Being, Becoming, Nothingness

The figure above is a representation of how one entity becomes something new through a process of entanglement. No entity exists in isolation, what exists is its process of becoming something new. 

Introduction

There is a clear distinction between an entity existing as a subject and a process existing in continuum with time. Oftentimes, philosophers and natural scientists are fixated on defining things in and of themselves, separate from other things. So we tend to forget that things can exist as processes. A process, unlike an entity, is characterized by its potentiality, not its actualization. In other words, a thing can exist to become something, and then evolve with time, forming new identities temporarily but never actually acquiring one permanently. An entity, on the other hand, is fixated on an ontological definition. A thing exists as it is now forever, and doesn't have the ability to change with time or space. The concepts of being and becoming tackle the question of whether humans are beings that exist in space or beings that become continuous with the space and time around them. In other words, the main question here is: Are humans stagnant entities defined by their current predispositions or are they fluctuating processes that take on temporary roles and constantly become something new? Pre-Socratic philosopher, Hereclitus, famously wrote that no man can ever step in the same water twice because both the water and the man are in constant flux, changing each moment. More modern philosophers such as Edmund Husserl, Martin Heiddeger and Gilles Delulze have come up with postmodernist theories that suggest humans exist not as isolated systems, but rather as processes that are intermingled with the environment around them. Substances in this world are not ONLY defined by spatial and sensory properties such as color, shape and depth. Rather, substances are better defined by their temporal properties. So the past- present- future timeline dictates their essence and attributes. In this blog, I will argue that humans are not fixed beings but rather becomings of their temporal changes in body and the environment.

Gilles Deleuze's idea of Expression

Gilles Deleuze was a 20th century postmodernist philosopher who argued that there is no definitive meaning of the world, instead the world is a world of difference, motion and flux. In this way, difference precedes identity because all things inherently change their structure and characteristics with time. Therefore, objects express their identity rather than possess them. Expression refers to a transient state of becoming something different than before. The natural question is that if all things only express their identity, how can somethings exist as they are for eternity? A rock has always been a rock and an apple has always had seeds in it. Deleuze would argue that a rock and apple may appear to have one singular entity, but they have been changing all along. By definition an apple is a fruit, but at one point it's substituents were part of a tree, and later on became separate. A rock by definition is sturdy and composed of minerals, but at one point it was part of the ground, which had dirt and other objects in it. The properties of rock and apple both change with time, so Deleuze would say that the rock is expressing a behavior that characterizes it as rock, but then it becomes something else as time changes. 

When we apply this principle to humans, it gets more complicated. We assume we hold an identity throughout life that is intangible to change. But we are always confronted by the fact that each and every thing about us is connected and interrelated with everything around us. Our nervous systems are constantly interacting with the environment around and creating a change in internal homeostasis, leading to changes in our affect and behavior. We think we are walking, talking and behaving, but in reality it is the musculoskeletal system that is performing the task. We think we are making decisions about our morality and justice, but that too is heavily dependable on current social norms and our upbringing. In fact our brains are shaped by maternal influences even before we are even born. What the mom eats and experiences all impacts the fetus brain since it changes hormonal effects on it. So one could argue that we become who we are based on timely changes inside and outside our bodies. By claiming that we are something, we limit ourselves from becoming something new. Thus there is this radical freedom in becoming a new person with time, rather than predisposing yourself to one type of being. This doesn't mean we are robots that can be reduced to cause and effect. On the contrary, Deleuze thinks we are similar to the roots of trees. Our personalities are widespread and interconnected to one another like a root. What we see on the outside is just the tree, but the tree actualizes itself because of its root system that allows it to transport water and minerals upward towards its fruits, flowers and leaves. Our bodies are very similar to trees but we have an infinite root structure called the rhizome, which connects our ideas and beliefs to other people and things around us. On the surface we express ourselves as one thing, but underneath there is a process of becoming that happens through the roots. These roots, thus, are catalysts for becoming. Deleuze terms this root structure as a rhizome. 

Idea of Rhizome

A rhizome is a chaotic and unpredictable root structure of a plant that can abruptly grow in many different directions while simultaneously making new connections with other roots. This type of behavior is analogous to how human systems work. Our thought systems are constantly interconnected with changes around us thus we take these sudden shifts in our being. On the surface it appears we are not changing, but each encounter with a new person and a new situation leaves lasting impacts on our root structure that then later predisposes us to think or feel in a certain way. This is quite similar to the butterfly effect where little things in life may seem to have insignificant consequences on their own, but they accumulate to have a larger impact in the future. The rhizome is a representation of constant flux and uncertainty that exists in human thought and behavior. Because of this uncertainty, the line between who we are and who we can be is very unclear. This is why it's best to characterize ourselves as a never ending process that expresses its essence differently based on previous dispositions and current needs. This process of becoming can be chaotic since it does have a level of randomness involved. We can't always know what we are getting into or how our bodies will react to a particular situation. Given there are many permutations of potential life, it is better to have a fluctuating sense of personality rather than fixating on your previous self. Our biases and moral beliefs will always steer us one away or the other, but in the end adaptability is inevitable in a world full of changes.

Process theory and Nothingness

So far this blog has suggested that humans are processes or functional systems rather than spatial and ontological entities. The emphasis of process theory thus is on how and why things happen rather than what exactly happens. This is quite opposite to how philosophy has been practiced in the past. Most philosophers will attempt to discover truth by investigating the object itself rather than its interaction with others. But this interaction is what defines the object in the moment. The process theory claims that we live in a world of nothingness and unity. The substances around us are processes and the people around us are rhizomes, hence there is no actual 'thing' that exists. What exists is change in the way things interact with one another. This gives a new sense of unity because it means all processes are or can be interconnected to one another. Because nothing exists on its own, it can be united with an infinite number of other objects, which themselves only strive to depend on other things as well. As bizarre as this theory sounds, it has practical grounds. The process theory suggests that when we look at our partner, or our work colleague, or our boss, we only see a figure that symbolizes a specific role. But we forget to see that all these people are not stagnant, but a set of fluctuating processes. Our boss or a friend expresses themselves as themselves only to express themselves temporarily. This can lead to radical acceptance and forgiveness in workplaces, home and in communal situations. But more importantly it leads to self acceptance. It provides us with meaning even when we are suffering or going through a loss. Because the tragic event, though undesirable, may actually be pivotal for a process yet to come. If we do not attach ourselves with the events and attributes we have, then we unfold to the mysteries of the universe and suddenly feel an unlimited amount of freedom. 

To put it briefly, the argument in this paper can be summed up in these words:

"The body is not a thing, but a series of temporal processes"- Gilles Deleuze.