Jehu;
When I use the term ‘real’, I use it is its philosophical sense: “that which has an absolute [necessary] and not merely contingent [relative] existence.”;
So do I always speak in a philosophical sense, although I am not academically trained.
So, is ‘relative’ the opposite of ‘necessary’? Isn’t the ‘relative’ absolutely ‘necessary’ as well?
I am not saying that the one mode exists and the other does not; for there is no ‘non-existence”.
I know you are not saying that.
Further, as I have already pointed out, terms such as ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ are interdependent and complementary, and so the one cannot be said to exist without the other; for what meaning can we attach to the term ‘real’, if there were not something that was ‘not real’?
Similarly, what meaning can we attach to ‘being’ if there were not something that meant ‘non-being’? That ‘non-being’ itself is not possible is a different story. For example, on the level of ‘Being’ as we have come to understand it, ‘not real’ does not exist for me; what do you say to that? Yet the word/meaning and its counter word/meaning exists.
An entity such as is Being, given that it ‘self-caused’, is capable of neither arising nor ceasing; nor can it undergo any alteration whatsoever. It is just a Parmenides said, “It is, and it must necessarily be.”
Yes, it is, and must necessarily be, but unless one utterly discards the idea that ‘Being’ is a “thing”, which somehow remains somewhere in the back of the head, unnecessary mental attachments will keep arising. Tell me, why do you consider ‘Being’ an ‘entity’ which may or may not be
capable of any thing at all? Being isn’t besides 'ALL that there is', so it is exactly 'ALL that there is', so what kind of ‘entity’ could it be on its own? Yes, it neither arises nor ceases, but it is not that IT is not CAPABLE of arising nor ceasing; the word ‘capable’ does not apply to it, for it is not an IT. Nor could “one” apply to it for the same reason, neither absolutely any description at all. You are actually trying to describe the Tao in a sense, which I don't think is possible, hence I have recomended that it be thrown out.
Further more, how come it is ‘self-caused’? Do think IT could? Only things may be caused, and since ‘Being’ is not a thing, it cannot be caused or even ‘self-caused’ as such, for
beyond ‘Being’ is not possible, from which point it could act upon its SELF; it is NOT a SELF either, for there is nothing beyond it that it may be considered a SELF to being with. Additionally, what happened to the two modes that “it” is dependant on? In fact, I think we agreed “it” is exactly just that, so where exactly is "Being" by its "self" that it may
participate in or
practice causality?
Yet further more; Eternal dynamic alteration, in other words CHANGE, IS also Being itself, which is a mere interdependently (of course complimentary too) interactive dynamic process, and one could say that All is subject to change but not
change itself, which is again but ‘Being’ itself, not that ‘Being’ is
incapable of change, for
change itself is
Being, and
that cannot change.
I do not think that you have fully understood the analogy. If a cell is said to have divided itself into two cells, then the two cells must be separated from one another by something other than themselves.
I deliberately gave an “empirical” example to show that such examples do not really work when it comes to ‘Being’, whereas, “empirical” as commonly understood, does not exist for me, since that too stands but in and off the two modes. Now, about the analogy; if you are fully aware that that two modes itself is what Being is, then how come they are the “modes” OF Being? Being isn’t any “thing” at all, so what exactly are we left with? Simply the Two, say Ying AND yang. In my opinion, it is our false ego that does not let go, (sub-consciously), the IDEA that Being is still a “thing” (a third one) that
emerges FROM these two modes, whereas it is but the
interactivity of those two modes itself, ecah possesing the quality of the other, but never uniting.
Consider Leibniz’s ‘Law of Indiscernibles’: “If what appears to be two or more things(,) have all their properties in common(,) they are identical(,) and so only one thing.”
My English is not that good so I didn’t really get it at first, but are my punctuations correct? However, carbon is a common property of ample of things, yet, none of them are “identical” unless of the same category; BTW, I consider absolutely every thing to be absolutely unique even if two things appear identical, for they could never ever occupy the same space/time point, that is, causal conditions, philosophically speaking. And with all due respects to Leibniz, what about the Law of Identity? Is a tree, a star, and I, one and the same thing? Is he saying that we throw out the mode of knowledge?
Being is clearly not a ‘thing’, for all things are composite in nature, and arise as a result of the coming together of their pre-existing causes (other things); persists only so long as their causes persist, and cease whenever their causes cease or no longer hold together.
Absolutely.
While ‘non-being’ does have a designation, is should not rightfully have, for it signifies naught, and every designation must have an existential referent – if it is to be meaningful.
But ‘non-being’ as a word, and its meaning, does stand before the mind, as does ‘being’, otherwise ‘being’ holds no meaning. You cannot even prove that ‘non-being’ is naught unless you can show what ‘being’ is; ‘non-being’ is as much meaningful as ‘being’ is, but logically proving that ‘non-being’ is naught, is a different story.
Further, what passes for a definition is merely a negation of all possible predicates; and given that a definition is ‘an expression of the essence of a thing’, then that which is without an essence cannot rightfully be defined.
What is a word but a pointer to its definition, and the word ‘non-being’ is being used all over this thread.
To stand before the mind as an object (entity), a thing must have both a quality (substance) and a relation (form) – whether it be actual or imagined (remembered). What’s more, we must not think that merely because a thing does not exist is ‘actuality’, that it does not exist at all. Unicorns do not exist in actuality, at least not so far as I am aware, but they do exist is the imagination; for we can take them as an object of mind.
Exactly, and so it goes for ‘non-being’, although it certainly does not exist in ‘actuality’.
If one accepts the fundamental unity of Being, and that there is not non-being, then if follows that no actual division of Being is possible; and so all divisions must be imaginary.
Sure, but what I am talking about is a step beyond this profound understanding. I am talking about – first there is a mountain, then it isn’t, then it indeed IS. Ultimately, “Division” IS Being too! How come, within a single post, one can forget the two necessarily (real) modes, which necessarily requires a real (necessary) division, ON the point of which ‘Being’ dances an elusive and yet an egotistical dance that keeps luring the intelligent?
I consider all divisions and their consequences absolutely real (necessary), and yet I am.
Sapius: Or, is it possible that the Qualities of awareness AND knowledge itself is what Being is?
Jehu: Yes! Awareness (a relation) and knowledge (a quality) are the intrinsic elements of Being; therefore, Being does not need to ‘produce a thinker’, Being is a thinker (cognizant entity); and where there is a thinker there are also thoughts.
For quality and relationship, a THING is necessary, and BEING is NOT a THING, so IT does NOT have "intrinsic elements". It has neither an
intrinsic nor an
extrinsic to begin with, so what elements could "Being" HAVE? ALL elements ARE Being itself.
Sapius: In the above light, I thing 'The Fundamental non-unity of Being' could be equally true, for what would happen if the two modes actually unite?
Jehu: You'll have to explain this one! I'm pretty certain this position is logically indefensible...
Could you please try that for me… I’m done for the day.. rather the night, actually..
I simply mean that Being is not possible without real (necessary) partition/separation eternally in place, and that the two “modes” (if you like), never ever “unite’.
Pardon unintentional mistakes if any.