Third and final try...Parmenides being?

Question

Lets try this...maybe Occam was right...

Parmenides being is not physical, not material, not spiritual. Being is a priori knowledge. It is, needing no teaching, no experience. It is simply this...it is. All things are, they need not be examined by the senses in order to exist. They have always, and will always. This is why motion cannot be...because all things exist in all moments, there is not a place where something does not exist. You cannot move to a place where being isn't, therefore, you cannot move. You can't step into the river even once because you, the river, the place it runs its course, the water, the air above, etc, everything about you and the river exist all at the same time, are all equally real, therefor, you are already stepping in it, you just don't realize it.

Answer 1

Being is the Absolute, out of which everything in creation arises.  It is the source of everything in creation.  It is One, it is Infinite, it is permanent, it is timeless.

Everything in creation, on the other hand, is relative, finite.  Creation is manifold, it is impermanent, ever-changing.

So I think what you say above (is that your opinion or are you saying that's Parmenides' opinion?) is confusing the two--like you said in your second try, lumping the Absolute and the relative together.  

You can step into the river, because the river is finite, and you are finite.  It's Being, out of which you and the river are manifest, that is outside of considerations of motion, has always been, will always be, is omnipresent, etc.

Answer 2

i suppose you have a difficult time with parmenides' perspective on motion from your other posts? i'll try to give you some other perspectives:

the being is like a blank piece of paper. you can construct fictitious lines with your mind on that pieces of paper resulting in forms, shapes, and objects. so the paper has the potential to be a mona lisa, the heavens, the underworld, picaso. the piece of paper is all that at the same time. you, the observer, creates the art from paper with form. so the paper is just paper, it does not change, rather it is the observer that perceives changes and give rise to material and physical by imagining it.

the being is like a tank of water. water can be solid, liquid, vapor. these are states of the same water. water remains changeless in that it is still water. the mind is like a state of a drop of water in the water of being. it looks at all the other water drops, as a car, as a house, as the sky... and so on.

the being like a prism. you look at one facet, you get one image, you look at another, you see another image. you string the images together, you get motion pictures. from the prism point of view, it's just a prism, not moving.

take planetary motions where earth revolves around the sun. relative to the sun, the earth is orbiting around it. however, it is also perfectly accurate to say relative to the earth, the sun is moving. albeit a more complex answer to the behavior, though it is just as accurate. einstein aboslutize light and objects is related to light. light will always be the same for all observers. the being is like the light.

the being is like an ink blob what psychologist use. the ink blob remain the same, yet different people sees different things. one might see a rabbit, a cloud, a turtle, all kinds of interpretations and names.

the being is everything in the metaphysical sense where nothingness does not exist. so it cannot move because there is no where to go. the being is physical, material, spiritual, and knowledge. you can't say the being is not above things, because, if true, then it is something that the being is not, and is a void that the being could move to. so the being are those things. the being is not those things in the sense that it is not those single-ly.

you see, the mind, the drop of water, and the facet, ink blob are just a perspective in the whole being looking at itself. the whole being relative to itself is changeless, but relative to the subject, it may move. true being is (blank). it just is. any attempts to describe it, destroys it because you have conceptualize it creating a duality which is delusional. the mind, the subject, the thought, the observer, are all part of the being looking at each other. at best, you can only approximate the whole being as x, y, z being an observer subject looking at the remaining whole being as object.

Answer 3

Hm Hm

Answer 4

"The universe is mental, existing in the mind of the all"

Answer 5

what parmenides did was figure out e=mc^2 basically, without the exact proportions.

meaning all the universe is one thing, energy. so the river is the same stuff as the air, and the earth, and heat, and motion. all the universe is energy, there is no place where energy is not. time and place is made of energy as well. to be outside of energy you would need to be outside the universe, but there is no outside the universe. becuase that would be the place where stuff is not, but it can't even be a place.

this is basically what he figured out, but he didn't quite know it. so he would say that motion and change is impossible, and is actually illusion, since everything is the same thing. which makes sense, and is in a sense exactly true, and in another not quite.

Answer 6

A final try? You're too close...

There are several "clues" to what Parmenides relates in the surviving fragments. Outside clues: let me compare them to signposts. The signposts that point back to a confrontation with Parmenides are so numerous that Heidegger couldn't live long enough to follow all of them. A few I should mention are below.

Plato's Idea. This is the thing as it faces, as it presents itself. "What IS before one" isn't necessarily for "examination" as you state above. It arises on its own. Socratic Irony is a being as it faces Being. One could make the claim that Plato has taken a kind of snapshot of the larger inquiry as it presented itself to him, Plato. By leaving himself out of the dialogues, he intelligently points also to Heraclitus.

Heraclitus' supposed counterpoint to Parmenides. This is where the investigation can quickly lose focus and turn backward. Philological discoveries in the 19th Century reanimated doubt about what constitutes reason's place in the vast scheme of human expression. In that scheme, it was discovered, certain skills had been gradually forgotten while rhetorical skills, argumentation, ascended in importance. Just exactly when did the rhapsodes/singers/players lose their status as essential, and get demoted to diversion? What was lost in this demotion?

Presupposition of chronological time. This is a useful reference point for formal becoming, i.e. planning. What is useful, however, when the plan and planner are reintroduced? The reference point vanishes. That's where metaphysics leads, according to Heidegger, back to where "man" appeared...from nowhere...from nothing. Man has his plans and is oriented to them. The individual thinking man has nothing left to do but ponder his own mortality. Nothing left to do but think...

... τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ νοεῖν ἐστίν τε καὶ εἶναι.