I was digging around in my closet the other day when I came upon a small stuffed girl doll that I had completely forgotten about; it’s as if, until I found her again she had ceased to exist. It got me thinking about what it means to ’be’. You know, does existence depend on acknowledgement?
So, I went to the library where I found a book called Being and Time written by Martin Heidegger. He starts off by saying Being isn’t a thing so it can’t be defined by logic. Well, I found that fairly confusing: How can something be without………..? But then as I continued reading it all started to make sense: If I am a Being in the process of being-in-the-world and sometimes being-for-others but being careful not to be inauthentic in being so (and might be better off being alongside instead) it would seem my Being is being conscious of being a Being and by being a Being I know for a fact that I am, indeed a Being.
I went home my head spinning all the way. I took the little doll out of the closet and set her on my dresser where she would always be in plain sight. There, she will always be for me, that is as long as I am, I guess.
Huh?
I must concur; Martin H. is unfortunately not around to help clear things up.
ack! my head hurts.
so this is jesus, freud and you? 😀
what is the medium? how are you creating such fantastic dimensions?
Hey Zoe; Yes this is the three of us at the library, my collaborator executed this work in watercolor using three-point perspective.
Please say more about “being for others.”
Well Kirikistan, I’m no scholar and I must say I find Martin H. quite mystifying but I think he might mean that the being we are is altered when we engage with others.
It’s tough stuff, isn’t it? I like your guess. Makes me want to read Mr. Heidegger.
I believe you just took something very confusing and made it more confusing…Thank You!