I would agree that life has no intrinsic positive value, but I also think it is nonsensical to claim that it has negative intrinsic value. — Janus

:ok: :ok: :ok:

Philosophical Pessimism is debatable... — schopenhauer1

So one can have, or acquire, reasons to choose or not to choose to be a philosophical pessimist (i.e. rationally committed to the idea that it is rationally worse ‐ more than merely not preferable – to exist than to not exist)? I've read a great deal on this topic (including all the "pessimists" cited by T. Ligotti & JF Dienstag) and the arguments either way seem ad hoc (or rationalizations) because the premises are often merely anecdotal.

I've read a great deal on this topic (including all the "pessimists" cited by T. Ligotti & JF Dienstag) and the arguments either way seem ad hoc (or rationalizations) because the premises are often merely anecdotal. — 180 Proof

How?

A pupil is a good thing. It isn't "running away from the truth of how much light is in the room," to have your pupil constrict, just like the release of endorphins isn't some sort of "illusion-making to hide the real levels of pain in the body." The "real level of pain," is determined, in part, by the endorphins.

They are all part of the same whole. There is no "true level" of human misery and suffering that we can discover by "cutting through illusion." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd like to say this is only partially analogous, but as all analogies, they can't fit completely. It is analogous in a way, as they are culturally-learned mechanisms that the individual must learn to not explore too much the existential anxiety/deeper existential issues that humans have the ability to apprehend. Unlike the analogy though, there are those who can get beyond the mechanisms, and even for "normal folk" that at certain times in their lives, can do this (before sewing that back up). The eye or endorphins don't work in this more fluid way that our psyche's can, so the analogy leads to a deceiving characterization of the case laid out by Zapffe regarding our psychological defense mechanisms.

That is to say, we evolved this ability, but then have to retreat. It isn't quite the same as an instinct or a reflex (like the pupil), but rather, crafted cultural ways we have been able to cope. That does make a difference. It is part-and-parcel, of a fully deliberative being. We are beings that can have existential dread, suicide, non-procreation, etc. We can evaluate our life as a whole, not just in the moment. If it is most similar to another concept, it would be Camus' idea of "bad faith", I would say.

I would agree that life has no intrinsic positive value, but I also think it is nonsensical to claim that it has negative intrinsic value. — Janus

I think this seems reasonable in a very surface-y kind of way.. Like someone something would say to a person caught up in their own solipsistic view of the world. But, "the world" "existence" "the universe" is never simply devoid of the person perceiving it. You can say that, truly, metaphysically, "the universe" is devoid of value. That would be misapplying the target of the value. The value is squarely on the being-in-the-world. It is rather about not the universe devoid of being, but the universe with a being that can feel, comprehend, and in the case of the human, self-reflect. Thus, value is part-and-parcel of the human condition, and cannot be cleaved from it. Thus, I see this argument as irrelevant to the human (or animal) being (in the world).

Some argue that if life has no overarching purpose that it follows that it has a negative intrinsic value, but I think it is arguable that having no overarching purpose is a positive thing, in that it allows us to be free to create our own purposes, rather than submitting to an imposed purpose or else suffer punishment, karmic consequences and so on. — Janus

I don't view "no purpose" as positive or negative either on its face. Rather, it is suffering that is paramount to the pessimist. Suffering can show itself in peculiar ways to the human animal. When doing something tedious, or in prolonged bouts of melancholy, one might see an immense worthlessness to it all. This is a kind of acute epiphany that usually doesn't last long. If you say that this is just emotional chimera, I would say that it again doesn't matter, it is part of the human animal's ability to perceive itself. Thus, the mechanisms come back into play to "right the course". And this seems to be very similar to Zapffe's idea of anchoring (one of the mechanisms):

Of course, even so-called overarching purposes are culturally imposed, since they are matters of faith, not something which could be obvious to any unbiased or free minded individual. — Janus

Indeed, what better way to be motivated than some external, culturally derived and tested way?

How? — schopenhauer1

What?

The value is squarely on the being-in-the-world. It is rather about not the universe devoid of being, but the universe with a being that can feel, comprehend, and in the case of the human, self-reflect. — schopenhauer1

I haven't said that life has no value for living beings; I have said it has no intrinsic negative or positive value. The value or meaning or purpose life has for living beings is diverse just as are the living beings. Trying to dismiss (your version of) what I said as "surface-y" seems a rather desperate tactic.

