception)
Though, there have been and are people existing who fail to make such absolute distinctions, not by ignorance or stupidity, but by an earnest exploration/inquiry/enquiry. to those people, objective reality is an illusion, because reality is known to be far too interconnected (perhaps even endlessly interconnected) to make such crude distinctions.
this is the case with quantum mechanics and the crumbling notions of time/space that are in its examination.

the subject is the object, that he/she perceives, as the "object" is an invention of their mind, based on a gross/crude sense of perception.

so in this much i agree with you, but if we are to think rationally about existence/being, and thereby determine facts about reality, then we must use our intellect logically to see where there are "holes," in our present conviction, are. no?

i mean: the world is not flat, although it seemed perfectly 'verifiable' at one time. also, euclid did not create the perfect, true, geometry, though it surely was 'verifiable' at one point, in the development of reason, and the world is not "objects" though we perceive it that way, commonly/crudely.

therefore. we should not be too hasty in our holding of convictions, as it is probably not a responsible move. When we examine the world we find that the distinction between subject and object is naught, because we have invented the idea of "objects" (no mater how useful in basic human life). so, object is really a subjective state, and therefore we must identify the ground of being/existence, which this thread is hoping to unravel.

from what do subjective and objective gain their existence? we could say, "physicality", but then we must concede that subjectivity is really physical. nay, the ground of reality must be that One, from which a unified physical reality appears.

physical reality, it appears, is just a bundle of waves/oscillations (good word drop, les sleeth... oscillations... i totally overlooked it for a little while.) of, perhaps, infinitely varying frequencies, lengths, and amplitudes. these are sometimes bundled together and sometimes not, and sometimes they have little particles and "big" masses riding on them, but always, they are a totality, unseperable in their true nature. "objects" can not sufficiently define or contain such a nature, as the Nature is always "leaking" out of the bounds of the definition.
physical reality, it seems, is "riding the waves of Reality", and objective reality is the human attempt to "make sense of it" all. but our making sense of it can never constitued what it truly is; *this will remain forever uncertain.

so, is oscillation being/existence? or is there some One, in which, the oscillations may occur; which should be rightfully understood as being/existence? since the oscillations are really One "sea", is this "sea" the "sea of being"? can being be defined such, or is it something even more subtle?

maybe i lost some people. well, thoughts are very much appreciated.

 

[octelcogopod]

sameandnot, I've had the same thoughts regarding "One."

I have this idea where the universe and all its consciousness is really just "One."
Where it's all one big sea of oscillations, and that we are in the middle of it, but unable to see it.

But there is one problem, if I understand you correctly.
We have never observed a subjective state in a labratory.
Ever.

Where in the place of strings and oscillations does the subjective state hold its place?
It seems to me that it must be some transcendign layer, your theory still applies though, because One includes Everything, and as such can be solved as Everything.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Just a quick thought: If there are other 'layers' of reality not available to our existing sensory perceptions how might they affect us? We have learned ways to perceive many things not directly available to us through perception. We have learned about their existence and can comprehend them as extensions of our faculties of direct perception, by their relationship to our basic perception, i.e., radio waves, ultrasound, micro- and tele-optics. Do you believe their might be something other than energy and mass (which we have discovered are also fundamentally related)? What is it that you are seeking and why, and is it something you have a hope of finding? Should our unquenchable thirst for new knowledge and understanding be resigned to the possibility that it may never be complete or should we appreciate what we have gained so far and therefore continue our quest?

I would be nice to explore the universe but let's not forget our way home so that we might report our findings.

 

[sameandnot]

But there is one problem, if I understand you correctly.
We have never observed a subjective state in a labratory.
Ever.

true.
it appears that we have not observed the subjective state, because the subjective state is the one doing the observing.

If there are other 'layers' of reality not available to our existing sensory perceptions how might they affect us?

it's really nice that you bring this up, because i was just considering it.
and now, since it is fresh in my mind, it is very rich, so i will try to think and express as clearly as possible.

first: consider a video camera pointing down at the ground, in the middle of the jungle. what do we see? we see pebbles that appear to be boulders and ants that appear to be monsters. now, we slowly zoom-out... we are now seeing the monster and the boulder shrink steadily, until finally, the ants are "invisible" and the foliage and other "larger" animals are in focus. we see and elephant and monkeys... but the monkeys are beginning to look like ants, in size, and the elephants are beginning to look like monkey-sized creatures. soon, we are above the trees and the monkey is now invisible. as we continue to pan out, the elephant is now invisible, and the whole jungle appears to be no larger than the "boulder/pebble" from the beginning of the film. we can imagine this "panning out" continuing indefinitely(?), or at least to a very great distance, into space.

now: the ant and monkey and elephant and jungle are all invisible, but they are all within the reality that is perceived, at present.

this is not new to anyone, but, like i said i am unfolding this thought as i know it, so please bear with me.

also, we know how an ant is perceived to be much greater is size than an elephant, we the elephant some distance away and the ant very close. This is Relativity Theory. whence all the dualistic qualities become meaningless. tall and short are seen to be entirely relative, far and near, big and small. this is a basic recognition in the "tao te ching".

Now, my response to dmstifik8tion:
all that has ever existed, is present right now. it's just that it has become enfolded into the "present" and has thereby become "invisible" to the human observer, due "the effect of the distance of time", which is an illusion. nothing ever really stops affecting everything else, but we have objectified the localized relationships, as though they are separate and independent. When we talk about the One, we are talking about the totality of Reality, which is always preent, here and now. is not moving is not changing, until you "zoom in" and lose sight of the Whole, as you begin to be deluded by the perceptions of things that are perceived.

Interestingly, this response, though yet incomplete, is also a response to octelcogopod, whom mentioned that subjectivity transcends the physical world. Subjectivity, after rightly understanding the illusionary effect of locality and distance upon perceptions, one can see how subjectivity, aside from individual perceptions (rather, the subjectivity that has perceptions in it) is completely unbound in space and time. all that exists is contained within the subjective experience, though virtually all of it has become enfolded and and thereby perceived as a non-perception by the perceiver; the perceiver fails to notice that which is not blaringly obvious to it, and accepts that it is contained and finite, though the whole cosmos is enfolded within its subjective state. after all, what is not a subject, though we call it an object? all things affect change, are affected by change, as a subject. the ultimate "Subject"
is the One "object".
i hope that this makes sense, though at the same time i do not really care, as it is really undeveloped in my mind. i only mention it because it was brought up and it is fresh.

so, i would say yes, to both. there are layers of reality that are invisible, aside from radio waves, x-rays, microwaves, etc. which can be known by the intellect but not directly measured or observed by scientific instruments, and these are layers known through the subject. most of the universe is undisclosed to us and our perceptions, but that does not mean that it is not here; in the background, guiding the paradigms of humanity and science and the evolution of life. jesus is not gone, nor is hitler, nor will they ever be. they are always living entities. nothing is ever gone, it just becomes invisible.

ok so, this is just thought, i do not claim to Know, nor do i think that i can explain sufficiently. so what are some thoughts?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Dmstifik8ion, I agree with most of your points.

I would define objectivity as such;
Objective is the external physical world, independent of any conscious being observing it.
Subjective is solely how the conscious being observees the universe.

Your definition of "Objective" is similar to how I define reality, that being; reality is that which exists apart from and in spite of any desires or beliefs we may have about it, (or course in the broader sense, we too are a part of reality).

I use the term objectivity to refer to unbiased appraisal of the true nature of reality as opposed to a selective appraisal in hopes of ‘proving’ to ourselves that reality is something we want it to be and ignoring its true nature when it is in conflict with our desires or beliefs; this latter part being subjectivity. Subjectivity could also refer to an attempt to impose our will upon and thus alter (or redefine) reality; of course objectively by definition and in reality this is impossible. Reality only responds to actual physical manipulation.

Perhaps you disagree with or deny the validity of these statements or maybe you agree in essence but know of a better term/s (word/s) to use for them. The point I’m trying to get across here is that by properly focusing our mind and conforming to reality we can observe, comprehend and gain knowledge and understanding of its true nature. As for absolute certainty, that may be beyond the range of this discussion.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

true.
it appears that we have not observed the subjective state, because the subjective state is the one doing the observing.
it's really nice that you bring this up, because i was just considering it.
and now, since it is fresh in my mind, it is very rich, so i will try to think and express as clearly as possible.
first: consider a video camera pointing down at the ground, in the middle of the jungle. what do we see? we see pebbles that appear to be boulders and ants that appear to be monsters. now, we slowly zoom-out... we are now seeing the monster and the boulder shrink steadily, until finally, the ants are "invisible" and the foliage and other "larger" animals are in focus. we see and elephant and monkeys... but the monkeys are beginning to look like ants, in size, and the elephants are beginning to look like monkey-sized creatures. soon, we are above the trees and the monkey is now invisible. as we continue to pan out, the elephant is now invisible, and the whole jungle appears to be no larger than the "boulder/pebble" from the beginning of the film. we can imagine this "panning out" continuing indefinitely(?), or at least to a very great distance, into space.
now: the ant and monkey and elephant and jungle are all invisible, but they are all within the reality that is perceived, at present.
this is not new to anyone, but, like i said i am unfolding this thought as i know it, so please bear with me.
also, we know how an ant is perceived to be much greater is size than an elephant, we the elephant some distance away and the ant very close. This is Relativity Theory. whence all the dualistic qualities become meaningless. tall and short are seen to be entirely relative, far and near, big and small. this is a basic recognition in the "tao te ching".
Now, my response to dmstifik8tion:
all that has ever existed, is present right now. it's just that it has become enfolded into the "present" and has thereby become "invisible" to the human observer, due "the effect of the distance of time", which is an illusion. nothing ever really stops affecting everything else, but we have objectified the localized relationships, as though they are separate and independent. When we talk about the One, we are talking about the totality of Reality, which is always preent, here and now. is not moving is not changing, until you "zoom in" and lose sight of the Whole, as you begin to be deluded by the perceptions of things that are perceived.
Interestingly, this response, though yet incomplete, is also a response to octelcogopod, whom mentioned that subjectivity transcends the physical world. Subjectivity, after rightly understanding the illusionary effect of locality and distance upon perceptions, one can see how subjectivity, aside from individual perceptions (rather, the subjectivity that has perceptions in it) is completely unbound in space and time. all that exists is contained within the subjective experience, though virtually all of it has become enfolded and and thereby perceived as a non-perception by the perceiver; the perceiver fails to notice that which is not blaringly obvious to it, and accepts that it is contained and finite, though the whole cosmos is enfolded within its subjective state. after all, what is not a subject, though we call it an object? all things affect change, are affected by change, as a subject. the ultimate "Subject"
is the One "object".
i hope that this makes sense, though at the same time i do not really care, as it is really undeveloped in my mind. i only mention it because it was brought up and it is fresh.
so, i would say yes, to both. there are layers of reality that are invisible, aside from radio waves, x-rays, microwaves, etc. which can be known by the intellect but not directly measured or observed by scientific instruments, and these are layers known through the subject. most of the universe is undisclosed to us and our perceptions, but that does not mean that it is not here; in the background, guiding the paradigms of humanity and science and the evolution of life. jesus is not gone, nor is hitler, nor will they ever be. they are always living entities. nothing is ever gone, it just becomes invisible.
ok so, this is just thought, i do not claim to Know, nor do i think that i can explain sufficiently. so what are some thoughts?

I tend to consider the universe throughout time and any other universes that may exist now, that have ever existed or that may exist in the future as a question to be considered by someone/thing who has been their throughout it all. My attempts to imagine the possibility of the existence of such a creature have led me to the conclusion that such a creature does not and can not possibly exist; existence preceeds consciousness.
Because I am a creature with a specific nature, having consciousness of myself and the world in which I live, realizing that I hold power over my own existence and acknowledging my responsiblity for my own life and actions, I have made my primary objective to focus on what I can do and should do. I have learned that the greatest contribution I can make to the universe throughout all time, (as insignificant as it may seem, relatively speaking), is to live my life like it really mattered, even if my contribution is limited to what one person can do in one lifetime through the thoughts and actions of one individual, myself. This, in essence, is what I refer to as conforming to reality and how I define the whole point of existence and being.
There you have it, my thoughts; I hope this helps.

 

[Rade]

I have learned that the greatest contribution I can make to the universe throughout all time, (as insignificant as it may seem, relatively speaking), is to live my life like it really mattered, even if my contribution is limited to what one person can do in one lifetime through the thoughts and actions of one individual, myself. This, in essence, is what I refer to as conforming to reality and how I define the whole point of existence and being

Question, are you living your life "like it really mattered" to self, others, or both ? I ask because I hold "both" to be the characteristic of the good life, yet would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Question, are you living your life "like it really mattered" to self, others, or both ? I ask because I hold "both" to be the characteristic of the good life, yet would like to hear your thoughts.

In all honesty, I do not always do exactly as I know I should; lapse of reason, insecurity or just lazy perhaps but the more I understand what I should do and why, the more willing I am to comply.

I enjoy helping others to help themselves for purely selfish reasons. It’s reassuring to me to see someone else find meaning or achieve a worthwhile goal in their life and obtain some degree of genuine and lasting happiness.

I don’t know how we can be of value to others before we have learned to value ourselves. Only after we have learned to live can we teach those who desire to know for themselves.

I have found no better laboratory for determining what the good is than to experiment on myself first. Only after proving things for myself do I have the confidence to share with those who desire to share with me.

I see no reason to interact with others accept for mutually beneficial relationships; but I seek such relationships because I know that others like me have much to offer in the way of things which none of us alone could possibly achieve on our own or without another’s knowledge and assistance.

As for helping those who are ‘less than ourselves’, I abhor this distinction. Any one who values their life enough to pursue it and has respect for the help that others may offer of their own free will deserves the same help and respect that anyone else does. I think comparative analysis is fine and good but patterning others or ourselves may not be taking into account any latent potentials that we might have and should encourage each other to develop.

I hope you find this answer does justice to your question.

 

[Rade]

I see no reason to interact with others accept for mutually beneficial relationships; ...I hope you find this answer does justice to your question.

Yes, from this statement you thus recognize that the good must be a monism of [self <----> other]--no man/woman is an island unto themself. And consider this--at birth, did you "first" have a perception (then even latter conception) of "self" or "other" (mother, father, etc.) ? I hold that humans derive our concept of "self" after birth from identification with "other". To find self, we look into the eyes of other.

 

[sameandnot]

wee must ask, then, what is really a beneficial relationship? i have a mutual relationship with the store clerk; i provide him what he wants and he what i want. and in this way, it is mutually beneficial. although, i provide him with monetary sustanence and he provides me with a deadly carcinogen.

this is a little extreme, seemingly, but far from abnormal or or even uncommon. there is a reason for our interaction, but is it beneficial?

what does it mean to be really beneficial.

what is the essence of that which we refer to as beneficial?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Each of us is a distinct and separate creature in spite of whatever the degree of dependence we have on others for our survival. When we gain our independence and become able to assume full responsibility for our own well-being and the consequences of our own actions, we have established and can fully realize our personal identities. Helping ones children to achieve this degree of self-fulfillment should be the primary objective of anyone who takes on the responsibility of parenthood.

Achieving independence brings with it a sense of self-respect and self-esteem that reinforces the desire and willingness to do what is necessary to maintain it. People such as this contribute the greatest value and are capable of providing a quality of sound judgment that helps to make the world a desirable and worthwhile place to live in for all of us.

In this sense, we are islands unto ourselves and once we gain our independence we are then able to build the kinds of bridges that link us together in ways that help us all to live more meaningful and worthwhile lives.

There are many who have not yet learned how to live who prefer to hold contempt for and aim hostility toward those who have rather than make the effort to achieve this for themselves. This kind of envy and hatred for human success only serves to make things worse for themselves and everyone else. This only brings greater disparity between those who have and those who are trying and in affect only manages to burn the bridges that others have worked hard to build.

This is why we should have only respect and admiration for even the smallest of steps that lead or have led others, as well as ourselves, to higher ground. I know of and can imagine no greater good than this.

On this basis, I would define a mutually beneficial relationship as any kind of human interaction that helps and encourages us to learn the skills we need and facilitates the ability of each of us to achieve individual human responsibility and independence.

 

[sameandnot]

In this sense, we are islands unto ourselves and once we gain our independence we are then able to build the kinds of bridges that link us together in ways that help us all to live more meaningful and worthwhile lives.
There are many who have not yet learned how to live who prefer to hold contempt for and aim hostility toward those who have rather than make the effort to achieve this for themselves. This kind of envy and hatred for human success only serves to make things worse for themselves and everyone else. This only brings greater disparity between those who have and those who are trying and in affect only manages to burn the bridges that others have worked hard to build.
This is why we should have only respect and admiration for even the smallest of steps that lead or have led others, as well as ourselves, to higher ground. I know of and can imagine no greater good than this.
On this basis, I would define a mutually beneficial relationship as any kind of human interaction that helps and encourages us to learn the skills we need and facilitates the ability of each of us to achieve individual human responsibility and independence.

the islands are always connected by the water, already.
what is done on one island, affects all of the islands and the environment, in whole (above and below).

doing something, that is commonly considered "good," is to also do, indirectly, something that is commonly considered "evil". no "doing" is ever purely beneficial. action is dualistic. to act, is to act, both, positively and negatively; beneficiantly and harmfully. although the counter-part might not be apparent to the doer, at the time of doing, but:

how often has one done something with the intention of doing only "good," and as a result something "bad" happened?

to really benefit someone is to, it appears, not do them any harm. benefit comes out of the not-implementing harm. benefiting one, is allowing them to exist free from any harm that you might impose; that is a mutually benefitting relationship. any action can be seen as beneficial or harmful, and will, in fact, be, both, harmful and beneficial. so what is truly beneficial?

the wise men say, "not-doing is a virtue".

 

[sameandnot]

duality is a characteristic of existence/being, when the One is particularized in any fashion. when One becomes two, with it, comes duality and the cycle and re-cycle of counter-forces; they must continually counter-balance to maintain the equalibrium of the One, which the Two, essentially, is.

so what are the characteristics of the One?
-non-changing
-non-affected by the play of the Two; transcendent
-beyond good and evil; beyond positive and negative
-beyond action; actionless
-intentless

...are some qualities.

perhaps we may come to know existence/being, by becoming aware of what existence/being is not.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

duality is a characteristic of existence/being, when the One is particularized in any fashion. when One becomes two, with it, comes duality and the cycle and re-cycle of counter-forces; they must continually counter-balance to maintain the equalibrium of the One, which the Two, essentially, is.
so what are the characteristics of the One?
-non-changing
-non-affected by the play of the Two; transcendent
-beyond good and evil; beyond positive and negative
-beyond action; actionless
-intentless
...are some qualities.
perhaps we may come to know existence/being, by becoming aware of what existence/being is not.

What you are describing is non-existence; if that is your one and only goal in life than you have achieved your life’s purpose without the necessity of a wink or a nod. We will all achieve this goal eventually but for myself I choose to see if it may be possible to do more good than harm. If both qualities exist in equal proportion from any action we may choose, than what is the harm if I choose to act in the way I see fit.

I already know what existence/being is not and I am in no hurry to neither be nor exist. Existing as a human being requires doing not only what is necessary to maintain ones existence over the short term; eating, sleeping, breathing, etc. We also need to prepare for eventualities; famine, attack by predators, storms, floods, the freezing cold of winter, etc. So we do things; grow crops so that we don’t end up eating each other, preparing a defense from predators so that we don’t become something/someone else’s dinner, building shelters so that we don’t end up crawling around in dark dirty smelly caves, etc.

