Being and Presence: An Ontological Essay

Being and Presence

Preface

Being And Non Being - The Existence Of Nihil

Being And Presence - Presence As Being

Being As Consciousness

Being As Awareness Of Existence

Consciousness As Transcending Awareness

Being Defined As Reflected Transcendence

Transcendence And Fear Of The Other

The Other As Doorway To Being For Itself

Authenticity And The Self As Object Of Intentionality

Self As Only Necessary Mode Of Being

Differentiating The Self From The Other

Self-image And Delusion

The Being For Itself As Negation Of The Void

The Self; Temporality And Being - The Problem Of Presence

Contrasting I As Subject Against It As Object. The I As Awareness Of What It Negates

The I As Awareness Of What It Negates

Negation As Tribute To Freedom Of Opinion

The Emergence of Nihil

The Necessity of Nihil

Nihil And The Negation Of Existence

The I As Primary Mode Of Being

The First Person Being In Itself Struggling For Recognition

True Versus False First Person Narrative

The Other As Project

The Other

The Other As Object Of Intentionality - Positional Considerations

The Gaze

Hierarchical Structures And Otherness

Awareness Of The Other As Thetical Project Or As Dogmatic Preference

The Self As Being To And For The Other

Accepting The Contrasting Being As Reflection Of Ones Self In The Gaze Of The Other

Signs Of A Toxic Sticky Being

Space Time And Existence

Time As Sequenced Spatiality

Presence And Being As Modes Of Existence

Presence And Desire

Positionality As Mode Of Presence

False Presence And A Thesis Of The Self

Being And The True Presence Of First Person Is Imperative

Presence As Thetical Project Versus Being

Absence And The Decay Of Being

Conquering The Rift Of Nihil

Pure Versus Impure Presence

True And False Gaze - The Case Of Intentionality

Presence As That Which It Is Not

Being And Presence. Constructing The I In Being As Projected Reflection Of Itself

Presence And Reflected Being As Departure Towards The Projected Leading Character

The It As Subject. I As Exposed Being, Subject Or Object? False Reflection?

Reflection As Mode Of Existence

It As Reflected Need

It As Contrast

The Nihilistic Presence Of Being As Threat

Defying The Void And Traversing Nihil

Creating Somethingness Out Of Nothingness

Denying The Object

The Object As Desired State Of Being

The Necessity Of Objectification

Solipsistic Being As Subjective Project

Solipsistical Points Of Departure Necessary Ab Definitio

Otherness And The Solipsist Solution

Acknowledging The Other While Managing Solis

Subject As Thetical Or Antithetical Modus Vivendi

Thetical Considerations Pertaining To Subject Position

Subjective Presence In Being

Presence, Consciousness And Intentionality

Consciousness As Awareness Of The Other As Challenge To Its Own Subject Position

Conclusive Discussion

Rhyme And Reason

Copyright

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