I don't view "no purpose" as positive or negative either on its face. Rather, it is suffering that is paramount to the pessimist. Suffering can show itself in peculiar ways to the human animal. When doing something tedious, or in prolonged bouts of melancholy, one might see an immense worthlessness to it all. — schopenhauer1

Sure, some minority of people, not animals I would think, may feel something like this. It may be driven by brain chemistry, or it may be on account of trauma, or something else; but whatever its origin might be, it is a subjective emotional state, not a universal truth. Life involves suffering, but it also involves joy, and the proportions of each will vary from living being to living being: seeking to absolutize the characterization of life as suffering is a fool's errand.

Indeed, what better way to be motivated than some external, culturally derived and tested way? — schopenhauer1

Right and there are potentially as many ways to be motivated as there are individuals if you drop the "overarching".

The value or meaning or purpose life has for living beings is diverse just as are the living beings. Trying to dismiss (your version of) what I said as "surface-y" seems a rather desperate tactic. — Janus

How so? You said there is no intrinsic value. That is missing the point, that it is only beings that perceive value, and human beings that are self-aware they are perceiving value. And that is what matters, not what the universe is devoid of beings who have value. If that was the case, we wouldn't need to talk about anything. We just wouldn't "be".

Sure, some minority of people, not animals I would think, may feel something like this. It may be driven by brain chemistry, or it may be on account of trauma, or something else; but whatever its origin might be, it is a subjective emotional state, not a universal truth. Life involves suffering, but it also involves joy, and the proportions of each will vary from living being to living being: seeking to absolutize the characterization of life as suffering is a fool's errand. — Janus

We have discussed this before, and I believe I have answered you before regarding this.

How so? You said there is no intrinsic value. That is missing the point, that it is only beings that perceive value, and human beings that are self-aware they are perceiving value. And that is what matters, not what the universe is devoid of beings who have value. If that was the case, we wouldn't need to talk about anything. We just wouldn't "be". — schopenhauer1

I have said that value, meaning, purpose is only to be found in the volitions, cognitions and judgements of beings. The value of life as assessed by human beings, and arguably not other animals, may be either positive or negative, depending on the human being doing the assessing, so it seems obvious that there is no intrinsic, universally negative or positive value to life.

We have discussed this before, and I believe I have answered you before regarding this. — schopenhauer1

If you have something to say in response to the passage you quoted, then say it. Vague references to some previous answer you purport to have given are next to useless. If you want to bring in past discussions, then at least bother to cite particular statements.

I have said that value, meaning, purpose is only to be found in the volitions, cognitions and judgements of beings. The value of life as assessed by human beings, and arguably not other animals, may be either positive or negative, depending on the human being doing the assessing, so it seems obvious that there is no intrinsic, universally negative or positive value to life. — Janus

Yeah, that is not what I or Ligotti was claiming in the sense of "meaninglessness". So that is a moot argument.

If you have something to say in response to the passage you quoted, then say it. Vague references to some previous answer you purport to have given are next to useless. If you want to bring in past discussions, then at least bother to cite particular statements. — Janus

Your response (amongst other quotes) is anticipated:

Whether or not one agrees that there is a
“brotherhood of suffering between everything alive,” we can all agree
that human beings are the only organisms that can have such a
conception of existence, or any conception period. That we can conceive
of the phenomenon of suffering, our own as well as that of other
organisms, is a property unique to us as a dangerously conscious species.
We know there is suffering, and we do take action against it, which
includes downplaying it by “artificially limiting the content of
consciousness.” Between taking action against and downplaying
suffering, mainly the latter, most of us do not worry that it has overly
sullied our existence.
As a fact, we cannot give suffering precedence in either our individual
or collective lives. We have to get on with things, and those who give
precedence to suffering will be left behind. [ pace @Ciceronianus et al comments :) )
28
They fetter us with their sniveling. We have someplace to go and must
believe we can get there, wherever that may be. And to conceive that
there is a “brotherhood of suffering between everything alive” would
disable us from getting anywhere. We are preoccupied with the good
life, and step by step are working toward a better life. What we do, as a
conscious species, is set markers for ourselves. Once we reach one
marker, we advance to the next—as if we were playing a board game we
think will never end, despite the fact that it will, like it or not. And if you
are too conscious of not liking it, then you may conceive of yourself as a
biological paradox that cannot live with its consciousness and cannot
live without it. And in so living and not living, you take your place with
the undead and the human puppet.

Yeah, that is not what I or Ligotti was claiming in the sense of "meaninglessness". So that is a moot argument. — schopenhauer1

I haven't said you or Ligotti claimed "meaninglessness". I believe you both claim that life can be universally characterized as "suffering" which would mean as 'intrinsically negative', and that is what I have been arguing against.

can anyone else see the validity in this idea of "excess" in existence, especially for the human experience? — schopenhauer1

I have not been exposed to the horror writer, nor the philosohers you say influencing him. But I found your info fascinating and can relate. I'll try to be concise. However, to do that, I must oversimplify, and necessary details will inevitably have to follow should you, or anyone care.

Presume, as I do,

1. that there is a Real consciousness shared by many if not all "sophisticated" organisms, including humans. It is the natural aware-ing of our Bodies in the natural environment, motivated by natural drives, including survival, bonding, reproduction.

2. one of the characteristics of this aware-ing for many species including "pre-historic" humans was a system of "shortcuts" to trigger expedient responses akin to classical conditioning, "designed" to fast-track our drives. Images are stored in memory and are autonomously called up to trigger efficiency in response. Eg. hear a tiger roar, run. See a red berry, don't eat. The roar and the color red is a Signifier in memory called up for survival.

3. For humans only (as far as we know) this system of shortcuts/signifiers grew to an astronomical surplus level (your: "excess"). By some point pre-history becomes History and the word "tiger" Signifies in the same way the sound of a roar once did.

4. This excess of Signifiers evolved into a System with grammar/logic/reason/fantasy etc etc. And Human Consciousness emerged displacing Real consciousness, I.e., natural aware-ing with the system of Signifiers (for simplicity, "Language")

5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us.


So yes, there is excess in the human experience relative to all other species; even those whose intelligence etc. resembles ours. We alone are motivated by the excess chatter taking place autonomously inside our bodies and believed by us to be real, essential, spiritual even, when all along it is autonomously moving Fiction.

5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us.


So yes, there is excess in the human experience relative to all other species; even those whose intelligence etc. resembles ours. We alone are motivated by the excess chatter taking place autonomously inside our bodies and believed by us to be real, essential, spiritual even, when all along it is autonomously moving Fiction. — ENOAH

Excellent distillation of the point I think Ligotti is making! Thank you for sharing.

As possibly an illustration of your summary here, I can think of "knowing" the cause of some pain, and simply being in pain. So perhaps another animal is not aware of something that could actually improve its situation. However, humans have the burden of deducing what it is that might improve his situation. Now the responsibility is to act one way or the other and determine if that indeed has improved the situation. This becomes quite burdensome as discursive thought, deliberative action, and the responsibility of choosing and acting becomes the prime MO humans become operative in the world. And for your first part here, you explain well how we GOT to this situation:

1. that there is a Real consciousness shared by many if not all "sophisticated" organisms, including humans. It is the natural aware-ing of our Bodies in the natural environment, motivated by natural drives, including survival, bonding, reproduction.

2. one of the characteristics of this aware-ing for many species including "pre-historic" humans was a system of "shortcuts" to trigger expedient responses akin to classical conditioning, "designed" to fast-track our drives. Images are stored in memory and are autonomously called up to trigger efficiency in response. Eg. hear a tiger roar, run. See a red berry, don't eat. The roar and the color red is a Signifier in memory called up for survival.

3. For humans only (as far as we know) this system of shortcuts/signifiers grew to an astronomical surplus level (your: "excess"). By some point pre-history becomes History and the word "tiger" Signifies in the same way the sound of a roar once did.

4. This excess of Signifiers evolved into a System with grammar/logic/reason/fantasy etc etc. And Human Consciousness emerged displacing Real consciousness, I.e., natural aware-ing with the system of Signifiers (for simplicity, "Language")

5. Human Mind, and thus, all human experience, is a structure of excess Signifiers stored in memory, "acting" autonomously to trigger the Body to respond with feelings and actions. The feelings etc in turn trigger more Signiers which, in turn trigger more feelings and actions, all of which are "experienced" in that form, and the Real aware-ing is inevitably displaced thereby. No longer are we motivated to feel and to act by natural drives; now it is tge desire of/for these Signifiers motivating us. — ENOAH

And thus we become in a way "exiled" from how other animals are "Real aware-ing" as you say. Natural drives versus Signifiers and the interconnection of Signifiers interacting to create a sort of emergent Human Consciousness with its grammar/logic/reason = fantasy, or artifice, which though makes for outcomes similar to animals (survival) is very starkly different in the artifice behind it, than other animals, their drives, and more localized reasoning abilities to problem-solving or learning.

