The Meaning of Life

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

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Bobo » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:42 am

David Quinn wrote:I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

Eliminating from the mind all belief in logical impossibilities is the essence of wisdom. For example, the belief that things can objectively exit.

It is definitely more than nothing. The "something" that is left over from the elimination of all these "nothings" is reality.
-

I will explain it again latter if I need to.
David Quinn wrote:(...)
-Absolute knowledge is indeed defined to be knowledge that is necessarily true in all times and places. It isn't something which is merely true in somes places and not others.
-The understanding of absolute truth can only appear in the mind, while the absolute truth itself necessarily applies everywhere.

For now take the example of 3+2=5. I don't think it is necessarily true in all times and places. The understanding of 3+2=5 may be true in all times and places (under the conditions for the understanding to be possible). But the absolute truth itself does not apply to 1+3=4, 1+3=4 is not 3+2=5. Being that it is only an absolute truth where 3+2=5.
David Quinn wrote:
A legal self-contradiction is a legal impossibility but can happen in the world.


In what way?

I mean that you can do something illegal, not sure if it is a 'legal-self contradiction'. Like if one is married but act legaly as a bachelor and married.



Adding this:
David Quinn wrote:It doesn't matter what we decide marriage to be, or where we choose to define its boundaries, the fact still remains that one cannot be married and unmarried at the same time.

If we decide marriage to be limited in space one can be married in one place and a bachelor in another.
Last edited by Bobo on Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bobo
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby jufa » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:08 am

What is the reality of life, I ask myself, when life is inclusive of all wonders, questions and unknown answers which have been asked from eons, yet still presents themselves in the newness of being profound even with all the amazing technology of science, religion, philosophy and awakening myth and metaphors?

What source has man found as to logically explain life's ability to infiltrate the human brain by thought, the brain's electrical and chemical impulses of directions for the functioning of the human body to work together in harmony? And how can life be revealing and measurable by the very mind which finds life because of the Spirit of the thought?

Moreover, is the reality of man's logic and reasoning a gage for certainty when the brain's electricity and chemicals impulses will dissipate awareness of physical life even when consciousness remains a continuum of living?

Can a mind which comes alive by thought awareness which comes out of the unknown investigate the unknown and make that which is not definitive a logical subject of objective and subjective reasoning?

Yes, but as in the beginning, so will the questions remain at the beginning if the mind has not been traveled through to find answers only obtainable beyond the mind.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
jufa
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby jufa » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:22 am

If we define Ultimate Reality to be "everything" then it is a valid definition.


How can there be an ultimate reality if the reality man claims has a beginning in materialism of matter?

How can there be an ultimate reality for man's objective or subjective subjectification when infinity cannot be defined to have a beginning, end, or object of reconition for the human mind, when there is no thing to identify with, or for one to be consciously aware of other than man's assumption I don't know knowledge or wisdom?

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
jufa
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:17 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Blair » Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:03 pm

m4tt_666 wrote:you cannot prove beyond doubt consciousness arises only when there is a 'brain' to create it. you cannot deny the fact that our consciousness may be a separate being from our complete physical makeup.


Oh really? What about people who incur brain damage or permanent amnesia? Are they still the same?
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby m4tt_666 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:43 pm

in a sense, yes, we always still hold a consciousness to some degree where life resides, pure chance dictates that of such occurrences as brain damage, cancer, etc. no doubt if such events arise whatever progress that was made in the mental sense is forever altered into an equally different sense of self.

truth only holds bearing for the present. we are constantly living in the past by way of thought action. if time dictates progress in any sense it no doubt takes us a duration to think of an idea, and the latter duration to put such thoughts into action creating a chain of events.

i hope that could be understood by anyone who grasped what common sense really is. our past selves cannot be held responsible for our future selves actions, be it brain damage, cancer, or merely traumatic experience beyond ones thresh hold that influence such future action. i am thankful for every moment i am able to experience within what i, at least to consider a stable consciousness.
User avatar
m4tt_666
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Blair » Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:29 pm

Gawd help me...

You didn't address my question.

You made the suggestion that consciousness does not neccesarily reside inside the brain. So why is it that people who, for example suffer brain damage in an accident, are not the same person at all, after the fact?

Surely their memories, memes and so forth are stored somewhere in the ether...

