The Meaning of Life

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

Dennis Mahar:
QRS are trying to deliver a message to you guys that will blow your minds.
the patience, kindness they display
the insults they suffer,
is beyond me..
Why they give a fuck is beyond me...

Carmel:
This looks dangerously close to idol worship. You're not seeing through the lens of reality, but ideality. They are fallible human beings, just like everyone else.

Dennis:
You won't get it till you get it
if you get it
it'll be clear

Carmel:
Dennis, wake up, dear. Using David's analogy, I'm his "enemy" in the same way that he is my "enemy". You're not doing him any favors by automatically and seemingly without thought, agreeing to everything he says, however ridiculous it is, or over and beyond that, making inane statements about scientists to "side" with him. It's a little creepy. You're starting to look more and more like a (ahem)girlish, teenage groupie.

Dennis:
a minimum requirement for posters to have already grokked emptiness would work better.

Carmel:
The minimum requirement is at least the attempt at rationality, of which you have, thus far, displayed very little.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You are of the best and the brightest Carmel, a real treasure.
but please,
is there a possibility you could put all the shit aside and be coachable?
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

lol! @ coachable!

What would you like to coach me on?
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Being coachable.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

lol!

hmm, maybe you're too coachable, Dennis?!

Anyway, I am coachable up to a point, but I can only be reached through reason. In case you didn't know, I actually agree with a fair amount of the philosophical viewpoints which are espoused here...because they appeal to my sense of reason. The views that don't appeal to this sense are the ones I contest. I would never trade rationality for coachability.
User avatar
m4tt_666
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by m4tt_666 »

any physical form of life is fallible simply by way of existing within the Universe and the principles that uphold it (gravity, time etc.).

i don't dare take anything seriously, not even my own thoughts except for the moment i am perceiving them. dwelling on anything, be it thought or physical objects for too long is detrimental to your true perspective of reality.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Carmel,
Anyway, I am coachable up to a point, but I can only be reached through reason. In case you didn't know, I actually agree with a fair amount of the philosophical viewpoints which are espoused here...because they appeal to my sense of reason. The views that don't appeal to this sense are the ones I contest. I would never trade rationality for coachability.
With fondness, warmth and humour dear,
it sometimes looks like you come to the table armed with a pair of colt 45's, a shotgun, 4 bowie knifes, a cache of grenades...
a sense of the jungian 'feisty animus'...

If I said to you Being is truth,
expressing collectively as an exercise in Worldhood,
expressing individually as an exercise in Personhood,
Being as existential possibilities of form...

It's about where you're at,
Who you are being,
Being coachable is a rare space to inhabit for human being.
Wax on Wax off.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

Dennis:
With fondness, warmth and humour dear,
it sometimes looks like you come to the table armed with a pair of colt 45's, a shotgun, 4 bowie knifes, a cache of grenades...
a sense of the jungian 'feisty animus'...

Carmel:
...and likewise, dear, with fondness and humour
I point out to you that your weapons choice
are the A-bomb, the nuclear bomb
character assassinations...
...and a bit of irrationality!

Dennis:
It's about where you're at,
Who you are being,
Being coachable is a rare space to inhabit for human being.

Carmel:
Coachability will get you nowhere, without logic to temper it. You're still not being honest with yourself. You have a long, long way to go before you're free of delusion.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote:Dennis:
Science, Education, Politics is owned by the Military/Industrial complex...

and that is only interested in the construction of a reality that is conducive to it's survival and dominance...
that's why you've got nuclear bombs.

Carmel:
I'm loathe to even address this level of nonsense. This is just plain quackery and reeks of paranoid conspiracy theories.

I can see what Dennis is trying to say here, but perhaps he didn't express it very clearly. He does sound like he is crediting people (the military people, the industialists, etc) with a level of intelligence and consciousness that they don't really possess.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be talking about how we are all socially conditioned to be happy cogs within the larger economic and national machinary, and that our values and beliefs since childhood have been shaped accordingly. This doesn't sound too controversial to me.

