In some ways, all we have to communicate with is our language (mostly), and our language was built by knowing subjects. As such, subjects are often implied within the language we created. I’m assuming the creation of language was a very natural and intuitive process, which for me, means that the words we use (when traced etymologically), can give us insight into ourselves as human beings (how we think and communicate meaning, how we’ve come to think and communicate meaning, and more importantly why meaning is communicated in the way it is (this isn’t asking why do we use language, but why particular language is used to convey meaning in particular ways (verb forms, etc.))).
Of course, linguistics and the philosophy of language must touch on some of these ideas, but I suppose I’m more interested in how what we say (meaning), actually relates to or says about what the world is, and what we are. If we were to assume that our languages have evolved naturally to at least attempt to closely describe what the world actually is (and this assumption seems warranted because language appears to have evolved naturally and intuitively within the world, and being of the world, it must reflect in some way the world), then it should follow that the language we use is definitely saying something about what we and the world is (and we can use it to understand it further).
With all that said… I was working on my cosmology, and the ideas of identity, “is-ness”, being and existence will not go away. I know these are words we use to describe our conceptions about particular things, but what is their place in the natural (or given) world/universe, ie. how do they relate to or give us more information about it?
Of course, all things that exist, “are”. Said another way, that which exists, “is”, hence my concept of “is-ness”. If something is existing, or in existence; then it displays, at least to us, a property of “is-ness”. What is this property? The objects existence and our ability to apprehend it, presupposes that it “is”. The fact that it is, means that “is-ness” (or whatever it is), is communicated.
Now here’s my dilemma. I checked out the etymology of “is”; which is the derivative of “es”, or “to be”. So I looked up “be” and this is what I got:
So, the modern verb as we know it, is actually a combination of the b-root (grow, come into being, become as reflected in English), and what this dictionary (weirdly) attempts to distinguish from this b-root, another combination of the b-root meaning and the “am/was” meaning. I suppose there is historical significance here, but we aren’t given it.
On top of that, the Sanskrit meanings becoming, becomes, and happens are coupled with “earth, world”. So for the people who speak/spoke Sanskrit, the earth or world becomes, it happens into existence. This makes sense, but let’s take the rest of the etymology into consideration. Even if we dismiss the “am-ness” which is later added onto the verb form “to be”, the mere “existence” and “is-ness” of the earth is presupposing an action (hence the use of a verb). If there is action, something must be propelling or at one time propelled it. If all things in existence are “be-ing” and becoming, do they not themselves hold activity, and such are either being acted upon or acting? Can there be effect without cause; and if there is cause, can it be devoid of will? Can we truly separate (when tracing back completely) will from action?
You can clearly play with a billiard ball view of the universe in your mind, but what hits the cue? Even if there were more billiards and cue sticks, and they had been knocking around each other eternally, their mere presence implies an active force. Doesn’t this activity presuppose intention? And not intention as we experience it where we think something, and then we do it; but an intention that lacks mental space, and as such, is just the doing (which could ultimately be interpreted as a pure thinking without any other objects of thought to get in the way of this actualization of doing).
I guess ultimately, I need more perspective to see if this idea actually holds up. It’s difficult for me to see outside the idea that the universe can be devoid of any active doer or doing; because we do, and there is doing/activity/ and ultimately being all around us; we just experience ourselves as both it and separate from it.
Thoughts?