The purpose of the mind is not to eliminate thinking but to learn to think rationally. The purpose of life is not to ignore it requirements or pretend it has no value or price. One person’s life need not be at the expense of another’s. By thinking, planning and acting rationally we become able not only to provide for ourselves but eventually to have some left over to share with others.

To be is to be something whether you define it or not. If you live in fear of discovering what you are you will never become anything more than something, hiding in the darkness and obscurity of self-doubt, that is not worthy of discovery; the meaningless waste of a potential that has refused to become realized.

The root of all evil is the belief that one can be nothing else but evil. There is no reasoning with one who believes that there is no reason.

 

[sameandnot]

The purpose of the mind is not to eliminate thinking but to learn to think rationally.

you limit yourself to a mind. you are identified with a body and mind and thus cannot see the Reality. unfortunately you are not unique. i hope that it doesn't upset you to think that you are not unique, in this respect.

The root of all evil is the belief that one can be nothing else but evil.

does this help you feel nice?

There is no reasoning with one who believes that there is no reason.

you don't even know what is rational. let alone living rationally.one need not learn to think rationally... that is one's natural condition!
-i'm hungry, so i'll eat.
-i'm tired, so i'll sleep,
-this will burn me, so i will not touch it.

the trick is to not let one's mind run wild.
-this is pleasurable, so i will do it again... and again... and again.
-i like this familar setting, so i will kill for it.

see the difference?

eventually, reason brings one beyond thinking about reason and reasoning about existence, because what is true reason can not be reasoned, as it is the natural condition of being.

so, reason does not exist as something to be acheived... such is un-reason.

evil is the mind, having taken control of one's being.
good is the simplicity of not being over-taken by the mind/ego.

evil is contrived/forced and good is Natural/Necessary.

 

[VonWeber]

...Objectivity demands that we prove the validity of each fact we accept in the development of our knowledge base and that we use unerring logic to integrate our knowledge in a coherent fashion. To be objective we must first understand what knowledge is, where it comes from and how we obtain it...

Existence is self-evidentiary; this means it proves itself by its very existence. No proof is needed for existence because it is the proof; it proves itself...

It would be dubious to say that we must prove every fact and then rely on self-evidence to prove existence. However, what you seem to be suggesting is that one needs to gain a preliminary, pre-objectivist understanding before objecitivism is even possible, right?

Not to put words in your mouth before giving you a chance to answer, but I want show how I think this is relevant. This sort of preliminary understanding varies with the subject but not in any direct way with things only objectively present. I would argue that this preliminary understanding would be very relevant if we are to gain any sense of the meaning of existence, and objectivism would not. Things that follow from what is objectively present can only find a place after ontological notions, and can never turn around and penetrate back into these ontological notions once they has been left behind.

 

[VonWeber]

After all, if we are going to discuss whether anything 'exists', aughtn't we determine whether 'existence' exists in the first place? Then perhaps who or what is 'Being'? Who or what is 'Existing'? To do that, aughtn't it be adequately 'defined'?
I have nothing 'positive' to offer 'here' but the question.

I'm currently reading Heidegger's Being and Time. So far, I think it is hitting on all the points you bring up. In the introduction, he points out that there is no real way to define being. Some notion of being is contained in any statement we make about something and can be seen in the way we use the verb "to be" especially. But then if we define being this way we would have to say "Is is..." and use the word we are defining in the definition. He also points out that being transcends genus and species. So there is not general to specific deductive reasoning that will arrive at a definition, and there aren't specific examples of being we can use induction to get a general definition of being. You can't point at a rock and say that is what being is.

 

[sameandnot]

von weber,
did you notice this post?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=852976&postcount=24

what else can we say about being/existence? what are your thoughts?

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

It would be dubious to say that we must prove every fact and then rely on self-evidence to prove existence. However, what you seem to be suggesting is that one needs to gain a preliminary, pre-objectivist understanding before objecitivism is even possible, right?
Not to put words in your mouth before giving you a chance to answer, but I want show how I think this is relevant. This sort of preliminary understanding varies with the subject but not in any direct way with things only objectively present. I would argue that this preliminary understanding would be very relevant if we are to gain any sense of the meaning of existence, and objectivism would not. Things that follow from what is objectively present can only find a place after ontological notions, and can never turn around and penetrate back into these ontological notions once they has been left behind.

First let me note that I work under the assumption that those seeking the truth only require the roadmap and that those seeking delusion will choose the road leading to Delusion Ville. Please understand I am not implying that this is the case with you or anyone else in particular but I have witnessed this choice being selected.

What I meant by self-evidence in the previous context is not the person but the thing, existence. The answer to your first question is, yes. We learn about existence before we learn to speak or learn the meaning of the word “existence” ; by perceiving it.

Before I learned about the terms objective, subjective, etc., I had already learned to put my thoughts together in a somewhat haphazard manner. When I learned about objectivity and came to understand that our knowledge is based on what we gathered from reality through perception (the only verifiable source of facts of reality), I then had to go back and confirm or discard beliefs I held by seeing if they followed from what I knew based on what I had or could perceive directly from reality. This was not easy for me but I had observed that even the beliefs I held which I latter confirmed were correct were of little use because of their ambiguity with respect to where they came from. I found such unsubstantiated beliefs functioned much as a house of cards, without any apparent foundation, caught in the prevailing winds of conjecture blowing about.

I hope this provides you with a better foundation for your understanding of my position. If this has helped perhaps I can clarify some other points?

 

[VonWeber]

von weber,
did you notice this post?
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=852976&postcount=24
what else can we say about being/existence? what are your thoughts?

I think I read in one sitting, and forgot it in the next sitting. Not my original ideas, but I think that the first impressions we gain of things is in a wordless form and the act of formulating words carries us away from those fisrt impressions. If we approach these first impressions in a rational way and bring together evidence then I don't rule out the possiblity of gaining a "better" understanding of being. This "better" understanding may give some insites into the underpinnings of various philosophical systems.

Your formless ground concept, would that be related to the Unity of Analogy by which Aristotle and the scholastics understood being?

 

[VonWeber]

I hope this provides you with a better foundation for your understanding of my position. If this has helped perhaps I can clarify some other points?

Thanks for explaining. I think the approach of using reason and relying on appropriate evidence to support conclusions is a good one. I'm for it, anyway. The only other comment I could make is that I think technically existence is not a thing, not even an abstract thing. Perhaps, it could be the totality of things? But I would say an entity is nothing like what we mean when we talk about the existence of entities. It really is an ambiguous concept and we must be careful we aren't merely hiding the ambiguity by words or terminology that conceals it.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Thanks for explaining. I think the approach of using reason and relying on appropriate evidence to support conclusions is a good one. I'm for it, anyway. The only other comment I could make is that I think technically existence is not a thing, not even an abstract thing. Perhaps, it could be the totality of things? But I would say an entity is nothing like what we mean when we talk about the existence of entities. It really is an ambiguous concept and we must be careful we aren't merely hiding the ambiguity by words or terminology that conceals it.

Good point; “Existence” does not refer to a specific thing; as a concept it refers to all that we perceive in one glance and everything else that exists as well; we see a part (an existent) or several parts of the whole, existence. When we learn to regard separate objects as entities than we can through evaluation determine identity.

I’m beginning to feel a little hard pressed to refer you to a discussion on the theory of concepts in the book, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, by Ayn Rand. I prefer to cut out the middle-man when it appears a direct relationship would be more efficient, productive and quite probably more accurate. If you are not familiar with this book or author and you like clarity and fundamentals I believe you’ll find this book rewarding.

 

[sameandnot]

Your formless ground concept, would that be related to the Unity of Analogy by which Aristotle and the scholastics understood being?

i don't know. i am not familiar with a lot of aristotle.

i am saying: what does it mean to value "being"? does it mean to value some "beings," in particular? or, is that value of a transcending quality; transcending particular forms to truly value what "being" is, fundamentally? "being/existence" is what all "beings/existences" have, what all "beings/existences" are of, and what all "beings/existences" are in. how could it be other than formless? in its essence.