I personally think that science (and the human search for knowledge more generally) is "owned" by the ego's need to replicate the safety and security of the womb. Thus, great philosophic knowledge, such as causality, is more or less universally ignored the world over (as it undermines all wombs completely), while other forms of knowledge that focus on learning how to manipulate nature and gain greater power over the environment (e.g. science) or thrusting the mind into the safety and security of fantasy ( e.g. religion) are at the forefront.

-
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

David:
I can see what Dennis is trying to say here, but perhaps he didn't express it very clearly. He does sound like he is crediting people (the military people, the industialists, etc) with a level of intelligence and consciousness that they don't really possess.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be talking about how we are all socialy conditioned to be happy cogs within the larger economic and national machinary, and that our values and beliefs since childhood have been shaped accordingly. This doesn't sound too controversial to me.

Carmel:
If that's what he meant, then that's what he should've said. This is what I'm trying to "coach" him to do. We shouldn't have to interpret vague or incomplete thoughts.

David:
I personally think that science (and the human search for knowledge more generally) is "owned" by the ego's need to replicate the safety and security of the womb. Thus, great philosophic knowledge, such as causality, is more or less universally ignored the world over (as it undermines all wombs completely), while other forms of knowledge that focus on learning how to manipulate nature and gain greater power over the environment (e.g. science) or thrusting the mind into the safety and security of fantasy ( e.g. religion) are at the forefront.

Carmel:
Yeah, I agree with this to some extent, particularly your last statement. I think the preoccupation that some people have with things like eugenics, genetic manipulation, some environmental issues etc. stem from a deep psychological insecurity which manifests in a need to control or predict their future environment.

Personally, I'm not particularly drawn to these issues. The reason I'm attracted to science, especially Cosmology and quantum phenomena, is because, and please pardon my French, I find it fucking fascinating...and no, it certainly doesn't give me a womb like feeling of security, quite the opposite. Cosmology makes me realize how infinitesimally small, insignificant and transient we all are. It puts things into perspective.

It also inpires in me a sense of awe.
Awhile back, you wrote something about be able to see the entire universe in a leaf...or something to that effect. Well, I can see the Universe in an atom, a star, a black hole, 200 billion galaxies...or...
...
Dragonspirit
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:20 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dragonspirit »

"level of intelligence and consciousness that they don't really possess."


_____________


Me thinks you mean "respect"..?

The meaning of life is "respect of everything", only...
With respect everything runs as smooth as it gets.. Not to say that there aren't bumps and holes on the road, generally placed by those void of respect of anything...

Define "respect" with illustrations:
My best client calls me up, "There's a huge wasp nest at my back door. Would you please remove it!"...
I gathers up my bee's nest removing equipment.. I gets to the site.. WhooH! it's a big nest!..
I can imagine what's gonna happen when I starts knocking that nest down...
I paused, regrouped, and telepaths to the queen.. "Your majesty, a fire-storm is coming this way. I shall relocate your nest to a safer place. I need you to maintain your warriors quiet and peaceful during the move. I will take care of your family and feed you honey and fruit".. Then I used the long-handled scraper to release the nest from the upper corner of the house, and down it came in three pieces, with hundreds of hornets all just sitting on the ground peaceful like, not even moving... Three hornets flew up, and positioned themselves around me on the building, probably as the queen's eyes... With bare hands, I placed the three pieces of nest into a bag, and gently swept the remaining bugs, on the ground, into the bag.. and relocated the nest to my flower bed in the back yard, where I fed them honey and fruit, till the freeze came... Whenever I came close to the nest I was able to touch warrior hornets on their wings, backs, and fangs... they were as gentle as flies... Stroke their backs while they are on your skin, they fall asleep, and remain there till you tap them to wake them...
It's all about respect...

________________


I take midnight strolls without lights, in forests, on my solo camping hiking trips... This one midnight I hears a cougar's growl about 25-feet to my right.. Immediately I faces the source of the sound, "Walk with me Your Majesty"... I heard it keeping pace about ten feet from me...

