ONTOLOGICAL INTERLUDE
          The Impossible Heteron of Not Being

     

   THE GRAMMATICAL STATUS OF "BE" AND "EXIST" IN MODERN ENGLISH.

Be is a transitive verb which requires an object - 'To be a bus conductor.' The infinitive bespeaks of movement towards or attainment of some other state.

Exist  is intransitive verb which requires no such object because, as Kant pointed out a long time ago, the ontological nature of currently Existing or being  currently present in the world is not predicational

What did Kant mean by this?  He meant that presence or the ubiety of existing and being localised in space is not an existential version or state  of existing iin the case of an observed  object, but of the existential state of the observer who is experiences the impression that  the object is present.

There is no state of ubiety or presence - an object either exists or it does not exist. There is no heteronic (alternative) state of not existing  so there can be no state of existing as a stative alternative or heteron.(other) In plain words -  an object cannot be in a different sate to something which does not exist because not existing is not a state to which an object can be different or other.   

One can form predicates as to the past or present states of animate objects and form sentences like:

Such a claim or confirmation  entails John experiencing  most of  the contemporeaneous existential modalities or states normally associated with a living human being.

Why?  Because it goes without saying that for a physical object to be present in the world it is required to exist AS something.   All objects exist in the state  of being some form, type, or variant of some kind of object - as example  being the manner in which a group of organisms within a species differ in trivial ways from similar groups.  

Entiative objects are real, concrete, corporeal  entities existing spatially  in matergic modalities( matergy = matter + energy.)  whilst  the adjective entitative  refers to a pure entity. Logically because entitative objects are abstracted from all existential circumstances,such a reference is redundant because it does not refer to anything at all.

The mythic (or metaphysical) term pure existence indicating something without characteristics or modes - names nothing - and as nothing does not exist either - the whole subject of metaphysics is called into question. How, as Parmenides pointed out over two thousand years ago, can we even refer or attempt to talk about nothing (to mae on)?

entitative (considered as pure entity – abstracted from all existential circumstances) objects  or metaphysical objects bereft of any existential modalities or states could never exist in the first place. The state of existing without any existential modalies at all is not even possible for God, for if He does exist, then he exists in the existential modality or nominal state of being known or referred to as God, or Allah,  Jupiter, or as any other of the thousand and one names by which his presence or ubiety  in the wortld is claimed. Believers in God are already aware of  and accept the accounts of God's existential modalities,  which is the reason they worship him in the first place. 

For the faithful if God had no existential modalies or states then he would and could not exist for nobody would have ever heard of him. For the atheist it is not the existential modalies or states or words of God that they have heard of and reject as being true - it is the existential modalies or states or words of the believers who generate biblical evidence and other stories and believe such things which atheists have heard of and reject

The volitional act of being present at the local Town Jamboree, or at one's brother's wedding is quite possible - for it is no more than a tempory spatial re-location of the one's person - but there is no act possible in order to  initiate one's own  simple presence or ubiety  in the world - such an act can only be carried out by our parents.  

We may however terminate our state of living in the world by committing suicide and thereby initiate dramatic physiological changes in the organic and molecular states of our body.  But Hamlet was wrong - there is no choice of:  to be ...or not to be - for not being is not an option as a state nor as a heteron of the state of being Hamlet - or being any object anybody for that matter - and that includes human objects.

Exist- intransitive verb.

1. Have a place as part of objective reality.

2. [a] Have being under specified conditions. [b]. (Followed by as) exist in the form of.

3. (Of circumstances etc.) occur; be found.

4. Live with no pleasure under adverse conditions (felt he was merely existing).

5. Continue in being; maintain life (can hardly exist on this salary).

6. Be alive, live.

Comparing Exist- - intransitive with Be - transitive.

Why has BE developed as a transitive lexeme rather than an intransitive one? The answer is an obvious one in that BE and all its fellow conjugations function as a predicational enablers that attribute the specific modalic nature of an entity and not the instantiation of its objective existential reality.

1. Exist- - have a place as part of ubietic objective reality.    The sun Exist- Compare "The sun does not Exist-[a back-formation from existence; cf. Late Latin existere]

1a.  To be - have a place as part of objective reality.    The sun be-eze,* *(the sun is.)* (Compare "The sun does not be."

In the above sentence 1 Exist- speaks of the place of the sun as being present as part of objective reality. Sentence 2a. attempts to do the same but fails, because of the fact that "be” attributes a predicational state and therefore requires an object: ("The sun is shining," or dialect: "The sun be shining." but not: "The sun is.")

2.    Exist- in the form of something - Exist- ubietically as an elephant. (Compare: "Not to exist as an elephant.)

2a.  To be in the form of something - to be as an elephant.  (Compare: "Not to be as an elephant.)

In sentence 2. " Exist- as an elephant," means to be present in the cosmos ubietically in the shape, form and nature of the animal that we know as an elephant. "To be as an elephant," however 2a. has the meaning of to perform like an elephant or to imitate the appearance or behaviour of an elephant.

3.    Exist- (of circumstances etc.) to occur; to be found. Fish are known Exist- in the pond. (Compare: "Fish are known not Exist- in the pond."

3a.  To be   (of circumstances etc.) to occur; to be found.  (Compare: "Fish are known not to be in the pond."

Sentence 3. speaks of the fact that fish are known as present and   having a place as part of objective reality in the pond, whilst sentence 3a. addresses the existential modality of the fish as existing in the pond.

4.     Exist- ubietically  with no pleasure under adverse conditions ("He felt he was merely existing.")

4a.   To be with no pleasure under adverse conditions ("He felt he was merely being.")

Sentence 4. speaks of the person being deprived of the existential modalities of pleasure and being merely modelessly present in a certain place, whilst 4a. is nonfunctional because of the missing predicate required by the transitive particle "being." (Compare: "He felt he was not merely existing." against: "He felt he was merely being WHAT? - He felt he was not merely being WHAT?")

5.     To continue in existing; to maintain life ("I can exist on this salary.")

5a.   To continue in being; to maintain life ("I can be on this salary.") *

Sentence 5. speaks of simple presence and relates that to the money required to maintain this entitative (considered as pure entity – abstracted from all existential circumstances) state or existing rather than not existing, whilst to continue being requires a predicational state to move towards or attain or achieve.  (Compare: I cannot exist on this salary," against: "I can be WHAT on this salary?") - "I cannot be WHAT on this salary?")

6.      Exist- alive* - to live.

6a.    To be alive - to live.

Sentence 6. demonstrates that the word Exist-  does not require an existential modality [such as living in order to make sense, whilst sentence 6a. "To be alive" demonstrates that the transitivity of the BE-word demands a predicational ongoing modality of essivity or ubietic behaviour, in this case of “aliveness,” to attribute to a entity, for without one "To be" alone is meaningless, whilst " Exist- has meaning as presupposing a comprehensively, all-inclusive modalically intransitive entity being present in a spatial sense; being or existing in a specified place and not requiring a predicational modalic characterisation such as “alive” or any other such existential state or manner of existing.