Any agent has two things, essence, and nature. Our essence is what we are, minds. Our natures are how we are. Thoughts which are the byproduct of mind activity resides in the mind forever after it is produced.odysseus wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:21 pmIt is an odd thing to say, really. A contradiction: If I am, then, in order to be becoming, I have to not BE, but in a process of becoming to be; a kind of yet-to-be.
It is familiar territory if you have read the presocratics. Parmenides and Heraclitus presented the conflict between these two concepts, being and becoming long ago, but it is not as if it was ever resolved, for they figure is a major way into contemporary issues: If I am becoming I have already presented the contradiction of what I am, both being and becoming at once.
They question is, which describes what we "are"? Do I have an existence, so to speak, or am I continuously existing in the progressive tense? If it's the latter, then what bearing does this have on how we can understanding the basic structure of a human being? What about truth, actuality, facts: are these not all, in their conception, informed by a concept of experience from which they are derived? That is, experience is foundational for an analysis of what things are as it is in this and through this we receive the world. If experience is ceaselessly in motion, then the facts, the truths, the knowledge, the world must be understood in the same fashion. Truth is not Truth, but a changing condition, a truthING, if you will, e.g.
All that is put forth here is derived from reading others. One does not think in a vacuum producing thought ex nihilo. Where these thoughts GO is another matter entirely.
Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests