Month: July 2020

Self-Identification Modifying Being

On By Chris Shuttleworth1 Comment
Originally Written: July 22nd 2020

There is a certain mood, a manner of being, an existential modification that takes place within the self’s conceptualization of itself. If we self-identify with a group identity, with a concept that denotes the existence we believe ourselves to be, we become modified in a manner that is in direct relation to the significance of the term, in a manner that necessarily follows from the sense that we give to the concept in our defining. By defining the nature of our own being as that of being a “philosopher”, “proletariat” (worker), as being a liberal or a conservative, we gear our existence into the groove that is defined by the sense that the word as idealized provides to us in our own understanding of it. Our understanding of language and its application to defining the nature of our being, i.e. who we are, is modified by the signification that the social milieu in which we find ourselves, historically, has created in defining the term and has so given its defining over to us. The way in which we understand the term “philosopher” or “conservative”, as deterministically intuited through our experience both introspectively contemplated and informed by externalities, is the way in which the term will modify us in its taking up as believed to be referencing our Being.

We take up the reference of our being to that which we associate it to, to that which we are able to understand it by. If we believe the defining conceptualizations of our being are those that contain a group identity, or of any description, we not only apply the cognitive label through making the judgment and forming an internal thought such as “I exist as a philosopher”, but we modify our embodied perspective and its correlative characteristics in relation to which we are certain of the description, and in a manner that is extracted from our understanding of the given description. We become geared into the world in a manner that puts on a lenses that is colored by the description of our identity, and our actions reflect this position. This description can be presented externally, can be judged by another in their evaluation of us, and we can take it up either by doxically accepting the description of others, or through our own intuitional connection, regardless, the taking up, the accepting, the gearing into the description, modifies our character and perspective in direct relation to the conceptualization that we take up.

The prevalent descriptions of characteristics of political groups as presented in the media, in our social interactions, the societal defining of psychological traits, the class separations and racial connotations which are thrust upon us by our perception of auditory signals, written, or intuited designations, form groups with significations that mean something, and are differentiated according to our introjecting the content that relates to them in our formulation of the word. The meanings of such terms become modified as pushed upon us by the environment in which we find ourselves in.

Our lenses through which we take up our being in the world, and the subjective experience of consciousness which results from this filtration, is constituted by the color of the lenses which we use in our depiction of ourselves. While the initial filter is the pre-conscious perspectival taking up and revealing, in a bottom up fashion, the top down integration of conscious direction can cause a perspectival modification, thus what we consciously value is designated by our embodied perspective, yet simultaneously informed by consciously formulated ideals. One such conscious formulation is the change in values as modified by conscious self-reflection, and the manner in which we tend to do so happens to be linguistically, or conceptually, using language. This language which we use to describe our own Being, orients us towards the world in a manner that coincides with the way in which we understand ourselves, and this is where behavior can change in relation to the values underlining our understanding of self-constructed definitions in reference to our own Being.

We don’t only conceptualize ourselves as we are, but also as we wish to be, what we wish to be is due in the first instance to our biologically instantiated value system, and subsequently modified by the environmental and social milieu to which the value system is modified throughout the historicity of our existence. Our historicity, insofar as it is temporal, builds upon the first order biological filtration of our perceptive system (Value System Instantiation), in a progressive manner. As more present moments don their contributions towards effecting the totality of our being (over time), the value system is modified in accordance with that which is determined to follow the cultural environment as mediated and understood through the biological organism’s perspective. Thus, we develop our facticity, that which constitutes the fact of our Being in the present moment, and we find within us a certain orientation towards the world that is directly influenced by the value structure that has so been developed, desiring this or that, pursuing this or that, behaving in accordance with this or that, and wanting to be this or that. This desire towards embodying or actualizing a certain description, can lead to self-connotations that one believes to be an accurate depiction of oneself, which is in alignment with one’s value system. We only believe what we believe, and this changes due to cultural norms, our environment, that which we are educated and that which impresses itself on us as being most valuable.

Ignorance of far ranging perspectives by the narrow indoctrination towards a specific ideology might not be seen by the naïve consciousness which knows of no other existence, but unbeknownst to it the very core of ones Being is permeated by said ideology and one’s entire existence becomes characterized by a critical permeation of the idea. Every action, thought, or word spoken is an expression of the totality of the Being which we are, and if this being is characterized by a narrow ideology, you can be sure the person will live out this ideology across the span of his existence. The label which is supported by the ideology gears us into living in accordance with it. The prevalence of societal norms, of societally supported descriptions which one believes that embodying would better support oneself in navigating life, dominate the psyche as a driving factor to actualize in oneself, and can lead to the behavior modifications which go along with applying such descriptions to one’s own being. How I came to desire to be a philosopher, how I came to refrain from applying political labels to myself, is instantiated upon the nature of my being in a causally determined way that is no different than the ideologically possessed, I am, as well, ideologically possessed by the idea that this description of my being is not only accurate, but the best I have found so far. The objective status of our primary identification in relation to other descriptions depends upon the nature of the judgment we place upon descriptions as being “better” or “worse”, our morality, and what we see to be the “good” will inform which values come on top, in terms of what we spend time in association with, as well as in how we identify. Being that this judgment of our current self-description and its contents are all instantiated in a manner that is beyond our control, and have been the product of a historicity towards the development of actualizing our being to believe of itself to be so constituted in the present moment, is likewise out of our control, in the same manner as any other ideological possession we can point to.

