/lit/ - Literature

what kinda faggot wants to not be lmao

>>13423354
The "i dont know" position because how the fuck could you know

>>13423354
What is shankara's position then?

Ok, now this is what I call a Good Thread.

>>13423354
Heraclitus is my nigger.

>>13423354
Plato, parmenides, wittgenstein
Although I'm open to hearing hegel and stoics becoming

>>13423354
All three are appropriate and accurate and more importantly, useful in very different situations. A person can use philosophies like gears in a car. Different tools for different jobs.

Also consider the other three axes involved: Overcoming The World (stoicism, buddhism, paganism in general), Humanization Of The World (Confucianism, Utilitarianism, Marxism et c) and Struggle With The World (Christianity, Islam et c)

Seriously, people should read Unger's Religion Of The Future

>>13423519
Isn't Unger's whole thing just a dialectical materialist project?

>>13423540
Not remotely, he's a Pragmatic.
Basically he doesn't want to destroy tradition and do permanent revolution of any kind. He wants to loosen existing traditions and institutional arrangements so they can be adaptive to the needs of life right now with specific orientation to opening up the limitlessness potential in humans through enabling the individual and the imagination.

That's of course poorly put, he did a whole trilogy: The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound; The Religion Of The Future; The Singular Universe And The Reality Of Time

>>13423540
In fact one of his first major works, Knowledge And Politics, and his Politics trilogy (Politics: A Work In Constructive Social Theory) spend most of their time critically decimating diamat

>>13423407
Azns

>>13423571
>>13423578
But isn't most of his metaphysics materialist? When I listened to one of his lectures It seemed like he was entirely concerned with answering material questions "a society in which one must die only once"

>>13423599
Yes, he is personally a materialist, so what

Bookchin is a radical eco socialist anarkiddie, but ecology of freedom is the best criticism of capital and hierarchy that exists to date.
Ecology Of Freedom actually made me MORE right wing.

I'm saying that ideology should be an adapting tool instead of a rigid trap.
I don't have to bomb colleges to get something out of Kaczynski, nor join Orthodox Church to enjoy and use Dugin's thought

>>13423354
Where does the tao lie?

>>13423354

if thats all we have to pick from, plato's position is the correct one. buddha's position is misconstrued as "non-being", heraclitus correctly explained maya, but poarmenides is more correct since he described the absolute. nietzche's opinion is retarded and will make you miserable

>>13423599
Another aspect of that is that his materialism is useful toward the idea of more fully living this, the life you live right now.
He makes it clear in RotF that whether or not reality is actually cyclic or linear temporally, or if there are spirit and matter divide, are to be viewed in practical effect terms.
Does fatalism make society disengage and act apathetically? Often yes, and he shows how. Whether or not fatalism is real is totally irrelevant to living life more fully right now (not hedonism, he covers why that's harmful too)

>>13423354
Buddha is definitely not non-being (he isn't being either).
Dependent origination is more like becoming desu, and its end is like the end of becoming.

>>13423354
>Op doesn't understand my master philosophical design that I can't tell you because it will propel me to fame and glory

>>13423519
>Also consider the other three axes involved: Overcoming The World (stoicism, buddhism, paganism in general), Humanization Of The World (Confucianism, Utilitarianism, Marxism et c) and Struggle With The World (Christianity, Islam et c)
This is absolutely fucking horrible, it isn't even a consistent tripartite categorisation. Take for example Christianity within your list, it fits into all three.

>>13423599
On another angle, I found Abolishing Freedom by Ruda really liberating, contrary to Ungerian thought: that it can't possibly get worse, that the worst has always already happened, is emancipatory.

Like when the basketball game is a lock, there's no way the other team can recover, and the kid that sucks at sports is given the ball. He gets to play, and it feels good for him and for you letting him.

>>13423664
He covers that.
Trying to dumb it down for you, it's like "what essential revolutionary element exemplified various ideological changes in society?"
He talks about the massive overlaps.

He's actually arguing FOR Struggle With The World as an ideology, by the way

>>13423667
Back on this subject, it's like how you do your best when there's no pressure.
"There's never anyone around, or a camera, when you hit an impossible peak in performance"
Like accidental discoveries from "failed" experiments.

That's why people tend to overmanage, micromanage, committee-fuck and democracy-fuck everything up. They are terrified of fucking up and won't take risks or adapt or loosen up or IMAGINE.

That's often when amazing shit happens in business: when you're dead in the water and there's nothing to lose

>>13423354
Buddha rejected all existence by existence and all nothing by nothing, nothing as asserting something and in term its assertion of "something". The Aryan Buddha focused on uniting of opposites (as so many great men and teachings of knowledge have in the past), the uniting of the most fundamental of fundamental's yet without the destruction of the fundamental itself. In other words it's aim was the same as moksha a unification of all without the destruction of all. To remove the duality of thought of "something" and "other" without falling it monism of thought and so simply om. He would be more greatly defined as focusing on being yet ultimately he falls better into the three categories perhaps not in practicality but in the essentiallity of his philosophy.

I guess I can accept that definition of the Socratic's even if there have been so many more before and after to define to that term better and yet the definition is still "iffy" considering the vague definition of being over history.

I would say you have matched these terms badly in the way that the broad names chaotic, orderly, neutral would be better suited.

>>13423704
Or
>THESIS
>ANTITHESIS
>SYNTHESIS

>>13423354
With regard to the association of Plato with being, the idea of the Good is beyond being. I think he's got the same view as the Taoists, the Tao is beyond the realm of being/non-being, same as the idea of the Good

Explain becoming to me.

>>13423738
One chooses what one wants to be (generally the best version of oneself) and puts all his soul/effort into that, making life a proyect that never ends of moving towards that. Although that's more of a Nitzschean way of looking at it.
The point is that there is no "essence" or predefined mission for you, there is no set of things that constitute you when you are born, you have to make them yourself, thus, you are not only a "being", you are a person that strives to "become" something or someone.

>>13423720
Except Plato is using essentialism and substance ontology in a pluralism.
Taoism is a process metaphysic with constitutional monism.
They are diametrically opposed.

>>13423738
>>13423775
That is an interpretation.

Becoming, however is a Process Philosophy thing.
Instead of eternal elements that combine to express forms that exist eternally as forms outside of physicality, think more that there is only movement, moving, all the time, always changing, dynamic patterns in that movement making forms that move and interact and create more movement and pattern like a fractal, seemingly a lot of things, but just really one thing that never stops

>>13423775
And to be clear, yes, "you" are a gerund.
You are a bunch of processes creating every moment itself within everything else creating itself, from atoms to galaxies.
You aren't "a being", a unit called a being, you "are/will/always-were becoming"

>>13423794
In relatable terms? You know, so everyone else can understand it, in what way are they diametrically opposed, if you wouldn't mind filling me in? Thank you sincerely. Otherwise I can google for a bit and get back to you shortly.

>>13423354
Non-being

>>13423794
Like, if the height of Plato's ontological structure is the One, is he not a monist?

>>13423794
And with regard to the process metaphysic issue, I don't think the Taoist unchanging change is much different from the One with regard to the descriptions of each, and the are certainly not describing different ideas with regard to all practical purposes for the information. But I can be persuaded

>>13423354
Anything other than Being is just edgy fantasy

>>13423844
>>13423863
Here's a decent quora that will save us time, second answerer says what I'm trying to say

https://www.quora.com/The-Tao-in-Taoism-the-One-in-Neoplatonism-and-the-Substance-in-Spinozism-are-they-all-the-same

>>13423354
Become THE BEING.

>>13423894
Unironically BE THE BECOMING IN NONBEING

>>13423880
That is extremely valuable. I really appreciate it.

>>13423354
non-being so i may leave this fucked existence

>>13423708
>>13423708
Yes however I reject that term because of the rejection of synthesis in which the Buddha faced - total Synthesis as laid out within say Kabbalah of duality is equated with God, the Buddha however does not reject the separation of opposites rather he embraces both object, subject and synthesis without either taking dominance. Perhaps I shall write an essay on this and find myself a 4th term for the unification and separation of duality.

>>13424027
But that is what synthesis actually is.
God, I hate what "common knowledge" aka indirect shallow summarization, has done to society

>>13424027
See?
Picrel

>>13424037
>>13424042
You are both wrong for you do not see that synthesis is change of the original element. What chemical reaction retains both the new and old in entirety? For it cannot be done in the physic - only by such boundless forms of mind or spirit.

>>13424052
Third meaning
Hegelian Philosophy.
Read things all the way through before kneejerking

>>13424064
>imagine misunderstanding Hegel this badly
Do you not understand what Hegel meant by Synthesis? He didn't mean history accepted every single previous attribute otherwise that would leave no purpose for the dialectic nature of history. It accepts the Good and rejects the bad as a dialectic. I put it in as babby terms possible for you.

Now are you ready to admit you've been btfo'd?

>>13424075

Being is thesis and Nonbeing is antithesis, they conflict
Becoming is synthesis, it solves the conflict by transcendent immanence

>>13423704
>>Buddha rejected all existence by existence and all nothing by nothing, nothing as asserting something and in term its assertion of "something". The Aryan Buddha focused on uniting of opposites
this is completely false.

>"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

>"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

>"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

>>13424077
Exactly you fucking idiot, it resolves the conflict by synthesis which means it compromises between both by both rejection and acceptance. If it were just a blind acceptance of the previous than how does the dialectic fit within it? As the dialectic was the organism which decided upon value and if it is simply the acceptance of all regardless of value then there cannot be a dialectic nature to history.

Hence a synthesis destroys object and subject.

>>13424083
One must see past dualistic thought, yet at the same time not fall into monism of thought.

Everything I said is literally an extension of this.

>>13424090
>>13424101
Why do you think everyone else is wrong when you admit they are correct

>>13424112
The Hegel argument the guy was claiming that synthesis is both object, subject as well as its own unique. Which absolutely impossible generally as well as for Hegel's own philosophy. Secondly the Buddha taught the unity of all things as was my point of neither duality and neither monism.

Neither man hath agreed with me but insisted on disagreement.

>>13424131
Is English your second language?

Also "the unity of all things" is literally monism. The opposite of which is pluralism.
It may be noted that Theravada buddhism esp in relation to the Skandhas, was a radical pluralism.

Read more, faggot

>>13424139
>Is English your second language?
Why?

>Also "the unity of all things" is literally monism. The opposite of which is pluralism.
>It may be noted that Theravada buddhism esp in relation to the Skandhas, was a radical pluralism.

No it was not, it was neither duality (as is the inescapable nature of thought), neither pluralism and neither monism. It was the aim of unity while also separation - the ego is what creates identity.

>>13424151
That's a synthesis you absolute schizo

>>13424155
your point?

>>13423354

>non-being
enlightened volcels
>being
enlightened chads
>becoming
annoying edgelords and self improvement douches

>>13424169
>All three combined to assume the unrealized position
Übermensch

>>13423424
he transcends all those distinctions and is in a category of his own

>>13423354
Why would I want to dissolve myself and my self?
It's becoming for myself

>>13423424
>>13424242
Horseshit, Shankara is a being guy, to say otherwise is ignorance, lies, or both

>>13424242
no u

Implying it's not all real.
World of becoming and appearances.
World of Forms, Being, eternity and the gods.
The Ineffable One.

>>13424291
It kinda strange, but I can't get rid of the idea that Shankara seems very similar to Nagarjuna(very non-being guy). Can you give an explanation on why is that?

>>13424291
>t. hasn't read him
Shankara's works include extensive analysis of non-being, necessitated by that Nirguna Brahman is Itself beyond being. There is a conditional level of being that ties all his ideas togather but in the key areas he resolves and goes beyond the opposites of being and non-being, along with all others. His works are impenetrable to brainlets though so not everyone realizes this and the mistaken notion persists that he is a substance metaphysician and a philosopher of 'being'.

>>13424404
Impersonalism

>>13424406
Nah nah nah, not being as in manifestation, being as in Heidegger

You're confusing being with manifestation, a state of explicate order with a state of action

Being is a gerund

>>13423354
You could at least have partially patterned your picks after Hegel's triad: Being (Parmenides), Non-Being (Buddha), Becoming (Heraclitus). Your picks are kinda weird, like Democritus and Nietzsche rather than Whitehead as Becoming? I pick Being because Process Philosophy is wrong and Buddhism also, which leaves the entire rest of philosophy.

>>13424183
Nah, just being and becoming

>>13423354
Becoming becomes being
Learn2virtue

>>13424406
To be totally clear, Brahman is by definition Being.
Maya is Becoming, Non-Being is the unmanifested Brahman.

Purusha is Brahman As Being, Prakriti is Brahman as Becoming

>>13423354
platonism is all of them

>>13424418
The notion of "Being" of heidegger is literally made by Heidegger. And I'm not stating this as a very naive way such as "Paradigm didn't exist before 1960s because Kuhn invented it".
The metaphysical investigation that Heidegger poured into the concept of Being is truly unique and should not be found in previous philosophies.
Can you give any citation, paper covering Shankara's notions such as Atman being Sein, not Existenz? You should provide that for this type of argument.

>>13424464
I see you have no connection with comparative religion and academic philosophy scene.
Picrel is example of how obvious it is to everyone but you that Heidegger and Shankara share a LOT.

>>13424406
>There is a conditional level of being that ties all his ideas togather but in the key areas he resolves and goes beyond the opposites of being and non-being, along with all others.
Well, in fact we really should say exactly this to Nagarjuna because his notion of 空 is definitely not about non-being. Although I'm not expert of it but Christian theology is always not about Being, given the fact someone as Eckhart Meister exists.
But you can always say this (in particularly theology), and this is 4chan where OP clearly wants to say "Do not go too deep and just settle the answer." So you should choose one of three not retarded answer such as "transcends"

>>13424464
And in detail, another example

>>13424487
Except the fact that the very same thing happened in Zen and Heidegger and Buddhism and Heidegger. There is so much paper of it it became oversaturated. They also covered the RELATION or SIMILARITY of these two, but even in those paper they doesn't want to say buddhism notion of god overed Existenz(well there is some historical evidence that heidegger read zen koans so there is a paper suggesting relation of Dasein with it but that is irrelevant in this talk).
You gave google image of "shankara Heidegger" but it is seen as supplementing my opinion that there is no such paper like that. RELATION and SIMILARITY can be discussed but I'm really doubt any argument about Shankara really directly think some of Heidegger's theory.

>>13424533
That's some sjw tier asspulling bullshit, man.
It's what we adults call "a distinction without a difference" and you're a worthless faggot for trying it

>>13424533
Also fuck you in general for not even touching that you don't know what implicate and explicate orders are i.e. Purusha and Prakriti

>>13423738
you are always changing, you are not the same from each moment to the next, there are not eternal, timeless and immutable beings nor you aspire to be one

>>13423354
actually, the buddha's approach is the reverse,

You can't just realize "non-being" and non-self from a teaching. You have to start "becoming" that person. Then you just have to be. When you realize you are content with just being, non-being essentially follows.

You want to be that guy you don't notice leave or come in the room.... not literally of course. You want to be there but not be there... hard to explain but I've seen this state first hand of non-being in meditation. It's pretty much having all your sensory channel on observe, your mind on observe, and your heart as bright as light.

>>13423354
I pick repetition

>>13423519
>Also consider the other three axes involved: Overcoming The World (stoicism, buddhism, paganism in general), Humanization Of The World (Confucianism, Utilitarianism, Marxism et c) and Struggle With The World (Christianity, Islam et c)
Savitri Devi already did that one far better
>man in time, man above time, man against time

>>13423519
>Overcoming The World

How is buddhism overcoming the world, when the primary "struggle" is man vs self. or rather man vs mind. The entire journey is about befriending your mind.

>>13424082
Chad post
becoming is the eternal flux of being and non-being

>>13425400
becoming [the wrong being] is painful

im all for becoming a better person, but too many baggage comes with becoming the wrong person

>>13423704
>Buddha rejected all existence by existence and all nothing by nothing

No he didn't.

In fact when he was asked, he didn't answer the question. He simply said there isn't an essence or soul. Things are composed of other things, and things are dependent on other things. So where's the you?

When does mr potato head stop being a mr. potato head when you deconstruct him?

>>13425409
Stoicism is helpful, it was inspired on Heraclitus originally

>>13423354
Based

>>13425416
>In fact when he was asked, he didn't answer the question. He simply said there isn't an essence or soul. Things are composed of other things, and things are dependent on other things. So where's the you?
One can deduct what I have said from his statement on duality and pluralism.

>>13425416
>Things are composed of other things,
no he just said things have conditions for their arising and death

>>13423354
>The Absolute (Parmenides, Hegel)

>>13423354
*chomps*

>>13423354
Is "non-being" really a thing, though? When we write such a term, are we, beings embodying Being, actually referring to something? I've wondered this, and my position is that it could only ever refer to the lowest volume of Being, rather than something "opposite" to it, just as darkness is merely the absence of light, not something opposed to it. What do you guys think? How can a being think or speak of non-being, and how can non-being be anything in the first place?

>>13423354
Being the best you can be.

>>13423519
>Unger's Religion Of The Future
>he argues that humanity is in need of a religious revolution that dispenses with the concept of God
Sounds like a retard.

non-non-unbecoming

Is the pursuit of 'non-being' not also a form of 'becoming'?

>>13423519
>paganism
>Overcoming The World
lol
>Marxism
>Humanization Of The World
loool
>Islam
>Struggle With The World
LOOOOOOO

Seriously, you should stop reading hack bullshit and do some studying of your own.
Are you fucking kidding me?

All three bitch because I syncretize the emptiness of being with the framework of the Deleuzo-Nietzschean Return as the being of becoming. Unironically this is my personal stance against nihilism.

THESIS ANTITHESIS AND SYNTHESIS ARE FICHTE NOT HEGEL


PLEASE DO YOUR OWN READING FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

>>13425416
Thus, monks, a Tathagata does not conceive of a visible thing as apart from sight; he does not conceive of an unseen; he
does not conceive of a 'thing-worth-seeing'; he does not conceive
about a seer.
He does not conceive of an audible thing as apart from hearing;
he does not conceive of an unheard; he does not conceive of a
'thing-worth-hearing'; he does not conceive about a hearer.
He does not conceive of a thing to be sensed as apart from
sensation; he does not conceive of an unsensed; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-sensing'; he does not conceive about one
who senses.
He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes
- AN 4.24

The Buddha never said that there is categorically no soul, he only spoke of anatta in reference to specific phenomena ex the five aggregates.
He rejected objectification, both being and non-being, both existence and non-existence. To say something absolutely exists or does not exist would be assigning some objective ontological status to some object of experience (whether it be a sense-object or concept/mind-object), and the Buddha was not in the business of doing that.
>He does not conceive of a cognizable thing as apart from
cognition; he does not conceive of an uncognized; he does not
conceive of a 'thing-worth-cognizing'; he does not conceive about
one who cognizes

>>13424444
>To be totally clear, Brahman is by definition Being. .... Non-Being is the unmanifested Brahman.
Yes, that's why I said that he can't be catagorized on the side of 'being' (taken in a general sense) because in his understanding Nirguna Brahman is beyond the distinctions of manifest (being) and unmanifest (non-being) which are ultimately illusionary distinctions from the perspective of absolute reality, as Nirguna Brahman is undivided and without distinction. He is conditionally on the side of Being right up until you get to the unqualified and unmediated Absolute at which point he correctly notes neither being nor non-being can be correctly applied.

>>13423354
Being and becoming are interdependent as a necessity of the perspectival nature of relational change (Whitehead)
Consider motion: there is no motion qua motion, motion in itself, motion is a relationship between things - the same with energy, which is a relationship of potential motion. "Betweeness" is fundamental to motion and so being and becoming are co-equals as betweenesses. The whole and the part are co-emergent.
This is simultaneously a fact about our change-perception, that rather than being comprised of one unified views of change, is bifurcated into two perspectives: the instant and the cumulative. From the perspective of the instant an omnipresent experiential moment is the fixed point of reference, and experienced change is omnipresent instantaneous change in this present: the Heraclitean flux. From the perspective of the cumulative temporality is the point of reference, and experienced change is cumulative change *through* time. Our holistic perception of change is always a mixture of these modes, as they are equally necessary for sense-making of change.
The mathematical correspondence of this is in calculus as integration and differentiation as inverse operations of the same process. Derrida and Deleuze explored differential ontology, and while the differential account is important it is half-complete as an account of change.

>>13423354
just laughing (me)
i stopped caring long ago. struggle and effort are pointless unless aiming for one's sole good&profit.

>Seething (Anonymous)

>>13424406
>analysis of non-being
familiarize yourself with Parmenides.

>>13423738
becoming=being

for everyone here I highly recommend non-being (Hegesias)

>>13426830
lol

>>13423354
Being, because I am a created being and so are you and Jesus is Lord.

>>13423407
first and bestpostpilled

>>13423839
you are always non-being, every moment past the present doesn't exist

>>13425416
>Things are composed of other things
Not quite, rather things arise codependently. Subject is dependent on object. Object on subject. Name-and-form on consciousness. Consciousness on name-and-form...etc

This thread is so fucking dry, you faggots can effectively turn off a bitch in heat.

>>13423447
Ive been reading a lot of nietzsche. Looking for more. What to start with Heraclitus?

>>13424533
>really doubt any argument about Shankara really directly think some of Heidegger's theory.
nigger wtf

>>13423639
> nietzche's opinion is retarded and will make you miserable
Perhaps for the individual. But it’d be better for the nation.

>>13425566
Haven't read Parmenides but Hegel for the most part aims at strife, change - which will in turn eventually equate to being.

>>13425581
I wonder this too.

What separates this sort of philosophical absurdity and obscurity with say, mysticism or overly verbose magical occult hokey shit which has no grounding in reality or empirical verification
>Inb4 pretentious sophism like "What is reality?"

>>13425581
>>13429534
I used to think this yet if you want to know the truth look into Kabbalah specifically the tree of life. It explains and gives an answer to your questions. I myself have only started reading Kabbalah so I cannot give an elaborate response beyond duality, repeating emotive;s and rebirth after death.

>>13423738
you have never seen anything eternal
you don't believe in anything eternal
either you have a metaphysics that is consistent with these brute facts, or you engage in the deception of others and/or yourself with articles of faith about unchanging things that aren't there (being) or the denial of all you were, did, felt (nonbeing)

>>13426599
this

>>13428537
show bobs

>>13423354

>>13425581
>>13429534

>Zero and Negative Numbers don't real
>I don't know what implicate and explicate orders are either


Jesus, summer, get it together, you're actually trying to argue against the concept of absence and at the same time exhibiting ignorance of the concepts of potential and capacity

>>13431863
>the chad becoming cyborg t-rex humanoid
>vs
>the virgin being priest

isn't 'non-being' as in being one with the primodial essence the highest state of intellect one can aspire towards, which is free from intellectual pretensions of worldly accomplishments?

>>13423354
What is Laozi? Non-being?

I pick Tao.

>>13431998
>>13432000
That's still Being, in the sense of Purusha, implicate order

>>13432006
but when you're non-being, aren't you simultaneously being cause of the non-dualistic nature of non-being

Could anyone recommend a good book that goes through these sorts of concepts of non-being, being and becoming etc? Or do I have to read the full western canon before I can take part in these threads?

>>13432000
Laozi is Becoming

>>13423407
the thing is non-being isn't literally not being it's being beyond being and non-being
when you get to that stage you're beyond some faggoty western go getter concept
you're essentially one with the god, you are the god and yes that does mean extra human abilities

>>13423354
>becoming (Nietzsche
Am I the retard here or do you guys not understand Nietzsche? I never read him as a self help guy telling you to "become" something. In fact, he's fairly explicit that (You) are part of the herd and are not destined to become anything that he'd care about. The qualities he identified as noble and as being befitting of masters are not something that individuals are to strive to embody, but rather qualities that he associates with leadership positions (creating values, assigning honours etc.) that are meant to be cultivated over generations and arise in a select few. It's part analysis of the political setup of past societies and part his hope for the future.

>>13432135
Nietzsche wrote a good book about pre-socratics and these concepts. After Plato nothing was original desu

>>13432236
Such poor terminology.
You're describing abstraction and the concrete/actual, implicate and explicate orders, Purusha and Prakriti. All of these are Being.

Non-Being is Zero, the absence of both implicate and explicate, abstract and actual.

An abstraction may have no form, but no-form does not equal no-existence.

An idea in my head has no physicality, unless I act on it to make it actual, and yet the idea is an idea and does exist despite no materiality.

>>13432024
The spiritually highest and intellectually deepest types of non-dualism are infinitely beyond being, non-being and becoming alike.

>>13423354
All of them.

>>13432926
weed lmao