Because you asked for more, here is a post (from another forum). I responded to this person deep in scientific explanation as to why the world defines Be-ing. This person lives on Madagascar which is why the intro addresses 'eucalyptus forest'.
One other thing before you start reading what I posted. I suggest that we change the name of this forum from "Philosophy Forum" to maybe, "Random Opinions Forum" because there is a whole lot of opinions, concept comparison, point-of-view defense, and ruffled feathers, but no real thinking, creation, philosophizing. It doesn't appear that anybody here has any interest in moving the conversation forward. It also looks like the people participating in this forum are only interested in defending the same territory they've been defending for years. Not only are they only interested in defending the same territory, they don't even notice that they can't do anything else. Read the responses to this post and you'll see what I'm talking about. Maybe one person will take this as an opportunity to notice something and not as a reason to react. People in this forum don't seem to want to investigate the possibility that it's their concepts and defense of those concepts that have them 'running around the same track' and 'trying to out-muscle the competition'. Alan Watts was right, in over 2500 years (can't measure pre-historical) we haven't graduated past 'territorial monkey'.
I have 'bumped' into only one person entangled in the labyrinth of measuaribility and definabiity who appears to want to do something about it, and that's you.
Here's the post I mentioned:
I have never heard the term 'eucalyptus forest' used by anybody, so that got me to thinking. Do you live in Australia? Where do you find eucalyptus forests?
I have a problem with your usage of "theologically, socially or through the eyes of cognitive neurosciences" and "meaningful in a given context" to define Be-ing. They are pre-defined by the combination of characteristics contained in each of those concepts, and, if you'll take notice, the pre-defined concepts ignore 'you', Be-ing.
“Theologically”, for example, is a specific view-point and is kinda like a funnel. You circle around the 'big end' of the funnel gathering information from Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, atheists, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, theologians and many others. You think each point-of-view through and notice the similarities and differences and what drops out of the small end of the funnel is a selection of attributes. Some agree with and others you disagree with. You subsequently 'file away' the one's you agree with and unwittingly take on the role of the combination of characteristics you have collected.
As time passes you 'come upon' an 'inkling' of an idea that Religion hasn't resolved anything for you. You either give up sorting through more data and take what you know as 'fact' and represent it to others as 'fact', (A 'fact' is something you no longer question and is the end of thinking/Be-ing), or, you keep looking at more data re: theology and never notice that 'theology' (the concept) has already defined your quest, the 'combination of characteristics', and subsequently who you are. Once you come to the end of that attempt at resolution, you again 'come upon' an inkling of an idea that Religion hasn't resolved anything for you and you either start again or you live your life as if everything you found is a 'fact' and you stop thinking/Be-ing.
The above paragraph applies to “socially”, “cognitive neuroscience”, “given context”, “memory”, “mind”, and all other 'concepts' (combinations of characteristics) we use to re-present Be-ing.
Humans Be-ing are compelled to collect combinations of characteristics to represent/define who they are without question and since that is what everybody else is doing, they think it is the 'only' way to represent Be-ing. I say, that 'you', Be-ing, are happening prior to "you, collecting characteristics" and 'you' doing what everybody else is doing. 'You' have to be there before the 'collecting' and 'doing' can take place.
Re-presenting your 'self' as a 'thing' of the world is 'inauthentic'. Inventing a new way of speaking for the sole purpose of re-presenting your 'self' as Be-ing is an arduous undertaking in a world of 'things' but it is the only way to be authentic, true to Be-ing, truth. Yes, who you are is 'truth'. There is no such 'thing' as 'the truth'.
Re: "In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind". As long as we have been on this planet nobody has been able to prove the existence of 'mind' no matter what technology they use to attempt to prove the measurability of the 'mind'. Furthermore, you will ultimately find that 'mind' is another 'combination of characteristics' used to re-present Be-ing in terms of the measurable, definable, world. The same goes for memory.
There are a plethora of different "valid standpoints" and you could spend a lifetime investigating and being right about them all. Once you finish that investigation and being right, you will realize that 'you' are at the center of all those investigations and that what you haven't been looking at is 'you', Be-ing. You have been looking outside of your 'self'. Once you come face-to-face with the undefinability of Be-ing you will stop Be-ing a 'thing' of the world and start Be-ing who you are.