1
   

The changeability of our being-

 
 
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 06:56 pm
this is partly a reaction to what NAACP said, specifically this: "Each individual is who they are their whole existences. From birth to death, we are who we are our whole lives. So, therefore we are each our OWN infinity's. Everything we know for the time we're alive is ALL we'll ever know, we each have our own worlds at out fingertips each moment we're alive. We are each our own infinity's. Now I don't know how much simpler I can make this to you, but something tells me you're still not going to get it. Whatever, it's just as well."

I want to STRESS however, that what I have to say is a separate debate, and I feel it would be best not to focus too much on what NAACP said, namely because, on the whole, it makes little sense. however, the question of being, and its changeability, is something worthy of debate.

Our being, it is claimed, by NAACP, is fixed and consequently unchangeable, but this, to my mind, limited as it always will be, is wrong- first of all, there is the question of what constitutes our “being”. What does it mean to be? If our being is constituted by our psychology, then our being is in a continuous flux, as our feelings, emotions and desires are in a constant shift, never ceasing to move around. Biologically, out being may be more consistent, but ultimately our biology changes over time, food consumption changes our biology, which means that, biologically, we are changeable as well.

Therefore, our being is changeable, always in flux, never certain.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,792 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 07:03 pm
@existential potential,
Being by definition does n´t change, but that is a different matter...I guess you meant to refer to the phenomena which we address in the idea of "self"...
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 07:05 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
that is what I am getting at...
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2010 08:20 pm
@existential potential,
Quote:
Each individual is who they are their whole existences. From birth to death, we are who we are our whole lives.
Anyone reasonable schooled should know this is nonsens. Our cells/atoms in our bodies will be replaced, hench why we need to eat and drink. Nor mentally are we the same from childhood to adulthood ..and seniorhood.

Quote:
From birth to death, we are who we are our whole lives. So, therefore we are each our OWN infinity's.
Beautiful nonsens only people with extremely low rationallity will belive this.

Quote:
Everything we know for the time we're alive is ALL we'll ever know, we each have our own worlds at out fingertips each moment we're alive.
Babies can't control ****, which is why adults must tend to kids. Many people does not have any worlds at their fingertips as they get depressions by the cruel world, which they can't control.

Quote:
Now I don't know how much simpler I can make this to you, but something tells me you're still not going to get it.
I do get it, but it should be quite clear that I do no agree with anything of that nonsens.

You like religious people create a miniuniverse, freed from troublesome logic and reason, where nonsens and babble can peacefully exist. Like christians you selectivly choose only what pleases you, and disregard the stories where God was a raging madman.

See reason and logic, it will serve you and mankind well.
0 Replies
 
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 01:47 am
@existential potential,
I shall try to express my thoughts upon the issue. You are right to enquire into what means to be. This is the basic point. "To be", as I understand that, means to be perceived. Then we need to understand that there is nothing we can speak of that exists independently of our mind. Even to make a statement "A is" one must have this "A" within his mind. But an important thing is to be aware that as long as you start thinking of something (because "A is" is also a thought) you actually stop interacting with what is now and start interacting with what is within your memory. That's a curious paradox: we can say that something exist only of what does not exist (save for in our memory) and we can never say that what really exist is. Therefore some people say that words and thoughts can never embrace reality.
Now as to self... I think that what I said before really lifts the problem because both existence and non-existence of permanent self are ideas. What I want to add is that you should never think of yourself as of a flux of thoughts or as a flux of matter etc. This is just nonsense. In the end I should recommend you to think a little on the words of Vedic sage Yajnavalkya: being asked what is the Self, he replied: "Thou canst not see the seeer of seeing and canst not hear the hearer of hearing, and canst not think of the thinker of thinking. This is thy Self ".
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 03:14 am
@existential potential,
i rarely take part in threads during the week; if anything i recently, drunkenly, made a couple of statements in other threads that require further clarification and apologies before i write in this one. Nonetheless, i feel compelled to take part in this particular thread. Before i respond, however, i have to ask where you have quoted the text below from, since i haven't been able to find it online all evening.

existential potential, allegedly from the NAACP wrote:
Each individual is who they are their whole existences. From birth to death, we are who we are our whole lives. So, therefore we are each our OWN infinity's. Everything we know for the time we're alive is ALL we'll ever know, we each have our own worlds at out fingertips each moment we're alive. We are each our own infinity's. Now I don't know how much simpler I can make this to you, but something tells me you're still not going to get it. Whatever, it's just as well.


First, assuming that a representative of the NAACP stated the above, and based upon the role that organization normally plays, it should be obvious that the statement above is meant to have social significance and not ontological import. Second, excepting extreme philosophical naivete, the difference between social and ontological meanings should be equally obvious here.

I think that the above statement acknowledges that social status is at least partially determined by racial markers. That is to say, that racism plays a role in our current social situation. To the degree that race limits one's social access, it partially determines our experience (knowledge) and our opportunities (personal future) within our lifetimes.