________________

While camped near Goldbridge BC, I hears a minute long, soft low growl from about 200-feet away, near the creek, in pitch black darkness...
I really needed to know what made that growl.. I pushed my senses to the limit, then added a little more raw will-power, and out of my head, somewhere, came a blood-red little line, which went fast toward the river, and I somehow stopped it at the river's edge, where it detonated into a sudden splash of soft dark red.. I shut my eyes, and studied the residuals on my retina, to see the silhouette of a very large bear... I removed all metal from my person, washed well, and walked to where I figured the bear would now be.. I stopped 8-feet from an adult she-griz.. I bowed as I spoke "GreetingsYour Majesty".. then I sat... I talked to the bear for over 30-minutes... half way into the meeting, I felt a little fear deep inside.. I knew I couldn't let any fear out.. The smell of fear is spice for bear food...
I spoke: "Princess.. I've become scared after comparing your size and ability for violence, to my size and my inability to defend myself. I don't like scared. Would you kindly do something to fix it?".. Immediately the bear blinked a lengthy blink, then lowered herself out of attack-posture, and sat...
It's all about respect...

________________

Boyfriends.. Girlfriends.. Husbands & Wives.. Family.. Mating.. Procreation.. Creation.. Meeting Monsters.. It's all about respect... The meaning of life is respect...
Without respect, the planet would be dying...
Without respect humanity would be falling into its extinction...
Without respect we would be causing mass extinctions...
Without respect we would care about money only...
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote:David:
This assumption that there is nothing beyond the space-time bubble - that our space-time bubble represents all there is - is wholly non-scientific in nature.

Carmel:
What? You lost me. Who is saying that there is nothing beyond our space-time bubble?

Perhaps its changing nowadays, but for the past few decades, ever since Big Bang theory became the established paradigm, most cosmologists have been asserting that view, either explicitly or implicitly. An example is Stephen Hawking claiming that space-time itself began with the Big Bang.

David:
It's an arbitrary decision made purely to stroke the vanity of cosmologists.

Carmel:
Again, what? Why are you arbitrarily assigning the motive of vanity to cosmologists? This is just plain silly.

To my mind, the vanity of physicists shines out of everything they say and do (the theoretical chaps at least, probably not the humble lab technicians), and it's tied to their belief that physics is the most fundamental and important of all the sciences, that their work nowadays almost transcends science; that they are, in effect, the new cutting-edge philosophers of our age.

Some examples of this: The proclaimed seach for the "Theory of Everything"; the claim that physics is now looking into the "mind of God"; the comical claim a hundred years ago that physics had just about wrapped everything up, that it was just a matter of "dotting the i's and crossing the t's"; the equally comical claim that modern theories, such as Big Bang cosmology and quantum mechanics, are on the verge of doing the same; and so on.

We are all conditioned to think this, really. We all have the vague idea that physics has got its tentacles in, if not the whole of reality, then at least 90% of it. It never occurs to us to think that the whole realm of human physics, together with the entire observeable world, could well be nothing more than a microscopic blip in an infinitely larger sea of reality.

Physics - a form of local knowledge.

David:
You really need to be clear about this. When it comes to these fundamental issues, science has absolutely nothing to say. It is wholly beyond the power of science to resolve these issues, one way or the other.

Carmel:
They're not necessarily resolving issues, they're exploring them...Do you not see any value or benefit in exploring our natural world?

Of course. But I also see the value and benefit of exploring the absolute truth, as well as making clear the distinction between philosophy (knowledge of absolute truth) and science (theorizing about what is observed in the natural world). Again, it's sloppy thinking that I am against, not science.

Ideally, I would like to see the exploration of the natural world conducted by people whose minds are bathed in the highest wisdom.


David:
I'm not anti-science. Just anti-sloppy thinking. And boy, when it comes to scientists speculating about the philosophical implications of their work, there is an awful lot of that.

Carmel:
I'm anti-sloppy thinking too, but I see much more of that from religionists than from scientists, why not blow some spitball in their direction for a change and let the scientists be. :)

Science is the new religion nowadays.

David:
Scientists, as a rule, have no interest in philosophic knowledge and philosophic wisdom. So any progress they make on that front is invariably produced by accident than design.

Carmel:
Yes, so next time I want to learn about current cosmological theories, I'll just read "The Wisdom of the Infinite". :) ...

It is precisely that kind of conflation that I speak against, in both directions.

My point being that there's nothing wrong with exploring different conceptual models of "reality". One doesn't detract from the other, quite the opposite, from my experience.
Agreed. The trouble is, we are living in a world in which science (combined with its limited materialistic/postmodernist outlook) has taken over and philosophy has all but disappeared. No one even hears about the logical path to absolute truth anymore, let alone contemplates whether it is a worthwhile path or not. Science and postmodernism have taken over to such as extent that when people do happen to hear about it, such as on this forum, they automatically dismiss it as being archaic, nebulous, religious, etc.

And then when I stand up for it, place value on it, distinguish it from science, etc, people automatically think that I'm being anti-science. That's how ingrained it has become.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote:David:
I personally think that science (and the human search for knowledge more generally) is "owned" by the ego's need to replicate the safety and security of the womb. Thus, great philosophic knowledge, such as causality, is more or less universally ignored the world over (as it undermines all wombs completely), while other forms of knowledge that focus on learning how to manipulate nature and gain greater power over the environment (e.g. science) or thrusting the mind into the safety and security of fantasy ( e.g. religion) are at the forefront.

Carmel:
Yeah, I agree with this to some extent, particularly your last statement. I think the preoccupation that some people have with things like eugenics, genetic manipulation, some environmental issues etc. stem from a deep psychological insecurity which manifests in a need to control or predict their future environment.

Personally, I'm not particularly drawn to these issues. The reason I'm attracted to science, especially Cosmology and quantum phenomena, is because, and please pardon my French, I find it fucking fascinating...and no, it certainly doesn't give me a womb like feeling of security, quite the opposite.

I think you'll find, if you delve deeply into your own psychology, that it's there - subtly, but powerful. But yes, I agree that modern science is fascinating - in an amusing, detached, abstract kind of way.

Cosmology makes me realize how infinitesimally small, insignificant and transient we all are.

And philosophy makes me realize how infinitesimally small, insignificant and transient the science of cosmology is.

It puts things into perspective.
Science can help expand the mind to some degree, true.

It also inpires in me a sense of awe.
Awhile back, you wrote something about be able to see the entire universe in a leaf...or something to that effect. Well, I can see the Universe in an atom, a star, a black hole, 200 billion galaxies...or...
...
If this awe stimulates the mind into a heartfelt search for absolute truth and enlightenment, than that's great. I'm all for it.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

psychoactive wrote: DQ: If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other.

pa: But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case?

DQ: I'm not sure I'm following your line of thought here.

pa: It may be necessarily the case that all things have causes, however if cause entails both temporal sequences and present conditions, then can it just be so that initially things were caused by present conditions, which would not necessitate that the universe be beginningless?
That would entail the belief that something (e.g. a universe filled with things) can suddenly come from nothing. And even if we accept such a possibilty, we would then have to ask whether this initial "nothing" was itself beginningless - that is, whether it existed eternally before suddenly producing the world. And so we are immediately back at the starting point of accepting that reality (in whatever form) is necessarily eternal.

-
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

David,
I can see what Dennis is trying to say here, but perhaps he didn't express it very clearly. He does sound like he is crediting people (the military people, the industialists, etc) with a level of intelligence and consciousness that they don't really possess.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be talking about how we are all socialy conditioned to be happy cogs within the larger economic and national machinary, and that our values and beliefs since childhood have been shaped accordingly. This doesn't sound too controversial to me.

