Being and Presence E-Book

Ulf Skei

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 325

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Beschreibung

Being and Presence is an ontological essay. This meaning it is a work dealing with existence and being with a focus on the quality of presence from an existentialist point of departure. For the aspiring existentialist this is a handbook, a guide to being for Itself and the demands such an existence de facto poses. Every section of the essay is exemplified by a brief prosaic example to illustrate terms or ideas under scrutiny.

Leseprobe

Being and Presence

PrefaceBeing And Non Being - The Existence Of NihilBeing And Presence - Presence As BeingBeing As ConsciousnessBeing As Awareness Of ExistenceConsciousness As Transcending AwarenessBeing Defined As Reflected TranscendenceTranscendence And Fear Of The OtherThe Other As Doorway To Being For ItselfAuthenticity And The Self As Object Of IntentionalitySelf As Only Necessary Mode Of BeingDifferentiating The Self From The OtherSelf-image And DelusionThe Being For Itself As Negation Of The VoidThe Self; Temporality And Being - The Problem Of PresenceContrasting I As Subject Against It As Object. The I As Awareness Of What It NegatesThe I As Awareness Of What It NegatesNegation As Tribute To Freedom Of OpinionThe Emergence of NihilThe Necessity of NihilNihil And The Negation Of ExistenceThe I As Primary Mode Of BeingThe First Person Being In Itself Struggling For RecognitionTrue Versus False First Person NarrativeThe Other As ProjectThe OtherThe Other As Object Of Intentionality - Positional ConsiderationsThe GazeHierarchical Structures And OthernessAwareness Of The Other As Thetical Project Or As Dogmatic PreferenceThe Self As Being To And For The OtherAccepting The Contrasting Being As Reflection Of Ones Self In The Gaze Of The OtherSigns Of A Toxic Sticky BeingSpace Time And ExistenceTime As Sequenced SpatialityPresence And Being As Modes Of ExistencePresence And DesirePositionality As Mode Of PresenceFalse Presence And A Thesis Of The SelfBeing And The True Presence Of First Person Is ImperativePresence As Thetical Project Versus BeingAbsence And The Decay Of BeingConquering The Rift Of NihilPure Versus Impure PresenceTrue And False Gaze - The Case Of IntentionalityPresence As That Which It Is NotBeing And Presence. Constructing The I In Being As Projected Reflection Of ItselfPresence And Reflected Being As Departure Towards The Projected Leading CharacterThe It As Subject. I As Exposed Being, Subject Or Object? False Reflection?Reflection As Mode Of ExistenceIt As Reflected NeedIt As ContrastThe Nihilistic Presence Of Being As ThreatDefying The Void And Traversing NihilCreating Somethingness Out Of NothingnessDenying The ObjectThe Object As Desired State Of BeingThe Necessity Of ObjectificationSolipsistic Being As Subjective ProjectSolipsistical Points Of Departure Necessary Ab DefinitioOtherness And The Solipsist SolutionAcknowledging The Other While Managing SolisSubject As Thetical Or Antithetical Modus VivendiThetical Considerations Pertaining To Subject PositionSubjective Presence In BeingPresence, Consciousness And IntentionalityConsciousness As Awareness Of The Other As Challenge To Its Own Subject PositionConclusive DiscussionRhyme And ReasonCopyright

Introductory Remarks

A few clarifying remarks would probably be a good practice at this point.

The work at hand is an ontological essay on Being and Presence. A discussion of subjectivity and objectivity versus the individual being as such. Discussion will for the most part focus on contrasting aspects of the individual as project and duality towards the other.

The nature of Being, and its contrasting modes, have been discussed previously by for instance Sartre “Being and Nothingness” and Heidegger “Being and Time”. This work is a child of their pages. Nothing is given a priori. We spend each and every day of our existence creating ourselves from the empty vessel we were from birth. There is one category of existentialist which believe there is a god. This god is only a creator of the raw material we as humans model ourselves during our existence. The other category believe there is no god or ‘higher being’ and there never was one. We are the result of natural processes, biology and chemistry. To me Existentialism is a perfect label for the nature of the movement this ontology pertains to. It describes the ongoing struggle to find our personal, very individual, nature in this universe. It describes the contrast to that illusive entity labeled ‘Nothingness’, the ‘anti’ Being. I am struggling to find a better label than nothingness to describe my vision of that entity. ‘Nihil’ and ‘Void’ are the terms I will apply to label the opposite of ‘Being’. So, this essay deals with the struggle to define and create Being and Presence in contrast to the ‘Nihil’, the void, always threatening to overtake Being and the honest reflection of a self, to erase those lines of you, of me, from our identity and existence. For that is what it is; an eternal fight to overcome the Nihil, to fill the void with Being. This struggle craves a personal sacrifice, it demands of us to be authentical in our strive. To be honest about the nature of Existence and Being. We have to be true to our position in the world. Have to accept our total freedom and our individual responsibility visavi existence. These are basic tenets of Existentialism, but for those not yet aware of the basics I will define it a bit.

Freedom. Yes, in existentialist thought we are all totally free. As there is no a priori ethics handed out by divine intervention, each of us is free to do what he/she believes to be advantageous. Or not. However, the backside to this two-faced realm is of course that we may be free, but we have a responsibility to chose. Continuously. In every situation we have to chose how to deal with it. ‘Ah’, you think, ‘that’s easy. Just go for the easiest way out every time’. Well, that may be so, but there is also the bit about responsibility. We have to chose. Always. Because we are free. Always. But we also have to think of the fact that whatever we do, everybody else may also chose to do. This due to the fact that when we chose a thing or an action, we say that ‘doing this is ok for all humanity’. An example would for instance be if a person decided to dispose of a trash bin out in the street. Maybe at night thinking nobody will know it was me. Nobody will care about this one bag of trash. That might or might not be so. What we have to remember is that the moment we dispose of garbage in the street we also give permission to everybody else to do exactly that; dispose of garbage in the street. This is the responsibility bit. So we have to remember the two sides to the coin; Freedom versus Responsibility. I think now you may be getting the picture.

This essay is a discussion of certain aspects of this picture, aspects I feel have yet to be treated in detail. These aspects are mostly about, as I mentioned in the above, subjectivity versus objectivity, and the applying of grammatical personal position in reasoning, and to which extent this may or, indeed, may not affect our internal struggle to bring reason to the essence of our being.

Whereas some scholars may see the surroundings as inevitable part in shaping the individual Being, I say it is not. The collective is only a construct to make society easier to handle for the weaker individuals. To allow some social boundaries or limitations to de facto be part of creating oneself is to be untrue, inauthentic, to existence. We are all alone. I would say to be true, to be authentic, one has to limit ones reasoning to oneself, and in arguing that ‘if I do this, which is good to me, beneficial, this might happen as a result, which is not good to me or in fact to anybody, therefore I would not do this’, one might be on the way to becoming an existentialist. Some have approached this subject from a strictly Socialist viewpoint. Arguing that the common responsibility and the fact that we depend also on the choices of all other human beings make it a socialist line of reasoning. I beg to differ. Existentialism is not socialist, far from it. In fact one might just as easily argue that it is based in conservative or liberal reasoning, expressing the significance of the individual, and setting this individual as centerpoint of the universe, of Existence as such. I would, as conclusion of this introduction, strongly suggest it is a humanist line of reasoning, one markedly coloured by liberal/conservative lines of reasoning, but mainly humanist in that it allows, nay ‘craves’, each and every one of us have to be true to their own becoming the best and most free Being possible without any kind of divine intervention.

Moreover, this is in no way a professional philosophical thesis. I do not claim to have the skill to write that kind of work. No, this is a linguist and poet looking at existence. An interested discussion with being and presence taking center stage.

Now hold on to your hats and follow me down Existentialist lane for a ride truer than any you’ve ever taken!

❖

Being And Non Being - The Existence Of Nihil

Being And Non Being - The Existence Of Nihil

Nihil. Being. Non Being. A threesome of confusing themes. One might say that this is what this essay is all about. Being and Non Being - The Existence of Nihil.

So how can one claim that Nihil, that which is the antithesis of Being, exists? Moreover, if Nihil does indeed exist, what exactly ‘is’ it? Those and a couple of related issues will be discussed here.

Being is a mode of existence meaning possessing Being for Itself or in Itself or for Others. Being for Itself means having a Self. Being an individual entity with a mindset, able to transcend. Being for Itself is the Subject of its own as well as of others’ existence. Being in Itself means existing in a more basic manner. An object has Being in Itself. It is confined within the limits of its physical boundary. It can not transcend. It belongs to the world of Objects. Being for Others is a Being as seen by other Beings. Being for Others can be a Subject as well as an Object. To gain Being for Itself one must be reflected by the gaze of the Other, without being Objectified by said Other. The opposite to Being is of course Non Being. Henceforth ‘Nihil’. Not Being. Nothing, one might assume, but this is too narrow an observation.

Non Being, or ‘Nihil’. That which is not. But, somebody might argue, if it is not, how can it be said to be? -Good question. Let me put it thusly; It can be said to ‘Be’ precisely because it is. It is the counter point, the anti thesis, the opposite to Being. As an opposite of course it ‘is’. One can almost, not totally but almost, touch it. It is what one has to pass through to transcend to the Other. It is always there. Separating one from the Other, from the world of Objects. However close to another Being one stands, there is always a distance filled by Nihil separating the two. Even us Beings for Itselves are made up of mostly Nihil. Between every electron, every neutron, every atom and molecule, there is Nihil. This is what we are. A grid of atoms and molecules separated by the same Nihil across which one has to transcend to acknowledge or be acknowledged by the Other.

In other words; we are like the universe in miniature. Our atoms are like solar systems spread out across the tiny galaxy which we are. Each of us a galaxy. Bumping across the vast Voids and onto each other. Our Beings like super novas exploding with ‘will to be’. The Void, the Nihil, is that Non Being, which has its own Purposeful Being, is part of us all and not. It is the distance to run to reach the other, and it is what is between every atom of me as well as you. We are grids of Being and Nihil. Our atoms and molecules converse across our inner vast deserts of Nihil. They hold together all that which is us. We are Being and Non Being and Nihil is everywhere that we are.

This deserves an explanatory example. Let us put on our imaginary summer suits and dresses and take a walk in Kowloon, Hong Kong.

We start our leisurely walk as we leave the Star ferry arriving from Hong Kong Island to the mainland and Kowloon. The smells and sounds transports us from the very real day to day existence to that fairy tale being that is life in Hong Kong. We follow a man on a trip while writing a novel. He is called Alan. Alan De Fault. He walks across the busy harbor street and enters the Hilton lobby for a cup of tea and a salami sandwich. Our friend is an existentialist, which makes him reason a lot as regards Being, Nihil and Existence as such. Today is no exception. Alan enjoys his luncheon, and reads a few articles in the South China Morning Post. He notices a porter carrying a guest’s suitcases towards the elevators. He ponders the facticity of the situation. ‘Look, there we have a person who has Being for Itself, the guest. He is clearly in charge of his existence. And we have another person, the Porter, who was a Being for Itself until he put on the dress of the Porter and sold his Being for Itself to his employer, and to every guest that makes use of his services. He is transformed from a Being for Itself carrying individual to a robot, a Being for Others, a whatever the other decides person.’ Our good man, Alan De Fault, reasons with himself. He finds the situation for the employed classes interesting. Not good or bad per se, no, simply interesting.

‘I wonder how this Porter reasons about his situation?’ Alan De Fault is currently writing an ontological essay on Being and Freedom. He believes every man or woman taking up employment is selling their Being for Itself. He waves at the Porter, to ask him about his situation.

“Hello, my good man, I wonder, your position, your situation, in your opinion, would you say that you are displaying Being for Itself, or as Such?, I mean, are you being yourself while you work, or are you playing a role or simply existing?” The Porter watched our friend for a while, not knowing what to make of the strange question. Then he decided to cross the nihil between them and reply.

“Well, Sir, I honestly haven’t thought of it that much, but to be truthful, I kind of empty myself when I start work in the morning, and take myself back when I take off the Porter suit in the afternoon. I think I play a role all day.” The Porter saluted Alan De Fault and went about his business. Our friend Alan pondered the answer, tasted it and thought to himself. ‘Interesting. He is something, a Being for Itself, in the morning, and then takes his own being off with his private suit. Then he assumes a false Being, plays a role of a Porter all day. He is not himself and he is not the Porter. In that case he puts on the suit of Nihil, the Void, when he takes on the role of Porter.’ Alan is intrigued. ‘This means that Nihil is born as the man assumes the role of a Porter. He puts his Being aside and is neither himself, nor the Porter - as the Porter does not exist other than as an assumed identity - a Being in Spe, and he is indeed taking on the jacket of Nihil. A walking Void.’ Alan is almost shaking. This confirms the thesis he has been arguing all along, that Nihil is Born out of necessity as a person escapes their Being for Itself and assumes a false Being. Takes on a mask. ‘The Being is discarded, the Non Being put on. What have we? Nothing. We have just seen the birth of Nihil. A Void taking the place once occupied by Being for Itself.’ There we see an example of this terrible but very common development. In order to communicate his tasks across the Void our Porter takes on a mask of Void himself. Becomes Void yet pretends to have Being as he communicates with the hotel guests. He assumes Non Being so that the Hotel guests may retain their Being. As Guests and as Beings for Itself. He becomes a Non Entity. Part of the Nihil separating people from each other. A Being not present or Itself.

❖

Being And Presence - Presence As Being

Being And Presence - Presence As Being

Presence, the illusive modifier to Being. Modifier? Maybe even more prominent. Follow me down the existentialist lane and we shall have a look into the concept.

Presence is the second half of the title of this essay. This essay which is an Ontology, meaning an essay about or concerning Being. In this I am proposing that Being, possessing Being for Itself or Being in Itself, or Being for the Other, is dependent on having Presence. Being present. Thusly I put rather more weight into the concept than being a modifier. A modifier is something modifying another item which is a complete and operative Being. It doesn’t have to be a Being for Itself, or rather it is not a Being for Itself until it has been modified.

Presence comes in several modes. There is Presence as Such, which is the mode of inanimate objects. The world of Objects has Presence as Such. This means it has Being and Presence. Being in Itself and Presence as Such. Presence as Such points at the Presence of an Object. Presence of something unable of transcending. Of a Being without for Itself.

A more complex mode of Presence is Presence reflected by Otherness. This is not easily disentangled. It is the presence of that which is an Object or a Subject as reflected by the Otherness inhabiting the world outside of ones own Being for Itself and outside ones own Presence. This may for example be the reflection of oneself in the gaze of the other. It may also, of course, be the presence of Objects appearing as reflected Beings in Itself in the same gaze of the Other. Presence reflected by Otherness is also the reflected Being as viewed on a reflective surface. A mirror or a reflective plane of glass, for example.

A final mode of Presence, and that which a Being for Itself may display, is Presence of and for Itself. We are here talking of the presence of a Being for Itself. It is a presence of Itself. It needs no reflection to Be. It always is, but to become a presence of and for Itself the Being needs to acquire Being for Itself. Having obtained Being for Itself, the Being as such may command presence of itself. The Being is in control of the Presence of Itself. This is self explanatory, and at the same time quite confusing. To manage a presence ‘of and for’ Itself, the Being which can perform presence of Itself to other Beings and Presences, needs to nihilate the separating of its self from its Being for Itself. This, then, suggests opening a transcending corridor between self and Being for Itself. Once this has been established, the presence of Itself is in the position to actually become present for Itself. This is an aspect of regarding ones own Being for Itself, of transcending across or nihilating the inner Otherness separating Self from Being for Itself. Thusly we have Presence of and for Itself. Our presence is complete. This deserves an example, to illustrate the ideas put forth.

So. Let us take a walk in a park in old Stockholm. Our main character, a lady in her thirties, walks along one of the paths on her way towards the castle area. She stops by an old Cafe, the Grey Monk’s cellar, for an espresso. A pigeon walks by outside the entrance. She notices it briefly while handling her purse and entering the establishment. Here we notice interesting developments; the introduction of the presence of a dove, which is not all uncommon in the old town, but which here is combined with the entering the cafe and dealing with the purse in preparation for the purchasing of coffee. This is a disaster waiting to happen, and points at the importance of being fully present in every daily undertaking or project. As the prospected reader in spe might have guessed by now, the combination of three occurrences simultaneously introduces distraction and prepares for disaster. Indeed, our lady enters the premises while still pondering the dove. This means she is not fully aware of what is happening in her proximity. A certain Elrod V Illain, pickpocket and generally not very trustworthy, notices our lady walking distractedly towards him, and how she is handling her purse while gazing into the far. He allows himself to get hold of said purse, after which he hurriedly leaves the cafe. Our lady notices little of this. Part of her is still seeing that dove, while another part is already at her upcoming meeting with a director at a museum.

Our lady orders caffe and a Napoleon Pastry, walks to a nice table a few yards from the counter. She is quite relaxed, and starts reading a newspaper. The girl arrives with her caffe and pastry. She leaves the bill. There are a few persons entering and leaving the cafe while our main character enjoys a few leisurely minutes. She looks about her. She enjoys these antique cafes.

‘This is very nice indeed’ she thinks to herself. She starts looking for the purse in her handbag, to pay for the coffee. It is nowhere to be found.

“What” she says “I thought I put it here..” yes, indeed, she put it there, but distractedly was taken advantage of by one of the locally legendary pick pockets, who in fact at the exact same moment entered a liquer store to invest in a box of budget red wine. This, then, forced our lady to make a desperate phone call to her cousin Elsbieta Grafsbergh Lillenhoek, who had to transfer funds to the cafe, the owner of which - though in general a very amicable personality - had a very sensitive stomach, and getting a tad irritated which increased production of acid in the stomach regions - felt quite some degree of irritation as regards customers in general and our distracted lady in particular. There we see how things can escalate and annoy several innocent bystanders as well as making a lady late for an interview at the Royal Castle.

❖

Being As Consciousness

Being As Consciousness

Being defined has many modes. One of these is Consciousness. Let us define Being as Consciousness:

Being in itself, or as such, has no consciousness, is not consciousness i e is not aware of its own existence. It is the Being of the world of Objects. As discussed previously, Objects are things existing which are not conscious. These things, Objects, lack the ability to transcend, to communicate their Being to other Beings.

Being for Others is a Being which is an Objectified mode of Being. A Being for Itself can apply another Being for Itself as an Object. Not allowing a person their Subjective stanze. The gaze is an objectifier if unnoticed. If a person looks at another person without that person knowing it, they become an objectified Being. They do not transcend their Consciousness to the observer.

Being for Itself is a Being which is conscious. It can Transcend to other Beings across Nihil, across the Void. Being for Itself has consciousness, and I state that it ‘is’ Consciousness. Being for Itself is Consciousness in that there can be no Being for Itself without there simultaneously being Consciousness. One may claim that also Beings in themself can be conscious. A horse, for instance, is a Being in Itself in that it, as far as we know, doesn’t transcend across Nihil to other Beings and is unable to Objectify these. One may claim that the horse is conscious. Yes, to a limited degree they are. They are, however, conscious on a lower level than homo sapiens sapiens. Animals on a lower level of complexity than humans are conscious on a lower level, they are a link between Being for Itself and Being in Itself, i e ‘Objects’. This is where I place Homo Sapiens Sapiens, on a special shelf. In a category of its own, where Being equals Consciousness. The stone has Being in Itself, and can not transcend, and is not conscious. The cow has Being in itself and can not transcend as far as we know, its consciousness is that of an automat. Does this sound mean? I assure the esteemed reader it is not. It is just a reflection of the world. The world is neither kind nor mean or unkind. Like everything in it it simply ‘is’. There is one exception to that definition of the world. Homo Sapiens Sapiens. We humans as a species, we have Being for Itself unless we are victims of an especially unfortunate illness. We can visualize or transcend a Being for Itself or Consciousness which is kind or unkind. This is part of our Being for Itself. This is Being as Consciousness. The being of a Being for Itself equals Consciousness. It is an advanced maze of possibilities and doors some open some not, and so the Being for Itself, i e the being which can transcend outside itself and watch its own Being as Consciousness. An example might be in place here.

Here we follow a man on a walk through Montmartre. He starts off after arriving with the metro to Place Pigalle. Our walker sets a course towards Moulin Rouge, passing a multitude of bars and cafes on his way. On a bench in a park he walks by, there is a fellow apparently sleeping. Quite a few persons walk by, some of them talking. One company discussing some political topic quite vividly. The man on the bench doesn’t react. Our walking man looks at the sleeper, worried there might be something wrong. Then he notices the sleeper moving about on the bench for a while before seemingly falling asleep again. Our friend continues on his way. The sleeper was obviously unconscious for a while but regained some sort of Being for Itself momentarily. Being is clearly linked to consciousness in the minds of ordinary people. Our friend arrives at a cafe and sits down outside at a table. A boy comes and takes his order. On the pavement outside the barrier separating the cafe from the world of objects there is a mime impersonating a statue. This mime does this every weekday. He positions himself like an ancient thinker or Apollo, hinting at the beyond. People generally mistake him for a statue, a Being in Itself, an Object. So does our friend. It happens at times that passers by put out their cigarette on the arm or hand of this mime. He is well trained but this hurts a bit. He usually cries, scaring the passers by, when this happens. Dogs have been known to urinate in his sandals. He usually ignores this, or if nobody is watching he pushes the canine away with his sandal clad foot. He stands for hours without moving. Our walker thinks to himself how this acting a statue really dehumanizes the mime. ‘This person really does change from a person to an object while enacting a consciousness-less object.’ He thinks this while a person sits down and rests a bit on the bench by the mime. The person hangs his trench coat on the arm of the mime. The illusion is complete, and it illustrates how a Being for Itself, a subject, can easily transform into an object, a Being in Itself, by letting go of their Being and their visible consciousness. Suddenly the mime rises, and starts walking away with the trench coat over his arm. The person sitting on the bench almost faints from the surprise. The mime starts laughing and hands over the coat. Our friend notices this and enjoys a Gauloises while pondering the situation. Our friend sits very still doing this, something which fools a pigeon into sitting down on his hat while scouting the area for bread crumbs and such. Our friend starts laughing and shakes his head. The dove takes off. Being is indeed consciousness. Lack of Being is definitely unconsciousness. Real or imagined. True or false.

❖

Being As Awareness Of Existence

Being As Awareness Of Existence

Existence - the mere ‘appearance’ as such - is that general and initial phase which harbors Being as well as Nihil. Existence is a difficult mode to pinpoint. If a Being exists, it has Existence. A Being which does not exist has no Existence. So, could it be said that Being as such proposes awareness of Existence? It would certainly be comfortable to reply with a resounding yes, but unfortunately that is not always the case. Let us have a look at various modes of Being, and their interconnectedness as well as their individual awareness of Existence on a probability scale ranging from improbability to a state of high probability.

Being in itself, the basic mode at which a phenomenon, be it an inanimate Object or a very animate lower being such as an insect or perhaps a snail, exists and has what some call Being as such, meaning it has no means of transcending outwards. It is, in fact, a very rudimentary being. Can this very basic form of Being be conscious of Existence? Can it look at its own Being, its own Consciousness, and ponder its own Existence? The answer to that question must be ‘no’. It is an animal governed by instincts. When it feels hunger it looks for something to eat. When it is tired it sleeps. It is not part of its capabilities to exit itself, turn around, have a good look at itself and think: ‘I am’. The snail and the grain of sand both have Being, but Being in Itself. A being which is locked into itself. It is not aware of Existence.

Being for Others, is a state which means being under the control of the gaze of the Other. This state of Being is certainly wider in scope than Being in Itself. Being for Others can certainly be a Being which is inanimate, an Object as such. It may also be animate, an animal. This animal might potentially be a Subject in its own right, true. It is, however, Objectified by the gaze of the Other, meaning it is always perceived as an Object caught by that gaze. Another person may be objectified by a gaze, and thusly lose its Subject form. This person may have started out as a Being for Itself, meaning having the potentiality to transcend across nihil and be aware of itself, of its own Existence, but it is, once caught by the gaze of the other, objectified and thusly violently transformed into an Object in the world of Objects. It loses its Being as awareness of Existence in the view of the Other.

Being for Itself, the supreme state of Being, means a human being in charge of its own Being, is the mode of Being which is, by default, harboring awareness of Existence. It is able to transcend outside its own Being, and regard itself existing. It may, if it so choses, regard its umwelt, reason with itself and come to the conclusion that it exists. This mode of Being is awareness of Existence.

An example to clarify my line of reasoning might be in order here.

Let us propose we are in a park in Montparnasse. We notice a family, a man, a woman and a child, on a leisurely Sunday stroll. They have a little dog with them. The man holds the leash, controlling the dog. The woman carries a basket with coffee, soft drinks in cans and some pastries. Here we have all modes of Being represented; the pic nic basket has Being in Itself. It is an Object unable to transcend. The child is a Being in Itself slowly acquiring the possibilities of a Being for Itself. The parents are indeed Beings for Itselves. It is safe to say that the man and the woman, the parents, have awareness of Existence within their Being. One might discuss whether or not the child has reached as advanced a state of Being for Itself that it harbours awareness of Existence. It is what might be called a subliminal case. If we look at the dog, we meet with a whole other creature. For this is what it is, no matter how lovely and cuddly a dog may be, it is not a Being for Itself, it does not, as far as we know at this point in time at least, have the awareness of Existence. The dog is of course a higher animal than a cricket or rabbit, but it resides on a whole other level of Being than a human being. It might be on the same level as a toddler, but while the toddler grows up and becomes aware of Existence and gains Being for Itself, the dog remains at the toddler level. It is a Being not aware of Existence. The Pic nic basket and the items in it represent pure Objects without any potentiality of transcending or ever connecting to other Beings. It has the simplest state of Being in Itself.

This, then, is a basic descriptive discussion of the various modes of Being and their respective abilities to be aware of Existence. The aim and purpose of a human being is of course to gain Being for Itself, thusly becoming able to transcend across Nihil and regarding its own Being. This also involves the ability to become aware of its own position with regards to Existence, and, indeed, to gain awareness of Existence as such. This becoming involves the ability to perform abstract reasoning. This is of course what being aware of Existence is; it is abstract reasoning. Reasoning beyond what is tangible and physically present as subject or object, thusly becoming a true creator of ones own circumstances, this is what Being as awareness of Existence means.

❖

Consciousness As Transcending Awareness

Consciousness As Transcending Awareness

Defining consciousness is interesting. It is indeed a particularly complex issue. As discussed in the above, it harbors in it certain aspects that can be likened to Being. In order to cover the totality of the concept, however, one must widen the scope to involve further aspects. Transcendence must obviously be incorporated to illustrate the subject. Transcendence of what? One might ask. One might settle for a transcending will to connect, of course. This, however, is not the item we are looking for. What one should focus on is the fact that what initially transcends is an awareness. Awareness of what? One might wonder. It is the awareness of ones own Being being awareness of the other. If this sounds complex, it is because it is complex. It is the Self being aware, by regarding itself from beyond its own being, of how it becomes aware of itself taking notice of, becoming aware of, the other.

Having established the possibility of ones Self becoming aware of itself being aware of the Other, the next logical step towards becoming is the realization of this being the very nucleus of Consciousness. It is precisely because consciousness is more than awareness of itself inside itself. Consciousness of Being for Itself must expand and become consciousness as transcending awareness to de facto have Being for Itself and go beyond the mere Being in Itself, transforming from an object to a subject. This is what ‘consciousness as transcending awareness’ is. An awareness of itself reaching out, as subject towards the world of objects, establishing its own being as part of a whole.

This is what we mean by stating that one of the modes of consciousness is precisely transcending awareness. The Being for Itself transcending is necessarily awareness. Because Being for Itself presupposes awareness. Awareness of itself, of the Other, and decisively awareness of itself in the process of transcending. This could be said to be the most essential aspect of conscious Being. Consciousness as reaching out awareness of itself.

It should be limited somehow, due to its restricted nature with regards to Being in itself. Consciousness as transcending awareness is precisely neither a mere observation, nor a participating entity. It could be described as an observation involving analytical treatment of the sources. An intellect interpreting its surroundings, and acting in accordance with the results of said observation. In restricting the topic, however, one must allow for transcendence to cross any borders put up by reason, if and when deemed appropriate. Consciousness as transcending awareness is narrowed down application of consciousness, yet it harbors in its inner an opening towards a wider concept. It is an awareness transcending, true, it is also the Self transcending awareness of its own Being for Itself. It is a mode of existence and Being which is reserved for Being for Itself. Thusly it is part of, and indeed necessary for the existence of each Being for Itself. At this point one might suggest an example to illustrate the concept at hand would indeed be appropriate.

Let us imagine, for the purpose of shedding clarity over the idea, a woman sitting at an outdoor cafe in east London. The area is a park to the north from Speakers Corner. The cafe is approximately half full. There are a number of families on outings, as it is a weekend. Our central player here is enjoying a cup of coffee while leisurely observing a number of aquatic birds enjoying the tranquil waters of the Serpentine, a pond. She notices the fowl, and one family in particular, as there are two rather lively young boys wreaking havoc amongst the tables and upsetting quite a few of the other guests. This is irritating to say the least, and what is worse, the parents seem totally unaware of the impacts of their offspring. Our main figure ponders the situation and thinks to herself ‘it is indeed astounding how some individuals are completely unaware of the surroundings.’ She is acutely aware of her own irritation. Her consciousness is awareness of the situation, and in telling the parents to take hold of the situation and spare the other guests from having to endure their brats running amoch, she also transcends towards the other, crossing the Nihil. Her consciousness is indeed transcending awareness in more than one way. Primarily she is awareness of her position in the situation and transcending this to the parents. She is also consciousness as transcending awareness posited within the situatedness of the immediate surroundings. She is part of the event, crossing Nihil to bring it to the parents. This could end in several ways, the parents could be glad to be updated as regards the behavior of their kids, or they might be irritated and tell our woman player to mind her own business. Well, luckily the sun was shining and it was quite warm and the parents were in a good mood, which helped, one might guess, in making the ordeal end amicably. They had a few words with the boys, who realized they had to calm down, and the time in the park ended on a more friendly note than it might indeed have done had they reacted differently. Our woman illustrated a proper case of transcending awareness and the aquatic birds kept bobbing about being Beings in Itselves and fully content one would imagine.

❖

Being Defined As Reflected Transcendence

Being Defined As Reflected Transcendence

Existence is about attaining ‘Being for Itself’. Being, in this context, is the opposite to ‘Nihil’. Nihil is a state which occurs as Being is unfulfilled, or denied. The goal of every human being must, I strongly suggest, be to attain Being for Itself. We regard Being for Itself as the state in which an individual realizes his personal plan or project. An individual traveling their life path will indefinitely experience periods of distancing themselves from the authentic Being, that which their ‘plan’ is directed towards. These momental periods are when Nihil, the Void, takes center stage and there cannot be said to exist an honest view to existence as such. One might define Nihil as simply a lack of Being for Itself. Being, in that connection, is a lack of Nihil. The term ‘Being’ does, however, need further explanation.