5 Questions on Being, Becoming, & Happening
Answering 5 Questions Related to ‘Happening’ & Discussing the Perspectives of Heraclitus & Parmenides
Dear Readers,
June should be spent (ideally) on the beach with a good book. Failing that, it should be spent (ideally) with at least a book if not the beach. While I did not get too much ‘beach’ time this month, I have managed to spend time recharging with family. Whatever time I had for myself in the midst, I spent on reading and writing. I am happy to report that I have some excellent content lined up for our substack in the coming weeks.
Today I wanted to speak with you with regards to an article that I had published on 4th of January this year, titled “Nothing is Happening”. This article was an instant hit resonating deeply with my audience at the time. I had written this article in the early hours of a cold December morning, deriving thoughts purely from my own mind without indulging in too much research online.
At the time of writing that article, I did not expect it to drive too much interest or discussions from my readers so I was pleasantly surprised to see it being received so well. A friend and colleague of mine who is also a computer scientist, read this article recently, digging it up from her “summer to-read” and found it very insightful. A philosophy enthusiast herself, she posed five follow up questions to this article. This made me re-read my own work from a fresh perspective and learn about Parmenides, Heraclitus, and their theories on ‘being’ and ‘becoming’.
As a matter of full disclosure, it is necessary to mention that at the time of me writing my article on the concept of “Happening”, I had no prior knowledge of Heraclitus, Parmenides or their theories. So this week, I decided to study their notions on change in the universe deeply and juxtapose it to my own notions on the subject.
In this article, I will be sharing with you, firstly, brief summaries on the notions of Heraclitus and Parmenides. I will follow that up with a brief summary of my own work in this regard. Finally, I will be answering the five questions that my friend posed with regards to my theory - “Nothing is Happening”. Let’s get started.
Heraclitus and his Notion of Becoming
Heraclitus was an ancient Greek philosopher known for his theory of change and flux. The following is a saying famously attributed to Heraclitus, "You cannot step into the same river twice," encapsulating his belief that everything in the universe is in a state of constant transformation. This idea of perpetual change is central to his philosophy.
Heraclitus proposed that reality is a continuous process of becoming, where opposites coexist and drive the dynamic nature of existence. He saw the world as a harmonious blend of conflicting forces, where change is the only constant. Our selective perception, shaped by cognitive and linguistic constructs, filters this continuous stream of happenings, organising it into discrete, manageable units.
Parmenides and his Notion of Being
Parmenides was an ancient Greek thinker whose theory starkly contrasted to Heraclitus's view of constant change. Parmenides argued that change is an illusion and that true reality is unchanging and indivisible. His philosophy centres on the idea that what we perceive through our senses is deceptive, and only through rational thought can we grasp the eternal, unchanging nature of being.
Parmenides posited that reality is a single, continuous entity, unaltered by the flux of appearances. According to him, the multiplicity and change we observe in the world are mere illusions; true being is constant and immutable.
A Brief Summary of “Nothing is Happening”
In this article, I addressed the relationship between perception, language, and the concept of 'happening.' The piece begins with a contemplation of the seemingly mundane dawn and the realisation that, despite the tranquillity, a vast array of activities perpetually unfolds around us, often eluding direct perception.
I deconstruct the notion of 'happening,' questioning whether it genuinely encapsulates an objective reality or merely serves as a cognitive framework. Our selective perception, shaped by attentional focus and linguistic constructs, filters the continuous flux of events, highlighting some while ignoring others. This selective awareness mirrors the modality through which our minds categorise and decode reality, influenced by cultural, historical, and personal contexts.
I also talk about the ambiguity of terms like 'moment,' which in everyday usage, signifies fleeting instances yet can also encompass significant epochs. This ambiguity reflects the subjective nature of human temporal perception, where the demarcation of moments is a cognitive tool to impose order upon the chaos of time. I quoted Sartre and Heidegger, to emphasise how our perception of time and events is tied with our consciousness.
Language, I argue, is more than a vehicle for communication, proving useful as an architect of our perceived reality. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that the structure of language shapes our thought processes and perception, segmenting the continuous flow of existence into discrete, manageable units. This segmentation, while practical, distances us from the true nature of the continuous and unbounded 'happening.'
By integrating perspectives from existentialism, phenomenology, cognitive science, and even physics, I propose that 'happening' is, in many ways, an illusion constructed by human cognition and language.
This synthesis revealed to me that our experience of reality is a narrative we create, a construct to bring coherence to the chaos of existence. Ultimately, embracing the idea that nothing is truly 'happening' in an objective sense requires a shift in perspective, liberating us from conventional temporal constraints and opening new avenues for understanding our place in the cosmos.
With these introductory bits out of the way, let’s get to the questions. I have paraphrased and polished the language a bit in the questions while making sure not to alter the nature of their inquiry.
1. On Selective Perception and Reality
How do you explain the phenomenon where some events, like a significant historical epoch, capture our attention, while others, like molecular flux, remain unnoticed? Do you think this selective perception undermines the concept of 'happening' as understood by Heraclitus?
Answer
Selective perception is a fundamental aspect of human cognition. We are wired to notice changes and events that have immediate relevance to our survival, social structure, and personal significance.
In my view, this selective perception showcases the complexity and layered nature of reality. Heraclitus's idea of constant flux remains valid because, on a fundamental level, everything is indeed in a state of change. However, the human mind, limited by its cognitive and sensory capacities, cannot grasp the totality of this continuous flux. We perceive reality through a filter of relevance, which is constructed by linguistic context.
The selective nature of our perception can be seen as a practical adaptation to an overwhelmingly complex world. While Heraclitus emphasised the perpetual change and becoming of everything, our cognitive faculties focus on what we deem significant, often influenced by linguistic constructs that categorise and prioritise experiences.
Therefore, selective perception does not negate Heraclitus's concept of constant flux but rather demonstrates the limitations of human cognition in apprehending the full spectrum of 'happening.' It shows the complexities involved in being and becoming, where our understanding of reality is continually shaped and reshaped by our cognitive and linguistic frameworks.
2. On The Illusion of 'Happening'
In your article, you suggest that 'happening' is, in many ways, an illusion. How does this idea align or conflict with Parmenides' assertion that change is an illusion? Are you suggesting that all perceived events are inherently subjective constructs?
Answer
I don’t find too much misalignment between my notion of happening and Parmenides’ understanding of being in the mechanical sense of it. Happening is, in many ways, an illusion crafted by human cognition and language. This perspective aligns with Parmenides' assertion that change is an illusion. However, I diverge with Parmenides’ position that true reality is unchanging and that our sensory experiences of change are deceptive. My view emphasises that our perception of happening is deeply rooted in our cognitive frameworks and linguistic constructs, which filter and shape our understanding of reality.
By suggesting that all perceived events are inherently subjective constructs, I am not entirely dismissing the existence of change or becoming. Instead, I am highlighting the nature of our internal cognitive processes and the external world. Our brains selectively focus on certain events, categorising and interpreting them through the lens of language. This selective perception creates a narrative of happening.
Heraclitus's view of constant flux resonates with my perspective in that it acknowledges the ever-changing nature of reality. However, while Heraclitus promotes this perpetual change, I explore how our cognitive limitations and linguistic tools shape what we perceive as happening. Having a background in linguistics, I can’t help but take a cognitive and linguistic angle in this. In this sense, happening becomes a subjective experience, a construct that helps us make sense of the world but does not necessarily reflect an objective reality. Thus, my theory finds a middle ground between Heraclitus and Parmenides.
3. On Temporal Constructs
You mention that terms like seconds, minutes, and hours are human constructs to segment time. How do you think these constructs affect our perception of being and becoming? Do you believe that removing these constructs would lead us closer to Parmenides' idea of an unchanging reality?
Answer
By imposing a structured framework on the continuous flow of time, we create discrete units that help us make sense of our lives and make sense of the world around us.
These temporal constructs, and let's be clear, they are ‘constructs’, serve as cognitive tools that allow us to categorise and interpret events, giving a sense of order to existence.
Heraclitus believed in the constant flux and the ever-changing nature of reality, where everything is in a state of becoming. Our structured perception of time can obscure this dynamic nature, making it seem as though we are moving through a series of fixed moments rather than a continuous flow.
If we were to remove these constructs and experience time without segmentation, it might bring us closer to Parmenides' idea of an unchanging reality. Parmenides posited that change is an illusion and that true reality is a singular, unchanging entity. Without the artificial divisions of time, we might perceive reality as a more unified, constant presence, aligning with Parmenides' perspective.
However, this can be a slippery slope and it's essential to recognise that these constructs are deeply embedded in our cognitive and cultural frameworks. Removing them entirely is neither practical nor necessarily desirable, as they provide us with a functional way to organise our experiences and interactions. Instead, understanding the influence of these constructs can help us appreciate the balance between the fluidity of becoming and the stability of being.
4. On Linguistic Influence on Reality
How does the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which you reference, impact our understanding of 'happening'? Do you believe our language limits our ability to fully grasp the constant flux described by Heraclitus?
Answer
Sure it does. Think of it this way, our linguistic abilities limit us to perceive change in just a single dimension, i.e., relative to time. So the limitation is inherently obvious. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that the structure of our language shapes our perception and categorisation of the world. It implies that our linguistic constructs do more than just describe reality in that they actively construct it.
Now, applying this to the concept of happening, language influences how we perceive and interpret the constant flux that Heraclitus described. Heraclitus emphasised the ever-changing nature of reality, a perpetual state of becoming. Our language, with its inherent structure and constraints, can sometimes obscure this dynamic nature. By naming and defining, we create fixed points in what is essentially a fluid and ongoing process. This can make it challenging to fully grasp the seamless, continuous change that Heraclitus spoke of.
So, while language is a powerful tool that helps us understand and communicate about the world, it also introduces a degree of rigidity. It shapes our perception, potentially limiting our ability to fully experience the constant flux.
5. On Existential and Phenomenological Perspectives
You discuss the role of human consciousness in defining moments and happenings. How do existential and phenomenological views help bridge the philosophical gap between the unchanging reality of Parmenides and the dynamic reality of Heraclitus in your theory?
Answer
I think the notion that Parmenides and Heraclitus stand in opposition and that there is a need to bridge the gap between the two is a bit flawed. I think Parmenides and Heraclitus, in fact, reached the same conclusion, but from differing perspectives. You see, Heraclitus focussed on using cognition and language as tools, albeit not explicitly, to objectively determine change in the cosmos. Parmenides on the other hand, focussed on deconstructing the tools altogether to peek behind the curtain so to speak. And if you look at the works of existentialism and phenomenology, you are going to find traces of both approaches.
The ideas of Sartre and Heidegger, emphasises individual experience and the inherent meaning we assign to our existence. Sartre's notion of existence preceding essence highlights how we continuously create ourselves through our actions and choices. This aligns with Heraclitus' idea of becoming, where we are always in a state of flux.
Heidegger's concept of 'being-in-the-world' suggests that our existence is fundamentally mingled with our perception of time and events. He argues that time is not an external measure but an integral aspect of our being. This perspective allows us to see how the fluid, dynamic nature of reality (as Heraclitus describes) is experienced subjectively and shaped by our consciousness.
Phenomenology, particularly through Husserl's ideas, focusses on the structures of experience and consciousness. Husserl's concept of the 'lifeworld' (Lebenswelt) implies that our perception of moments and happenings is deeply rooted in our personal and cultural contexts. This subjective lens resonates with Parmenides' view that what we perceive might not be the ultimate reality. By focusing on the structures of our experiences, phenomenology reveals how our understanding of happening is constructed through our consciousness.
So when you put the works of Sarte, Heidegger and Husserl together, and yes you CAN actually do that, you realise that there is nothing to bridge. While reality may have an underlying unchanging nature (Parmenides), our lived experience of it is inherently dynamic and ever-changing (Heraclitus). Our consciousness and the meanings we assign to our experiences bring a fluidity to our perception of reality, integrating both the stable and the transformative aspects.