The description we apply to ourselves orients us in a way that modifies our social interaction, and how we behave towards others, not only in the manner in which we present ourselves, but in the manner in which we wish the other to perceive of us, itself modifying our behavior to be in accordance with the desired instantiation of the mind of the other in their perception. This manner of being-towards-others, conversely, will affect the manner in which others treat us, and how their being becomes oriented in the space of which is perceptibly shared by ourselves and them, as we meet in the world and occupy the same practical milieu which can be affected by both of us. Thus, the manner in which we describe ourselves, does more than mediate the content of our subjective experience by modifying actions and behavior in accordance with it, but it has an effect on our being-towards-others, their being-towards-us, and the content that stems from such interactions.

Every moment in our life is a manifestation of the totality of our being, in one way or another, we are always authentically representing ourselves by any action, behavior, thought, emotion, mood, mode of being, or perception that takes place. To him who is dishonest, or attempting to put on a deceptive act that paints his character other than it would otherwise be, that too is reflective of the person’s Being, if such knowledge is ever truly revealed. In seeking to better orient ourselves to the world in which we find ourselves, we are constantly seeking the mode of being which is best suited for the environment that surrounds us, the people we come into contact with, the thoughts that manifest themselves, in short, our Being is seeking optimization of itself, towards the management of the set of all moments. Obviously, the best solution is to seek to better oneself in handling the set of all problems, rather than individual problems, but both can be mutually improved upon through the development of the other. The way in which we do so, the best life we can live, the method of gearing ourselves into the world, and the role that conscious self-conceptualization plays in modifying such areas of our most profound longing, becomes extraordinarily significant to us, insofar as the content of our subjective experience is modified by it. Since the content of our subjective experience is of integral importance to us, and poses a significance that is valuable regardless of ideological possession, we ought to consciously direct ourselves towards those descriptions which modify our being towards producing the greatest amount of wellbeing, subjectively, the most amount of time possible.

This isn’t a merely selfish endeavor at the peril of all others, although it can be. If it appears best to us to identify and behave as a tyrant and deceiver, for whatever reason, one will experience the subjective experience that alignment with such an ideal provides. One in such a position may fail to see the benefit in acting otherwise, and will never know what they are missing, and to those in such a position, they will meet with unending misfortune, and, most likely, an extremely dissatisfied experience of life. We will no longer be treated with love and respect, will probably find ourselves hated, distrusted, imprisoned or injured as a consequence. This negative experience may be the catalyst to change, or may not be. But, if given the opportunity to experience what acting in a manner that doesn’t reflect that identity can provide, it may sway the person’s judgment of such identification, and lead to meaningful change to a different identity.

We can mitigate the dangers in identification, as well as exploit the usage. By limiting ourselves to a single political position, we alienate ourselves from other perspectives, and close off ourselves to seeing the entirety of the picture. By defining ourselves by our job, or our current role in our lives, we face an identity crisis should our position change. If we identify with character traits that we value, such as having a strong mind, being disciplined in contact, as being a person who is able to be virtuous, we identify with a description that is not only valued and thus desired, but we become able to better modify our character to represent the identity that we desire. By identification with discipline, we become more urged to remain faithful to exercise, diet, and hard work. By identifying as a loving friend, rather than, say, “John’s friend” we become better suited to care for friends as they come and go out of our lives. By identifying as a strong leader, rather than “the supervisor of a certain company”, we don’t lose our identity should the company fail, and we become able to embody leadership principles across the board in our lives.

 Our being in the world must take into account the social milieu in which we find ourselves, as we are social beings which place a significant amount of importance upon our relations with others, and our behavior must reflect that internal disposition, which can be modified by the self-conceptualizations as described above. So a merely selfish mode of being that is the production of self-aggrandizement in self-depiction is clearly not the answer, if one is wise, and has a grasp upon one’s true value system, they will take into account the many factors towards which our wellbeing and environment are conditioned by. We must take into account society, family, friends, that which we value, that arena of experience which is closest to ourselves, not merely that which is conscious experience itself, but also its mediating factors that can be altered based upon our behavior, in their reflective affecting of our subjective experience.

Philosophic Interpretational Structures

On By Chris Shuttleworth3 Comments
Originally Written: July 22nd 2020

In the spirit of going against the common narrative, of remaining open-minded, and analyzing the optimal mode of being from which to operate within to effectively orient ourselves against the set of all problems, it is important to analyze and seek to optimize the philosophical structure which we adhere to. If we value a meaningful existence, we ought to strive for the optimal interpretive lenses from which we use to comprehend the problem of our Being, from which we extract the manifestations of our actions and thoughts in order to properly navigate the world. We naturally seem inclined to do so, whether consciously contemplated or otherwise. We “seek” to understand and orient ourselves to the best of our abilities and for the philosopher such a process becomes explicit, and can be acutely recognized as such.

The philosophical structures that we “create” through experience are more or less optimal to the success or failure of our specific goals. Some structures of thought and interpretation may provide us with the groundwork to a more optimal conscious subjective experience, to which I attribute, among other spiritual and philosophical frameworks, the Buddhist doctrinal contemplation and immersion. A certain modification of our Being in our subjective experience, content of thought, and wellbeing associated with our psychic life, our actions and orientation, all become influenced in direct relation to the school of thought, religious contemplation, or area of inquiry that we immerse ourselves in, and pick up. That which we are engaged in influences the mode of being from which our experience springs forth. While ideological structures like Buddhism show to me a change in subjective wellbeing stemming from its modification of Being to one of pointed wisdom, aversion to unwholesome desires, confidence in discipline, and concentration on the content of experience in the present moment, it also performs a less than optimal modification in terms of social cohesion, productivity in goal-accomplishment, and diligent striving to pursue familial and societal goals, which, while they may not accurately represent our values, they ought to be pursued for their utility and long term significance to the quality of our lives. Although the Buddhist mindset provides for me a subjective equanimity, it fails to provide the thought that is optimal for the comprehension of reality as it is in itself to an adequate manner, such as philosophical schools such as phenomenology succeed to a greater extent, or the scientific deterministic mindset can provide. Yet the undertaking of one, the embodying and actualizing of content stemming from either source, necessarily implies an opportunity cost of the benefit of the other. This isn’t strictly speaking the divide between empiricism and intellectualism, materialism and idealism, it isn’t strictly confined to a primarily Buddhist mode of interpretation of phenomena and the phenomenological interpretation, it applies to every mode of being that can be pointed to as having an intentionality founded upon a philosophical structure. The modification of our being in response to specific framework or structure that we adhere to, play a crucial role in affecting the content of our experience.

It becomes clear that in our journey through life we ought to pursue that mode of being which is best able to navigate the set of all problems in existence. For different periods of life, for different situations, for different environments, in relation to different people, and times, we ought to conclude that there are better or worse structures to embody in order to manage the situation we find ourselves thrown into. This poses a problem for the philosopher, and for the contemplative who takes an interest in his own experience, as to which mode to embody, if one is to consciously direct oneself towards one, which one, if any?

Individual ideologies in a single structure prove useful and optimal for different things in direct relation to the significance and modification of that structure. But no single ideology is encompassing enough to subsume the beneficiality in regards to every facet of life. While Christianity may benefit the community through strong family and interpersonal struggles, it fails on the intellectual level, and even more so on influencing scientific discoveries. Every ideology is lacking in regard to certain situations, and all previously established schools of thought share in their deficiency to properly inform the nuances of all of life’s challenges and situational encounters. As society changes, as our lives change, as horizons broaden, so should our interpretation and framework from which to operate from. This requires a strict separation between our self-image, our belief structure, from that of dogmatic ideological possession. In the current political climate, with the expanding polarization between conservative and liberal parties, we become blinded to the argument, benefit, and utility of the opposite party’s viewpoint. In order to properly inform a correct interpretation of any political issue we must see the other sides views, in their positive and negative points toward any singular issue, or fail to gain deeper insight into the complexity of the issue at hand. The mere dogmatic adherence to one side of the political spectrum delimits our view into a merely “part of the story” comprehension, when the whole story is much vaster, thus the fundamental disagreement. There are good reasons why half the country bends strongly one way and the other in contrary ways, one side isn’t merely intelligent and the other ignorant, the thesis and its contrary thesis both hold weight, for good reason. It is in a transcendent viewpoint that realizes the intentionality behind each, the reason for the disagreement, the benefits and drawbacks, that can come to a satisfying synthesis which encompasses both views, and from that place of transcendence can work towards the unity and cohesion between different personalities, perspectives, and lifestyles towards and optimal government with policies that are inclusive rather than divisive. The more we close off our minds, the more we maintain in a mode of being certain, or are possessed by a singular structure, the less we are to gleam the whole picture, gain a comprehensive understanding of the topic, and thus are less informed as to an optimal stance on the issue and its resolution. This extends past the political sphere, to all realms of inquiry. The mode of being certain, of working within a singular rigid structure, hinders growth, hinders understanding, and limits the potential solutions and manifestation of actions to solely those provided by that structures interpretation. The more we become marked be a fallible mode of being, of opening up our belief structure to contain doubt, to be more inclusive to the unknown, the more options and potential solutions to problems become available to us. The more potential solutions, dependent on the more knowledge, the more equipped we become at countering dogmatic adherence and actualizing the potentiality that is more optimally suited to what we authentically, individually, believe to be most viable.

