I know of no other existence other than this one. We may speak of souls and spirits but we may only speak of them from this existence, and none other. Whether souls or spirits exist or not is really not the point. What we should be noting is that the possible existence of or as souls and spirits has no direct bearing on this existence other than through that kind of thought and discourse.
I don’t like the to in to be or to with any other infinitive for that matter. It entails movement when the infinitive indicates anything but movement or change. I am or it is are to indicate a state that in reality does not exist.
Being is to indicate a state over time. So this is closer to what is true of the reality.
Becoming is what is what we always do. But that too is an illusion. Becoming is what we perceive when the reality “sees” none. Becoming is therefore a value.
Our being has the characteristic of data creation with-in and with-out the mind. We create concepts at every turn. We replace the real things with its concepts. We also mistake concepts for the real things.
Plato was one of the first to create the idea of ideal forms that all else is based upon. Real cats are but shadows of the ideal cat, where the ideal cat is the model for the cats of the world. But Plato did not have the benefit of current understanding. Cats did not always exist. It would be safe to say cats did not exist two billion years ago. Did the ideal form already exist then without a single cat to be in existence? What is the point of having the ideal form of cats if there were none to be?
The more likely answer would be that our ideal form of cats comes from our experience and observation of cats by way of blending all that is considered ideal of a cat, rather than something like an ideal form existing before we start.
This is like the present state of Apple’s App Store. It is far from ideal but we keep bits we like here and there and remove other bits that don’t seem to work. Call it “tweaking”, “evolution” or some other term you like. Ideal forms are not there. Only the concept of ideal forms exist. We must not mistake the concept for the real thing or for the verbal form of it.
The physical stasis of the form of the word creates the illusion of the stasis of the thing.
The problem with concepts are that they create illusions of stasis when none are there. Plato fell into the trap, as did Aristotle. This way of thinking held sway until the 19 century. Even Peter Abelard had lost out (probably due to his love for his Heloise). Would we have the novel (and more widely, literature) if it were not for the understanding of the fictive mind?
The advantage of being human is that we can group things easily by convenience of language. Take the word “human” for example. The term means us the single species of animal that is contrasted with all other animals. The opposite of human is “animal”. It also denotes us as different (when we are not) from other animals by putting everything into the container of “animal”.
This is how anthropocentric we are.
We must, at all times, be careful with and be aware of the nature of language. To think that language is natural and error-free is to not understand its nature. For it is wholly artificial, reliant upon the tools, the limited mechanics, we call the “body” that is available to us.
It is said that there is no agreement of the exact definition of logic. Considering that formal logic, symbolic logic and mathematical logic all have a different understanding of the sign, then, it would be difficult to come to any agreement.
The fact that in mathematical logic signs are joined in a numerical abstract relation divorced from reality it cannot be applied directly to it (although most people think it is the purest language). And symbolic logic tries to work with grammar, again abstract and different depending on the language.
The only real description of logic is therefore one which is based on the physical without being related to the signifier. We need to separate the signifier and signified in a meaningful logical way.