How Deep?

I was taking a bit more of a look around and came across his article on Being. He answers the question what is being? But we can then ask what is the source of being? What comes before existence? I drafted a response post but on first read wonder if its, as the blog name suggests, too deep. Explaining the source of being requires a framework for the whole enchilada, a picture that took a whole chapter to explain. A chapter thats at the end of the book, after much prior framework building.

This rather comes to the core of the writing. Who am I writing for? Is there an audience for questions like this? The 7 steps of creation are rather more ‘out there’ (in there?) than 7 steps to a good relationship. The profundity and implications of a detailed description of what is and how it is are obvious. But is there an audience? How large a circle is the self-referral value? (laughs)

What do you think?


Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to How Deep?

  1. snailgoop says:

    I’m not sure I agree with’s definition of being as “the functioning of the organism in awareness” since we can embody beingness while being unaware. I do agree with him or her that being is existence, or what is.

    I don’t think it’s too deep to ask such questions as you have. On the blog response, you ask “From whence comes existence?” You want to know what comes before existence but maybe there is nothing. Or maybe there isn’t an answer. Maybe there is only another question.

  2. Davidya says:

    I would describe that Tukin definition as what one might call ‘localized being’, an expressed value.

    And yes, we can be while being ‘unaware’ in the broader sense, but as being does not exist without awareness, even a rock has some scant value of expressed awareness. We need to differentiate here between simple awareness and its degree of expression. Everything is simple awareness but how much of that awareness is self-referential through the expression varies widely.

    I’m not suggesting its too deep to ask the question – but the answer may be. And there is an answer. But it goes 4 levels deeper than existence. And amusingly, in this response i’ve pointed to part of the answer to the question (laughs)

  3. Ooh, my ears are burning. 🙂

    When I write those posts, I don’t mean for the meaning to be taken as the way it is. I don’t even mean to imply that it is right and correct. It is just the way I happen to use the word in that instance.

    Words aren’t such a problem anyway; it is what we do with those words that may bring difficulties.

    Anyway, don’t take it as a definition to use over and over again. It is perhaps just a label that points to an apparent condition.

    we can embody beingness while being unaware.

    I take it by unaware you mean someone that is not aware of something. As Takuin goes about his day, there is no-one to be aware of anything. Now, if there is a self that is trying to be aware of something, it sounds very strange. But the self cannot be aware of the unknown. It can only operate in its own limited field. It may project what it thinks the unknown to be, but that is in no way real. Awareness is beyond the field of the self and what it knows.

    Everything is being, of course, but that is far too easy to say. It has no meaning unless one lives there.

    Ah…my ears have cooled down now.

  4. Davidya says:

    (laughs) I didn’t mean your post as a definition, only that you described it well. Your response clearly indicates the difficulty here and why I’ve not posted what I wrote on the foundations of being. Why I instead asked should I?

    Yes, awareness is beyond the self and what it knows. But it arises in the foundations of who we are. And everything else reflects that. Even if we are not aware of awareness, it is the movement of awareness that gives rise to everything we experience. To everything that is.

    “It has no meaning unless one lives there.” Perhaps, yet it remains a concept for many. But it is the foundations of everything else so becomes a key to understanding what is – all of what is, the being as person, as life, as physical existence, as any value of isness you might or might not feel. Contrary to Descartes, I am, therefore I think.

    I am aware I think, the awareness proves I am.

    I am Aware, therefore I am.

    I am That.

    or per the Moses Code
    I am That, I am.

    or per Popeye
    I yam that I yam.

  5. The Popeye quote is the clearest of them all, haha. There was a guy that knew what life was all about. 🙂

    Here’s one from this side of the field:

    Thinking happens, Awareness happens, yet I am nowhere to be found.

    Of course, if it does or does not happen, it is all the same.

  6. Davidya says:

    My mate agreed re: Popeye and added that Yam fries are her favorite. One could say I Yam that I love yam fries.

    Ah – this says it exactly. The ‘you’ in nowhere, beyond awareness. It is you who is aware. You are awareness but you are also that which gives rise to it.

    Some of the deeper saying have layers and layers of meaning. They sync to reality, so reflect each layer of expression.

    Back to the post question, I think the real question is – can I write about it clearly enough to communicate the ideas? I have a first draft. Will need a minute to go over it…

  7. Davidya says:

    Have gone over the draft and its almost ready to post. (suspense…) Life keeps happening. Funny thing. Seems a principle I put here somewhere – in order to be you must do.

  8. Pingback: Deepest Being « In 2 Deep

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *