Philosophy Now Forum

To whom is the original question being asked? Seems to me we could only ask another humans. From that point onward, we must be prepared for a vicissitude of equally valid responses. What is it like to be a human being? The galley-slave or a Roman Caesar? Both are human beings, but see the world from quite different frames of reference. An interesting question would be could the expected roles be reversed.

John K wrote:To whom is the original question being asked? Seems to me we could only ask another humans. From that point onward, we must be prepared for a vicissitude of equally valid responses. What is it like to be a human being? The galley-slave or a Roman Caesar? Both are human beings, but see the world from quite different frames of reference. An interesting question would be could the expected roles be reversed.

John, suppose a German Shepherd, a Collie, a Poodle, and a Golden Retriever are all asked what it is like to be a dog? They may all answer from their unique perspective but does either answer the question of what it is like to be a dog?

Is there an essence of Man and is there an essence of dog that can answer the question of what it is like to be a man or a dog?

Nick_A wrote:For me human potential is defined by what we ARE in comparison to the potential for human "being."

uhm... what was that? Human potential is human potential? Now you're being circular.

Nick_A wrote:Human potential for you seems to be defined by secular societal standards. It is defined by what we DO in relation to societal norms.

I don't know about societal, I'd not say it has anything to do with society. And secular seems inaccurate and inappropriate as a word, it has nothing to do with religion. I think it's very possible for a person to achieve "religious/spiritual" potentials, I just: 1) make it clear for you that there are other alternatives and nothing like any "one" potential for anything, and 2) if somebody achieved something in a "religious/spiritual" sense, it would appear for me like they have found some kind of activity, found some appropriate way of conducting it, found people who happened to be particularly emotionally and psychologically open for it, and together they have created a group of mutually recognizing individuals. The religious/spiritual gibberish talk and teachings would mean nothing to me, to me they would be like kids in their own fantasy world with made up rules enjoying their time playing, not caring about what is real and what is not.

Nick_A wrote:

John K wrote:To whom is the original question being asked? Seems to me we could only ask another humans. From that point onward, we must be prepared for a vicissitude of equally valid responses. What is it like to be a human being? The galley-slave or a Roman Caesar? Both are human beings, but see the world from quite different frames of reference. An interesting question would be could the expected roles be reversed.

John, suppose a German Shepherd, a Collie, a Poodle, and a Golden Retriever are all asked what it is like to be a dog? They may all answer from their unique perspective but does either answer the question of what it is like to be a dog?

Is there an essence of Man and is there an essence of dog that can answer the question of what it is like to be a man or a dog?

What I'm suggesting is that the question is unanswerable, or at least a question that contains no complete answer. Perhaps we should ask an external observer, not the subject. I paraphrase the French thinker Jacques Lacan; "It is impossible to tell the truth, we do not have enough words."

VoT

uhm... what was that? Human potential is human potential? Now you're being circular.

Many define "being" as existence compared to non-existence. From that perspective what I wrote made no sense. However I believe in the relativity of being as a measure of objective quality. This would be difficult to explain now from scratch.

But appreciating the relativity of being makes for example the Emerald Tablet's "As above, so below," and Heraclitus' "The way up and the way down are one and the same," meaningful. Both imply a scale of the relativity of "being."

So from the point of view of the relativity of being and what Man IS, human potential is not only physical but conscious. For some reason those appreciating the evolution of the physical form often reject man's continuing evolution as conscious evolution - a higher quality of being. Keeping the question open leads to pondering possibilities that can answer a lot of questions as to the man's objective meaning and purpose within a universal scheme.

make it clear for you that there are other alternatives and nothing like any "one" potential for anything.

But if the evolutionary potential for man does not end with the physical form but continues on to conscious evolution, then conscious evolution is the objective potential for the "being" of Man.

"Nothing can have as its destination anything other than its origin. The contrary idea, the idea of progress, is poison." Simone Weil

Conscious evolution is simply the way back from the quality of being from which Man devolved. So understanding what it is like to be a human being requires being open to pondering our origin.

John

What I'm suggesting is that the question is unanswerable, or at least a question that contains no complete answer. Perhaps we should ask an external observer, not the subject. I paraphrase the French thinker Jacques Lacan; "It is impossible to tell the truth, we do not have enough words."

Yes, but it does point to the psychological direction Plato referred to as that which connects knowledge and opinions - the world of forms with the phenomenal world. IMO the philosophic value of pondering is in opening to this vertical psychological direction connecting knowledge to its virtual infinity of devolved expression through opinions.

