Doug 08.28.07  18.6  (16)

Sauwelios wrote:
1. All books are really about nothing, according to Neumann. That is his insight. 

2. Neumann is an emeritus at Scripps College.

3. He (Nietzsche) said there was no inherent meaning. But I guess that's what you meant. 

4. "Emptying the void"? The void is already empty. Indeed, that is what "void" means. 

5. You still distinguish between "natural" and "unnatural" activity. I would say that all activity is unnatural in the sense that it is a revolt against nothingness, which is natural. Activity presupposes a teleology. For it presupposes a will, and a will presupposes a goal. On the other hand, all activity is natural, as it too is nothing. "Others", "God" - they are all empty.

1. This makes me wonder why Neumann wrote "Liberalism" or any other book. The only reason that comes to mind is that he wrote about nothing, to fill the void.

2. I would still look him in the eye, not worship the "nothing" on which he seems to stand.

3. Are you absolutely certain Nietzsche said, "There is no meaning in life."? Or is it possible he looked around at what was happening and said, "In this life I see no meaning."

4. Indeed, "void" does mean empty. However, as far as I know "the void" is simply an unknown answer and for whatever reason, it seems we humans do not like unknowns. We have an extensive history of putting theories into the unknowns in the physical world then testing these theories and discovering facts that fit perfectly into the space of a previous unknown. I am bewildered that you seem to suggest we can not apply this technique to the unknown in the metaphysical world. Unless you can tell me why we can not try to fill the metaphysical void in precisely the same way we plug theories into physical unknowns, I will continue to suggest that is what our ancestors have done and we continue to do, tragically without gaining the knowledge the void can not be filled. The evidence seems clear the consequence of trying to fill the void is self-destruction; thus I suggest to save ourselves we must empty the void of all the ways we try to fill it. In my view emptying the void will not result in the appearance of an incomprehensible body/mind/spirit disintegrating black hole. Rather, the void will be left behind while an expanse of "white emptiness" on which we record self-realization, appears ahead.

5.This attempt to clarify your understanding of natural and unnatural has left me utterly confused. The confusion could be due to my philosophical deficiency. However, I don't accept it is my fault I am unable to understand why I am not allowed to define as natural the activity that transforms the first single cell of a human being into an adult form, to suggest it is theoretically possible for natural activity to be our only activity through life and to define a unnatural all activity that diminishes natural activity. Granted, these definitions could be against some conceived law of philosophy; but because my definitions are biological and though they presuppose the specific purpose of realizing our innate genetically determined capacities, laws of philosophy do not apply. All these words explaining how everything is nothing and nothing is natural have IMO nothing to do with life.

_____________end

Doug 09.09.07  9.101  (16)

Ierrellus, I have been really busy lately. Forgive me for responding to four of your posts in one of mine. I like to respond to all posts in order. I can't remember why I did not reply to your first post before.

Ierrellus wrote:
 There seems to be some good rigor going on here lately. I can only add my own insights to it. First, Doug, any decent, enclopedia of philosophy could have saved you much time in exploring the meanings of the word "soul". The one I have at home has a great article about the word, finding its various meanings in philosophy from the preSocratics onward. Meanings of the word are not totally religious. Second, about illusion, you know me as one who argues for a physical description of human reality, often against all odds. "Nature abhors a vacuum." In other words, in our physical existence we all share there are no voids. The concept of a void is mental, is a natural consideration of organisms with prefrontal cortexes, who see the unknown as sometimes unknowable. No voids exist in nature. Why they exist as concepts in minds is the real problem here. And about the wheel of perspectives-- we are travellers through time embedded in recurrent cycles. Our personal perspectives on reality amount to what POV we have from our positions on the wheel. Agreed, the "reaching out to 'God'", to some imagined absolute or closure, is the most problematic assumption in the OP.

