The Meaning of Life

I think he means that there's no argument to Darwins survival of the fittest

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except that survival of the fittest was not Darwin's but the social darwinist's.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The survival of the fittest, statement, was Spencer's.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

From Wesmorris: Where might that meaning reside?

Meaning to me is definition. Hitting one's head on a rock (since everyone is so interested in rocks) may seem to have no meaning; however, if it hurts every time, then at least in that instance, hitting one's head on a rock means that soon the head will hurt.

What life "means" to me may be quite different than what it means to you; that is, to me life may suck, and mean almost nothing, to which I might say that life has no meaning. This, however would be a contradiction, because if to me life has no meaning then the meaning of my life is either unknown, or unnoticed, because everything means something.

What is life? If life has no meaning then life sounds non-existent, but we know that there is life; therefore life must be defined, and to be defined means it has meaning. :bugeye: So, back to what does "life" mean. It means something that is living. When one says, I have no life, he really means that his life at the moment is not interesting, and/or that he feels unmotivated. If we are living, we have a life in the true sense.

Okay, so we have a life and this life has a meaning. It means that we are placed in a position of surviving or dying. Our instinct says to survive; the inevitable remains that we will someday die, if not sooner then later. It means that we must have food and so forth, that we are likely to reproduce, have hardships and good times, and so on. Those are the more mundane meanings, or at least mundane for the sake of conversation.

Purpose is yet something else. A purpose is more or less a fixed idea of what it is we want from life, thus we define our purpose, or enhance what life means to us. A purpose that includes all we are is fulfilling. Wisdom is a good guide. If we truly have a purpose and are dedicated to it, wisdom will tell us that to acquire more fame, wealth, or acquisitions than we need to accomplish our purpose is self-defeating. Wisdom tells us that passion only is inadequate, because passion, though a great motivator, is not a good guide.
With wisdom one's purpose can best be accomplished. My purpose is to encourage through the medium of writing. To do this most proficiently, I need to understand, empathize, listen and respond, etc. For your purpose, you will have different goals; however, it remains true that things you allow into your life should be no more than you need to accomplish your purpose. Pleasure, money, fun, and other such things can help us accomplish our purpose, but too much "of the good stuff" takes away our attention, and/or gives us something to worry about or maintain, which takes away energy and time.

Wesmorris: If I observe a rock and think "that is a beautiful rock", where does the meaning of what I said reside?

The meaning of what you say is another matter, which could best be defined by you.

Wesmorris: How does meaning come to be?

I am not sure that "come to be" is adequate. I would rather simply say what affect/effect does it have. Once that is answered we have the meaning.

Wesmorris: Does it exist without an observer? .....Can it?

I quote: "The idealist argued that since the sole reality we could be sure of was the one with which Descartes had begun--the reality of thought--all other existences were real to us only as perceived by our senses and constructed by our minds; the body was a perception, and matter was merely a bundle of ideas.................Now no doubt it is truistically, tautologically, platitudinously true that nothing exists for any mind but that which that mind perceives. But what a world away this is from the proposition so often confused with it, that nothing exists unless it is perceived!" Will Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy

Wes: If so, where?

In definition.

Wes: If you answer where, how exactly do you gather that meaning resides there and how did it get there?

Excuse me Wes, but you are bordering on the ridiculous.

When did the meaning exist?

That too is stretching my patience.....are you scared?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wes: Meh. You see my point. After having spent a LOT of time on this one, the best I can figure is that you can only say that meaning exists in the now, from a point of view. So that really pretty well defines where meaning exists... which means it doesn't exist in the rock, but the rocks reflection on my personal timeline, of which my mind allows me to retain an impression.

And I say, that pile of words is inadequate. One can make things as complicated as he likes, or he can use reason and adequate ideas, thereby gaining the enlightenment we who love truth seek.

There you have the best I have to offer at this time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

^^^pmt

 

wESMORRIS TO ANTIFREEZE: The case of A is pointless, as the idea of "purpose" cannot be applied as applying to or coming from an omniscient being since it is by definition beyond comprehension. As such the question goes into permalingo (just making up words, pardon... "permanent limbo"). You cannot comprehend what you can't comprehend, so there's no issue. I believe that implies a pointless question.

It is nonsensical for you to say that because you have decided that something is incomprehensible makes it inapplicable. Who died and left you in charge?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"You cannot comprehend what you can't comprehend," Wow, Wes. You are really on target and moving right along! If you think for one minute that God has no purpose for us, I say you are badly mistaken, and I have just as good a chance being correct as you do with your mumbo jumbo. I would not know my purpose other than through supplication and soul searching, which led me to the realization that from all indications I can be the most beneficial to myself and others through encouraging folks to 1) think for themselves, 2) develop a thirst for knowledge, 3) know that they matter to me. This may not sound like much, but God has to take what he can get.

 

Perhaps you might ask why I think it's incomprehensible rather than acting like a condescending jackass? What you fail to realize is that by definition it is perfectly sensible from my perspective, just like your "god" is perfectly sensible to you from yours. You are WRONG HERE, because I can back up my claims through reason, and FAITH is inherently an emotional condition, which by definiton cannot be logically justified. Der? Are you here to argue about how strongly you feel or have an intelligent discussion? Is this getting through the "fog of god" you seem to be shrouded in?

Perhaps you should ask a pertinent question rather than judge? Maybe somethign like "well why do you think god is incomprehensible?" or something constructive?

Where did I claim someone died or that I'm in charge? I have what I consider to be an irrefutable argument to back it up. It's pretty simply, but you'll reject it because you think you already know the answer, just like I do. Maybe if you'd actually stop and think about what I've said.. or even ask the right question. Not like it would matter. You "can't imagine believing any other way" or whatever. Look a lot of people I care about believe the same as you... but you're all equally full of shit. That's okay, as it is the nature of humans to be somewhat full of shit. We are a living fantasy in a number of ways. That's cool. But if you want to press the issue, you will always be wrong because you judge whereas I do not. I say "god is irrelevant", meaning "i have no fucking clue, and by the nature of the beast, I cannot get a clue regarding this issue". Your arrogance is presuming whatever your deal is, like my own arrogance presuming whatever my deal is... is fucking PRESUMPTION.

Here's the difference though:

Your presumption "god rules!"

My presumption "it would be presumption to say yes or no regarding shit I can't understand."

Thanks..... ASS.

Of course you do. Duh. Your opinion is based in emotion though. I appreciate that for the value is must have to you and it matters to me in that capacity, but the factual element of it is wholly lacking in any regard but how it feels to you. As such it is meaningless to me where it is not me thinking of how it feels to you. GOD?????? Maybe, maybe not. I don't see the relevance. It's beyond you, me or anyone.

LOL. I'm merely trying to be reasonable. You? Would you say that "I know the answer" is more sensible than "sorry there's no accessable answer". LOL. "mumbo jumbo"? That's an easy way to write me off. Sorry, didn't mean to threaten your precious beliefs. I'd suggest if you don't want them expose as the sham that they are, you do not expose them for examination.

And you accuse me of "mumbo jumbo"? LOL.

Funny that you would discourage my "thinking for myself" while telling me about "If you think for one minute that God has no purpose for us, I say you are badly mistaken".

As long as it's inclusive of your impression of god right?

Do I matter to you? Since I don't believe in god, am I disqualified as "folks"?

The level of presumption required to make a statement like that "in the name of god" makes me want to puke. You put yourself in the shoes of god??? Your reverence for your deity is astounding.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I did not ask about reality. I asked about meaning. I contend that all exists without the observer... but it is meaningless, and as such... without point. It takes meaning for a point to exist.

 

reading all this (i havent been back to this thread in ages) i have noticed:
- youve all started diggin at each other. this is the PHILOSOPHY section. not the 'come over here so i can kick your ass section', nor is it the 'hey bite me' section. this is meant to be rational debate.

-there isnt a meaning. we are all just energy floating about space-time in different ways and NOTHING you can do will ever change that. there is no meaning. no purpose. there is just nothingness. no conciousness. no thought. (and yes i relaize the contradiction between the rant about philosophy and the 'no thought' statement' but i just dont care anymore). there is no point of any of your exsistences, and if you cannot accept this then stay in your self-deluding bubble and wait for the non-escpable certainty of death to consume you. any point that has been made here has no significance and is either an insular statement on humanity itself or is logiaclly unsound or is just plain slef-delusion. even this statement probably is.
to the determenists i subscribe.
i wait for death to reach us.

 

P.M. THORNE:

And what you get "through supplication and soul searching" is FROM God?

P.M. Thorne, as long as we think, we think in the determinants of time, space and causality (TSC), so Kant. Also, so Schopenhauer, a basic premise of our reason is that TSC are linear and continous. TSC are the product of our reason and whatever we are aware of, be it what we call thought, feelings, preeminitions, whatever -- it is within the determinants of TSC.
TSC are relative, inasmuch as the first T, the first S and the first C cannot be answered by our reason itself. As the First TSC, a godly entity can be supposed (by a dogma), yet we would still comprehend this godly entity through TSC. If the godly entity is to be almighty, omniscient etc., then it is necessarily incomprehendable to our reason; ie. the comprehension of such an entity by our reason can only be misplaced.
If you speak of a "Creator God" that is "almighty" and "omniscient", then you still comprehend this almightiness in the space of TSC. It is therefore pointless to TALK about a god, or to say we "understand what he says."

Even if there is a god and if he does speak to you, he does it in your language, a language that is comprehendable to you (a TSC that you know), since this is the only way for you to understand him.
Question: How can you say that right now as you are reading this, it is not me who is saying this -- but that it is god?
How can you tell that it is god when you think that it is?

If we're exact, god is speaking to you all the time, from all mouths, through all things -- if he is to be an almighty, alpresent, omniscient god.