Nick_A wrote: Yes, but it does point to the psychological direction Plato referred to as that which connects knowledge and opinions - the world of forms with the phenomenal world. IMO the philosophic value of pondering is in opening to this vertical psychological direction connecting knowledge to its virtual infinity of devolved expression through opinions.

Excellent point, and a nice description.

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about at all, any of you.

What is a "devolved expression"?

What's a "vertical psychological direction"?

"Conscious evolution is simply the way back from the quality of being from which Man devolved." What does this mean? Have you been in the past and seen evolution happen, is that how you come at this notion? Or are you just making assumptions?

"But if the evolutionary potential" You mean everybody's ability to become virtually anything? "for man does not end with the physical form but continues on to conscious evolution," I guess it's true since there are types of conscious thought that are more suited for survival, then again all contents of consciousness, all the stream of consciousness, is adapted for the time and place, so might be a tricky argument, since what's good content for consciousness now might have been less good at other times when other thoughts were needed, or other places for that matter "then conscious evolution is the objective potential for the 'being' of Man." Still not helping, 'being' means existing, it's a synonym. It has instantiations, which are called characters, a character of being. You can evolve your being I guess, if you further use 'being' as another word for character, but it will still be a pretty useless complication for something so simple, it would just end up meaning that a specific instance of the term being, for instance a specific human being, would evolve, then to another character.

Nick_A wrote:So from the point of view of the relativity of being and what Man IS,

Why do you only talk about men? Why no women? Are they excepted? Seems a bit sexist.

Nick_A wrote:human potential is not only physical but conscious.

More obvious you can't be. If there was no potential for consciousness I would not be able to change the contents of my consciousness.

Nick_A wrote:For some reason those appreciating the evolution of the physical form often reject man's continuing evolution as conscious evolution - a higher quality of being.

They do? That's not my experience. The quality of my body and mind is a lot better than those before me, and wouldn't be much of an evolution if it wasn't. Richly nourished, richly educated (at least compared to previous generations), and lots of opportunities which I've seized to develop both my mind and body, and a health care system that takes care of any unwanted aspects like disease and the like. I'd say there's never been a better quality for human bodies and minds.

And about conscious evolution, there are lots of people all over the world which work in the field of "Evolution of Psychology", so the psyche is far from left behind in evolution study.

But appreciating the relativity of being makes for example the Emerald Tablet's "As above, so below," and Heraclitus' "The way up and the way down are one and the same," meaningful. Both imply a scale of the relativity of "being."

As metaphors they are very much meaningful, but they don't have any specific meaning, they are like art, and you give them your own meaning. The first could be a reference to situations where everybody are affected, whether it's "God's and humans", "upper class and lower class", "tall people and small people", "people with elevated seats and people with lower lying seats", and so forth. The second could imply that whether you make one choice or another choice you will have to make it and will have to stick with it. A many other such could be made, if the author had the intention for any clear meaning with it: they would've provided it. Or maybe they're just messing with your head, who knows if not the ancient Greeks and the rest of the ancient world had a bit of humour?

VoT

If you want to understand concepts like "levels of reality" and "vertical psychological direction," you may profit from reading Chapter One of Jacob Needleman's book "A Sense of the Cosmos"

http://www.rawpaint.com/library/jneedleman/jnch1a.html

When you read part three of chapter one, "A Conscious Universe," you may begin to appreciate this vertical direction of "being" and the value of what it opens us to for those seeking objective meaning and purpose.

If you can't tell me here now I think I'd waste my time reading it myself.

I like that there were a lot of comments added since I last visited. I'll have to say that my most favored part of being a human were the the times when I could aerial somersault...I can't do it anymore, the older I get the less physically active I become. Here's a video of when I had a ton of energy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmGqAyU0lk

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:47 pm John

What I'm suggesting is that the question is unanswerable, or at least a question that contains no complete answer. Perhaps we should ask an external observer, not the subject. I paraphrase the French thinker Jacques Lacan; "It is impossible to tell the truth, we do not have enough words."

Yes, but it does point to the psychological direction Plato referred to as that which connects knowledge and opinions - the world of forms with the phenomenal world. IMO the philosophic value of pondering is in opening to this vertical psychological direction connecting knowledge to its virtual infinity of devolved expression through opinions.

What???