I suspect that churchless skeptics who are drawn to question traditional belief systems also enjoy the feeling of an elevator suddenly descending, when it seems like the floor has fallen away from under your feet.
At least, this is a sensation I frequently have now that I've stopped being a True Believer.
It isn't disconcerting, because after an initial jolt of finding that one more unquestioned assumption needs to be closely examined, it feels good to have discarded an additional piece of conceptual junk which doesn't deserve the prominent positioning it used to have in my Philosophical Display Case.
For example…
This morning I made my way through another chapter, The Pre-Socratics, in the challenging yet stimulating "Philosophy in the Flesh." Authors George Lakoff and Mark Johnson discuss how the notion of Being came to be.
I've always liked that word, Being. It's sort of like the classic definition of pornography offered by a Supreme Court justice: hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
Meaning, I have no idea what Being might be, but I've always assumed that it must be something, and I had a chance of recognizing it. After all, if Being (or Existence, which seems more or less synonymous) didn't exist, how could anything else?
Lakoff and Johnson point out that theological interpretations consider God as Ultimate Being. Science doesn't see a need to ascribe divinity to Being. However, in their search for a Theory of Everything, scientists also assume that there is some root essence to the cosmos.
The main point of "Philosophy in the Flesh" is that humans habitually use metaphors derived from our bodily experiences to understand supposedly abstract or higher-level facets of reality.
Rarely, though, do we try to understand where those understandings come from. We take certain assumptions for granted, then run off with them as we proclaim, "This is how the way things are!"
Well, maybe. But maybe not.
Take Being, for example. Lakfoff and Johnson say that this notion is founded on four folk theories that all the pre-Socratics shared, and which have been passed down to us moderns.
(1) The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.
(2) The Folk Theory of General Kinds
Every particular thing is a kind of thing.
(3) The Folk Theory of Essences
Every entity has an "essence" or "nature," that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and is the causal source of its natural behavior.
(4) The Folk Theory of the All-Inclusive Category
There is a category of all things that exist.
Here's how #4 is explained:
From the Folk Theory of Essences, it follows that this all-inclusive category has an essence, and from the Folk Theory of Intelligibility, it follows that we can at least in principle gain knowledge of that essence. This all-inclusive category is called Being, and its essence is called the Essence of Being.
…As we will see below, there is a profound problem that arises from this ultimate metaphysical impulse, as defined by these four commonplace folk theories. They lead us to ask a set of questions that may not be meaningful. And they give us a view of the world and of knowledge that may be misleading.
…Someone who believes all those folk theories will, of course, assume that the Realm of Being is real and that the problems of metaphysics (concerning the nature of Being) are real problems.
This is pretty damn Zen'ish, though intellectually spoken.
Remember that Being/God are essentially the same, notwithstanding the secular/religious connotations associated with these words. "Being" and "God" are considered to be ultimate reality, the essence of the cosmos, the infinite ocean of no-thing within which all discrete things float.
Well, who says? Us embodied human beings, who come up with theories about how the world works based on our human experiences.
So billions of people believe that a holy book or enlightened person can be trusted when a claim is made: "Being/God is ___________ (fill in the blank)"
Love. Consciousness. Energy. Grace. Whatever.
What's more important than the words used to describe Being/God is the fact that (1) this all-inclusive entity is believed to exist, and (2) it has an essence that can be known, even if imperfectly, by humans.
Again: Maybe. Maybe not.
This whole notion of Being may not be valid. "Being" could be a concept with zero substance. Or even if substantially real, there could be no essence associated with the substance — no what to go with it's is.
So to ask "What is Being?" or "What is God?" could be meaningless questions. These are metaphorical concepts that spring from assumptions which usually go unexamined. We assume the existence of an ultimate entity, then struggle to figure out what Being or God is like.
I just lifted my cup and had a sip of coffee. It tasted pretty damn real.
Much more real than any airy-fairy idea of Being or God. Each to his own, but I'm inclined to focus my attention on stuff that can be demonstrated to actually exist — not abstractions conjured up by human minds.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
this here is, by far, your best blog to date, imo.
In the fleeting passage of phenomena consciousness behaves actively and reactively. We are not part of this phenomenal parade or charade if you like, but are always prior to it. In reality, nothing moves and there is only stillness.
The idea of life can only exist where there is the idea of death. In the absence of both concepts what remains is what we are and this cannot come and go. It is present yet hidden in all states, this stillness, but always continuously available as it is.
Forever we try to uncover an answer. We blog on and on imagining anything is happening at all and there is a solution to it.
The non-answer is the gap between thoughts. Mind doesn’t like gaps and tries to fill them. The Gap is the enemy of existence, the enemy of self, the enemy of ‘I’.
The Gap is an empty stillness that blows away the mind and self. In it, the mind evaporates and there are no dimensions. You are the biggest, the smallest and everything possible and impossible. You are infinite space and no space at all.
The Gap is so light that it is unbearable and we continuously seek to fill it. Ironically we resist that which we seek. It’s our home where no home exists.
Come into the gap where you can’t exist.
Do you dare?
Al. A. Mo, thanks for the poetic comment. But neuroscience has found that even when conscious thought processes are stilled, the brain is still churning away, doing all kinds of other stuff.
So it isn’t really possible to produce an empty “gap” in our consciousness, since much of what goes on in the brain lies outside of our conscious control.
“So it isn’t really possible to produce an empty “gap” in our consciousness”
Right, but there is a gap between thoughts where consciousness/being, as it is, resides.
Well, that’s a theory. For thousands of years philosophers, mystics, and others have tried to figure out the nature of “Being,” assuming it even exists. Lots of opinions, including your own. No facts. Each to his own, when it comes to Being.
I’d suggest that even in between thoughts, the human brain still is producing consciousness. Otherwise no one would be aware of not having thoughts.
It’s difficult for me to accept that a product of the human brain is “Being,” which seemingly would be much more transcendent.
“Otherwise no one would be aware of not having thoughts.”
–That is the experience of no self. No one to know it. That is the truth.
In “Being” the human brain and its products seem to appear if there is someone self-identified via thought processes to conceive them. Otherwise, NOTHING IS for what would know it?
There is nothing. Never was. Never will be.
That is the only possible answer.
How could something come out of nothing?
“But there appears to be something”, says the shoemaker.
Only if there is an imaginary entity to think so.
Death: “If ya ain’t got nothin’ you ain’t got nothin’ to lose.” -Dylan
Unrelated link but still of interest
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-i-am-no-longer-a-christian/