My god , man, the question presented by the quote is not an ontological conundrum, but a social one. The issue at hand is neither psychological nor biological. The differences, whatever they are, between the speaker and the commentator are minimal. What is at issue is the social status of the speaker. Each individual's unique "being" may be changeable, fluid within certain channels and in certain conditions, but the "facts" that determine their social status may be rather stable. What then? It is not a question of changing their minds or altering their ontological status via a logical or an epistemic revelation of categorical identity. The quoted statement is meant as a spur to social change via sympathetic adjustment. Your attempt to analyze it in the abstract fails to grasp the salient facts necessary to analyze it accurately.
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 04:33 am
@Eudaimon,
but if there is no transcendent self, which there isn't, then all there is is thoughts, feelings, memories etc, continually shifting, and from these we bring together an image which we identify as "self", which is created by thought, and not real.

so surely is does make sense to think of "ourselves" as just a continuous shifting of thoughts, memories etc.

but even then, there are parts of us, psychologically, which are firmer and more ridgid than other parts. and these parts are sustained by identifying them as "who we are".
0 Replies
 
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 04:37 am
Many people regard those things that are accidental in them, such as their ability to do certain things, their general perceptions of self and the world, to be of necessity, as something that is perceived to have a reality in the world. People do this because of their apparent need for a sense of stability, with regards to their sense of identity, and with regards to their life in general, what it is that they do.

They have a need to possess a strong sense of identity, they want to “know themselves”, and they achieve a sense of this through distorting their perceptions of themselves, by creating an image of themselves that they believe to be fixed, rigid, without changeability. Such people also regard their lifestyles as being fixed and unalterable, precisely because they identify themselves with their habits, and so they see themselves and their habits as one-and-the-same, and it is this distortion, which essentially causes them to confuse necessity and contingency.
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 06:37 am
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:

but if there is no transcendent self, which there isn't, then all there is is thoughts, feelings, memories etc, continually shifting, and from these we bring together an image which we identify as "self", which is created by thought, and not real.

See, shifting necessarily implies Time. So, what is time? When we interact with our memory we find that memories there are somehow organised. Hence comes the conception of time. Now let us be fair: what we call change is just difference in our memories: we remember (have memories) that we, say, did not know something, now we have different memory that we know that. So we say that something changed: we found out something.
So, I repeat again we can say nothing of reality, what we are speaking of is our "inner world" -- memory. When you call yourself a "flux", are you aware that this is not reality?
So, we can just forget about the problem of permanent\impermanent self, simply because time is only an idea. But even if we start speaking on the conventional level, how can you possibly make any statement about yourself at all? You reasoning may refer only to the things which are called objects, but the subject is inognisable just because one cannot look upon himself. "Thou canst not see the seeer..."
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 06:39 am
i believe Popeye said it best

i am, what i am
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 06:48 am
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:

Many people regard those things that are accidental in them, such as their ability to do certain things, their general perceptions of self and the world, to be of necessity, as something that is perceived to have a reality in the world. People do this because of their apparent need for a sense of stability, with regards to their sense of identity, and with regards to their life in general, what it is that they do.

They have a need to possess a strong sense of identity, they want to “know themselves”, and they achieve a sense of this through distorting their perceptions of themselves, by creating an image of themselves that they believe to be fixed, rigid, without changeability. Such people also regard their lifestyles as being fixed and unalterable, precisely because they identify themselves with their habits, and so they see themselves and their habits as one-and-the-same, and it is this distortion, which essentially causes them to confuse necessity and contingency.
VS
Quote:

You like religious people create a miniuniverse, freed from troublesome logic and reason, where nonsens and babble can peacefully exist.
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 07:19 am
@HexHammer,
we each have a self-image, which we take to be "who we are". our sense of self includes things like our perceptions of our own abilities, what we believe we can do, etc. we also identify ourselves with our activities, our weekly jobs etc. these things give us a sense of self, which psychologically, provide a sense of stability in our lives, regarding its meaning.

these perceptions are implicitly understood by some people to be fixed and unalterable, when in fact they are contingent and changeable, but they would rather not acknowledge this, because then their stable sense of themselves, and the meaning of of their lives, become unsettled, and that is disturbing. in order to avoid disturbance, they take their habits, of thinking, and living, to be an intrinsic part of who they are, when they are not.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 07:34 am
@existential potential,
You don't need to answer this, but I'm qurious what kind of job such person with such view, has?
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 07:54 am
@HexHammer,
your just utterly ignoring what I am saying, and asking stupid quesitons.

if what I say is so ridiculous, then show me that it is.
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 08:05 am
@HexHammer,
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Therapy/jiddukrishnamurti_habits.htm

you may find this interesting, but the way this man thinks is not for everyone.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 09:58 am
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:

your just utterly ignoring what I am saying, and asking stupid quesitons.

if what I say is so ridiculous, then show me that it is.
http://able2know.org/topic/164792-1#post-4431693 I belive my other post clearly showed that, how can you come in doubt?

How do you want to agree with something that I consider skitzo statements?
existential potential
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 10:27 am
@HexHammer,
Skitzo statements?

please continue...
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 10:41 am
@existential potential,
existential potential wrote:

Skitzo statements?

please continue...
I have tryed to re-read the thread, and I'm getting confused by your lack of quotation, please put things in quote which makes it easier for thick people like me, to navigate.
0 Replies
 
Eudaimon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 11:27 am
@existential potential,
I like what Krishnamurti says, even though there are passages where I cannot agree with him. And his mysticism... But anyway thanks for the link, I at least shall read it.
Habits... Don't you see there is something beyond habits, something which is aware of them? Some people used to call namely this thing the Self or soul...
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 04:19 pm
@existential potential,
I see it clearer now, if a non theist belive in existance of things coming from another dimention, it's labled as skitzo ramblings, but if a theist belive the same it's oddly not considerd skitzo ramblings in a scientific way.

I belive you are just being supersticious, and "want to see things" in a way they aren't.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The changeability of our being-
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/10/2021 at 02:34:45