I didn't consider my search for "soul" a waste of time. I wasn't looking for meaning as much as for how long the concept had been part of our vocabulary and at what point someone decided it needed to be saved. When I learned "soul" is a very recent branch off the concept of spirit that seems to be rooted in the birth of humanity, my post became one about spirit.

I agree completely that the "concept of a void is mental". I am as mystified as you are when considering the reason the concept exists. Will we ever know why we ask questions that discover missing answers? Will we ever know why we propose answers to fill the voids we discover when we ask questions? Indeed, in the physical 'world' missing answers will be found to fill the voids in our knowledge. However, I maintain no comparable answer will be found to fill the void in the metaphysical 'world' when we ask "the last why"; and our problems arise from our efforts to fill this metaphysical void.

Your "wheel of perspectives" left my head spinning.

If you see "reaching out to God" being to some "imagined absolute or closure" then that is problematic. In my view "reaching out to God is intended to keep "reaching out..." open, to convey absolute, as in unrestricted, freedom "to reach out..." 

Ierrellus wrote:
I thought I had nothing more to add to this conversation until I took on reading a MS given to me for critique by a beginning writer. As an aside here, I found the MS had great ideas expressed poorly. Now I hesitate to correct these problems of expression because when I tried to do that here, I was accused of being a stoic asshole. My dear mentor once was approched by a student who asked her advice about a poem. My mentor said that the poem would be better if certain words were changed. The student said that nothing needed changing. The poem flowed. My mentor replied, "So does diahrrea, but that doesn't make it good."
Anyway, I find no such fault in your expressions here. So, with considerations of the poor writer who put his MS in my hands and from my own reading, I'd like to state Sartre's concept of the void. According to S. life has neither meaning nor value since ultimate values do not exist.
We therefore approach the void with nausea, knowing that any idea we might have about it is meaningless. This is supposed to make us face our ultimate responsibilty as beings who are free to color reality as we choose, realizing only that our personal colorations affect all other humans who are trying to do the same thing! A physical perspective finds creations of meaning and value to be part and parcel of human evolution. Nietzsche toyed with physical explanations of reality so long as they did not contradict the overman outcome he so desired!

I too smiled at your mentor's comment.

Your reference to Sartre also "added to this conversation". I read something of Sartre's about 35 years ago but I can't remember what. It is probably in a box somewhere. Anyway, I searched "Sartre" and "void" and read a newspaper article he wrote in defense of existentialism. He didn't mention "the void" and I found his writing thick but not impenetrable so he expanded somewhat my understanding of his philosophy.

If your characterization of how Sartre saw "the void" is accurate, it is reassuring to know that with a little work, he and I could be on common ground. According to your interpretation it seems Sartre is talking about "reaction to the void". I would agree that we are ultimately responsible for our existence. Recall in my O.P. I suggested our individual activities are 'threads' we weave into a "fabric of existence" that becomes the existence of humanity, my way of saying what we do "affects all other humans". I then go on to suggest there are two types of 'threads', the clear natural and colored unnatural; and that our present "personal colorations" have created a fabric of humanity that is a self-destructive "mass of clashing colors".

I don't know what Sartre would say to this. Perhaps he would just shrug and say, "C'est la vie." I like to think it is possible to change our fabric of existence by replacing "colored threads" with "clear". It then seems to me the self-realizing natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God makes sense in contrast to the self-destructive unnatural activity of trying to fill the void. However, "sense" is somewhat equivalent to "meaning" and being an existentialist, I'm not sure how Sartre would react to my association of the word "meaning" with life.

Ierrellus wrote:
 Our star, the sun, does atomic explosions constantly, hence these are natural. What is unnatural is holding such energy over the heads of others in order to get them to come to our way of thinking. Or is this naturally human? It is the premeditated use of energy for destruction that is the problem, not the energy as it naturally exists. As usual, the motive sucks, not the means of expressing it.
As for Muggeridge, I once read his ideas about Tolstoy's final days of madness and concluded that it was M. who lacked understanding, not the man driven mad by pitting his own personal-substantiation beliefs against a realization of a universe that appears oblivious to human values. M. was offended by the supposed egocentric stench of madness, not considering that any disease, physical/mental, draws one into oneself where pain overwhelms.

I have found the unnatural computer a very useful tool in my efforts to engage in the natural activity of "reaching out to the limits of my capacities, to others and to God." I don't think God has an IP address though. I have received no emails.

As for Muggeridge, he was incidental to a further speculation about "spirit". Thanks for not going further away from "spirit" by suggesting I search "Mother Teresa and fraud". 

Ierrellus wrote:
About nihilism--Nietzsche really swatted that fly. One says yes to life or no to it.

I have recently come to appreciate Nietzsche. A couple weeks ago I was distracted by a few exchanges with a 'philosopher' on her blog. In one I learned "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Will to Power" were not the only books attributed to Nietzsche. Apparently he wrote "The Gay Science" a book of poetry.

Phaedrus 09.10.07  8¹.1  (16)

Most of Nietzsche is poetry- it really only makes sense when viewed that way.

_____________con'd @ 8¹.2 

Doug 10.29.07  8¹.2  (16)

My appreciation of Nietzsche increased as a result of conversations I had with Sauwelios. I found conversations useful because in discussing N. I was able to further illuminate my view. In one,

S. wrote: Did Nietzsche have no impact on humanity?

D. wrote: You are the undisputed expert on Nietzsche. You tell me. I am not aware of living under the influence of Nietzsche. If I am being forced to make an assessment I would say Nietzsche had the impact of a neutrino hitting earth. Jesus and Mohamed on the other hand each had the impact of an atomic bomb. Even after about 2000 and 1500 years respectively we are still being contaminated by the fallout. I really would be interested in knowing what impact you think Nietzsche has had on the life of humanity. If the advances in technology in the last 100 years do not greatly favour Nietzsche over Jesus or Mohamed, compare him to Martin Luther. Can you nail anything to a wall Nietzsche has written that had the impact of Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517? I wouldn't bet on it but I would suggest that even Martin Luther had a greater impact on humanity in the 100 years after he published his theses than Nietzsche has had in the 100 years since he published "The Will to Power"; and in 1517 the printing press was only 77 years old.

S. wrote: Read Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind".
A well-known Dutch writer once said that Nietzsche's influence is immeasurable.

D. wrote: I must admit I initially greeted your response with mild derision. I had asked for an indication of N's impact on humanity from the guy who I think can probably quote chapter and verse in 3 languages everything that N wrote and he tells me to read "The Closing of the American mind" by a writer I have never heard of; and then he wants me to believe one unnamed "well known Dutch writer (who) once said that N's influence is immeasurable". So I struggled all day Friday with thoughts of whether or not to respond and if so whether or not to respond with a short note of sarcasm that would include wondering if the "well known writer" was you. After deciding I would respond, I listened for the remainder of the day to one little red guy with horns shouting sarcastic remarks in the 'wrong ear' and a little white guy with a halo whispering "No" in the right ear. The little guy on the right side was the only one standing Saturday morning. So after starting my computer I searched "Will to Power", and I know it is going to be a shock to the heart of someone who reads N in the original German, but when Wikipedia opened on my screen I read away following links for about two and half hours.

When I finished I felt a slightly increased feeling of empowerment in the connotation I gather N would have approved for I got the impression the popular use of the word "empowerment" might be derived from N's "WTP". I also found 11 references that indicate a measurable impact of N's ideas on popular culture. Apparently there was a TV series called Andromeda that had genetically engineered "super men" protagonists who were called "Nietzscheans" that antagonists referred to derogatorily as Ubers. In addition, the TV series X-Files had a character in one of its shows that was called an Ubermenschen. I wouldn't have gotten the references but millions probably did. Then there was the hint that Hitler borrowed the notion of superior race from N. That was my impression as well but as I continued to read I sensed N would have considered all three representations of his Ubermensch gross distortions of his ideas. We might also give N credit for popularizing the notion that God is dead; but I don't think N was responsible for killing God. I think religious leaders killed God long before N; and the death of God was confirmed the moment someone coined the word "theology" and pinned their notions of God to a board, to be studied like a dead butterfly. Finally, though separate from indications of his impact, I found it interesting that N did not write the "Will to Power". The first edition was cut and pasted together by his sister and there was a suggestion the consensus is that had N presented his ideas about the "WTP" in an opus, he would not have called it "TWP".

