This thread is perfectly summed up by its title

[i-am-your-idea]

It's not being pushed forward

yes. i see what you mean but, i feel it really depends on how you look at it.

>>>>>it is being pushed forward without being pushed forward>>>>>​

 

[max_freakout]

it seems as if it is pushed forward

it is 'virtually' moving forwards

 

[cesare]

It's pointing whilst moving backwards.

 

[max_freakout]

"with one hand, the past pushes us forward, with the other, it holds us back"

 

[the button]

if you think it takes effort to carry on being you, just RELAX

I thought you did the whole existentialism thing, max? One of the tenets of which is that being is an activity. Cf Simone de Beauvoir, "One is not born a woman, but becomes one."

One of the more interesting things about contemporary feminism, and its engagement with de Beauvoir is pointing out precisely the effort involved in being.

Or was existentialism last week?

 

[max_freakout]

I thought you did the whole existentialism thing, max? One of the tenets of which is that being is an activity.

there is a level of being which involves constantly acting, choosing, and being responsible, even if you choose to sit around all day, you are still choosing, at this level of being, life is inescapably an activity

but there is a higher level of being, behind the mask of the 'actor', which is purely effortless, transcendent being

 

[cesare]

gnieb tnednecsnart ,sseltroffe ylerup si hcihw ,'rotca' eht fo ksam eht dniheb ,gnieb fo level rehgih a si ereht tub

hT ecaot rihed sebihdnl naugga eroc ahgnsel naugga eots iu tih/seh ruoet rerlfceitno

 

[MysteryGuest]

ǝǝʍ ǝǝʍ

 

[the button]

ǝǝʍ ǝǝʍ

zlol

 

[ViolentPanda]

it requires no effort whatsoever to be yourself

As usual you spout koan-style aphorisms without knowing what you're talking about.
Effort exerted depends entirely on which facet of your self you are allowing the world to see.
No-one reveals their true or entire self, not even those, like you, who claim to have undergone "ego-death".

 

[the button]

Effort exerted depends entirely on which facet of your self you are allowing the world to see.
No-one reveals their true or entire self, not even those, like you, who claim to have undergone "ego-death".

Especially not if, like max, you seem to be positing some kind of "transcendent being" (as opposed to the everyday Being Lite, presumably), which is defined as precisely that which is not shown to others. How convenient.

but there is a higher level of being, behind the mask of the 'actor', which is purely effortless, transcendent being

That seems to be quite a big ontological claim for someone who believes in nothing.

 

[butchersapron]

Indeed, there are more vast claims of this sort from max and co than from any other regular poster in this forum. Which makes me think they approach their 'nothing' claims in the same manner.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Especially not if, like max, you seem to be positing some kind of "transcendent being" (as opposed to the everyday Being Lite, presumably), which is defined as precisely that which is not shown to others. How convenient.

And contradictory. Don't forget contradictory.

That seems to be quite a big ontological claim for someone who believes in nothing.

Remember what I was saying about "contradictory"?

 

[max_freakout]

Effort exerted depends entirely on which facet of your self you are allowing the world to see.

this ^ makes no difference whatsoever to my 'koan'


being yourself is totally effortless, if you relax all efforts, you will not stop existing

therefore being yourself requires no effort whatsoever

and if you think it does require effort just to 'be', then you need to RELAX and see that it doesnt

 

[max_freakout]

positing some kind of "transcendent being" .........which is defined as precisely that which is not shown to others. How convenient.

that is not how i define transcendent being

transcendent being is the being that requires no effort, it is the 'basic' level of being behind the mask of your self-identity

That seems to be quite a big ontological claim for someone who believes in nothing.

i am not making an ontological claim, for precisely the following reason:

"consciousness is nothingness" (- Sartre)

 

[the button]

i am not making an ontological claim, for precisely the following reason:

"consciousness is nothingness" (- Sartre)

there is a higher level of being, behind the mask of the 'actor', which is purely effortless, transcendent being

So saying that something exists isn't making an ontological claim?

Or do claims about the nature of consciousness not count as ontological, because they're claims about something that (in some sense) doesn't exist?

 

[max_freakout]

So saying that something exists isn't making an ontological claim?