The more knowledge we have into the optimality of different modes of being in relation to situational consistencies supplies us with a bigger pool of options from which to choose from in the face of novel encounters. This, on its face, must be true. The more experience we have, the more knowledge, the more options and pathways available to us. The increase of knowledge, increases the availability of given solutions. The problem is oftentimes these pathways are dead ends, and we lose time in their development, but, if charted correctly, the pursuance of certain knowledge, in certain directions, can be utilized in the present moment for their beneficiality towards novel situations. How these are selected for, how we can instantiate them, and the best way to do so, is complex, and would require a theoretically infinite discourse in expression.

I always assumed my progression towards an optimal mode of being was linear, and improved as knowledge and experience improved, but this may be a false notion. The worry here is that what was once attained may no longer be available upon the acquisition of further knowledge. What is “best”, what is “better”, and the relationship modes of being have to the current situation which we find ourselves in, are all transient, and constantly fluctuating, not to mention our experience rooted in them becomes altered as well. Ought we to give up our search then? If our knowledge has provided us with experience that points to structures that are mutually incompatible, yet individually useful, how ought we to decide upon the direction to travel?

The aim in discovering the best life to live, necessarily requires the philosophical extrapolation of possible experiences, possible modes of being in relation to that “best life”, an explanation of morality, intentionality, and a thorough analysis of our goals. The implications of such a search become vaster the more we learn in any of these given domains, as always, we wish not to regress, we wish to progress, substantially, day by day, towards better and better ways of being. Is this feasible? Is it possible? We wish for it to be true, and we tell ourselves that every day we are getting better and better, understanding ourselves and the world we are thrown into more and more, that our mode of being is being improved, that we can better navigate the world today than yesterday, as experience opens up new horizons, as more situations and possible solutions are uncovered, we assume we are better oriented to deal with them. Are these assumptions true? They mustn’t always be, and we must remain open to the possibility that we have lost something which would be more valuable to us than we currently contain. The knowledge of lost knowledge itself is unreliable, it is merely a second order abstraction upon a memory that is no longer present for us. The narrative we tell ourselves in the present about the state of affairs in the past is merely an attempt in the present of recreating a moment gone to us, based upon the present state of things. It never can accurately capture the past, it is lost to us, and each attempt at recreating it, whether it is imagined and conceptualized in thought or articulated in speech, is merely at the most a second order representation. When we attempt to reconstitute the state of affairs in the past, we are merely doing so by building upon the order of re-articulation that we last devised, we are extrapolating upon an abstract extrapolation, and becoming further removed from the content. The narration is constantly modified as time passes, whether or not articulability increases or decreases, whether or not our comprehension of reality in the present moment becomes more or less deviated from the truth of the matter, does not matter, the narration is modified by experience, experience is entwined with time, and our re-articulability is modified by our past articulation of content.

The past is simultaneously lost to us forever, and inexhaustibly entwined with the present, as the future is as well. The future is forever nonexistent, yet always what our being is oriented towards, we live in front of ourselves, our experience is projected towards the future, in the present, as it is constituted by the past. The present we experience is merely the attempt to orient ourselves towards the future that is nonexistent, founded upon a past that is lost to us, and we find ourselves thrown into it by no choice of our own.

In regards to past modes of being, insofar as we recollect them as being more optimal towards achieving a beneficial mode of being, we ought not dwell in the relinquishment of a treasure that cannot be reclaimed, but rather, we must strive on, as it is the only option available to us. Strictly speaking, the philosophical structure which we seek to be the most optimal towards our present moment embodiment is impossible to articulate, but not impossible to strive towards developing, and in doing so, make progress. Practically speaking, we find better or worse ways of navigating. If Buddhism worked in the past as an interlocutor in mediating our conscious thoughts and interpretation of the world, yet we have so altered our being towards Christianity, and Buddhism is no longer the present mode of interpretation towards which we see the world, all is not lost. If we find our new mode characterized by Christianity, and reflect upon the good ol’ days of Buddhism when subjective experience was optimal, and find ourselves wanting, we are merely telling ourselves something that cannot be truly representative of the situation we find ourselves in. We are merely judging our present using thought in a manner that is inconclusive to the beneficiality of what we ought to do.

Properly speaking, we only transcend our past mode of being for one which we deem to be better suited to ourselves. Whether this is true in actuality or not, our change in structure is due to a perceived benefit, and it cannot be otherwise. Our beliefs about the world, and the manner in which we orient ourselves towards the world, works in full accordance with our perceptible ability to uncover valuable information, which is presented to consciousness. If we value something more than the other, if we move in any direction, it necessarily becomes that which we believe the acquisition of to be better constituting our current mode of being. We cannot believe something we do not believe, and we cannot act otherwise. Every moment, every thought, every philosophical structure uncovered in the present moment, is a representation, albeit in part (always in part!) of the Totality of our being. Every expression stemming from conscious direction, is an expression that denotes a significance towards the Being which we are. We cannot act consciously in a way that doesn’t represent our consciousness.

