Being in itself (en soi)
Being in itself is the self contained and fully realised Being of objects. A mode of existence that simply is. It is not conscious so is neither active nor passive and harbours no potentiality for transcendence.


Peace,

kowalski

Good point. What's the source of the definition?

Isnt this Brahman?

Mann,

It's a Sartrean existentialism definition of the ontology of being. Glad you liked it, there's more to come.


Roody,

My knowledge of Eastern philosophy is pretty weak as I've rarely been able to take much of it seriously, most of it actually has me laughing out loud. In fairness most western philosophy between the first and eighteenth centuries was utter shite too. But, from what I understand Brahman includes being and consciousness. Being in itself refers to being only but not to consciousness.


Being is what it is. It is it completely. Being is not what it is not.

Being cannot be other than it is, nor can it not be other than it is not.


Peace,

kowalski

Thats like learning about Judaism by listening to Madonna.

Are we talking normal waking consciousness here or are we talking knowing?

While we can't describe or experience it directly, wouldnt you agree we are a part of it?

Sartre means consciousness itself, whether awake or otherwise. Knowing is necessarily a state of consciousness. Sartre is refering to consciousness itself not a particular state of consciousness.

Read on. Some questions may be answered in the natural course of things.

On the one hand I'm interested to know what the 'it' is here, on the other hand I think whatever the 'it' is I have written insufficiently on the subject so far. Maybe ask that again after a few more steps have been laid.


Peace,

kowalski

No. It is like learning about Judaism by reading the Old Testament and thinking 'What a load of fucking nonsense'. I didn't not study any eastern philosophy. I studied it and found it ridiculous. That is all.


Peace,

kowalski

When I say knowing I mean in the sense sahmdi, the state of experience out side of consciousness which people who meditate wish to acheive. An opening of awareness to the external world beyond our normal consciousness.

When I say "it" or the being in its self or brahman, it can never be talked about sufficiently or accuratley. it goes beyond language. Just as describing the smell of a rose will never be the scent itself.

I've only stared reading Sartre recently but its essentially creating your own existence am I right?

You can’t create something out of nothing. We have to co create from the “it” or Brahman, of being or the void to make your existence.

We can never know the “it” directly just as we never know exactly what color is without an eye. Or what the sound of a tree falling is without a ear.

If such a state exists, it would be included in what Sartre calls consciousness.

Being in itself and Brahman are not the same thing, see above.

Both Brahman and Sahmdi are incommensurable with a Sartrean ontology.

I am describing my interpretation of Sartre's existentialism.


Peace,

kowalski

Oh come now, just because Sartre didn’t mention it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I mean to go beyond perceptions and maps of the world, to create at will new realities by changing perspective without being stuck in one mode of or view consciousness but to be open to all of them.


I'm talking about the same experiences through different words and views of things that go beyond languages and realities.

The thing itself is meaningless unless you give it meaning. The question is how can we use this to further define our own existence?