Being and Becoming

[Philosophy Now]

Christopher Macann explains the basis of his ‘genetic’ system of phenomenology.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/61/Being_and_Becoming

[consultrsw]

Chris,
Was a bit unnerving seeing how similar your work is to mine, but of course in many ways very different.
Maybe there is some way we might collaborate.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/revised- ... le-publish

Best,
Richard Waguespack, Ph.D., LCSW

[A_Seagull]

This really seems to be nothing more than a fairy tale, castles in the clouds, a fantasy.

An amusement perhaps, but that is all.

[Nick_A]

So now we have an ontological phenomenology which, so far from excluding transcendental philosophy and dismissing empirical, positivist, pragmatic, analytic philosophy, includes all these as stages in the genesis of human consciousness. From this we find that the development of consciousness is paid for at the cost of a diminishment of the being-relation. The more human being develops itself, its conscious resources, the less it remains one with itself and with that in which it finds itself. To employ an expression borrowed from Heidegger: “the more consciousness, the less being.” Is this not the very predicament we face today, as thinking subjects capable of a scientific understanding and a technological mastery and domination over the material universe? In the 19th century people assumed scientific progress would automatically bring with it an unlimited extension of human well-being – only for us to discover that this very same science and technology is bringing us to the brink of destruction. Where previously we tended to disparage so-called ‘primitive’ cultures and civilizations, we now study them assiduously, to learn from them how to live in a symbiotic relation with nature and at peace with ourselves.

"I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science." Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

Must Man be doomed to serve machines and destroy himself in the process or can man become Man with a quality of understanding in which machines serve Man? Most seem to think like seagull and believe these questions are absurd. The mind expanding ideas within the article are only for a minority. The majority will either ignore or ridicule them. It is ironic but the collective survival of our species may well depend upon the influence of this rejected minority.

[A_Seagull]

[. It is ironic but the collective survival of our species may well depend upon the influence of this rejected minority.

Yep, it is called a shared madness.

[Dalek Prime]

Not being saves on having to become something. I like the shortest path. Call me lazy or just efficient.

[Dalek Prime]

So now we have an ontological phenomenology which, so far from excluding transcendental philosophy and dismissing empirical, positivist, pragmatic, analytic philosophy, includes all these as stages in the genesis of human consciousness. From this we find that the development of consciousness is paid for at the cost of a diminishment of the being-relation. The more human being develops itself, its conscious resources, the less it remains one with itself and with that in which it finds itself. To employ an expression borrowed from Heidegger: “the more consciousness, the less being.” Is this not the very predicament we face today, as thinking subjects capable of a scientific understanding and a technological mastery and domination over the material universe? In the 19th century people assumed scientific progress would automatically bring with it an unlimited extension of human well-being – only for us to discover that this very same science and technology is bringing us to the brink of destruction. Where previously we tended to disparage so-called ‘primitive’ cultures and civilizations, we now study them assiduously, to learn from them how to live in a symbiotic relation with nature and at peace with ourselves.

"I believe that one identical thought is to be found—expressed very precisely and with only slight differences of modality—in. . .Pythagoras, Plato, and the Greek Stoics. . .in the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita; in the Chinese Taoist writings and. . .Buddhism. . .in the dogmas of the Christian faith and in the writings of the greatest Christian mystics. . .I believe that this thought is the truth, and that it today requires a modern and Western form of expression. That is to say, it should be expressed through the only approximately good thing we can call our own, namely science. This is all the less difficult because it is itself the origin of science." Simone Weil….Simone Pétrement, Simone Weil: A Life, Random House, 1976, p. 488

Must Man be doomed to serve machines and destroy himself in the process or can man become Man with a quality of understanding in which machines serve Man? Most seem to think like seagull and believe these questions are absurd. The mind expanding ideas within the article are only for a minority. The majority will either ignore or ridicule them. It is ironic but the collective survival of our species may well depend upon the influence of this rejected minority.

What's ironic about it? And why must man survive? I hear it all the time, but no one can give good reason for the need for humankind in the universe, without getting all nostalgic for their own humanity and survival.

[Nick_A]

DP wrote

What's ironic about it? And why must man survive? I hear it all the time, but no one can give good reason for the need for humankind in the universe, without getting all nostalgic for their own humanity and survival.

It is ironic because the understanding this small minority has is essential for the survival of ur species regardless of how strongly it is condemned in Plato's cave.

If mankind is destroyed by a large asteroid hitting the earth and killing everything on it, the universe will go on serving its purpose. We are not so important that the universe must collopse because of our destruction. Other life forms take our place in service to universal needs. However we do have a survival instinct like any other animal making our lives appear important.

[AFTE]

Even though I am not a professional philosopher, I love wisdom!

After seventy years of searching, I have come to the conclusion that Being is Becoming! They are two interrelated aspects of existence and can be considered to be Undifferentiated Reality of potentials and differentiated reality of actualities manifesting in specific deimensions.

The current Universe of 3 dimensions (or more as some scientists claim) of space and one of time is just one manifestation of becoming. Humans (I name them human becomings, rather than human beings) have the potentials for transcendence from lower levels of becoming to higher levels from which we transit into Being through death.

Energy, matter, life, human brain, mind and spirit are transcendent emergents from antecedent substrates. Subjectivity and objectivity are united as a dyad in human experience. Neuroscience will ultimately confirm this understanding.

Abraham Kurien, M.D.