:ok: :ok:

we become in a way "exiled" from how other animals are "Real aware-ing" — schopenhauer1

And with only the possible exception of timeless "moments" in Zazen, I feat, there is no way of returning from exile. Our Real Being is far too displaced by the inescapable chatter.

And with only the possible exception of timeless "moments" in Zazen, I feat, there is no way of returning from exile. Our Real Being is far too displaced by the inescapable chatter. — ENOAH

Something no doubt Schopenhauer would have agreed with :smile:. I find it interesting, the evidence of our longing for some sort of calmness that seems pervasive (even if being actively denied.. or being in denial):

• The longing for the tranquility of sleep.
• The restive state of a meditative state.
• The "being there" presence of being fully immersed in an activity (flow state).
• Trying to simply be "present" when it is so difficult most of the time.

These and other examples seem to be this longing for "Our Real Being", but in a way, they are vain attempts because once "crossing the divide" of the kind of consciousness of Signifiers et al, it is only like looking at a far distant shore that may or may not really be there. They are artificial/secondary ways of getting there, in other words.

Yes. From where I'm looking, we're on the same page.

These and other examples seem to be this longing for "Our Real Being", but in a way, they are vain attempts because once "crossing the divide" of the kind of consciousness of Signifiers et al, it is only like looking at a far distant shore that may or may not really be there. They are artificial/secondary ways of getting there, in other words. — schopenhauer1

The way to transcend our mundane and fictional selves, the troubled self, the self of Consciousness, is to be the Real and organic self, the aware-ing Body simply in its Organic Living. To say it is anything more—even to say, as Zen might, that it is to live unattached to the comings and goings of the Narrative self, the fiction—reflects still the narrative’s desperate hold upon me.

So I guess a question I can pose here, with all this in mind, is can anyone else see the validity in this idea of"excess" in existence, especially for the human experience? There is something that we are deluding ourselves in, with our goals, narratives, and ignoring of the situation, so that we don't have to "feel" or "sense" the excess. The excess might be akin to a certain sense of angst, existential dread, isolation, loneliness, ennui, and meaninglessness. Ligotti, used a term which is quite "horror" sounding with all caps- MALIGNANTLY USELESS. That might get at the feeling better. — schopenhauer1

From your description, it sounds like the implicit "excess" for humans is Self-Consciousness --- over & above basic consciousness. Without that talent for self-knowing, humans would be mere furless & fangless & clawless carnivores. Our behavior would be mostly innate & automatic & reasonless. Self-awareness allows humans to intentionally modify their behavior (biological drives) to suit their self-interest (goals ; narratives : aspirations), which may or may-not be in the interest of the community --- leading to law-breaking & treason, or to new standards of excellence. When fully immersed in the tribe, we could never feel "loneliness, ennui, or meaninglessness". So, from a pessimistic perspective, I suppose you could say that Selfishness is bad for humanity, but good for a person. But, what if that introspective person can rationally balance selfishness with selflessness?

Contrary to Ligotti's horrors, Hannah Arendt, in The Human Condition, finds a more positive interpretation of "the essence of what it means to be human in a modern, increasingly alienated world". She seems to think that the trade-off of immersion in a community for isolated self-awareness can be worthwhile for those of a philosophical disposition. Only individuals can set their own goals, and construct a customized narrative or worldview. For example, independent-minded humans could ignore the tribal myths of Hitler, and see the "horror" in his insane "sanitary" purges. She's neither a romantic poet, nor a purveyor of horror stories, but a pragmatic philosopher. :smile:


The Human Condition.
"Human beings are unique in their ability to engage in thinking and reflection, which allows them to shape their own identities and find meaning in their lives."
https://www.bookey.app/book/the-human-condition

Human beings are unique in their ability to engage in thinking and reflection, which allows them to shape their own identities and find meaning in their lives." — Gnomon

@ENOAH was pretty right on with his summary here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882856
. Do you have a response @ENOAH?

