Being and being

If only “beings” are, what does “Being” mean, asks John Caputo (“Heidegger and Aquinas”). I think Being in this sense is meaning only, and far secondary to 'being.” But this is not how Being is defined in Evolutionary Christianity (EC).

Being is Being at the Zenith of Evolution and being (small b) is all evolving life leading to Godhood. The Spirit is Being within yet is still defined as small b being.

Both Being and being are actual physical objects with material and supermaterial substance, in the world, of time, and belonging to causal laws. To “define” these things is far secondary to their actual existence.

Definition is not worthy of the terms being or Being, these are not abstract concepts. Essence is existence and existence is essence. This suggest a rejection of any real distinction between essence and existence---this is not Thomist. I uphold the Involutionary Inward Path, and I uphold upward evolution in the Evolutionary Outward Path, which is the Twofold Path of Evolutionary Christianity (EC). Heidegger's teacher, Braig, seems to have been closer to our way of thinking about Being than Heidegger.

The most basic presupposition in EC is the Spirit-Within, or Will to Godhood, which is the offspring being of the transmuted Godhood Being. And Godhood or Being is the goal of the Spirit which activates life from within to evolve to Godhood. Life is then shaped from without by evolution. Being is a supermaterial yet at this time ideal concept which precedes being and gives birth to being.

This helps define idealistic realism and theological materialism.