Or do claims about the nature of consciousness not count as ontological, because they're claims about something that (in some sense) doesn't exist?

as Sartre pointed out, consciousness isn't a 'thing', it is a no-thing-ness

therefore, by dividing up the being of consciousness into 2 distinct levels (pure effort and effortlessness), i am not positing the existence of anything, and therefore i am not making an ontological claim

because i am only claiming that nothing exists, ie not something

 

[the button]

as Sartre pointed out, consciousness isn't a 'thing', it is a no-thing-ness

therefore, by dividing up the being of consciousness into 2 distinct levels (pure effort and effortlessness), i am not positing the existence of anything, and therefore i am not making an ontological claim

because i am only claiming that nothing exists, ie not something

Do you think (and/or do you think that Sartre thought) that there is a difference between nothing and nothingness?

Also, in a slightly more analytic vein, if consciousness is nothingness, how come it can have properties (such as being divided into two distinctive levels)?

I'm reminded of the Hegelian joke: -
Q: What's red and invisible?
A: No tomatoes.

 

[max_freakout]

Do you think (and/or do you think that Sartre thought) that there is a difference between nothing and nothingness?

they are 2 different forms of the same word, nothingness is the 'state of there being nothing'

Also, in a slightly more analytic vein, if consciousness is nothingness, how come it can have properties (such as being divided into two distinctive levels)?

well i really think there is only one level, the effortless level, the idea that continuing to exist requires some effort on the part of the exister is just a very clever and convincing illusion

to fit that in with what Sartre said, it requires no effort to excersise the 'unlimited existential freedom' of consciousness

 

[the button]

On the one hand,

they are 2 different forms of the same word,

On the other hand,

nothingness is the 'state of there being nothing'

In which case, they're not two different forms of the same word, no?

See, I can count two ontological claims in the short phrase I put in bold, one explicit, one implicit. The claim that there is such-and-such a state, and a claim about the properties of that state (i.e. that 'it is nothing.' Which seems a fairly daft thing to claim, tbh).

It's at times like this when you can see why Heidegger went in for that "scoring" thing he did (putting lines or crosses through words like "being"), because he appreciated the kind of hot water you can land yourself in with this kind of stuff.

well i really think there is only one level, the effortless level, the idea that continuing to exist requires some effort on the part of the exister is just a very clever and convincing illusion

to fit that in with what Sartre said, it requires no effort to excersise the 'unlimited existential freedom' of consciousness

As opposed to the situation of "bad faith" that he describes in Being and nothingness? (The bit about the waiter).

FWIW, this is where I reckon that Heidegger is a far more nuanced thinker than Sartre, because Sartre still seems to be in thrall to a dualistic notion of authenticity.

 

[max_freakout]

In which case, they're not two different forms of the same word, no?

red and redness are both essentially referring to the colour red, same goes with nothing and nothingness

See, I can count two ontological claims in the short phrase I put in bold, one explicit, one implicit. The claim that there is such-and-such a state, and a claim about the properties of that state (i.e. that 'it is nothing.' Which seems a fairly daft thing to claim, tbh).

it is not only daft, it is manifestly absurd to claim that the state of there being nothing, is a state of there being something, or even a state at all

It's at times like this when you can see why Heidegger went in for that "scoring" thing he did (putting lines or crosses through words like "being"), because he appreciated the kind of hot water you can land yourself in with this kind of stuff.

i agree, this is the power of the void, nothing is not something, nothing is not anything

As opposed to the situation of "bad faith" that he describes in Being and nothingness? (The bit about the waiter).

acting in bad faith does not 'oppose' unlimited existential freedom, in fact just the opposite

the waiter is free to pretend that he isnt free

 

[the button]

red and redness are both essentially referring to the colour red, same goes with nothing and nothingness

Like the man said, philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday, so let's examine this using the less bewildering of your two examples.

"The apple is red."
"The apple is redness."

Clearly very different. The latter looks either meaningless or false, in fact. What (if anything) does this tell us about the difference between the following?: -

"Consciousness is nothing."
"Consciousness is nothingness."

 

[max_freakout]

the apple is red

the apple instantiates redness




likewise for consciousness being nothingness