Originally posted by Philosophicus
No, still none of you have answered the question. All of you seem to be misunderstanding: I'm NOT refering to the existence or consciousness of a being(human, plant, animal, or any other entity for that matter) - I'm talking about BEING AS SUCH - ALL THAT IS, as in the universe/cosmos or infinity/eternity - the eternity of being - the greatness of existence as the container for all individual beings - the infinite continuum as such! What is being- not the being of an individual, but pure being.Also, being cannot be equated to thought or thinking, then one is implying that only aware beings(humans) exist, but what about plants which cannot think - don't they have being as well?
Kharmadog, you describe being with 'presence', while the question is about being/presence - I want to know what exactly is presence in itself.
I'm also not talking about relations between objects/entities, as that refers to individual beings, I am talking about mere being - the one 'object' of being - the eternal continuum of existence which contains all other individual beings.
How much clearer do I have to make it. Why is there being rather than nothingness - Being on a cosmological scale(the one infinity of existence) - not the existence of individual entities.
Everything has an importance of oneself.. plants supply other animals and humans with food, and the cycle continues... There is a meaning of life of humans... WILL.. you achieve what you want by will.. everyone have an ambition... PEOPLE LIVE THEIR LIVE TO FUFILL EACH OF THEIR AMBITIONS.... that is the meaning of existence... for humans...
For Plants, it'll be to supply other mammals with food... that is their role in earth...
As for other mammals, that I will leave you to think that for yourself...
Kharmadog, you describe being with 'presence', while the question is about being/presence - I want to know what exactly is presence in itself.I'm also not talking about relations between objects/entities, as that refers to individual beings, I am talking about mere being - the one 'object' of being - the eternal continuum of existence which contains all other individual beings.
How much clearer do I have to make it. Why is there being rather than nothingness - Being on a cosmological scale(the one infinity of existence) - not the existence of individual entities.
Well o.k., the question you want answered finally makes sense to me (I think). The question was kinda lost in there, but let's see if I have it now.
What is being on a cosmological scale, presense, universal existence, in a word and in the most simple way possible, I think I would have to say "being" is time.
Originally posted by Dexx
not to them, they don't. they exist from our point of view.
and in the absence of a proper definition for being....i see no other choice then to call it a corelative concept....it being defined based on the opposition with another concept....nothingness.
You are the closest to the meaning of universal being. It is true that plants, or any other entities for that matter only exist for us as self-conscious beings. And I too accept that there is no real, proper definition for being, it is indeed something impossible to define as it is the most absolute sphere of awareness we are delving into when we talk about 'being as such'. We can also say that nothingness does not exist - there's only being...we cannot talk about nothingness when we have 'being' and only know being ourselves. Nothingness canot be 'touched' from the condition of being.
Originally posted by Philosophicus
KharmaDog: "I think I would have to say "being" is time."What is time? We are looking for a description, not an equation with another questionable concept such as time. Even if you do equate being with time, then what is time? where does it come from? why is there time rather than its absence?
Originally posted by Philosophicus
You are the closest to the meaning of universal being. It is true that plants, or any other entities for that matter only exist for us as self-conscious beings. And I too accept that there is no real, proper definition for being, it is indeed something impossible to define as it is the most absolute sphere of awareness we are delving into when we talk about 'being as such'. We can also say that nothingness does not exist - there's only being...we cannot talk about nothingness when we have 'being' and only know being ourselves. Nothingness canot be 'touched' from the condition of being.
well if nothingness existed, it would seize to be nothing, would it not 🙂
then again...when we talk about these two notions like this...i feel like actually trying to reach the logical solution in a dilemma like: if god is allpowerful, can he build a wall over which he cannot jump?
it's simply a contradiction of concepts..it is either one, or the other.
lucky for us as a species that we can comprehend the limits of our conceptual definitions,at least 🙂...too bad we probably won't get past them
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Philo - do you believe that you have the absolute "correct" answer to this question?
No, of-course not. We can never really now what being is in its infinite sense. Also look at my previous post:
"You (DEXX) are the closest to the meaning of universal being. It is true that plants, or any other entities for that matter only exist for us as self-conscious beings. And I too accept that there is no real, proper definition for being, it is indeed something impossible to define as it is the most absolute sphere of awareness we are delving into when we talk about 'being as such'. We can also say that nothingness does not exist - there's only being...we cannot talk about nothingness when we have 'being' and only know being ourselves. Nothingness canot be 'touched' from the condition of being."
Being is truely unfathomable.
🙂
Originally posted by Dexx
well if nothingness existed, it would seize to be nothing, would it not 🙂
then again...when we talk about these two notions like this...i feel like actually trying to reach the logical solution in a dilemma like: if god is allpowerful, can he build a wall over which he cannot jump?it's simply a contradiction of concepts..it is either one, or the other.
lucky for us as a species that we can comprehend the limits of our conceptual definitions,at least 🙂...too bad we probably won't get past them
Well, I can only say that the mind is a curse in being both usefull and useless at the same time... 😎
Originally posted by debbiejo
Thinking......All things being??...All things share one thing, some kind of energy. Are you asking for what purpose??
I'm not refering to purpose - being is without absolute purpose - it merly is....
What is the energy you're speaking of? Everyone always speaks of this 'energy' - what energy? Define that.
it IS electricity.
you are able to move due to electrical impulses sent throughout your body. there are tiny bitsy parts in your cells called mitocondries...whic release energy in every living thing. (there's actually a theory in birth of life based on them)
but if you are reffering to energy as in cosmic energy...the one that binds us all into balance.....there are theories...but it's got nothing to do with science i'm affraid, debbiejo
Originally posted by Dexx
it IS electricity.
you are able to move due to electrical impulses sent throughout your body. there are tiny bitsy parts in your cells called mitocondries...whic release energy in every living thing. (there's actually a theory in birth of life based on them)
but if you are reffering to energy as in cosmic energy...the one that binds us all into balance.....there are theories...but it's got nothing to do with science i'm affraid, debbiejo
The electricity you are talking about. People sometimes call it auras, and where called nuts. I didn't believe my self, but since science has confirmed it, I believe it. So, now I keep an open mind on all subjects.
Is that the energy you're talking about?
that is NOT true....ofcourse science talks about bio-electric fields....i've mentiond mitocondries earlier. but auras imply that they are all radically different. and bio-electric fields are more or less the same, at individuals of same species....the difference being in health and/or development factors.
what you know of auras has NOTHING to do with science. those people that reffer to them as auras are not scientists