Horseshit.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby m4tt_666 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:44 pm

your holding too much belief in what i say. i can merely speculate on such mental states of a being overtaken with such disease. the emotion involved surely would take hold of even the strongest of wills.

i addressed your response perfectly in a way only i can perceive. whatever you choose to make of it lies within your also limited, and somewhat vindictive point of view.
User avatar
m4tt_666
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Blair » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:01 pm

i'm not talking about diseases, I'm talking about a blow to the head that causes severe brain-damage. (like the kind I'm going to give Laird when I catch up with him)

Irreparable damage to the tissues of the brain. Permanent loss of brain functioning, ie. consciousness, memory. There's your proof. Consciousness does not survive outside of the brain. Go and and visit someone in Hospital and observe for yourself, like I advised Laird to visit sick Cancer children and talk to them about his proposal that things are not always caused.

I'm sure the kids and their parents would love to hear all about it, how the cancer was random.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby m4tt_666 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:57 pm

in that sense i have still maintained a relevant answer.

be it a blow to the head or the growth of cancer cells it is all a product of the Universe we inhabit.

for such things to befall an individual at any time, would therefore, no matter the cause, alter the way you physically perceive not only your surroundings but your individual self.

evolution is applicable not only to the tune of large spans of time, but it is also applicable in the momentary sense also.
User avatar
m4tt_666
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Carmel » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:22 am

jupiviv:
It is only invalid if you define Ultimate Reality as the feeling of happiness or security, or as some sort of a "whole" which we can't see but is nevertheless "there", and then say that that is identical to everything.

Carmel:
So, in your worldview, Ultimate Reality can't include things we can't see, why the exclusions?

What does it include, in your opinion?
Carmel
 

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby David Quinn » Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:38 am

Carmel wrote:David:
Eliminating from the mind all belief in logical impossibilities is the essence of wisdom. For example, the belief that things can objectively exit.

Carmel:
That's true. Things don't objectively exist, yet they do exist...

How then, would you describe their existence?

Things only ever exist in the experiencing of them.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Carmel » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:26 am

Carmel:
That's true. Things don't objectively exist, yet they do exist...

How then, would you describe their existence?
David:
Things only ever exist in the experiencing of them.

You said previously:
Consciousness is definitely local, being a product of neural activity. But since Ultimate Reality exists everywhere, both within and out there, and since its nature never changes, our localized consciousness can tap into this nature within its own own confines and fully comprehend it. And in so doing, the fundamental nature of all things, both within one's own localized consciousness and beyond, is grasped.

Carmel:
So, how do you reconcile these ideas, as before you said "Ultimate Reality" exists everywhere both within and out there.

"tap into"...
imagination or an act of faith?
Last edited by Carmel on Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Carmel
 

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby m4tt_666 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:57 am

the meaning of life; to live. a bit esoteric i know. such is life.

any further attempt to effectively communicate this in deeper thought simply results in a futile power struggle between the parties involved.

imagination exists within itself, much as our perceived reality can only interact directly with itself. they simply influence each others behavior at best.
User avatar
m4tt_666
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:00 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby David Quinn » Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:44 pm

Carmel wrote:Carmel:
That's true. Things don't objectively exist, yet they do exist...

How then, would you describe their existence?
David:
Things only ever exist in the experiencing of them.

You said previously:
Consciousness is definitely local, being a product of neural activity. But since Ultimate Reality exists everywhere, both within and out there, and since its nature never changes, our localized consciousness can tap into this nature within its own own confines and fully comprehend it. And in so doing, the fundamental nature of all things, both within one's own localized consciousness and beyond, is grasped.

Carmel:
So, how do you reconcile these ideas, as before you said "Ultimate Reality" exists everywhere both within and out there.

You're still trying to grasp things objectively. What is "out there" can never be anything other than an experiential reality.


"tap into"...
imagination or an act of faith?

Where does this come from?

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:58 pm

David to Carmel:
    "You're still trying to grasp things objectively. What is "out there" can never be anything other than an experiential reality. "

To be fair, David, when you wrote about a fundamental nature of "all things" to be without as well as beyond localized consciousness, it seemed to introduce something other than "experiential reality". What did you mean with "within and out there"? Appearing psychological as well as physical to an observer?

