Existential Truths

[Straw Dog]

What is it like to be a human being thrown into this wild and weird world?

Much of religious and philosophical literature has been devoted to what is beyond common human experience. So what is transcendental truth? After years of searching, I don't have a clue. Coincidentally, in perceiving that I do not know, I've learned something true, or rather what appears to be true. The mystery of transcendence is my first existential truth, but certainly not the last. It seems that it may be more logical to form a worldview based around existential truths rather than just pretending to know what I cannot really know beyond personal experiences.

This is an exploratory thread to help sort out the things that I actually believe to be true and open them up for discussion and debate. This post is very general in presenting the rough foundation for an existential worldview. I have much more to say, but let this be the beginning of a series that may be continued in discussion here or within future threads created by myself or others. So rather than start eighteen different threads just now, I'd like to present a list of the things and relationships that hold philosophical relevance and appear to be true to me. The first half I consider to be more objective with subjectivity increasing as the list progresses. Without further ado, this is my current list of existential truths.

- The mystery of transcendence.

- The transience of all things.

- The elusiveness of satisfaction.

- The relativity of identity.

- The state of life as being subject to death.

- The ambiguity of life in constant process of becoming.

- The contigency of life and existence.

- The apparent abandonment of life within a hostile, godless universe.

- A living thing as a being-for-itself and as a being-for-others.

- Life as the will to power, which is constructively manifested through overcoming oneself in situation to become something more and destructively manifested through the domination of others.

- The negation of undifferentiated being by consciousness into intentionally meaningful appearances of phenomena.

- The temporal flight of consciousness from its 'past' formal interpretations towards 'future' possibilities.

- Freedom as the opening up of the possibilities of situations that we may aim towards.

- The adversity and resistance of situations sustains the projects of humanity.

- Conscious beings are the transcendence of their own facticity, ergo necessarily free and responsible for every action chosen throughout life.

- Meditation is the most basic form of authentication as one simply expresses their own way of being.

- Much of human activity involves projects of self-distraction away from existential truths and the denial or shifting of personal freedom/responsibility.

- The noble ideal is seeking an authentic existence via accepting existential truths, expressing one's own way of being, affirming freedom and responsibility for one's entire life/death, respecting the freedom of others, living without regrets or excuses, and overcoming oneself within situations to transform into something more.

Any questions or opinions on this tentative existential worldview would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

~Curt

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I take issue with the statement that "Conscious beings are the transcendence of their own facticity, ergo necessarily free and responsible for every action chosen throughout life." Seems without evidence and without actual substance (both literally and figuratively)

 

[Desert Snake]

Do you want opinions that fall under the true definition of opinion?
As in, we can accept that it's an 'opinion' question/comment.

 

[jimniki]

I like the way you think... Very cerebral...
Can we really live in a godless universe is there was never a god?
Can the universe be hostile?
When a tornado rips through our towns destroying everything in its path, is it hostile?
Of course it isn't...

Were animals ripping themselves to bits before man? Yes, were they evil? No.
Are we animals. Yes, We rip each other to bits? Yes? That comes natural for us... It's in our DNA.
What is unnatural is the the human interpretations. 10 commandments, laws, govt's, etc.
This is something that will always be rejected by our instincts... That's why we have always been at war.
Why we won't assimilate under duress. Mother nature won't allow us.

Humans have evolved to the next dangerous stage. Where will feel it is only our awareness of the universe that gives the universe meaning! It is this same arrogance which has many believing that they can truly understand "god"... Like they are equals.... Therefore they can rule and kill on "his" behalf...
Sorry, I'm mumbling again.. Jim... Be happy. Or don't be happy. Then we die...

 

[Straw Dog]

Gjallarhorn,

I take issue with the statement that "Conscious beings are the transcendence of their own facticity, ergo necessarily free and responsible for every action chosen throughout life." Seems without evidence and without actual substance (both literally and figuratively)

Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, it does seem to jump to conclusions without substantiality.

Alternatively, conscious beings could be the manifestation of internal causes realizing themselves. In which case, the internal causes are responsible, but not free in the abstract sense having been initially caused by external influences. If we are essentially the internalization of causes, then we are necessarily responsible for their manifestations.

 

[Straw Dog]

Do you want opinions that fall under the true definition of opinion?
As in, we can accept that it's an 'opinion' question/comment.

Yes, I would like to hear the opinions of humans having been thrown onto this strange stage of appearances of phenomena.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, I would like to hear the opinions of humans having been thrown onto this strange stage of appearances of phenomena.

You got it tiger!

 

[Straw Dog]

What is unnatural is the the human interpretations. 10 commandments, laws, govt's, etc.
This is something that will always be rejected by our instincts... That's why we have always been at war.
Why we won't assimilate under duress. Mother nature won't allow us.

How can anything be unnatural?

Apparently, we crave civilization within our nature. We're always at war due to the failure of realizing existential assimilation.

Humans have evolved to the next dangerous stage. Where will feel it is only our awareness of the universe that gives the universe meaning! It is this same arrogance which has many believing that they can truly understand "god"... Like they are equals.... Therefore they can rule and kill on "his" behalf...
Sorry, I'm mumbling again.. Jim... Be happy. Or don't be happy. Then we die...

Yet what exactly is dying? It's only ever a relative form of becoming. Life itself goes on and is potentially limitless. After a certain period of inquiry and meditation, a new existential truth emerges. What is the activity of the totality? What is the law of causality taking total effect?

 

[Desert Snake]

This is an exploratory thread to help sort out the things that I actually believe to be true and open them up for discussion and debate. This post is very general in presenting the rough foundation for an existential worldview. I have much more to say, but let this be the beginning of a series that may be continued in discussion here or within future threads created by myself or others. So rather than start eighteen different threads just now, I'd like to present a list of the things and relationships that hold philosophical relevance and appear to be true to me. The first half I consider to be more objective with subjectivity increasing as the list progresses. Without further ado, this is my current list of existential truths.

I like your style. This is the correct method.

- The elusiveness of satisfaction.

Yes, we notice this, it has to do with our 'humanity'. May not be avoidable.

- The relativity of identity.

This is a biggie. It tends to relate to all the other topics. Once we realize that we are transcendant in many regards to what we perceive of the 'self', we can then progress.

- The ambiguity of life in constant process of becoming.

This is a 'constant'.

- A living thing as a being-for-itself and as a being-for-others.

Another biggie. Very tricky. I believe it relates to what we have to offer.

- The adversity and resistance of situations sustains the projects of humanity.

Agreed, if that is a statement.

- Conscious beings are the transcendence of their own facticity, ergo necessarily free and responsible for every action chosen throughout life.

Not really true. We are 'interacted 'with to an extent that does not leave us entirely responsible. It depends on the action and circumstance.

- Meditation is the most basic form of authentication as one simply expresses their own way of being.

Yes. in a nutshell, however to furtherment of our desired knowledge, it requires other means of learning. If we have no desire for further learning, then this statement is empirically true.

- The noble ideal is seeking an authentic existence via accepting existential truths, expressing one's own way of being, affirming freedom and responsibility for one's entire life/death, respecting the freedom of others, living without regrets or excuses, and overcoming oneself within situations to transform into something more.

Agreed.
Of course, there is so much more. great thread, and really leaving open possibilities for further discussion.

 

[Straw Dog]

I like your style. This is the correct method.

Yes, we notice this, it has to do with our 'humanity'. May not be avoidable.

This is a biggie. It tends to relate to all the other topics. Once we realize that we are transcendant in many regards to what we perceive of the 'self', we can then progress.

This is a 'constant'.

Another biggie. Very tricky. I believe it relates to what we have to offer.

Agreed, if that is a statement.

Great! So there is a certain building of consensus around causality?

Not really true. We are 'interacted 'with to an extent that does not leave us entirely responsible. It depends on the action and circumstance.

Interesting. So we are not entirely responsible? Then what else are we?

Yes. in a nutshell, however to furtherment of our desired knowledge, it requires other means of learning. If we have no desire for further learning, then this statement is empirically true.

Meditation does not really conflict with 'other' means of learning. It is learning in the most basic sense. We are responsible for the causality of universe in its most basic sense. This is our creation.

 

[Desert Snake]

[/COLOR][/B]

Great! So there is a certain building of consensus around causality?

If you mean causality of our own making, no that isn't what I meant. I meant, we literally aren't entirely responsible for our actions. Or rather, depends on the actions. //I may not be understanding you here/

Interesting. So we are not entirely responsible? Then what else are we?

It isn't inherent, it isn't 'part' of us, the interactedness that makes us partly not responsible. We could parse further, but the end result is the same i.e.
responsible==not responsible. though, It isn't 'equal', we are 'more' responsible than not.

Meditation does not really conflict with 'other' means of learning. It is learning in the most basic sense. We are responsible for the causality of universe in its most basic sense. This is our creation.

I misunderstood your statement then. I would agree with this.
don't understand that statement...

 

[Straw Dog]

If you mean causality of our own making, no that isn't what I meant. I meant, we literally aren't entirely responsible for our actions. Or rather, depends on the actions. //I may not be understanding you here/

I would argue then that we are mostly responsible for our actions due to being the internalization of causality. We are action personified.

It isn't inherent, it isn't 'part' of us, the interactedness that makes us partly not responsible. We could parse further, but the end result is the same i.e.
responsible==not responsible. It isn't 'equal', we are 'more' responsible than not

Yes, we might as well act 'as if' we were responsible as a means of realizing a particular authentic existence.

 

[Desert Snake]

I would argue then that we are mostly responsible for our actions due to being the internalization of causality. We are action personified.

Probably. However our actions involve action outside of ourselves. We are limited in this sense, because we only have certain options.
So, it depends on the situation. What you are proposing is not a 'rule'.

Yes, we might as well act 'as if' we were responsible as a means of realizing a particular authentic existence.

We can try, but we cannot always do this. Ideally we do that, basically.

 

[Desert Snake]

Meditation does not really conflict with 'other' means of learning. It is learning in the most basic sense. We are responsible for the causality of universe in its most basic sense. This is our creation.

Coming back to this statement, this is not entirely true. It depends on the methodology of meditation, because meditation includes specific religious meditation, and varies in structure and purpose.

 

[Straw Dog]

Probably. However our actions involve action outside of ourselves. We are limited in this sense, because we only have certain options.
So, it depends on the situation. What you are proposing is not a 'rule'.

Thanks! I'm trying to minimize 'rules'. That was a close one.

We can try, but we cannot always do this. Ideally we do that, basically.

Actualities are never ideal, so perhaps propping up total individual responsibility and authenticity is creating an unrealistic goal or rule beyond the direct realization of life. Traditional existentialism probably goes too far with its fixation on individuals. As the school of thought developed, interdependence began to gain more prominence. There is a differentiation of appearances and responsibilities, but not a truly separate existence.

 

[Straw Dog]

- The state of life as being subject to death.

Correction. Actually, only the relative forms of life are subject to the appearance of death, but life itself goes on within the totality of activity.

 

[Willamena]

Probably. However our actions involve action outside of ourselves. We are limited in this sense, because we only have certain options.

It would seem you are saying that apples are limited by the presence of oranges.

 

[Straw Dog]

Coming back to this statement, this is not entirely true. It depends on the methodology of meditation, because meditation includes specific religious meditation, and varies in structure and purpose.

Good point! There are differences between specific forms of meditation. I'm referring more to basic mindfulness-awareness, zazen, and/ or direct insight listening to inner silence. In simply expressing one's own way of being, we are equally expressing the activity of the totality. This is only the appearance of an apparent paradox that is dissolved during awakening.

 

[Desert Snake]

It would seem you are saying that apples are limited by the presence of oranges.

More like other apples. And oranges, yes.

 

[Desert Snake]

Good point! There are differences between specific forms of meditation. I'm referring more to basic mindfulness-awareness, zazen, and/ or direct insight listening to inner silence. In simply expressing one's own way of being, we are equally expressing the activity of the totality. This is only the appearance of an apparent paradox that is dissolved during awakening.

Hmm seems reasonable.