In short, we should be wary to conclude upon strict adherence to a single philosophical structure, as its breadth is less than optimal to cover the totality of novel situations, within a fluctuating milieu of interpersonal relations and individual development progression. As our lives and minds develop, as situations and potentialities become open up to us, the more versatile we must become in consequence, or suffer the price that an outdated mode of being carries with it. As we become more competent and capable, both in our abstract belief structure, and practical knowledge, our orientation naturally changes in the way we are embodied in confronting the world we find ourselves in. For the mind to lag behind the constant reorientation, is to fail to meet up with the challenges of the present moment using the tools we have available. In utilizing our rational capacities, and the ability to remain fallible as to conclusive structures which guide us, the better equipped we become to face the present moments unique difficulties. In relinquishing adherence to certainty, we open ourselves up to an authentic being-towards-the-world, one which best represents who we are, who we want to be, and is better suited to adapt to the environment we find ourselves in. We ought to be prudent in discerning the structures we are studying, their affect upon our psychological wellbeing, and their role in modifying behavior. As we collect more data in more domains, we ought to reevaluate what labels we attach to ourselves, and the repercussions that stem from such characterizations. The way in which we self-conceptualize ourselves (Self-Conceptualization Modifying Behavior), and the mode of being which is influenced by our pointed interests and time spent concentrating on a specific school of thought, must be recognized as to its influence in regards to the subjective experience of the present moment, and we ought to progressively move forward towards optimizing the framework from which our mode of being is propagated by, and which courses through every experience of our lives, that is, if we value our experience, which, undeniably, we do. The role of philosophy is to make this inquiry, uncovering, and direction optimal in its utility and in our understanding and conceptualization of it, with ends towards a more meaningful, fulfilling, eudaimonistic life.

Existential Ramblings and Conclusions

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: July 20th 2020

The problem is that we have an experience, and that experience can be better or worse. Not to mention, that experience and its contents, which are ranging, are wholly contingent upon this world in which we find ourselves thrown into.

The question no longer becomes whether anything matters or doesn’t, as it surely does, to us, it becomes – how do we best navigate this existence we find ourselves thrown into? The social milieu, the time, the space, the experience, the present moments causal tethers, and the anticipation of the future, how do we navigate with the givens?

Do we stop trying, and produce an intolerable suffering that we subjectively experience? Do we struggle to pursue what we individually uncover as valuing, despite the universes judgment upon the futility of meaning? We ought to. We ought to rebel against the universes condemnation, and bring to the forefront that meaning which we find gives sense to our experience, that which relates to our conscious awareness the beneficiality of pursuing, not because it means something to the world, but because it means something to us. Is this real? Does it exist? It exists as sure as our experience of existence exists, and to optimize this experience is to pursue what we value, which, if we’re smart, we would look to discovering what is the most optimal pursuits to value themselves.

We don’t forget our thrownness into a world unasked for, we don’t ignore the universal insignificance of our existence, rather, we value the content of our own experience, we see the sense that is made behind every moment, as our embodied perceptive ability discerns which content to manifest in conscious experience, and in so inviting, we discern modes of being, we experience life, we live and we learn, we strive for optimal states, and we ought not feel guilty, nor forget the framework from which we work in.

Our natural orientation toward the world will inform us of our values, whether they be pre-conscious in perception, or consciously directed. Our genetic encoding for how to perceive, and the way in which we orient ourselves towards our environment is done so by a certain signification that objects in our environment give as mediated by the perceptive system (itself genetically and environmentally informed). This is base level sense, meaning, and signification. It also just so happens to be the case that we are located in a social milieu, a familial and culturally influenced system, which is formulated into our perceptive orientation system since birth. These systems all seek to orient us in a way that has value, from the basis of survival, propagation, and other evolutionary factors. This basis, provided with a social milieu, entails action and Being that works in a way towards properly being in the world. This “proper” is somewhat anthropomorphized, but it is a natural process that is underlined by a certain sense.

There is sufficient reason why we pay attention to certain things, why certain content has the effect it does upon us, why we reciprocally act in a way that is “intuited” as optimal for us. It is a production of a value system, that is part in parcel of our Being, that which we are, and our place in the world we find ourselves in.

We can extrapolate, as the desires and goals become enriched by the societal norms, become more complex as the means to survival and satisfaction become more entwined and enriched with a causally determined value. We pursue things, we say things, we do things, we think things, and we reflect on our own experience, not for no reason at all, but for good reason, it is all bursting with meaning, we ought to attempt to uncover such things, which we can (Value System Uncovering). Proper Vipassana meditation, analyzed with a phenomenological method, can disclose the intentionality behind conscious experience, can disclose the modes of being which we embody, and their characteristics (Phenomenology of Vipassana Mode of Being). One of which, as Hiedegger pointed out, is our natural care or concern system, which courses through every present moment.

Everything we do is fundamentally informed by our care and concern, our want, our deficiency and its alleviation. We care about things, we value things, because they mean something to us, there is no escaping this, whether we consciously attribute our belief structure to being nihilist, or absurdist, etc., the orientation towards a belief structure, and mediated by the belief structure, itself is rooted upon a type of meaning, albeit the selection of negation over affirmation (in these cases).

