Poll: To be or not to be

[JUPITERASC]

HAMLET:

To be, or not to be
that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind
to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.

 

[Tessie]

HAMLET:

To be, or not to be
that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind
to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.

The answer in abstract points to the unidirectionality of time in the stillness of space; the microcosm of the self against the timelessness of nature. Value judgement is qualified by perspective. Perspective is subject to change and thus not to be trusted. Be the change because you are the change. Stillness does not move, lest is becomes it's own problem.

 

[JUPITERASC]

The answer in abstract points to the unidirectionality of time in the stillness of space;
the microcosm of the self against the timelessness of nature.
Value judgement is qualified by perspective.
Perspective is subject to change and thus not to be trusted.
Be the change because you are the change.
Stillness does not move, lest is becomes it's own problem.

Thanks for responding Tessie
That 'Stillness does not move'
is a relative term

and

as an example
~ consider retrograde planets

 

[Tessie]

That's fine; isn't acquiring stillness in movement key to personal evolution?

 

[Inline]

HAMLET:

To be, or not to be
that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind
to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.

Hamlet is comparing the pain of life, which he believes is unavoidable (the sea of troubles - the slings and arrows - the heart-ache - the thousand natural shocks) with the uncertainty of death....and possible damnation after suicide. His personal debate is 'suffering versus what death may bring'? It may be sleep, but in "perchance to dream" or the "undiscover'd country from which no traveller returns". His fear is that 'life is bad, but death might be worse'...?

 

[JUPITERASC]

That's fine; isn't acquiring stillness in movement key to personal evolution?

'Personal evolution' is a matter for the 'individual'

 

[JUPITERASC]

Hamlet is comparing the pain of life, which he believes is unavoidable
(the sea of troubles - the slings and arrows - the heart-ache - the thousand natural shocks)
with the uncertainty of death....
and possible damnation after suicide.
His personal debate is 'suffering versus what death may bring'? It may be sleep,
but in "perchance to dream"
or the "undiscover'd country from which no traveller returns".
His fear is that 'life is bad, but death might be worse'...?

Hamlet is asking whether 'tis better 'to be'

or

better to 'not-be'

It seems that you interpret Hamlet's dilemma
as 'life versus death'

life being full of 'the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to'
and death being an 'unsafe haven' due to an apparent lack of reports regarding post-death experience

 

[Tessie]

'Personal evolution' is a matter for the 'individual'

It is not as simple as that. You appear to argue that the question centers on choice. It does. But the matter does not. It centers on existentialism and the mystery of what constitutes the individual, otherwise there would be no remaining question. The choice would have been made. Is the "individual" this extant life or is this living experience a mere dross on one's entire existence?

Are we the most wisest of the universe or are we not? Creationists say no. Evolutionists say yes. It boils down to choosing a path and dealing with consequences. It is a cause/effect paradigm, our universe, so there are always consequences. No question. Although some wonder if ignorance really is bliss.

An individual has a choice. But only within the parameters of what this life affords: space and time being the constants of the no free will zone. We each have the freedom to choose, yes, but we do not have the freedom to evade the consequences. Doesn't sound like much of a choice. The question, to be or not to be, is illusory because we are. The truth is simple. Therefore it is a matter of accepting the truth rather than accepting a falsehood. But, yes, there is a choice.

 

[JUPITERASC]

It is not as simple as that. You appear to argue that the question centers on choice. It does. But the matter does not. It centers on existentialism and the mystery of what constitutes the individual, otherwise there would be no remaining question. The choice would have been made. Is the individual this extant life or is this living experience a mere dross on one's entire existence?

Are we the most wisest of the universe or are we not? Creationists say no. Evolutionists say yes. It boils down to choosing a path and dealing with consequences. It is a cause/effect paradigm, our universe, so there are always consequences. No question, although some wonder if ignorance really is bliss.

An individual has a choice. But only within the parameters of what this life affords: space and time being the constants of the no free will zone. We each have the freedom to choose, yes, but we do not have the freedom to evade the consequences. Doesn't sound like much of a choice.

The question, to be or not to be, is illusory because we are.

On the contrary, your "answer" is illustory
simply because
as an individual you may only speak for yourself and yet you claim "WE (allegedly) are"

The truth is simple. Therefore it is a matter of accepting the truth rather than accepting a falsehood. But, yes, there is a choice.

 

[Tessie]

On the contrary, your "answer" is illustory
simply because
as an individual you may only speak for yourself and yet you claim "WE (allegedly) are"

Actually, your perception is illusory because you cannot, and therefore do not, know whether Tessie is an individual.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Actually, your perception is illusory because you cannot, and therefore do not, know whether Tessie is an individual.

your perception is similarly illusory
because you cannot state
what another 'you'
does
or
does not
know
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

 

[Tessie]

"To be or not to be" is a question asked from the perspective of a live, not a dead, entity. Therefore, the perspective is already one of being. Therefore saying 'one already is' is entirely permissible.

Energy does not cease to exist. It can change form. But it remains in being. To be or not to be...? A postman, a fireman, a nurse, A GHOST? That is your choice. But you do not get to decide whether you are anymore than I get to decide that for you.

 

[JUPITERASC]

"To be or not to be" is a question asked from the perspective of a live, not a dead, entity.

Not necessarily
'You' do not get to decide whether 'a dead entity' can or cannot ask the question "to be or not to be"

Therefore, the perspective is already one of being.

To be specific
the question "to be or not to be" may be asked from either/any perspective

i.e.
from the perspective of
'an alive entity'

and/or

from the perspective of
'a dead entity'

Therefore saying 'one already is' is entirely permissible.

Not necessarily
the perspective of 'a living entity'

while having similarity

differs from the perspective of 'a dead entity'

i.e.
'one already IS dead'

or

'one already IS alive'

i.e.
whether

one IS dead

or

IS alive


one IS

and
therefore

one is BEING

Energy does not cease to exist.
It can change form.

'Energy' may be formless

But it remains in being.

in some cases
being formless

To be or not to be...?
A postman, a fireman, a nurse, A GHOST?
That is your choice.

you claim 'that is your choice'
before then saying:

But you do not get to decide whether you are

speak for yourself
a decision is preceded by choice and/or choices

anymore than I get to decide that for you.

we make our choices
choice governs experience
and
vice versa

 

[JUPITERASC]

 

[JUPITERASC]

 

[JUPITERASC]

 

[JUPITERASC]

 

[Tessie]

Not necessarily
'You' do not get to decide whether 'a dead entity' can or cannot ask the question "to be or not to be"

To be specific
the question "to be or not to be" may be asked from either/any perspective

i.e.
from the perspective of
'an alive entity'

and/or

from the perspective of
'a dead entity'

Not necessarily
the perspective of 'a living entity'

while having similarity

differs from the perspective of 'a dead entity'

i.e.
'one already IS dead'

or

'one already IS alive'

i.e.
whether

one IS dead

or

IS alive


one IS

and
therefore

one is BEING

Quite simply, you quoted Shakespeare's Hamlet. Both Shakespeare and Hamlet were alive at the time of the soliloquy. Therefore the soliloquy, which you quoted, is from the perspective of 'being' period. Discussing a quote made by a dead entity when a dead entity did not make the quote, and may not be able to make the quote, is asking logic to take a hit.

'Energy' may be formless

You are playing on words. Energy does not cease to exist, can only change form, therefore is never completely formless.

you claim 'that is your choice'
before then saying:

You missed my point. Your vocations are your choice. But you do not get to decide whether you are a being anymore than I get to decide that for you.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Quite simply, you quoted Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Both Shakespeare and Hamlet were alive at the time of the soliloquy.

Therefore the soliloquy, which you quoted, is from the perspective of 'being' period.
Discussing a quote made by a dead entity when a dead entity did not make the quote, and may not be able to make the quote, is asking logic to take a hit.

Quite simply, Hamlet is an imaginary character
and therefore neither 'alive' nor 'dead'
except
when 'on-stage' in the form of an actor

therefore
the soliloquy is from an imaginary perspective
of an IMAGINARY BEING
declaiming onstage
lines written by a playwright


Discussing a quote made by an imaginary entity
when that entity is clearly neither living nor dead
is not illogical

You are playing on words.
Energy does not cease to exist,
can only change form, therefore is never completely formless.

Energy may not cease to exist
does change form
but energy is not limited to 'being solely able to change from one form to another'
therefore energy may be formless

You missed my point.
Your vocations are your choice.
But you do not get to decide whether you are a being
anymore than I get to decide that for you

You missed my point
you do not get to decide whether or not one gets to decide
whether one is a being or not

 

[JUPITERASC]