But you wrote as well:
    "the fundamental nature of all things, both within one's own localized consciousness and beyond, is grasped. "

How can there exist some fundamental nature of anything beyond consciousness? And if it does, wouldn't that introduce something truly "objective", accessed through a symbolic representation, tapped into by our subjective, referential consciousness? And wouldn't that appear as faith to anyone else?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm
Location: A∴A∴

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Carmel » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:49 pm

David:
You're still trying to grasp things objectively. What is "out there" can never be anything other than an experiential reality.

Carmel:
Right, or what is "out there" can't be experienced at all, except through imagination, i.e. symbolic representation, which is why I asked you to explain what you meant by tapping into it.

Carmel:
"tap into"...
imagination or an act of faith?
David:
Where does this come from?

Carmel:
causality. heh. You're skirting my question.
Carmel
 

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Russell » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:07 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:How can there exist some fundamental nature of anything beyond consciousness? And if it does, wouldn't that introduce something truly "objective", accessed through a symbolic representation, tapped into by our subjective, referential consciousness? And wouldn't that appear as faith to anyone else?


Try to think about it in a more fundamental level. This fundamental nature (Ultimate Reality) is not a thing we can point to and say "there it is" because no thing or event is outside or separate from it. Try not to think of it as a "thing that we exist inside of" because that automatically makes it a finite thing within the infinite whole you are trying to refer to. This Reality is necessarily beyond all things, including consciousness, since it isn't a "thing" with boundaries that we can encapsulate with mind made labels.

What David means by "grasping" this fundamental nature is to fully understand it.
User avatar
Russell
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Carmel » Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:37 am

bluerap:
Try to think about it in a more fundamental level. This fundamental nature (Ultimate Reality) is not a thing we can point to and say "there it is" because no thing or event is outside or separate from it. Try not to think of it as a "thing that we exist inside of" because that automatically makes it a finite thing within the infinite whole you are trying to refer to. This Reality is necessarily beyond all things, including consciousness, since it isn't a "thing" with boundaries that we can encapsulate with mind made labels.

Carmel:
Diebert and I have long since understood the definition of "Ultimate Reality" as is described by David et al. We have moved on to different points, one of which is that if Ultimate Reality is claimed to be an "absolute truth", rather than simply a logically viable theory, then there is a religious element at work. We have left the realm of philosophy and entered into the religious and Ultimate Reality has now become a God substitute. Go back to your above paragraph and replace the phrase "Ultimate Reality" with the word "God" and maybe you'll see what I mean.

bluerap:
What David means by "grasping" this fundamental nature is to fully understand it.

Carmel:
We logically grasp it. The point of contention is whether or not we can "tap into" it without an element of faith. Do you see the difference?
Carmel
 

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Russell » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:30 am

Carmel wrote:Diebert and I have long since understood the definition of "Ultimate Reality" as is described by David et al. We have moved on to different points, one of which is that if Ultimate Reality is claimed to be an "absolute truth", rather than simply a logically viable theory, then there is a religious element at work.

You haven't used the power of logic to its full extent if you cannot see that Reality is ultimately infinite. You get close when you talk about things like an Omniverse but fall short when you say that it's only a theory, as if Reality itself consists only of countless uncertainties. You then suggest that claiming an Absolute Truth requires a leap of faith, which is the same as admitting that everything you think and believe in is based in uncertainty.
We logically grasp it.

Not quite.
The point of contention is whether or not we can "tap into" it without an element of faith. Do you see the difference?

You cannot tap into Ultimate Reality without fully understanding it logically. This eliminates any requirement of faith.

Here's a question, you say that there is no such thing as an Absolute Truth. In your mind, can there ever be time or circumstance where this is not true?
User avatar
Russell
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Carmel » Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:56 am

bluerap:
You haven't used the power of logic to its full extent if you cannot see that Reality is ultimately infinite.

Carmel:
yes, it is infinite, but thank for pointing out the obvious.

bluerap:
You then suggest that claiming an Absolute Truth requires a leap of faith, which is the same as admitting that everything you think and believe in is based in uncertainty.

Carmel:
You're missing the point. We can only know logically that it's infinite, this requires faith in the consequences of logic. This entire premise might be flawed to begin with. To claim this as an "absolute truth" rather than merely a logically viable truth or theory does require a leap of faith as does claiming to be able to "tap into" it.

