What is existence?

[Bernard Seremonia]

Degree of Reality

We use an example with five senses (or whether we have more than five senses), and because of these we can perceive things.

We don’t know the farthest boundary of something, we just know something because we perceive it as far as ourselves.

If there is “existence”, then this “existence” is as far as “existence” limits our perceptions. Or ‘existence” is as far as we can perceive a part of “existence” itself.

If we saw “a stone” then we perceive “a stone” through our seeing. This was one of the way we could perceive “a stone”. But for someone else which could perceive even wider, by seeing and touching “a stone”, then “a stone” will become more realistic than for someone that could only perceive “a stone” through seeing.

This is what i call “degree of an existence” for ourselves. “A stone” is and “existence”, but it has different degree of acceptance to our perception which may differ to others. And different degree of perceiving something has relation with different consequences.

For someone that has no ability to perceive “a stone” for the rest of their life but only by seeing ” a stone”, then someone can only perceive “a stone” AS REAL AS FAR AS the level of seeing with the consequences that relevant to “seeing”.

It asserts that if we perceive something within dream realm through touching and even more, then we are already being limited by this thing, then this thing must be considered as reality, in the sense that, part of ourselves can be limited by the consequences of it, relevantly.

Somehow, if we are limited by a thing AT LEAST with the same consequences (whether through reality or illusion), then actually there is no different in between reality and illusion, including dream realm (in the sense that illusion is another reality).

So, which one is more real? “Existence” within dream realm or “existence” on our waking life? Actually it depends on how far for the “existence” in between both realm can limit our perception.

If “existence” in between both realms can limit our perception (whether we can see it or we can touch it or even more) then the “existence” is as real as it “existence”.

What makes us degrading dream realm, it’s because our life is mostly within our waking life rather than on dream realm.

If somehow we are living within dream realm even longer, then eventually we will anticipate the consequences within dream realm by making adjustment on our interaction on dream realm. At this stage, we may consider that “existence” in this dream realm is real in the sense that our actions can be limited by it’s consequences within dream realm. And we will take the consequences within dream realm seriously. Existence is real as far as how far we can perceive it.

So, rather than admitting “existence” as real as measured by empirical experience on our waking life, better we admit “existence” as far as the “existence” can limit us in any possible means to our perception.

This acceptance will put us on condition where we can consider any possible things, relevantly and we can (adjust by) take(ing) appropriate responses.

Rather than considering there is illusion, we better assert that (it’s another reality and) there is only reality as far as we can perceive it. It’s degree of reality.

Sure, we can use the term “illusion”, but at least we know the truth (proper) understanding behind it, to make us to be able to anticipate different realm.

CONCLUSION

What is “existence”? Existence is, “what limits us”

[giuseppe pilichi]

Hello Bernard,

Hegel's Science of Logic: Determinate Being: (b) Determination, Constitution and Limit: 242

"through the limit something is what it is, and in the limit it has its quality"

<http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl109.htm#HL1_122>

Sorry for this link, but the thought most similar to yours that I know is this one expressed by Hegel. But the way in which you posed the problem lends itself to easy philosophical attacks. Even the final question and its answer must in itself be argued already only to be formulated, because they have very complex implications (regardless of your argument). In fact, they assume that at least we can talk about the essence of existence, that being and essence are distinct and that the existence is a property of individuals: this isn't Hegel. If you indent your analysis within the limits of Hegel's reasoning I could say that you are a iron-hegelian, but before I get to that there would be much to say about what you mean by reality or empiric or grade and if you have fully considered the transcendental role of consciousness in your argument.

By following the suggestions of your argument you might get to some form of metaphysical solipsism or absolute idealism. Philosophical positions hardly sustainable. To put my point more clearly, you could for example ask yourself the simple question of which is the authenticity of things, what is its difference from their intelligibility, or also ask yourself if there are cats Independently from your consciousness.
I apologize for the simplicity of my considerations, but my time does not allow me to respond with more depth. :-)

My best regards,

Giuseppe Pilichi aka Jacula Modyun

> On Sunday, October 6, 2013, Bernard Seremonia wrote:
> Degree of Reality
>
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> What is existence? Existence is, what limits us.

[Bernard Seremonia]

Hi

Thank you for your response.

"through the limit something is what it is, and in the limit it has its quality" . In other words: through the limit we found boundary as something which as it is (whatever and however it is), and through limit, "as it is" has its own differentiation (qualities).

If we are pointing to ourselves, we can say that we are human being, or we are human, or we are intelligent animal, or we can say whatever it is, whether it's correct or not, but. The point is that, It's pointing to ourselves.

But, i was talking related to another. I was talking without pointing to ourselves in the sense that i wasn't just talking about ourselves but the way we interacted with another.

At this level (pointing to ourselves, itself), being is part of existence, where the essence is potentiality or the caused of being. Or, in other words, existence is functions, where being is different kind of functions. But function may be caused by another functions. Including what we considered as essence it might be considered as functions. We don't know yet the very rooted of what essence is.

But in relation with others, existence may be considered as "what limits us" in the sense that it has relation with our perception. We consider ourselves (at this position) as observer. As an observer, we need more than understanding, but we need to point our perception to the others rather than pointing to ourselves (how to deal with something else). On this case, existence (whether it's being or else) could be considered as "what limits us". "what" in this case ("what-limits us") doesn't have to be considered as existence that limits us. It's just that, "what" in this case is "functions" that limits us. It's still variable which can be defined as any kind of being or any kind of thing. There is no self referential here.

According to my own understanding, reality is specific level of consciousness. But through different point of view (related to interaction with others), reality is different level of law of functions and empirical is working at the specific level of law of functions. Both, reality and empiric or any other possible terms may be observed spiritually (if you believe in spirituality).

And when we tried to find where an existence was, it could be identified through "it (a kind of function) limits us".

It's not the kind of absolute idealism. It's practical understanding. To conduct a fair comparison to different realm. That's it.

Thank you :-)

Warmest

[Wu Li]

Quantum mechanics says the physical world is contextual, that is, the context inevitably trumps any content determining what properties anything might or might not have. Words and concepts like "existence" can therefore be said to have no demonstrable meaning outside specific contexts. The classical idea of existence and semantics contradicts this view, but then, classical logics are based on assumptions, while quantum mechanics can be described using Intuitionistic logics based entirely on scientific evidence of how your brain works. I know, I know, it's difficult for many professional and armchair philosophers to accept that soon language itself will be a science, but trust em, the world will be a better place without all the hot air.

[Seremonia]

We are always dependent upon something else, and dependency in between us with something else are bound with the facts that whether we are limited by something else or something limits us. In the sense that whether we consider existence as reality or whatever it means as described by quantum, part of holographic universe, or any other kind of laws, but one thing for sure is that quantum mechanics and whatever it is, limits us to make us perceive as it should be.

"What" limits us = "Functions, laws, whatever it is" limits us. Whether we consider all within ourselves, but the way we perceive something, it's still because of the way we are dependent upon something else, where it can be considered as the way something limits us.

If you can provide how this assertion "what limits us" against quantum mechanics or else, please let me know, perhaps we can clarify it properly. Perhaps we are looking on different point of view, and i want to know the detail on what part of it.

Warmest

Seremonia

[Peter Jones]

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 9:56:52 AM UTC+1, giuseppe pilichi wrote:

 

"By following the suggestions of your argument you might get to some form of metaphysical solipsism or absolute idealism. Philosophical positions hardly sustainable. "

Hang about qiuseppe. Nothing wrong with absolute idealism. I manage to sustain it okay.

Good link to Hegel though.