A little more understanding of 'Being'
- 'Being' is a progression. Specifically, it is a 'time progression'. This is why Sartre had to deal with the issues of past, present and
future. However, Heidegger had already explicated 'time' in his masterpiece Being & Time. Sartres great Being & Nothingness puts
all the well established topics into his own words (a grand paraphrasing). Has anyone done a topic-to-topic comparison of the two
great works side by side? I often wonder where Sartre's originality is placed? Perhaps it was on the subject of 'nothingness' itself, the
negatites and the issues of 'lack' or the 'void' of non-being. This is certainty a feature.
But back to the 'progression', it may be interpreted as completeness, continuousness and pendency. The 'is' refered to as the
present tense of 'to be' and indicates the 'thereness' continuum of time and space, anything objective in space, but includes as well,
consciousness that 'is' part of the human experience. But the story I make up about all of this is that consciousness is dependent
upon space much like time aligns itself to dimensionalities. Where would time be without space?
The progression of 'Being' moves in a flowing onward description. I describe it as as constant sense of awaiting something (pendency)
which in part appears in the immediately recognized continuum of space and time, but eventually arrives as a state called completion.
In order words, tomorrow becomes today and eventually terminates as yesterday. Completion is that termination or fulfillment, that
we express in our being as 'over and done' with. The perfect fulfillment of life is death, the end of one's time-in-the-world, the
culimnation of one's being-with-others or 'time-with-them'. Being-with (Mit Da-sein) is the same as Time-with. I other words, one can
not being-with-another or be-in-the-world (all subspecies of Being-in-general) without this 'time-progression'.