I personally think that science (and the human search for knowledge more generally) is "owned" by the ego's need to replicate the safety and security of the womb. Thus, great philosophic knowledge, such as causality, is more or less universally ignored the world over (as it undermines all wombs completely), while other forms of knowledge that focus on learning how to manipulate nature and gain greater power over the environment (e.g. science) or thrusting the mind into the safety and security of fantasy ( e.g. religion) are at the forefront.
That's pretty much where it's at for me.
I didn't realise I was so cryptic to others. It all makes perfect sense to me.
To go over each minute detail of logic or correct identification, one after the other, time and time again that delivers the breakthru' or doesn't...well, hats off to those generating that kind of commitment...
It's in that area I could access coachability for myself, which means concentrated effort except that the pattern me is a bit commitment shy...not necessarily dilettante...maybe, it's deficient in care.
The archetype 'teacher' or 'leader in a conversation' isn't particularly animated in me, in other words.

In a serious Zen dojo, there's probably 3 years spent simply rendering the seeker coachable before the real work is done...the way I heard it.

So, coachability is worth a look at generally.
psychoactive
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by psychoactive »

David Quinn wrote:
psychoactive wrote: DQ: If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other.

pa: But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case?

DQ: I'm not sure I'm following your line of thought here.

pa: It may be necessarily the case that all things have causes, however if cause entails both temporal sequences and present conditions, then can it just be so that initially things were caused by present conditions, which would not necessitate that the universe be beginningless?
That would entail the belief that something (e.g. a universe filled with things) can suddenly come from nothing. And even if we accept such a possibilty, we would then have to ask whether this initial "nothing" was itself beginningless - that is, whether it existed eternally before suddenly producing the world. And so we are immediately back at the starting point of accepting that reality (in whatever form) is necessarily eternal.

-
I don't see it as it would be coming from nothing. Must there be a before and after, or can that just be a nonexistent duality?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by David Quinn »

psychoactive wrote:
David Quinn wrote:
psychoactive wrote: DQ: If it is necessarily the case that all things have causes, then it is also necessarily the case that the Universe had no beginning. The two go together. You can't affirm the one without affirming the other.

pa: But if causes can include non-temporal conditions, must this be the case?

DQ: I'm not sure I'm following your line of thought here.

pa: It may be necessarily the case that all things have causes, however if cause entails both temporal sequences and present conditions, then can it just be so that initially things were caused by present conditions, which would not necessitate that the universe be beginningless?
That would entail the belief that something (e.g. a universe filled with things) can suddenly come from nothing. And even if we accept such a possibilty, we would then have to ask whether this initial "nothing" was itself beginningless - that is, whether it existed eternally before suddenly producing the world. And so we are immediately back at the starting point of accepting that reality (in whatever form) is necessarily eternal.
I don't see it as it would be coming from nothing. Must there be a before and after, or can that just be a nonexistent duality?
Well, I don't know you very well and I haven't yet pin-pointed exactly where you are coming from, but yes, in a deeper sense, there is no before or after. The entire past (and present) is an illusion of the moment. Is that what you're getting at?

-
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Carmel,
The charge of irrationality you hold against me is unfounded.
It's based in 2 interactive events we shared.
The first re Einstein & how I said his view on QM was flawed.
You wanted discussion on that. I could have referred you to Bell's Theorem that supported non-locality.
I didn't. I was busy elsewhere. The moment passed.

The second re my statement that Science was useless.
You reacted and I referred you to Nietzsche/Heidegger for a background on Herd/Worldhood.
You claimed that was a non sequiter or irrational.

So, the charge of irrationality is based in 'that I should be to you what you think I should be to you'.
That I haven't the freedom to respond as I like or not respond.

You suffer the culturally ingrained perception of the Sisters.
That a Man is a piece of equipment.
Whose only significance is to be turned on or off like an electric toaster.
For the purpose of her 'needs and wants'.

Revisit your definition of irrationality please and thank me for bringing light to yet another of your delusions.
Coaching you is a gargantuan assignment dear.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

Dennis:
So, the charge of irrationality is based in 'that I should be to you what you think I should be to you'.
That I haven't the freedom to respond as I like or not respond.

Carmel:
again with the irony, as you have arbitrarily taken it upon yourself to "coach" me so that I'll respond the way Dennis Mahar wants me to respond, more like you presumably? lol!

You're free respond however you want, but if it's irrational, I'm free to point that out to you.

Dennis:
Coaching you is a gargantuan assignment dear.

Carmel:
hahaha!
You seem to be under the delusion that you're my coach?
That's cute, 'dear'.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

David:
Perhaps its changing nowadays, but for the past few decades, ever since Big Bang theory became the established paradigm, most cosmologists have been asserting that view, either explicitly or implicitly. An example is Stephen Hawking claiming that space-time itself began with the Big Bang.

Carmel:
yes, the paradigm is changing. Cosmologists fully acknowledge an unknown state of existence prior to the Big Bang. I mentioned many months ago that the some of the experiments of the Large Hadron Collider(LHC), are intended to recreate the conditions of the Big Bang...create a mini Universe, and thereby explore and extrapolate information which would assist them in understanding the conditions of the Universe(Omniverse) prior to the Big Bang.

David:
It's an arbitrary decision made purely to stroke the vanity of cosmologists.

Carmel:
It's hardly "arbitrary". It is, however, exploratory. Perhaps, this makes you uncomfortable as you are used to dealing with the security of "absolutes"?

David:
To my mind, the vanity of physicists shines out of everything they say and do (the theoretical chaps at least, probably not the humble lab technicians), and it's tied to their belief that physics is the most fundamental and important of all the sciences, that their work nowadays almost transcends science; that they are, in effect, the new cutting-edge philosophers of our age.

Carmel:
"To my mind" is the key phrase here. This is not my impression of physicists, at all. I often listen to theorectical physicists on the radio and they seem quite humble, rational and down to earth. They don't seem to have any problem proclaiming "We don't know" when posed a question which is beyond the current understanding of the scientific community.

David:
We are all conditioned to think this, really. We all have the vague idea that physics has got its tentacles in, if not the whole of reality, then at least 90% of it. It never occurs to us to think that the whole realm of human physics, together with the entire observeable world, could well be nothing more than a microscopic blip in an infinitely larger sea of reality.

Carmel:
?

...but it does occur to "us", and to physicists. They are well aware of the notion that we are a "blip" in infinity, but they can't state it as an absolute, because, like I said, they don't deal in "absolutes".

David:
Physics - a form of local knowledge.

Carmel:
see above.
Also, one could argue that "absolute truth" is a form of local knowledge i.e.that it occurs locally in one's consciousness within the confines of one's gray/white matter encased by a skull...or would you say that consciousness is non-local, and that "Ultimate Reality" exists both within and "out there"?

David:
Ideally, I would like to see the exploration of the natural world conducted by people whose minds are bathed in the highest wisdom.

Carmel:
I'll go along with that. That's a nice ideal. :)

David:
Science is the new religion nowadays.

Carmel:
I don't know, maybe it is for some people. That's not the purpose it serves for me.

Carmel:
My point being that there's nothing wrong with exploring different conceptual models of "reality". One doesn't detract from the other, quite the opposite, from my experience.
David:
Agreed. The trouble is, we are living in a world in which science (combined with its limited materialistic/postmodernist outlook) has taken over and philosophy has all but disappeared. No one even hears about the logical path to absolute truth anymore, let alone contemplates whether it is a worthwhile path or not. Science and postmodernism have taken over to such as extent that when people do happen to hear about it, such as on this forum, they automatically dismiss it as being archaic, nebulous, religious, etc.

And then when I stand up for it, place value on it, distinguish it from science, etc, people automatically think that I'm being anti-science. That's how ingrained it has become.

Carmel:
point taken.

As I mentioned, my only concern, was that you seemed to be trivializing a well established scientific theory and while I realize that the philosophy of science is not the focus of this forum, I don't think that minimizing the "Big Bang" as a well established theory, does your readership any good. I would almost liken it to a Christian who tries to dismiss the Theory of Evolution as merely a "theory". We all know better than that, I hope... :)
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

David:
I think you'll find, if you delve deeply into your own psychology, that it's there - subtly, but powerful.

Carmel:
um, no. :-/...As much as I find beauty and awe in the Universe, its powers of destruction negate any "womb like" feeling of security. The idea of being ripped to shreds, atom by atom, by the process known as "spaghettification" by a black hole, is none too comforting!

David:
But yes, I agree that modern science is fascinating - in an amusing, detached, abstract kind of way.

Carmel:
...tosses David into a black hole and watches him come out the other side in a fantastic burst of gamma rays! ...yes, you're right, modern science is amusing! :)
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by jupiviv »

Carmel wrote:It's hardly "arbitrary". It is, however, exploratory. Perhaps, this makes you uncomfortable as you are used to dealing with the security of "absolutes"?

It is wrong to treat the Big Bang theory as anything more than a simple natural phenomenon that we perceive with our senses.
I often listen to theorectical physicists on the radio and they seem quite humble, rational and down to earth. They don't seem to have any problem proclaiming "We don't know" when posed a question which is beyond the current understanding of the scientific community.
True, but they take the "we don't know" and extend it to philosophy also. It's good for a scientist to believe that he doesn't know anything, because science cannot indeed know anything. But when that scientist tries to take the not knowing out of the context of science, he'll blunder in every step. He'll end up saying that the laws of physics are somehow the laws of the "universe," that all knowledge is uncertain, and that the scientific method is the highest expression of rationality.
Also, one could argue that "absolute truth" is a form of local knowledge i.e.that it occurs locally in one's consciousness within the confines of one's gray/white matter encased by a skull...or would you say that consciousness is non-local, and that "Ultimate Reality" exists both within and "out there"?
Absolute knowledge, by definition, is knowledge that holds true for all of time and for all things that exist - so it can't be local. Local knowledge proceeds from absolute knowledge, and is a facet of it.
As much as I find beauty and awe in the Universe, its powers of destruction negate any "womb like" feeling of security. The idea of being ripped to shreds, atom by atom, by the process known as "spaghettification" by a black hole, is none too comforting!
Yeah we are all considerably vulnerable to being swallowed by black holes at any moment in our lives aren't we? I think David's point(which he didn't state clearly) is that being in awe of our internet-assembled scientific wisdom is infinitely removed from the wisdom that is gained from facing the depths of our own minds.

I also find it amusing that so many people talk about being in awe of the wonders of science, when the greatest scientific minds were able to make the breakthroughs that they did precisely because they weren't in awe of the phenomena they perceived. Such people will never be good scientists.
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

jupiviv:
Absolute knowledge, by definition, is knowledge that holds true for all of time and for all things that exist - so it can't be local. Local knowledge proceeds from absolute knowledge, and is a facet of it.

Carmel:
You're wrong. It's local. It is a by-product of your neurological and physiological processes. To say it is non local requires a leap of faith. This is where philosophy ends and religion begins. That you don't understand this, demonstrates a serious lack of critical thought on your part.

As for the rest of your comments, you demonstrate a serious lack of reading comprehension, per usual. Try to keep up.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Dennis Mahar »

If I don't respond to you because I'm busy it's not irrational.
If I supply you with a reference it's not irrational.
That's the nub of it.
Carmel:
You're wrong. It's local. It is a by-product of your neurological and physiological processes. To say it is non local requires a leap of faith. This is where philosophy ends and religion begins. That you don't understand this, demonstrates a serious lack of critical thought on your part.
You're so far behind in most every conversation you show up in it's astonishing.
and yet you have potential.

Are you coachable?
Carmel

Re: The Meaning of Life

Post by Carmel »

Carmel:
You're wrong. It's local. It is a by-product of your neurological and physiological processes. To say it is non local requires a leap of faith. This is where philosophy ends and religion begins. That you don't understand this, demonstrates a serious lack of critical thought on your part.

Dennis:
You're so far behind in most every conversation you show up in it's astonishing.
and yet you have potential.

Carmel:
When I asked David about this issue many months ago, he at least had the honesty to tell me to think of his views as the middle road between philosophy and religion. You are clearly the one who is lost here. You have absolutely no idea what is going on at all.

Are you coachable?

--
You're really just trolling me at this point. Unless you have a solid argument to make, I'd suggest you shut it before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Locked