[MD] An inquiry into "be-ing"

[Ham Priday]

On Sep 6, 2010, at 8:28 AM, X Acto quoted Ron, who had asked:

> 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?

Marsha replied (also with a question):
> Have the purposes chosen by Western intellect provided goodness?
> I'd say yes, but mostly no.  I think RMP has asked the question,
> Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama certainly have, with all our
> technological advancement are humans suffering less.  Tough
> to know, but again my guess would be mostly no they are not
> suffering less. ...
>
> While understanding that all is Value, I, personally, do not like
> to make value judgements. If I do, moments later I can think of
> twelve other reasons why I might be wrong.  But it is some peoples
> preference to proclaim judgements.  Maybe I'm suggesting I do not
> think you question can be answered.
>
> What do you think?  Have I gone off in a different direction?

"Being" is an ontological term which conventionally defines "the quality or 
state of having existence."  In other words, it refers to ontology.  Being 
is neither "one" nor "many" but, rather, the very essence or nature of 
IS-ness. Marsha is talking about is morality -- i.e., the state of being 
good, bad, or indifferent.  In Existentialism moral issues are a function of 
free will.  Jean-Paul Sartre and the existentialists were persuaded that 
existence precedes essence, which leads to the moralistic conclusion that 
"man is condemned to freedom" in a deterministic universe without meaning.

I cut my wisdom teeth on Sartre's tome "Being and Nothingness", so I believe 
I qualify to address Ron's question.  Sartre was a phenomenologist, like 
Husserl and Heidegger who influenced him, but he's credited for fathering 
the philosophy of Existentialism, founded on the concept of Being (or 
"Beingness") as ultimate reality. Sartre himself described Being as having 
two aspects: being-IN-itself and being-FOR-itself.  Being-in-itself can only 
be approximated metaphysically, since the human experience of beingness by 
nature takes the form of being-for-itself.  The being of Consciousness, for 
example, is the process of becoming the person that will be added to 
recorded history.

Sartre also postulated that Being "is the foundation of nothingness as the 
nihilation of [one's] own being"; so that self-reflection, in Sartrean 
terms, is an act of nihilation. "In short, every effort to conceive of the 
idea of a being which would be the foundation of its being results 
inevitably in forming that of a being which, contingent as being-in-itself, 
would be the foundation of its own nothingness"  This gets a bit 
complicated, but suffice it to say that, like Pirsigians, Sartre believed 
that the subjective self is illusory, and that an individual's "true being" 
is its objective "facticity" which can only be known posthumously.

In fact, if you substitute "being-in-itself" for the Quality of Pirsig's 
philosophy, and replace his "patterns" with "being-for-itself", you may note 
a parallel that (for me, at least) puts the MoQ in the existential category. 
As an Essentialist, of course, I regard any philosophy that is founded on 
existence or being rather than an absolute source as a form of 
existentialism.

This is an interesting topic that has elicited a variety of diverse ideas. 
I hope the Sartrean slant helps to clarify some of your issues.

Respectfully,
Ham