Parmenides being, second attempt?

Question

This very basic sounding concept is twisting my thinking! Is Parmenides talking about the form, or nature, of existence when he postulates that no one can conceive of what does not exist? It appears that he was talking about the form of existence, not what it is or is not materially. In this way, he is taking the duality of all things...their material existence, which is subject to change, and their essence, which cannot change, and combining them into one unchangeable state...being. Movement, or change, is not possible for something cannot transcend its own essence to be something else. Am I on the right track? This is extremely important to me, as the philosophers who come after alter this theory radically, and because I cannot get past "being", I feel as though my understanding of them is faulted from the outset.

Answer 1

Why does something have to transcend its own essence in order to change or move?  I am a man, I move, I am still a man.

But I do have to go somewhere that I am not.  I am at point A, I am not at point B; in order to go from A to B I have to go somewhere that, at one moment in time, I am not.

But is there really any such thing as "I am not at point B"?  Is that reality?  Perhaps not.  It is just an idea; it is not reality.  Reality is what is.  To describe reality in terms of what it is not--that's not reality.  Reality can only be what is, not what is not.

Again: to describe reality in terms of what it is not--that's not reality.  Well, duh, it's a description.  A description is not reality--whether it is in terms of what is not or what is.  

So then, what is?  Just this reality that is beyond description.  But what is that?  The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao.  Well, that's fine if you experience the true Tao.  But if you don't, then you have to say something.  To just say "That which is", or "the ineffable", or whatever--that doesn't say anything.  You haven't got anything that way.  It's the simplest thing, but if you aren't there in your consciousness, you haven't got anything.  Then you've got to play the game (because you're already playing it).  So you've got to describe, you have to go through description and keep describing until you get to the end--until you have the Tao in your consciousness.  (Long, long, long, long process.)

Second point: it is impossible to understand how something can move, become that which it is not (even if that's just a change of position--a change in its material state).  The significance of that is simply that everything does in fact arise from nothing--everything at every moment is a creation from nothing--a miracle, impossible to understand.

So anyway, I have not really made any reference to form and substance.  But I can see that they have to come in somewhere.  So I don't know if you're on the "right track" or not, but I'm sure you're not altogether on the wrong track.  I would say the same of myself.

If you need me, I'll be in my little padded cell.

Answer 2

It's been a long time since I've even thought about the Pre-Socratics. I don't know if I can help, but I'll try.  I think he considers movement impossible because to move is to move into a space where there is nothing. To Parmenides, there can't be nothing (nothing comes from nothing). So I don't think transcend is the word you are looking for because there is nothing to transcend (sorry for the 2 uses of nothing; gotta love English).  For Parmenides, material existence is not something to change (if I remember correctly, he considers it illusory). If something can be thought of then it always existed and will continue to exist. I think you may be reading a little bit of Plato into this (which makes since, for obvious reasons). I think Parmenides takes existence or being as a given. I don't know if this is much help at all; I always had a h**l of a time with the PreSocratics.  But, totally cool question.

Answer 3

It's a kaleidoscopic trap based on duality versus non-duality.

The Asians have been arguing about this for a longer time and the schools still exist in China and India in a cacophony of concepts. In Shakyamunis time the schools were already old.

Tientai had it right in the sense that the realm of the known and not-known are merely labels. The unification is found in the Lotus Sutra, whose title includes the simultaneity of cause and effect (renge), the unavoidability of change (kyo) and the miscibility of existent and non-existent (myoho). Myoho renge kyo expresses how the universe functions and Nam is the focus if intention on the unified truth.  

Answer 4

This bit of Plato is simple, almost simplistic. If all things are shadows of the perfect Forms, and only philosophers can see the true Forms, the rest of us see the shadows. If there is no Form, there is no way our minds can create the perfect thing, and no way for us to perceive or imagine it.

This, to me, is stupid. Was Cubism a perfect Form, unnoticed by artists until the 1900's? Or is it a different perception of reality, which does not exist in reality outside of it being conceived by a person?