Yet you go and CHOOSE some things to be from god, and say that some others aren't. When I say that I don't believe in a Creator -- will you say that this is not from god?
How do you choose? By your reason? Does your reason tell you what is from god and what isn't?

If god is everywhere and everytime, then it is pointless to speak of him, not to mention inadequate.
Yes, I understand, you cannot pour the whole ocean into a pitcher, but what you can pour into a pitcher is still the ocean. If god is the ocean in this metaphor, then he is in every pitcher that you fill (every person, every plant, every thing everywhere). But thereby nothing is said really! It's like saying "red is red".

I think that the message you are trying to bring across is that people should "love life", "do what they please", "learn" or something like that. That "the meaning of life is to be happy."
I think one can say that without calling upon a god as the instance who gives one the right to say so.

 

WESMORRIS FIRES AWAY: Perhaps you might ask why I think it's incomprehensible rather than acting like a condescending jackass?

My goodness gracious! I either hurt your feelers or else I touched a sore spot. My, my! I never expected a response like that. You who always seem so light on your feet, are really stomping on my words. Ouch, quit that! On the more serious side, why would I ask you that, I do not see you clarifying what I mean, or how I mean it, before you get your tail in knot.

What you fail to realize is that by definition it is perfectly sensible from my perspective, just like your "god" is perfectly sensible to you from yours.

My God is your God, in fact he might like you better than me, and what does my belief in God have to do with your seeming presumption that what you find incomprehensible is in applicable? I do not believe I mentioned God right there.

You are WRONG HERE, because I can back up my claims through reason, and FAITH is inherently an emotional condition, which by definiton cannot be logically justified. Der? Are you here to argue about how strongly you feel or have an intelligent discussion? Is this getting through the "fog of god" you seem to be shrouded in?

Again, I was not discussing my faith, though you seem to want to make an issue of it. You sure knocked yourself out reading stuff into what I said, instead of considering that I just might not be as unintelligible as you seem to think.

Perhaps you should ask a pertinent question rather than judge? Maybe somethign like "well why do you think god is incomprehensible?" or something constructive?

You are still the one talking about God.

Where did I claim someone died or that I'm in charge?

That was supposed to be funny. At least I do not call you barnyard names.

I have what I consider to be an irrefutable argument to back it up. It's pretty simply, but you'll reject it because you think you already know the answer, just like I do. Maybe if you'd actually stop and think about what I've said.. or even ask the right question. Not like it would matter. You "can't imagine believing any other way" or whatever. Look a lot of people I care about believe the same as you... but you're all equally full of shit. That's okay, as it is the nature of humans to be somewhat full of shit. We are a living fantasy in a number of ways. That's cool. But if you want to press the issue, you will always be wrong because you judge whereas I do not.

Well, aren't you just special?

I say "god is irrelevant", meaning "i have no fucking clue, and by the nature of the beast, I cannot get a clue regarding this issue". Your arrogance is presuming whatever your deal is, like my own arrogance presuming whatever my deal is... is fucking PRESUMPTION.

Whatever you say. I am listening.

Here's the difference though: Your presumption "god rules!" My presumption "it would be presumption to say yes or no regarding shit I can't understand."

Not sure that I get your point, but I am open, if you care to expound a bit more.
::::::::::::::::::::::
“ "You cannot comprehend what you can't comprehend," Wow, Wes. You are really on target and moving right along! ”

Thanks..... ASS.
::::::::::::::::::::::

Oh, there you go again getting all bent out of shape. With all you say, dear heart, a sense of humor might serve you well. I know you are a sweet guy behind that potty-mouth.

//////////////
“ If you think for one minute that God has no purpose for us, I say you are badly mistaken, ”

Of course you do. Duh. Your opinion is based in emotion though.
///////////////

There you go. Now, I mentioned God! However, I disagree that everything to do with God is emotional, but I know you would like to think so; otherwise, it might be more difficult to seem intellectually superior.

I appreciate that for the value is must have to you and it matters to me in that capacity, but the factual element of it is wholly lacking in any regard but how it feels to you.

How it feels? What do you think I am, an idiot? I know you think I am a jackass and a few other things, but that is just because you do not know me.

As such it is meaningless to me where it is not me thinking of how it feels to you. GOD?????? Maybe, maybe not. I don't see the relevance. It's beyond you, me or anyone.

What exactly do you mean by "it?"

LOL. I'm merely trying to be reasonable. You? Would you say that "I know the answer" is more sensible than "sorry there's no accessable answer". LOL. "mumbo jumbo"? That's an easy way to write me off. Sorry, didn't mean to threaten your precious beliefs. I'd suggest if you don't want them expose as the sham that they are, you do not expose them for examination.

Finally, we are on the same page. Yes, my beliefs are precious, Wes, and I think you are precious too, because I believe that we, you and I and all those other folks out there are God's children, part of His Creation, just like the rest of nature. This is how I see it, so why I want to hurt you. I thought tough and funny, and would think that I was funny. You theorectally (sp) have more years to be funny than I do. Give me a break. I was mean, do you think? I was trying to present my thoughts the way you presented yours. Funny that you did not like that.
::::::::::::::
“ I would not know my purpose other than through supplication and soul searching, which led me to the realization that from all indications I can be the most beneficial to myself and others through encouraging folks to ”

And you accuse me of "mumbo jumbo"? LOL.
:::::::::::::::

I honestly do not mean to be disrespectful, but I laughed and laughed at your response, because I was really surprised. It has a postive side, insomuch as you seem to care what I say, or sometimes give that indication.

Funny that you would discourage my "thinking for myself" while telling me about "If you think for one minute that God has no purpose for us, I say you are badly mistaken".

Oh come on. Are you saying that if I encourage someone to think for themselves and then disagree with them, I am being contradictive. Not at all. Anyway, you need no encouragment to think for yourself, fellow. You do that without any encouragement.

“ 2) develop a thirst for knowledge ”

As long as it's inclusive of your impression of god right?

No. Why are you being such a butt?

“ 3) know that they matter to me. ”

Do I matter to you? Since I don't believe in god, am I disqualified as "folks"?

I love you, of course. Why would I not? I do not pray for you, because that is not what I do, but if you want me to, I will try. I am not too good at that, because I sincerely believe that you have all you need to discover what you need to discover, and that your path is just as important as mind. Yep, that is what I think.

“ This may not sound like much, but God has to take what he can get. ”

The level of presumption required to make a statement like that "in the name of god" makes me want to puke. You put yourself in the shoes of god??? Your reverence for your deity is astounding.

I only meant that I am a flawed vessal, as God already knows, and that He has many more talented and disciplined than I am. This is not false modesty either, it is the truth. I was kind of joking, because God does not have to use me at all. He uses you too, you know. We are here for each other, and every person who writes a word to me leaves a little footprint, so to speak. (Boy, I cannot wait until you hop on that little-girl expression.)

AND, FINALLY, IN ANSWER TO MY QUOTE....
I quote: "The idealist argued that since the sole reality we could be sure of was the one with which Descartes had begun--the reality of thought--all other existences were real to us only as perceived by our senses and constructed by our minds; the body was a perception, and matter was merely a bundle of ideas.................Now no doubt it is truistically, tautologically, platitudinously true that nothing exists for any mind but that which that mind perceives. But what a world away this is from the proposition so often confused with it, that nothing exists unless it is perceived!" Will Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy ”


YOU WROTE ......I did not ask about reality. I asked about meaning. I contend that all exists without the observer... but it is meaningless, and as such... without point. It takes meaning for a point to exist.

I do not understand why you think it is meaningless; do you disallow the silent workings of nature, or I missing something?

Wes, I am sincerely sorry if I came across as supercilious, or stupid. Except for a try at humor now and again, I do not mean to speak except from my heart. I guess if you want to think that I am simple-minded, I cannot prevent that, because I refuse to try to impress you with the more popular intellectual phrases. I believe that intuitiveness is the highest form of intellect, as the philosopher Spinoza supposes. Looks like I have a ways to go. So, be of good cheer, you really told me off. pmt

PS/ I see there is a new posting, possibly more to your liking.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1. It is not a matter of deliberate decision what someone comprehends or not. (Unless he or she pretends or lies.)

2. How can you apply something that you don't comprehend? I don't comprehend Chinese, nor do I comprehend quantum physics. Should I still go to China and "apply" my non-knowledge? Should I go to CERN in Switzerland and "apply" my not-comprehension of quantum physics?

 

PMT... gonna have to wait till after work.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

See below.

You can't, you can only say "i don't comprehend this". God is a subject that is inherently beyond comprehension IMO. IMO, human concepts are based on human experiences... as such, no human concept can be applied to a being with the power to create the universe and all the stuff in it. It's just like you say below:

Exactly. IMO, any religious text or thought is the equivalent of speaking english and claiming it chinese, except it's a much more drastic difference. Like... well, like claiming you comprehend god. I can think of no bolder lie.

Hehe, that's up to you! Lemme know if you figure out how to get past security. LOL.

EDIT: It just occured to me that I have no idea what you were trying to say.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hehe. I'm not sure if your comments were aimed at me or PMT or who you were agreeing with or what, so pardon if I stepped on your toes. I'm a clumsy dancer sometimes.

EDIT THE SECOND:

"If the godly entity is to be almighty, omniscient etc., then it is necessarily incomprehendable to our reason; ie. the comprehension of such an entity by our reason can only be misplaced.
If you speak of a "Creator God" that is "almighty" and "omniscient", then you still comprehend this almightiness in the space of TSC. It is therefore pointless to TALK about a god, or to say we "understand what he says.""

Damn you said that better than I said it for sure. Well put and I recind my attempted corrections as you obviously understand that shit better than me. Kant said that shit? Hehe.. I thought I was saying it damnit!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Funny I did come to the conclusion on my own, from basically the same argument. That's cool stuff. I generally use dimensionality to try to show why god is necessarily incomprehensible if defined as a "creator" or whatever. Is that TSC stuff yours or Kant's? Regardless it resonates with me.