Carmel:
We logically grasp it.
bluerap:
Not quite.

Carmel:
yes, quite. It's really very logically simplistic.

bluerap:
Here's a question, you say that there is no such thing as an Absolute Truth. In your mind, can there ever be time or circumstance where this is not true?

Carmel:
I never said there was no such thing as an absolute truth, actually.
Carmel
 

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Russell » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:26 am

Carmel wrote:... faith in the consequences of logic...

Again, you behave as if it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, and you stand by this point with absolute certainty.
I never said there was no such thing as an absolute truth, actually.

My mistake, you never said it outright.
User avatar
Russell
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Carmel » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:41 am

bluerap:
Again, you behave as if it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, and you stand by this point with absolute certainty.

Carmel:
There may be a few things we can know with absolute certainty but, generally speaking, absolute certainty is for egoists and the religious. It makes them feel important and/or secure.

... as smart as human beings like to think we are, we might just amount to the equivalent of a bacteria, on a plankton, attached to a whale's ass, both intellectually or otherwise, from the perspective of "Ultimate Reality", that is...
Carmel
 

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby David Quinn » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:46 am

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:David to Carmel:
    "You're still trying to grasp things objectively. What is "out there" can never be anything other than an experiential reality. "

To be fair, David, when you wrote about a fundamental nature of "all things" to be without as well as beyond localized consciousness, it seemed to introduce something other than "experiential reality". What did you mean with "within and out there"?

"Out there" refers to whatever appears to be beyond one's consciousness, including the appearance of other people's consciousnesses.


But you wrote as well:
    "the fundamental nature of all things, both within one's own localized consciousness and beyond, is grasped. "

How can there exist some fundamental nature of anything beyond consciousness?

Fundamental nature underlies all appearances, regardless of what they might be.


And if it does, wouldn't that introduce something truly "objective", accessed through a symbolic representation, tapped into by our subjective, referential consciousness? And wouldn't that appear as faith to anyone else?

One has to learn how to cease taking any appearance seriously, in the knowledge that nothing objectively exists. In this way, the very foundations for all faith-based movements are eliminated.

Faith is the desire to affirm a particular appearance to be real. No appearances, no faith.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby David Quinn » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:58 am

Carmel wrote:bluerap:
Try to think about it in a more fundamental level. This fundamental nature (Ultimate Reality) is not a thing we can point to and say "there it is" because no thing or event is outside or separate from it. Try not to think of it as a "thing that we exist inside of" because that automatically makes it a finite thing within the infinite whole you are trying to refer to. This Reality is necessarily beyond all things, including consciousness, since it isn't a "thing" with boundaries that we can encapsulate with mind made labels.

Carmel:
Diebert and I have long since understood the definition of "Ultimate Reality" as is described by David et al. We have moved on to different points, one of which is that if Ultimate Reality is claimed to be an "absolute truth", rather than simply a logically viable theory, then there is a religious element at work. We have left the realm of philosophy and entered into the religious and Ultimate Reality has now become a God substitute.

The "tapping" into Ultimate Reality is definitely a spiritual movement, involving the whole of one's being. But it doesn't happen in the way you describe, that of leaving logic behind and blindly submitting to a particular belief in the desire for it to be real. Rather, it's a case of pushing logic to such an extent that it undermines utterly everything, including all forms of belief, such that one comes to rest spontaneously in nothing whatsoever.


bluerap:
What David means by "grasping" this fundamental nature is to fully understand it.

Carmel:
We logically grasp it. The point of contention is whether or not we can "tap into" it without an element of faith. Do you see the difference?

This point isn't "logically grasped" until it is understood that there is nothing to tap into, and no one to do the tapping.

-
User avatar
David Quinn
 
Posts: 5331
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia

Re: The Meaning of Life

Postby Carmel » Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:09 am

David:
This point isn't "logically grasped" until it is understood that there is nothing to tap into, and no one to do the tapping.

Carmel:
David! Don't be so hard on yourself! You may be nothing today, but if you keep striving, you too, can evolve to become a bacteria on a plankton, attached to a whale's ass :)
Carmel
 

PreviousNext

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron