[MD] Being-Aware

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Jean --

(Since I received duplicate posts from Zenith Uzbekistan and Lord Arioch, 
both of which were signed Jean, I'll assume that is your name.)

> Its hard to argue with this, yes, but I'm a bit confused what
> it means.  Definitions, by design, try to avoid self-reference,
> but this is not always possible.
>
> So it might be a minor point, but it would help to clarify
> whether that definition of "being" is circular if I knew what
> precisely the difference between "existence" and "being" is.
> They are synonyms, are they not?  How are you not just
> saying, "We can't have being without being, and we can't
> exist without existing?" I'm just not sure what you are proposing.

I am proposing that we come to an agreement as to a fundamental definition 
for existence.  Existence has variously been conceived in this forum as 
material, illusionary, phenomenal, and qualitative.  Some believe it to be 
the primary reality, some view it as derived from an uncreated source, while 
others consider it a hegemony or hierarchy of intellectual levels.  I submit 
that we can't construct a cosmology of existence - philosophical or 
metaphysical unless we agree on what it is.

> The only difference between using "becoming" in the
> above example, as far as I can see, is that "becoming"
> implies a change.

Everything attributed to existence comes into being and eventually 
disappears or is transformed into something else.  Indeed, change is the 
very "nature" of existence.  Therefore, "becoming", the transitional form of 
the verb "to be" should be included in our concept of being.

[Ham, previously]:
> "Awareness" is defined as the realization, perception, or
> apprehension of what we know.

[Jean]:
> In other words, "experience."

Yes.  Taken together with its contents, awareness is experience.

[Ham]:
> Finally, whether your personal philosophy accepts the
> "metaphysical reality" of this dualism or not, existence
> consists of at least one cognizant subject
> (self) aware of an objective otherness (being).

[Jean]:
> So basically, "whether you agree or not, this is how it is?" :P

That is not what I said.  Being-aware is a dualism by definition. 
Irrespective of your creation theory or cosmology, you either accept this 
definition for existence or not.
I also said, it is inconceivable that you can know that anything exists 
without having an awareness of it.

> An important assertion.

I think so.

> Apologies, but I am in the habit of drawing connections.
> Here I see a fancy way of explaining Descartes famous
> axiom,"I think (am 'aware') therefore I am ('being')."
> I myself have never tried to argue that, but you can be sure
> others have.

I'm trying to avoid "connections" in my funsamental approach but, yes, the 
Cogito was Descarte's declaration that his awareness affirmed his being.  It 
has been argued here that this was "the beginning of duality" (SO), but 
that's nonsense.  All creatures distinguish themselves from otherness, 
whether they have self-awareness or an understanding of reality or not.

> If I were to try, I'd ask, what about things that are not cognizant?
> How can they be "being?" Are they "real?"
> But it's actually not an argument I'm much interested in.

Nor I.  All experienced entities are objective "beings" to the subject, 
whether they are human, animal, vegetable, or mineral.

> I appreciate it's much harder to make an argument than to
> attempt to tear it apart. I also appreciate (greatly) that you
> (and others) would go back to fundamental concepts.
> The problem is, the further you go in that direction, the more
> abstract you get and the harder it is to say anything about anything.
> There are also a lot of basic assumptions involved (such as the
> whole subject-object, aware-being) that one must either accept
> or not, based on very little justification, usually.

I understand the reasons for your reluctance.  Theoretically, we should be 
able to explain the properties, relations, and dynamics of what we 
experience ("avoiding self-reference").  However, as you see, we can't avoid 
the subjective self when describing existence.  This leads to all sorts of 
dialectical problems.  By keeping our assertions and propositions on a 
fundamental level (e.g., making them non-descriptive) we can avoid 
misconception of the ideas presented as well as misunderstanding of the 
overall concept.  (At least, that's what I'm aiming for.)

Thanks, Jean

--Ham