ENOAH was pretty right on with his summary here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/882856
. Do you have a response ENOAH? — schopenhauer1

I'm guessing that 's response to Hannah Arendt's quote is just prior to my post above : "The way to transcend our mundane and fictional selves, the troubled self, the self of Consciousness, is to be the Real and organic self, the aware-ing Body simply in its Organic Living".

Sounds like Sartre's concept of Authenticity : "To be authentic is to be clear about one's own most basic feelings, desires and convictions, and to openly express one's stance in the public .." Which is similar to my own notion of reasonable Self-awareness in a social context, in which case an "introspective person can rationally balance selfishness with selflessness". Of course, we could argue endlessly about the meaning of an "organic self". :smile:

Not directly addressing the preceding discussion, but I feel it noteworthy to highlight that Human Mind, as differentiated from organic consciousness (simplified as the aware-ing which bodies--even unicellular and plants--do to varying degrees) necessarily includes self-consciousness, or the mechanism of the Subject in action. And sure, Arendt makes a worthy point, as do Nietzsche, Heidegger and Sartre et. al. all the way down to the daisies, and we too, with our intuition (also built in, the mechanism of belief) to "bury" the Truth about human Mind being Fictional in structure and nature, and construct some (more) positive meaning out of what's present to their recent reflections. But besides the eloquent ways in which Arendt, Et. Al. construct their meaning, their is nothing noble in it. It's actually what we do with the Fiction (Signifiers structuring Mind) all the time: construct meaning. Simple eg. body organically is presently paining; Mind constructs "I stubbed my toe," out of the autonomously moving Signifiers available; the pronouns so assimilated into the Narrative which Body is fed, that its mechanics as signifier of (usually, but not always) Body is ordained with belief, and we "think" there is this poor I who stubbed its very own toe.

My point with respect to Gnomon's obviously great point, is that what Arendt and (I'm thinking most post Kantian) other Western thinkers are addressing is the ever present intuition that Mind is a Fiction. And that surfaces as a double edged sword. On the one hand, oh shit, Mind is Fiction. On the other hand, that means there are astronomical possibilities.

A ton more can be said, but for now, just one more thing. It's not like we have any way out. Although Nature did not construct Mind, and it is Fictional, it is precisely that which has seemingly permanently alienated us from Truth: organic, natural reality. Even as I write this the intuition arises in each of us, the mechanism of belief built into the structure. I hear that voice whispering, "you mean Truth is those meaningless organic drives? "F" that then, give me the Fiction." See? We construct meaning, Arendt. We don't discover anything.

Yes, accept that, I don't think Sartre's authenticity was Real in the ultimate sense. I think he knew he was providing instructions, not on how to "attain" authenticity as in Reality, or Truth. But how to make the Narrative authentic within the inescapable Truth of its ultimate inauthenticity.

What do you think?

But besides the eloquent ways in which Arendt, Et. Al. construct their meaning, their is nothing noble in it. It's actually what we do with the Fiction (Signifiers structuring Mind) all the time: construct meaning. Simple eg. body organically is presently paining; Mind constructs "I stubbed my toe," out of the autonomously moving Signifiers available; the pronouns so assimilated into the Narrative which Body is fed, that its mechanics as signifier of (usually, but not always) Body is ordained with belief, and we "think" there is this poor I who stubbed its very own toe.

My point with respect to Gnomon's obviously great point, is that what Arendt and (I'm thinking most post Kantian) other Western thinkers are addressing is the ever present intuition that Mind is a Fiction. And that surfaces as a double edged sword. On the one hand, oh shit, Mind is Fiction. On the other hand, that means there are astronomical possibilities. — ENOAH

Good explanation of how the constructed Fiction (Signifiers structuring Mind) rides on top of the body responses (presumably, rather than instinctual responses and more localized (non-constructed "Self") problem-solving of other animals).

A ton more can be said, but for now, just one more thing. It's not like we have any way out. Although Nature did not construct Mind, and it is Fictional, it is precisely that which has seemingly permanently alienated us from Truth: organic, natural reality. Even as I write this the intuition arises in each of us, the mechanism of belief built into the structure. I hear that voice whispering, "you mean Truth is those meaningless organic drives? "F" that then, give me the Fiction." See? We construct meaning, Arendt. We don't discover anything. — ENOAH

:up:

Yes, accept that, I don't think Sartre's authenticity was Real in the ultimate sense. I think he knew he was providing instructions, not on how to "attain" authenticity as in Reality, or Truth. But how to make the Narrative authentic within the inescapable Truth of its ultimate inauthenticity.