Hey regardless I see what you were getting at now.. cool.

 

Thats the one

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

PMT, no hard feelings, mostly miscommunication, will try to clear it up later.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ROSA: And what you get "through supplication and soul searching" is FROM God?

>It is my understanding that all good things come from God; therefore, my answer is yes.

ROSA: P.M. Thorne, as long as we think, we think in the determinants of time, space and causality (TSC), so Kant. Also, so Schopenhauer, a basic premise of our reason is that TSC are linear and continous. TSC are the product of our reason and whatever we are aware of, be it what we call thought, feelings, preeminitions, whatever -- it is within the determinants of TSC.

>I disagree.

ROSA: TSC are relative, inasmuch as the first T, the first S and the first C cannot be answered by our reason itself. As the First TSC, a godly entity can be supposed (by a dogma), yet we would still comprehend this godly entity through TSC. If the godly entity is to be almighty, omniscient etc., then it is necessarily incomprehendable to our reason; ie. the comprehension of such an entity by our reason can only be misplaced. If you speak of a "Creator God" that is "almighty" and "omniscient", then you still comprehend this almightiness in the space of TSC. It is therefore pointless to TALK about a god, or to say we "understand what he says."

>Many wise men would disagree (and women too, I being one), (just as many wise men would take your point, I might add. I have an entirely different concept and it is not iron clad, but the general principles are! Yet, I hear no voices and have no visions. I do not often pray, Rosa, not in the sense that most Christians mean when they say “pray.” I do believe in having an attitude of prayer, because staying focused, regardless of what you believe, can save one a world of hurt. There are also times of meditation when I pray fervently, sometimes for understanding of a situation sufficient to deal with it reasonably, or something like that. I believe what this does is that it distances me from “things” so that I focus, direct my energy and understanding to my resources. It invigorates my desire to be on track, and it somehow tends to increase my love for myself and everything and everybody else. It is a fervent prayer; I do not mess around when I pray, nor does anyone need to write something down for me, it comes from my toes in a rather gradual way, but I feel it completely. It is very much like the Eastern meditations, because it is refreshing. No one taught me; in fact, I was taught something quite different. And enough about that. Maybe I answered your comment okay after all. That will, of course, be your call.

ROSA: Even if there is a god and if he does speak to you, he does it in your language, a language that is comprehendable to you (a TSC that you know), since this is the only way for you to understand him.

>There is some truth to that, of course, just as people who do not speak English cannot readily converse with me about politics or education; nonetheless, there can be communication. When I met the Finns, the main musician’s wife spoke no English, and I connected with her so completely that we were both rather touched by it. Her husband, who is a friend of my friend, and now mine as well, was delighted. It was so cool. In fact, that whole experience has been unusual. My point is, I suppose, that there is a universal way that does not always require what we call mutual language.

ROSA: Question: How can you say that right now as you are reading this, it is not me who is saying this -- but that it is god?

>Oh ho. Maybe it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ROSA: How can you tell that it is god when you think that it is?

>Well, if it works, it is God. No, now, that is too flippant. I have lived for many decades, and somewhere during that time, I learned to recognize the sound of my maker; much like that feeling with Raija. It is a connection, an assurance, a stirring up of that which I already know, but am possibly failing to apply. It comes like an awakening.

ROSA: If we're exact, god is speaking to you all the time, from all mouths, through all things -- if he is to be an almighty, alpresent, omniscient god.

>Absolutely, much of that would apply. The first way He spoke to me was through nature, and through those who showed me kindness and love. It still works that way; however, sometimes we must face things seemingly alone, and I can still connect. God is very hard to hug, but He is there always, wherever.

ROSA: Yet you go and CHOOSE some things to be from god, and say that some others aren't. When I say that I don't believe in a Creator -- will you say that this is not from god? How do you choose? By your reason? Does your reason tell you what is from god and what isn't?

>As for what is from God, I think we are each accountable to differentiate. It is not my place to decide what you think is from God. If you do not believe that good things come from God, or do not believe in God at all, this means nothing in particular, except that possibly your concept of the God still unproven to you is limited by old prejudices. I say this because one of my correspondents told me recently that his prejudices re: Church, the Bible and consequently God, made believing in God seem ridiculous. It came at me a different way, and I shall be criticized for this most likely, but I began to think the concept I was hearing! about God was ridiculous, and when I lost my son, I lost my fear of people to a great degree, and really told God what I thought about things. Does that sound silly to you. I was standing in the middle of my living room, saying, “I do not understand this, and it hurts like hell.” Along with that irreversible loss, there seemed nothing else to do but to settle for nothing less than the best, and the best has to be real.

ROSA: If god is everywhere and everytime, then it is pointless to speak of him, not to mention inadequate.

>All things are everywhere, but God is the first cause.

ROSA: Yes, I understand, you cannot pour the whole ocean into a pitcher, but what you can pour into a pitcher is still the ocean. If god is the ocean in this metaphor, then he is in every pitcher that you fill (every person, every plant, every thing everywhere.

>Good analogy, Rosa. Not too many people think of that, but that is just about the way I see it. A friend told me once that I have reverence for all things. Not sure if that is accurate, but respect would probably work. There was a reason I did not turn on the heater in the bathroom all winter. I thought the spider I had neglected to take outside before the temps dropped really low, might have possibly laid eggs in it, and I did not wish to risk it. Some people think that is dumb. So, take your pick.

ROSA: ). But thereby nothing is said really! It's like saying "red is red".

>Why would you say that?

ROSA: I think that the message you are trying to bring across is that people should "love life", "do what they please", "learn" or something like that. That "the meaning of life is to be happy."

>Well, that is close, except for the happy part. My goal has not been, nor is it now, to be happy. Happiness is not something to pursue, but happiness can ensue. Can you agree? My goal, my desire, my prayer, is to leave something, and to take something. I believe that the things that mean the most to us go with us, not tangibly, but intangibly. To be totally specific, it is the beauty of a painting that stays (with us) after we have left the painting behind. The love and understanding that I share with my friends that stays with us when we are apart, and so forth. I always have liked that saying that people may forget what we do, and they may forget what we say, but they will never forget how we made them feel. This is one reason I try to be kind to doorknockers; they bleed too.

ROSA: I think one can say that without calling upon a god as the instance who gives one the right to say so.

>Not sure what you mean by that. I believe that we are the sons of God, so to speak, USING THE WORD "SONS" AS JOHN DID, because we are part of his creation and therefore a part of Him. I do not need anyone’s permission or acknowledgement to do much that I do, but if it pertains to anything connected with them, I do. As all things are connected with God, then I do. Why would someone care whether I call on God or not? Just wondered. He is my “meaning of life..” I think that should make sense, without sounded crippled ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

anymore than anyone else!

>In the old Testament the word often translated as spirit means breath, without breath there is no energy of any significance for my purpose on this earth. The end of me is not the end, however, my point here is about breath, not about me.

Boy, you kept me busy today. I have to get taxes done, but this seemed to take priority today, for some reason. I still have a few days!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers. Oh, you spell like a Brit., or Australian, maybe, but you need not tell me. That is not so important.

pmt

 

we should ask, what is the meaning of life? and what is the meaning of a rock?
we should ask things like
why is the rock here or how did it get here
why do i find it beautiful?
who else would find it beautiful?
what can i do with the rock?

 

Wes Morris,

My comments were not aimed *at* anyone, just at some thoughts presented before. And you can't step on my toes: we're high up in the mountains, and everyone is wearing those tough mountain boots ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That TSC stuff is Kant's, and Schopenhauer's. I'm just the monkey repeating after them ... And making my conclusions. I'm awfully smart, you know. :bugeye:
Yeah, and it's cool stuff, it resonates with me too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll get back with some thoughts on meaning and why religions were invented for the sake of calming down reason.

 

PMT,

Well, that's the clue, right there! In your belief, all GOOD things come from God. I can't help to think that that's choosy. If God made everything, then that means he made both light and darkness, good and bad.
Yes, you can say that "bad is the absence of good" -- but it is still your God that is ensuring that this absence can exist! He is letting this absence of good exist -- why? If God gave purpose to everything, then he also gave purpose to the absence of good. Why?

So you believe that you can be aware of something and think about it -- but NOT in the realm of TSC? You need to expand on this!

***
I think the issue here is that we have a different understanding of "reason".
I understand it as the system of logics (arguments and syllogisms) that in itself contains NO VALUES whatsoever. Basically, this is the computer as such: the gigs and the megs -- the speed of the processor, RAM and disk-space and stuff. *Without the programs.*

But we all know that even the best computer is of no use if the programs you run on it are no good. The programs in this case are the EXPERIENCE, the VALUES.
And just the same: the best programs are of no use if the computer you are trying to run them on is no good.

And, as it is, we usually aren't used to think just about the computer as such or just about the programs as such. For no computer that we know is without any programs, and programs per se cannot exist without a computer (that is: you can have the program on a cd-rom, but you can't do anything with that program).

Yet seeing the whole thing at once can be misleading! For how then can you tell what needs to be fixed when something goes wrong? Is it the computer or the program? And when something goes marvelously splendid? What is to be praised? The computer or the program?
So what I am doing is that I am separating the computer from the programs.

As far as I can tell, to you, reason is both the computer as such AND the programs that you run on such a computer. That's why we are having some misunderstndings here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You have made different experiences from me, of course. And I don't claim to understand you. I just deal with issues that pertain to the "computer" as such, not those about the "programs". If you want to talk about the "programs", then we can talk about flowers and lovers, but let's do it somewhere else, over a nice cup of tea.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We have established before that there is more to us than cogitations and deductions. By "mutual language" -- do you mean that both parties speak English, for example? There is some sort of "universal emotional language" that allows us to connect even to babies and animals, I think this is what you were refering to when talking about the Finns.

I just don't see why it would have to be called anything. *It is.* And that's enough, don't you think? Since it simply IS and since it is so UNIVERSAL, you cannot really say anything about it, can you?

I have the same feelings about connection, assurance, a stirring up ... that comes like an awakening. Yet I don't call them to be from God. I say that's life. I'm alive, and some of the characteristics of life is that there are connections, assurances, stirring ups ... and dis- and misconnections, disassurances and stirring downs. I'm ok with that.

I'm sorry about your loss. I know that I will probably come across as cold and calculated reason -- but what is so wrong when something hurts like hell?
I'm not saying that we should go and hurt ourselves and others.
I think that pain is just a part of life just as joy is. And one should feel both, in their fulness. I think people are often afraid to show how hurt they are. But why?? What is so wrong with crying those tears?? Why rationalize feelings? Why be so afraid of being hurt? Why push away sorrow? In fact, if it is pushed away, it becomes a rationalization -- and then, as a rationalization, it truly does damage to us. Otherwise it is just sadness, and it passes. Or are some people afraid that if they don't feel "hurt enough", if they don't feel that "it hurts like hell" -- that this means that they didn't love the person they lost, or at least didn't love them enough?

But you do eat meat, and wear leather shoes, and if you don't wear leather, then you certainly wear cotton. Cotton that was probably produced in South America, on fields that used to be the Amazon Forest, fields that after a year or two will become a desert. "A reverence of all things" may sound noble at first glance, but is a lot of pretentous BS, IMO, and I'm not sorry to say that.

I meant "can" in the meaning of "possibilty": "It is possible to say that without calling upon ..."
Why not simply & plainly say that the meaning of my life is to learn, to live a healthy life ... whatever?!
Because it is NOT scientific.
Because it is sentimental.
Because it is soooo Oprah.
Because it is soooo worn-out.
Because it is not modern.
Because there are miserable rationalizing smarta**es in this world who can ask: "What is happiness? Define. What is healthy? Define. " and so on ad nauseaum. And then some are so insecure, that they go and answer those questions and try to "define" happiness, and meaning as such ...

[I dooo wish, my deear laydy, that I coould speak like a true Eeenglishwooman.]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Rosemagika,

Simple, in the absence of which that is not, which that is, is not. The world of the relative is the greatest gift god had given us, so we can finally experience who we really are, not just as a concept. All things comes from god, good and bad are two different aspects of the same thing.

 

Maybe I misread you. Seemed to me like calling my comment "nonsensical" was kind of uhm, well disrespectful. I just took it that way at the time. I've put a lot of time and effort into my thoughts about this stuff, so to be non-chalantly shrugged off as "nonsensical"... well, it's no matter. I think your emoticontent is just a tough read for me. I believe you when you mean you meant no disrespect, so I apologize if I offended you with the annoyed tone of my response. I just thought you were sluffing me off as an idiot and it was getting under my skin a bit, as I find that annoying. Now I don't think you were doing that, so my apologies.

Hehe, well not always so light eh? I try but hell I get annoyed at stuff sometimes. My bad there.. pardon.

Hehe.. yeah okay I stop now!

Well it seemed obvious that you were meaning to tell me "god kicks ass you stupid bitch". Of course I'm just paraphrasing. LOL.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, like I said above is all. I just took it wrong.

Well see that's what you think but I disagree see. Your god is in your imagination as far as I'm concerned. I have one in my imagination too. Is this "my god is cooler than yours"? Ha! Okay yours is cooler because I was a jackass. That's fine for now, but I'm putting a 24 hour cutoff on the deal, so tomorrow your god's cool points will be re-evaluated. I'll spend the time between now and then tweaking out my dogmatic action. Be prepared for the coming of thy lord v2.32 - with automated scripture generation technology! Gonna god you up!

God is what is incomprehensible, by logical consequence of the definition. That's why I was talking about it.

Well you'd said "my god is your god". Isn't that a statement based on faith?

I did not once lose consciousness while reading stuff intoi what you said. I just thought you had decided to cut in on me and reacted as such.

Hey it's not like you never mentioned it, you bastard.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well it didn't seem that way. It was part of what seemed like an overall attitude you're telling me wasn't really there. I believe you and apologize for my vehement barnyard vigilance. I was just pissed because I thought you were talking to me like I was some stupid punk. Again, my bad.

Not a big deal. I don't remember enough details to straighten in out right now, so screw it.

Hehe, actually on that one I wasn't actually pissed. You were being a smartass. I have no problem with that but will call you ass for having done so. I'd appreciate your reciprocation but understand if you have reservations that preclude your participation.

Hey I've got quite the over-developed sense of humor. I just smelled something that I thought you laid.. but it wasn't you. Maybe you're just not funny eh? Hehe.

Yeah you know what I have a real bad potty-mouth. I partially understand why but you might not believe me. It simply works well for me in a number of ways.

I'd say for one it helps in sorting out shallow people. People of substance IMO, aren't concerned with foul language and are often amused by it. Kind of the same way people of substance can see great impressive stuff in plain words and don't necessarily need it uhm... well, all worded up.

I guess maybe it's just the style I've developed... be that good or bad. Shit I dunno.

Hey we'd been talking about it already as far as I was concerned. I thought that's what your comments were mostly about. You HAD mentioned it above no? Bah I don't feel like sort it out. I ask forgiveness and extend it if you were to ask it (not that it's in order at the moment).

LOL. I'm pretty sure I'm not in this for appearances.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Promise. I don't agree with you, as I think I've broken the whole god issue down pretty well (which I'm guessing you feel you've done too so I guess we have to compare notes eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)... but meh. I respect you and don't want to get you all annoyed like I was, so I'll just drop it.

No. I just contend that faith is emotional. I have faith of my own and such and see it as purely emotional. I think it is valid, emotionally speaking... but it is not logically valid, as circular logic tends not to be (there are special circumstances where circular logic is technically valid, e.g., any assumptions made about a system or whatever).

If I call you a jackass, it generally means (unless you're one of a select few people who I have called much much worse, much much more frequently) "IMO you were acting like a jackass when you said X". I do not mean "you are nothing more than a jackass". I think everyone is a jackass from time to time and I have no problem pointing it out when I think it just happened.

God.

Well, whether or not I agree with you, I think that is sweet. I can't agree with you I guess, as to me it simply isn't so. That's what makes this whole thing so visceral and weird. It's as real to you as you say and the same to me except as I see it. Very difficult, that. It's slightly easier if we can see at least that much to begin with though, would you agree?

Ah, I see. You were trying to be not you? That would do it. I don't know you well enough to know when you're out of character and as such, from what I know of you - you seemed on the obnoxious offensive, so I felt a matching attitude seemed appropriate. That sometimes backfires of course. Pardon.

LOL. You said "rectal".

Okay no problem. Yeah it seemed that way but what the hell, it was a jackass moment on my part.

I didn't see it. I don't know that I'd mind it particularly, but I don't think I really caught what you were saying as it seemed we were talking about two different things I guess. Maybe it was that you were out of character than threw me. Just a theory regardless, I jackassificated nonetheless.

Funny that you would discourage my "thinking for myself" while telling me about "If you think for one minute that God has no purpose for us, I say you are badly mistaken".

Hmmm... I mean that it seems contradictory to me to believe in something that doesn't allow any other possibility, like believing in god, and then imply you allow the possibility of being wrong. That's one of the things about religion/god that annoys me so fundamentally - to have the faith you have to claim everyone else is wrong, then I have to claim you're wrong for saying I'm wrong because to me, neither one of us know, but to you, you know and me knowing that neither of us know is the same as you knowing you know. I don't know if knowing you know it isn't so is the same as knowing you know, but I know I see it as the only thing I know is that I don't know. That makes me suspect you don't know either.

Ah hell I don't know.

I can't tell who's doing my thinking for me. It seems like me. That's as much as I think I can say about it.

Because I was annoyed.

I get that a lot.

*smirk* well, my two young ones.. they're awefully lovey.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well I can be somewhat abrasive I suppose.
That and the smell. Hehe. Kidding. I'm not particularly smelly.

That is so sweet of you. You are far too kind. I appreciate the gesture. You can pray for me if you'd like. I'd never ask that of someone.

Well I agree with you 100% on that.

I don't think you are flawed. I think you are perfect, as we all are. I cannot imagine what god might think of it. Seems to me though that if you really appreciate what a deity had done, you'd think it perfect and begin the journey to discover why it functions as it does in order to gain insight. You say god's wisdom is great but then say "God has to take what he can get", which in my mind tells me you think you can relate to the wisdom of one who you just said was all great, so obviously you couldn't relate to it.. only sheep in it. Ah myeah. This isn't directed at you in particular, it's a sore spot with me I suppose. I take it personally because it is personal to me. So you get my personal feelings on it. I don't intend to offend you but if you can be, I most likely will I suppose. All that thinking for myself gets me all off in weird places.

I don't doubt you.

I don't see it that way, but I understand what you mean I think. For the same thing I might just say "we all have our function to perform" of course that function is part of the function of the universe from which fundamentally, we are in no way separate. We are it. So all in all perhaps it's just semantics. They sure can get us all going different directions.

Hehe.. nah you're a sweetie. Cut it out, you're mushing me all up.

I just see a particular arrangement of concepts that requires a place in which meaning can exist for there to be any. IMO, perspective is the only route to meaning, as it is the act of conceptualization, or 'abstraction' that brings meaning into being. Meaning is an aspect of mind, by definition as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm missing something. In other words, meaning is an abstract and abstracts only exist in minds. So empty space for instance would be devoid of meaning by definition, until meaning comes to be in a mind regarding that space. RosaMagika explained it better I think.

No sweat. Maybe it was me. Who knows.

Mushy bastard. That's probably why you seem all decent and such.

We're all simple-minded about some things, and not so much about others.

Not trying to impress me impresses me much more than trying to impress me.

Impressive.