Why do you think you better yourself? We should answer these questions for ourselves, look to who we want to be, what we want to do, and strive to go there, for good reasons and intentions. Making this goal, these intentions, and the path there explicit provides a benefit towards achieving that goal of becoming who we want to become, of getting “better” in a subjective sense – made objective only in its relation to our subjective experience of being better or worse.

Why do we continue living? Why do I do the things I do? I do it because it fills me with meaning, provides positive states of being, it will make me a better husband, father, citizen, which themselves are sources of meaning, they provide a framework from which to act under that improves my psychological state, it fills my life with potentialities that have a significance to me, and for me, that is enough to continue living.

The better we are, in ways which we value, hypothetically (if our goals, intentions, practice, and definition of “better” is actually conducive to a better experience of life) the better we can navigate existence, the better we can cope with hardship, the better subjective experience we have, and the better we can aide others. By bettering ourselves, we become more equipped to handle life itself, optimally, that produces wellbeing for ourselves and those we care about.

The more virtuous we are, the better we can act, the more knowledgeable we become, the better we are able to understand reality, and the better equipped we become to live in an optimal manner.

While this is itself subjective, I think we ought to pursue what we value regardless, at the least on a “whim” as Camus said, but we can go past that, because this “whim” can be properly informed and backed by empirical evidence of improving psychological wellbeing, which ought to matter to us, seeing as our experience does matter to us. We can instantiate a path towards a consciously formulated goal, mode of being, character trait, personal accomplishment, creative act, etc. that is the result of a pursuance in accordance with what we find meaningful in the present moment, or what we value.

Now why ought we to pursue what we value, what we consciously formulate as being valuable? This is generally a tautology, we pursue what is valuable because it is valuable, it provides us with wellbeing, reduces suffering, creates a life that is meaningful, to us, by definition, because it’s based on our values.

This would be, if you could grant me, a subjective pursual that is objectively verified as a real present moment decision, act, understanding. The phenomena of such conscious decisions, the awareness necessary to realize, is all subjective, but we can say, from our experience, if is an objective fact about our existence that it is occurring.

I would never make a claim that pursuits and values are universally shared to the same degree, just that they objectively exist and can be discovered subjectively. Any further extrapolation would require quite a detailed phenomenological explanation as well as a philosophically vigorous explanation of what “truth” here entails. (On Truth Claims) I hope you see where I’m coming from regardless.

One more point on the is ought problem, as far as morality is concerned, I’m coming from a meta ethical perspective of moral realism, tempered by individually acquired wisdom in actuality, so there’s that.

In regards to extrapolating these musing beyond the life of a human, to other sentient life, the natural orientation we have towards the world we’re in, this goes for Dasein, and dog, and buffalo, is naturally oriented towards the content within its environment, pre-consciously. This orientation is grounded upon the biological structure of our system, formed through DNA, developed through our historical development by environmental factors. The dog isn’t aware of the being of the object which imposes a reaction, the dog is merely orienting himself to the environment he perceives in embodied pre conscious adjustments. The perception of the hot ground in Arizona, and the subsequent movement of the lizard in response, isn’t merely an empirical sensory intake and thus movement, neither is it the intellectual comprehension and directedness of the mind imposing direction and movement, it is the embodied perceptibility of his being which is seeking to reorient that being based on the conditions of the world in which he finds himself, the milieu which surrounds him.

I would say the orientation of the being of the organism to color and heat is intuited by its perceptive abilities prior to cognize, that being said, where anthropomorphized cognition and intellect must be suspended, such as in another organism such as a lizard, we cannot claim that it recognizes the being of such phenomena as such. We only claim the being of the object being perceived in consciousnesses as being a possibility due to our own recognition of our being, I think it would be fallacious to attribute the same power, to the same degree, to other beings – but this also holds true to members of the same species.

That being said, from our perspective, using our language, we can say that the organism does intuit heat and color, that they recognize the fluctuation, variance, and thus orient themselves accordingly, but this content is never made explicit to itself in a way which humans are capable of doing so.

So the organism does have a comprehension of the color and heat of the sand which it darts across, and thus is impelled to action through movement, but that comprehension which we say is the comprehension of the being of externalities, isn’t the same comprehension which we are used to. Our comprehension is mediated and filtered through our perceptive abilities, and the mode of comprehension which is enacted upon by the lizard isn’t making the content of his environment explicit, or attributing it to the being of externalities, he is merely reorienting in much the same way we do with a hot stove, or when someone walks into the room.

Every being, in relationship to any other being which enters into our perceptual or even conceptual horizon, modifies the being which is present in response to its recognition (not conscious recognition, merely perceptive.) The manner in which we do so, the characteristics of such modes of being, how phenomena influence us, and how we come to perceive, comprehend, and are modified by such phenomena, is the role of the phenomenologist to attempt to uncover.

The manner in which organisms which are farther away from us do so, i.e. not Dasien, becomes less clear and more difficult their degree of removal of sameness they are from us, as we all know, even denoting our own fundamental characteristics in regards to any given phenomena, noema, and the underlying noesis, is difficult enough.

What stands, regardless of the being which is in question, is that if it is life, it has a set of values, instantiated at birth towards certain aims. These aims, whether conscious, unconscious, or merely perceptual and reactionary, inform the being of the organism in question as to how to orient itself in life. Whether to produce locomotion, cognition, action, or inaction. This evaluation of our environment, our modification in response to the gulf between ourselves and the environment, urges us in directions, towards objects of intentionality. This all is presupposed by a significance, a meaning, an evaluation, which, if uncovered, can provide insight into why we do the things we do. This system isn’t merely bottom-up, but can be effected significantly in a top-down manner as well, which is where the absurdist or existentialist conceptions come in play. As long as our subjective experience matters to us, we ought to pursue that which we value, re-examine our value system, and direct ourselves towards actualization of that content – that is – if we want a meaningful life, if we want to have a positive psychological experience. While none of this matters sub species aeternitus, from the universes perspective, or from any perspective outside our own, the fact remains that it matters to us, and that is more than enough to pursue what we value.

The Problem of Being

On By Chris ShuttleworthLeave a comment
Originally Written: July 6th 2020

A potential state of human inquiry is into the nature of our very being, and what it means “to be”. For many of us, if not all of us, this very being which we subjectively experience, the totality of who we are, that conscious experience of being a subject, that conscious experience of content as it arises and passes away, the totality of our psyche, our body, the unity of time, space, and consciousness, all of which falls under our synthesis of the unity of the Being which we are, becomes itself a problem, insofar as we don’t understand it, nor know how to modify it to the most optimal subjective experience. Our being becomes a problem for us, because we are able to recognize, first of all, that we are something. This something, insofar as it is unknown, unconceptualized, yet experienced, is altogether unknown to us. While our Being is that from which any action or content of the present moment is able to be brought into our awareness, we find trouble pinning down its process. Why am I experiencing one thing and not another? Why does my experience have a mood of dissatisfaction and suffering? How do I optimize this being, and why is it not the way I want it to be? Even if it was optimal, or is currently producing a mode of being which is content, or at peace, we know it won’t last, it is of the nature of our Being to be transient, alterable, subject to change.

 Given our desirous, transmutable, and altogether unreliable Being which is the very thing that we are, it is the source of our experience, and in the recognition of that experience, it becomes a problem for us, insofar as our experience is always lacking. Given the nature of our Being, that it is conditioned by prior causes, that it is always projecting itself into the future through the will for things to be otherwise, given the dissatisfaction and desire which are ceaseless, this Being becomes a problem for us. How can who we are, pose itself to be a problem? How could it be otherwise? If it couldn’t be otherwise, why do we still see it as a problem?

It is a problem by its very nature. Being biological organisms, in our corporeality, we are the literal survival machines of our genome, the very carrier that is tasked with propagation. This is the lowest core value that drives us, and as far as our Being is comprised of this body, which it is, the relative biological imperatives rise into our conscious experience, a manifestation of a mode stemming from the synthetic unity of Being, in whichever way they may be modified by our milieu, with the original desirous implications which are an expression of that core value. The complexity of our current milieu in which expression of the genomes wishes to be accomplished, and our ability to be acutely aware of the navigation of the milieu, and our place in it, gives rise to the complexity that arises in conscious awareness. Thus, based solely on the core value, we have a complex navigation issue that is further complicated by the more and more complex social environment and cultural conditions which we must orient ourselves around in order to succeed in accomplishing the survival machines task. This is the world “we”, as the subjective experiencers of this navigation, are “thrown into”. We experience the orientation provided to us by our embodied Being, that is modified by everything within our sphere of experience and influence. This constant modification, and our constant inherent desire, provides a large number of factors and potential orientations towards the world which we may find ourselves inhabiting. The problem with our Being is the dissatisfaction in not being properly equipped for the world we didn’t choose to be a part of, in inhabiting a body with a mode of Being that is sub-optimal in providing pleasure and contentment, as its instantiated final cause is that which necessarily must be driven towards. Our experience poses a navigation problem, that of seeking for the proper orientation, seeking the proper way of Being in the world we are thrown into. The problem is, it is never clear, it is never straightforward, we are always pushed and pulled, attracted to and aversive to the content which arises in our perceptually integrated directedness which presents itself in conscious awareness.

The directedness which comprises the gaze of consciousness towards perceptually filtrated content that is filled with a sense, a significance, a meaning, presents novel problems (novel in that every present moment is novel, always renewing itself) in how to orientate ourselves with the given content selected for. This continually updated system, itself continually updating, and our conscious experience “updating” in that it is mutable and constantly fluctuating, overwhelms the Being which believes it has the power, or the right, or the ability, to dictate the successive content, and our orientation towards it. While consciously directed Being is able to manifest actions in alignment with desire, those very desires, and the very perceptual system which injects content into conscious awareness, is itself outside of our will (The Causal Tethers Which Bind Us). As we are filled with choices, and “decisions” in regards to the choices, the entire enterprise is ran through by processes which go unnoticed in an unreflexive moment-to-moment experience. This dragging along into a world we are thrown into, for him who recognizes it as such, poses a problem, a problem of fatalism, that of being along for a ride which we didn’t choose to take, that we can’t stop, and we have no say over where it goes.

Prior to any realization of the characteristics which compromise our being such as its necessary meaning structure, its directedness, its inherent desire and dissatisfaction with the present, its projection towards the future and its immutable connectivity to the past, comes the preliminary underlying issue of our own Being being unknown to us, of Being something which we do not know. While these characteristics seek to impose some order in conceptual form, or experientially realized pre-conceptual form, they are merely a way of our Being coming to terms with what it is. Any unknown which we are directed upon poses a sort of issue for us, a problem, insofar as it has yet to be put in formation, yet to be transferred from mere content to “information”. This presents itself in any content that manifests itself in a novel, or wholly unintuitable way, it invites us to seek a way of categorizing it, of putting ourselves in orientation towards it in a way that makes sense of it, that has meaning. While this is done subconsciously with visual, auditory, tactile, and in general, all sensorious content, the mental content that arises poses the same exact issue, but it requires an orientation that is more than just perceptually integrated and embodied – as it itself is the production of the perceptual filtration system – it requires an abstract orientation of the mind in being able to make sense of the content. We often attempt to impose order upon mental content through the linguistically developed capabilities we contain. We tie concepts to phenomena and use language in order to reference it, placing a structure of understanding within ourselves in relation to the content that is manifesting. When it comes to the unknown that is itself this very Being which is orientating itself in the world, we find the same problem, but amplified in its scope, in that it is the Being which orients which seeks to orient itself. We, being the totality of the system which does the orientating, experience the awareness of conscious content in its directedness towards something, and can reflexively conclude that it is the manifestation of conditioned phenomenal forces acting in the presenting of the present. In seeking to uncover the attributes, the mode of being which comprises the enterprise is itself directed towards that which is directing, towards the directionality itself.

This Being poses a problem in that it is unknown, and in seeking to order it, to tie linguistic representations and structure ourselves towards it, the very mechanism from which we are doing so is that which we are attempting to reflexively orientate ourselves towards. Thus we prose a problem for ourselves, in that we seek to uncover a way of organizing the chaos which we are, through the chaos that is that which is to be understood. Thus the fundamental human condition, that of operating from a presupposition of chaotic potentiality, the unknown that is known by the conscious observer as being unknown, and which fails to impose order upon it.

Thus the role of phenomenology arises from this deficiency, as that which takes this issue of Being, attempts to impose order in the formulation and comprehension of its characteristics, through the recognition of its manifestations, through the examination of its content and the ties which predispose our Being to act and Be in certain ways. It is recognizing the characteristics of this Being which we find ourselves as, that we are reflexively turning the gaze upon itself, and delineating its features. This Being which we are, is the necessary precondition to any enterprise that arises into experience, whether it is movement, sensation, mental aggregates such as thought, ideas, pre-conceptual experience, and, the way in which we are situated in the world, and what we do in the world. All human endeavor, whether it be scientific, technological, social, or philosophical, stems from the human Being which is a mystery unto itself. Yet we make truth-claims about these domains, we impose order in the form of descriptions of objects, and we know not from whence the description came, we know not why and how such manifestations of linguistic organization is produced, we know not the meaning, the sense, the significance that has orientated us towards the world in the way which produces the experience which we take for granted. We attribute agency, and conscious control, in the place of embodied orientation towards the world, we take ownership for conceptual abstract representations, knowing not why we are orientated toward such content, nor how such linguistic representations are produced, and why they are produced in a way towards content which we find enough importance to dedicate time to. We opt either for empiricism in regarding all that is experienced as being subjugated to the sensory received datum, or intellectualism in the conscious interpretation of all phenomenon. We ought to see the transcendence of both systems, in the unity of the totality of our Being, and see both perspectives as merely modes of interpreting ourselves, which need not be diametrically opposed, but rather two modes of interpretation which are themselves manifesting out of the same Being which seeks to orientate itself towards the world, they are two answers to a question which calls for the transcendence of both.

Why do we dedicate time towards the directedness of our gaze, and for what purpose? Why does our gaze move, and what drives us to orient ourselves in the manner which we find ourselves in the present? We ought to, in the first place, pose the questions. We ought to admit the unknown through admonition of its place as the unknown, and, if we want to find the answers that solve the questions we must look in the direction of solving the question of how the question itself is arising. In order to find the characteristics and order necessary to deal with existence itself, to manage Being in an optimal way, we must seek to understand it. In the process of understanding it, we must return to the thing’s themselves, to the phenomena as they are so presented to us, and work with the only tools we have, with the Being which is closest to us, that Being which we find ourselves as being. This is the task of the philosopher, of the seeker of truth, and more specifically, of the phenomenologist.