What do you think? — ENOAH

Sartre was reminding us that our Mode of Being is different than other animals. Our default seems to be to "buy into" the fantasy of the Fiction being somehow "fixed". Rather, the Fictions act similar to Zapffe's "anchoring mechanisms". That is to say, we make arbitrary "rules" and "reasons" for why we (must) do things, but beyond basic response to physical pains (reflexes), there is almost no reason we "must" do anything. It is this chasm of reasons for anything that we fill with "inauthentic" reasons, usually already provided by some cultural construct (ethical/virtue or self-help-like heuristic formula passed down through an individual or collective "wisdom").

All this being said, I would respond to @Gnomon that his response doesn't really get at the issues that Ligotti lays out. We are self-reflective (the Fiction if you will, but one that knows it creates them and deliberates through the Constructed artifice). This leads to an exile from the rest of nature in that we are not "aware-ing" in the present like other animals, but always must live with the fact that we do otherwise. He does end up sounding "inauthentic" when he uses anchoring "reasons" for why we must be most "authentic" in this or that setting (tribal, group), or that we have some mission in our use of reasoning to figure out best outcomes for ourselves.

there is almost no reason we "must" do anything. — schopenhauer1

I'll chime in further, later on, but for now, referencing your statement above, yes: not only is there almost "no reason" to do anything, but there may even be value in doing "nothing" as Heidegger implies, and certainly, as is required by Zazen. Albeit impossible due to our "entrapment" in the chattering of Fiction, there may be timeless moments where we might get a glimpse into our Natural, Organic, and Real aware-ing, by doing, so-called nothing, and thus, returning to that aware-ing

As for Sartre, since @Gnomon references him, yes, Consciousness is supported by a Being which is not itself. But contra Sartre, that Being is the Organic Being, the human animal.

What Consciousness is, is the system of autonomously moving images which displaces the Organic aware-ing of that Being, with the former’s constructions, empty of Real Being, and fleeting, Fiction.

The Dialectic that Sartre observed goes beyond Subject and Object, Self and Other. Like Freud, Sartre was astute enough to observe a Dialectical dynamic to Consciousness, but fixated on the most obvious Dialectic accessible to one in pursuit of an existential or phenomenological Ontology: subject/object (just as for Freud, in pursuit of Neuroses, the Sexual Conflicts were most manifest).

But dialectic is not limited, in Consciousness, to Self and Other. All of Mind moves through a dialectic; Signifiers autonomously competing to be heard, only surfacing at the arrangement most fitting for that specific locus in an individual Mind, and the locus of that Mind in History, or Universal Mind.

Even when my Body’s vision (sensation) is directed at a mundane cup; it does not “see” the Real “object,” like an equally intelligent animal might see; or, rather, it does, but there is no “object,” only see-ing and what Natural response see-ing might trigger. But with Mind, too quickly for that see-ing to be organically felt and responded to by that Real Body in aware-ing, Mind has already begun its Dialectic: Signifiers compete, and the Signifier arrangements most functional, for a given locus, surface to the aware-ing, displacing the Real Organic aware-ing with the "text", and triggering, à la Classical Conditioning, the Body to feel and or act in response to that fiction (all the while receiving those Signifiers in Narrative form, believed to be experience.).

And, only following that process, not Real, not disclosing itself to us as Real Being, but fleeting, and fictional, do I perceive that Signifier chain which won the Dialectic Dance and surfaced to Body, preassembled with belief, as that commonly shared object we call “cup.”

What is the human condition? Shit that just happens. But the point that Heidegger, Sartre, Arendt and so on are desperate to make is, ironically, right in front of our noses. We are authentic beings, not when we construct authenticity, or reflect upon what it is to be the Being of beings, or when we allow Being to disclose itself in authentic choices etc. All those things are sincerely admirable ways to follow the Narrative, just like Altruism might be, or for some, heroic sacrifice. They feed History, and thus inevitably, all of Human Consciousness (to wit, you and I). But what's already in front of our noses is we are authentic Beings, our Body is. To be that authentic Being, just be. If any details need be provided, it would be: breathe, eat, reproduce.

But, trapped in our Narrative world, we hate that idea and end up constructing bullshit out of Dialectic. And believing it. Like this.