There is something interesting here. Being and Having are the most fragmented roots in the English language. They share that characteristic. This implies that Having and Being are both artificial constructs in Indo-European Languages. If you look at ontologies you will note that Is..a… and Has..a… relations are quite different. Isa means that it is part of the object, but hasa means it comes under the object, i.e. that the object references the possessed object, but it is not part of itself. Having gives you distance from something that Is..a.. relations do not give you. But that distance is not very great, because we think of our possessions as being close to us.

We talk about beng in a state, or having a state, but we do not talk about Being a state.

Thus we say ‘there is a state of being’, but ‘we have that state’. This suggests that ‘states have being’, but when ‘we have a state it’ is different from ourselves. On the other hand we say we ARE excited. ‘We have excitement’ sounds strange. This suggests that the difference between Having and Being runs deep. But I can’t explain why there is the strange kinship yet difference between Having and Being. I have not studied it. Many languages have words for “Have”, it is not like Being an anomaly.

Perhaps it is because we ave phrases like “has been” that talk about the past that are different than “was”. But you would think that ‘will” of “will be” would have a broken root too. I find it mysterious that “have” is a broken root along with Being.

I do not think Habermas’ philosophy is all that great so it is pretty hard for me to defend it. In fact I see no redeeming qualities in it at all which is unusual for me, because normally canonical philosophers are given the benefit of the doubt. All I can do is throw up my arms and say “What has Critical Theory come to? This?” Adorno, Benjamin and Horkheimer each have interesting things to say. I am not sure what happened to Habermas. I have never heard anything about his philosophy that is the least bit interesting. Even Analytical Philosophy holds more interest that does the philosophy of Habermas for me.

Ayn Rand’s work is pseudo-philosophy, really a capitalist ideology raised to the nth degree. Perfect example of dogma which like Sartre’s work very propagandist in tone, in other words the characters only are there to express the ideas, and have no coherence of their own, a kind of pilgrims progress for the selfish individual in a capitalist society and justification for sociopaths which many CEOs really are. But this is old style capitalism, and today we have moved on to corporatism that is a hodge-podge of fascism, communism and capitalism all mixed together to form a monstrous brew, of the type that the three witches in MacBeth could not even dream up. Where is the new Ayn Rand for today’s corporatist globalism that the Republicans have sold their soul to? Surely there is a need for a new propagandist to update this worn out doctrine that sees corporations as emanations of selfish individual egos. They are in truth imaginary persons without soul or even any responsibility acting out on a global stage and destroying the planet while they are at it. In Ayn Rand’s day there seemed no limits for people like Hearst who as portrayed in Citizen Kane by Orsen Wells. Today there are only faceless company men bowing to these new gods with no egos of there own who justify the ravaging of the earth dividing everyone into shareholders, customers and employees who are many times the same people torn into these different roles. The time when there were individuals who became wealthy and then expressed their own will to power through that is over. It is like the American middle class, a thing of the past.

I suggest reading the book by Robert Rosen Life Itself to learn about functionalism. I have the beginnings of a tutorial on it at http://systemsradio.net

There is a wonderful book on exactly this point. It is The Wrath of Athena: Gods and Men in the Odyssey by Jenny Strauss Clay. If you read this book along with the book Oedipus, Philosopher by Jean-Joseph Goux and Catherine Porter you can get a lot of insight into what drives the epic. The epic begins when Athena stops being angry at Odysseus for the violation of her shrine during sack of Troy. In the violation the three taboos are broken which with sexual, intellectual and sacred violations of the dignity of Athena due to the Hubris of the Greeks. Goux specifies these rituals of initiation and how Oedipus fails these tests, while the hero succeeds in them. But the “sin” which angers Athena gives Odysseus signals responsibility for violating the honor of the gods at Troy by the hubris of the Acheans when they sack the city. This causes Menelaus to flee but Agamemnon stays to make sacrifices on the beach before leaving. Odysseus first decides to flee with Menelaus but then returns to do the Sacrifice with Agamemnon but misses it. Odysseus gets lost between the two brothers who are both kings. The one who stays back to sacrifice gets home first. The one who leaves first without sacrificing has his journey delayed. The one who gets lost between these alternate reactions gets the most lost and is delayed the longest, which is Odysseus. It must be understood that these epics are continually giving us nihilistic opposites and showing how the hero both charts his own course between them, but also may bet lost between the opposite reactions as Odysseus does. Odysseus is always by implication being compared to Achilles. Achilles withdraws from battle and then goes berserk when Petroclous is killed He overreacts by withdrawing from the battle and then overreacts by plunging into it in a berserker mode. Thus Achilles reaction to a nihilistic situation (both Trojans and Acheans take women who are not theirs) is itself nihilistic (withdrawal and overreaction). But both of these reactions are decisive when taken. Odysseus is instead indecisive first deciding to leave with Menelaus and then abandoning that at then returning to be with Agamemnon but missing the sacrifice. So Odysseus is literally lost in the nowhere between these two decisive courses of actions and from there things only get worse as he gets more and more lost until he is on a island in the middle of the sea resigned to being lost in oblivion hidden as a prisoner with Calypso.

http://ontomythology.posterous.com/why-was-athena-angry-at-odysseus-and-his-men

I think this question needs to be clarified.

I think it is now pretty certain that there is a mutiverse that somehow gives rise to our universe in the Big Bang and we can consider the fact that the universe is still accelerating in its expansion due to dark energy pouring in from somewhere as the greatest evidence for that. But whatever the multiverse is it is not spacetime as we understand it in our universe, and no one knows what it might be, and the chances of ever finding out are somewhat slim.

Now the thing about the Universe that we do know is that the whole thing is entangled because it all had an origin together at the Big Bang. The fact that everything is entangled lends credence to the idea that everything interpenetrates within the universe which is held for instance by Fa Tsang in Hua Yen Buddhism where emptiness is equated with interpenetration. This interpenetration is now thought about in Physics as the Holographic principle and the idea that the universe as three dimensional may be a projection off of a domain wall and that the dimensionality of our universe may ultimately be an illusion.

What we are discovering slowly is that Quantum Mechanical phenomena is not restricted to the micro world and that there are quantum mechanical states in macro phenomena that actually affect macro outcomes. For instance it was recently seen that there is quantum moment in photosynthesis. I am fairly certain that we are going to find that Life itself is based on these quantum phase shifts at the macro level in and out of entangled and superpositioned states.

If that is true, and we find more phenomena like that where Quantum Mechanics counts as having macro effects as Penrose suggested it might for Consciousness in the brain then there is a good chance that quantum mechanical phenomena will end up being linked to evolution in some way.

According to Deutsch in The Fabric of The Universe the multiverse is actually manifest as interference in Quantum Phenomena.

And we know from Kauffman At Home in the Universe that we are dependent on Order arising from nowhere to create life via Negative Entropy.

So, given these sources and what they have said I could envisage a theory that says that the multiverse is seen in our universe as Quantum interference, and Quantum interference occurs even on the macro level, and that somehow speciation is linked to that quantum phase shifts at the macro level, because Evolution has this strange punctuation that was incorporated into the theory by Gould. We do not know how punctuation works when lots of different species are suddenly created, many of which die out, but these speciation events leave their mark on evolutionary history.

For a long time they said that snowball earth was impossible because if it ever occurred the planet could never get out of it. But now we know it has occurred twice. Before they found out that the universe was still accelerating in its expansion physicists would have thought that was impossible. Even the researchers who discovered it couldn’t believe it at first. So there are many strange and hard to believe things about our universe that we are finding. For instance it was only when we found the microwave background radiation that the Big Bang became the dominate theory. It is discovery of the unexpected that drives science. Occasionally we get something like the Higgs particle that was predicted, but the real drivers is not what is predicted by theory but what we discover exists that we would never have guessed like Super Conductivity that took twenty years to explain convincingly. So I would not rule out the idea that there may ultimately be a connection between the Multiverse and Evolution of Species. But as someone else expressed it is hard to think what that might be at this point when thoughts about the Multiverse itself are so new, and since like string theory we won’t be doing experiments any time soon where we can test the various ideas that are being developed. But the very fact that we are taking seriously the idea of the multiverse is a wonderful expansion of the reach of our imagination in science as was string theory itself.

I predict that what we will find is that there are quantum moments all over the place in life, where life takes advantage of some quirk at the quantum level to increase its efficiency and effectiveness of its negative entropy order production. And if more of those quantum shifts are found like the one recently reported in photosynthesis then macro quantum states are going to become more and  more important for explaining now inexplicable things like life, consciousness and social phenomena in species. And the more QM takes on this role in things like Biology and if it turns out that D. Deutsch is right about Quantum interference being multiverses interacting in the substrate of our universe, then the more people may talk about the role of the multiverse in shaping macro phenomena such as evolution within our universe.

As said before True nature of Reality is using Being against itself and is like saying the being nature of being, it really does not mean anything even though it sounds as if it does. What we have to do is realize that both aspects appear in relation to Being and Existence. Existence is ultimately non-dual which allows us when we grasp that to escape the illusion and the fiction of Being in relation to existence. But the Real Truth and the True Reality is only seen when we realize that existence is neither aspect nor anti-aspect, i.e. neither true nor fictitious, AND neither real nor illusory. The aspects relate to existence by their negation. Existence is nondual and thus is the subject of enlightenment under the interoperation of emptiness in Buddhism or void in Taoism. The true nature of reality or the real nature of truth only has ultimate meaning with respect to existence. In existence they mean the same thing because Existence is singular while Being is made up of Universals and Particulars.

First of all saying True nature of Reality, is a problem because both of them are aspects of Being. Being is illusion. But Existence also has the same aspects without the illusion. So instead of using one aspect against the other we can contrast them both in terms of how they show up in existence which is different from how they show up in Being. In Being the differential between aspect and anti-aspect is emphasized. In Being we have the quintessence which is both aspect and anti-aspect at the same time. But existence is neither aspect nor anti-aspect at the same time. The nature of existence is nonduality, which shows up either under the interpretation of emptiness or void. Either way the nature of existence is interpenetration and thus that is the true nature of reality when we take away the illusion of the difference between aspect and anti-aspect.

Saying what reality is in isolation really does not get us anywhere, everything has meaning in context. So the context for Reality are the other aspects of Being which are Truth, Identity and Presence. It turns out that the other aspects give the grounding for formal systems, and their relations with each other give us the properties of formal system which are consistency, completeness and clarity (wellformedness). When we bring the formal system into contact with reality via testing then we get three more properties which are verifiability  validity, and coherence because those are the relations between reality and the other aspects related to the formal system. Reality is about testing. Via testing we verify and validate a given formal system in relation to reality. The best way of talking about this is that of Robert Rosen in Life itself where he shows that causality and logical connection are both forms of entailment and thus category theory is a good way to think about the connection of the formal system to the natural world. So Reality is just one aspect which gains its own meaning by its difference between itself and the other aspects and though its relation to them based on the properties of formal system and their properties in relation to testing against nature. It should also be mentioned that there are meta-levels of Being: Pure, Process, Hyper, Wild and Ultra and that all the aspects transform emergently at each of those meta-levels. Thus Reality is different depending on the meta-level you are approaching it on. And this is why reality is so hard to pin down. It participates in the higher logical type theory of Russell which defines different types at different meta-levels to resolve the paradoxes and absurdity of Being. The types at each meta-levels are the emergent transformations of the aspects of Being.

On the criteria of having produced something that leads toward enlightenment as the understanding of nonduality then it is a failure, because it is based on an intensification of nihilism and thus sophistry. Failure to enlighten, to provide insight, but rather instead selling category systems that are meaningless because they are supposed to cover everything but really only intensify duality is the worst sort of failure as it leads people astray.

See for more explanation  . . .

Integral Theory: What is wrong with Ken Wilber’s Integral Theory?
What is the Integral Theory?