Now I know I am making a hasty conclusion after reading for only 2 1/2 hours but I believe if N and I discussed our views for a couple hours more we would find considerable common ground. My understanding of what I read is that N's WTP has nothing to do with feeling superior and everything to do with feeling alive. Though he objected to Schopenhauer’s "will to live", I suspect N would have objected less to translating his WTP to "will to feel alive". Until Saturday everything I'd read in the N threads here left me with the impression writers thought his "power" was a force to be wielded over others but after my search which included this revealing quote from Nietzsche that you left,

"I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant people, without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.) The powerful natures dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger."

I believe N's idea of power is more akin to the 'electricity of life' we seek to plug into which I find agreeable. We also seem to agree that both the will to feel alive and the capacity to experience this "power” are universal.

In all that I read which I acknowledge may not have been enough, nowhere did I find that N suggested where we get the "power" we have the "will to". If he had no definite idea I would tell him that in my view that we are body/mind/spirit in reaction to the void I could easily equate "power" with "spirit" but that I'll use "spirit" because of its history. Then I would suggest we generate spirit with the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. At this point I could imagine Fred saying, "Nein, Nein! Nein Gott!" To this objection I would reply, "Forget all the theological theory none of which can be substantiated anyway and allow God to be at least the possibility we reach out to in becoming Ubermensch. If you don't, 85% of humanity will not listen to the rest of your views. Besides, if you want to have an "over-man" there has to be 'room' above men."

Another part of our views that might be difficult to reconcile is the apparent division between Ubermensch and "Last Man". Before I could even begin we would have to agree on definitions. Ubermensch would be pretty straight forward. In my view I call natural activity the ideal reaction to the void and so I would see an Ubermensch generating maximum spirit (power) by exclusively reaching out to the limits of their capacities, to others and to God, virtually oblivious to the void. Thus Ubermensch would be ideal people. "Last Man" would be more problematic. Apparently N was a notoriously poor writer so had he written in English I would suggest early transcribers mistook an "a" for an "o" because for me "Lost Man" would be a much more accurate description of the opposite to Ubermensch.

Lost persons do not exist in my view since the opposite of the "ideal people" would be people without spirit and in my view I've made a measure of the natural activity that generates spirit, a condition of life; but we can use the concept as a theoretical end. In my reading of N Saturday I didn't see that he stated the reason for being lost. However, somewhere in an ILP thread you mentioned concepts of natural and unnatural. If these pertain to activity then perhaps N and I could agree that a "lost person" would be someone who engaged exclusively in the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void, a reaction to the void that being devoid of "reaching out...: is therefore absolutely restrictive, without life.

In all the interpretations I have read in ILP threads the writers seemed to convey the impression they thought N postulated "Lost Man" and a separate elite class of Ubermensch. If he was absolutely convinced of this separation then at this point our views would be irreconcilable because rather than separation I see a continuum created by individuals engaging in blended activity that is a measure of natural activity and a complementary measure of unnatural activity. If the measure of natural activity in our blend is greater than the measure of unnatural activity, then we will be more ideal than lost, and the greater the amount of natural activity the more ideal we will be. Conversely, if the measure of unnatural activity is greater than the measure of natural activity then we will be more lost than ideal and the greater the amount of unnatural activity the more lost we will be. For me it is not all and none but some of each respectively.

Though we have individual blends I do not see separate lives. Our individual blends of activity combine to form a resultant blend that characterizes humanity. My interpretation of current events is that unnatural activity, our efforts to fill the void, dominate our resultant activity. The resulting technological advances notwithstanding I suggest we are more lost than humanity was at the time N wrote about "Last Man" and suggested the need for Ubermensch. I sense our resultant spirit diminishing with the less and less "reaching out to the limits of our capacities..." that is resulting in the "closing of the human mind". Although I haven't read "Bloom" I suspect that since you implied N had an impact on him I will guess his advice to humanity is the same as N's which I gather was to "destroy" all the restrictions that prevent us from becoming Ubermensch. My advice will have the same result; it just sounds less violent and anarchic. I suggest the only way we will save ourselves from eventual absolute restrictions and self-destruction is to empty the void of all the ways we try to fill it, which would allow natural activity to dominate and thus allow us to become ideal. During the process some will be above the median of the resultant and pull it toward the ideal; that is the nature of a resultant. However, those that rise above can not be separate from the resultant. We all shit in the same toilet; that is the law of nature.

I hope I have interpreted N accurately and without bias for with this interpretation I feel a connection with him that did not exist last Friday. If I am accurate, please don't be offended by me telling you I won't be helping to spread the gospel of N. I believe even N would agree with me that would be no different than me helping my sister spread the gospel of Christianity. Both would restrict me from reaching out to the limits of my capacities, to others and to God as much as possible within the limits of our resultant activity. I know I can't become Ubermensch unless we all become "ideal" but I would like to continue trying.

_____________con'd @ 8¹.3 

intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

 Doug 08.14.07  19.2  (15)

Joker, I won't say that man's reaction is not absurd because I don't know. If you have other than a baseless opinion that allows you to proclaim with absolute authority that "Man's reaction is absurd" then I want to hear about it. In the meantime I will continue to think the biological natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God makes sense. On the other hand, I think the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void is the absolutely absurd reaction. So perhaps we have one foot each on common ground. As I said in my previous post the two hands work together with one more or less dominating the other so except for the ideal reaction which is entirely natural activity, all our reactions to the void will seem more or less absurd.

In my view, "the void is a natural existence that" is just the missing answer to "the last why", the ultimate question of meaning. Perhaps here we will both have two feet on common ground.

_____________con'd 19.3 

Doug 08.14.07  18.4  (15)

Sauwelios, I need more time to consider a response to your post. I will return with a reply worthy of your effort. That is not a euphemism for never.

_____________con'd 18.5

Ierrellus 08.14.07  9.97  (15)

 There seems to be some good rigor going on here lately. I can only add my own insights to it. First, Doug, any decent, enclopedia of philosophy could have saved you much time in exploring the meanings of the word "soul". The one I have at home has a great article about the word, finding its various meanings in philosophy from the preSocratics onward. Meanings of the word are not totally religious. Second, about illusion, you know me as one who argues for a physical description of human reality, often against all odds. "Nature abhors a vacuum." In other words, in our physical existence we all share there are no voids. The concept of a void is mental, is a natural consideration of organisms with prefrontal cortexes, who see the unknown as sometimes unknowable. No voids exist in nature. Why they exist as concepts in minds is the real problem here. And about the wheel of perspectives-- we are travellers through time embedded in recurrent cycles. Our personal perspectives on reality amount to what POV we have from our positions on the wheel. Agreed, the "reaching out to 'God'", to some imagined absolute or closure, is the most problematic assumtion in the OP.

_____________con'd @ 9.98

 Solaron_zim 08.15.07  20.1  (15)

A. what exactly is 'natural'?
i see machines as just as natural as our own children. children are offsprings of the reproductive organs and machinnes are offsprings of our minds. (sort of off topic but, the mind is stronger than the body and our offspring of the mind are slowly gaining superiority over the offspring of the body.) also, evoltution has brought us to where we are today. we have unfit bodies for this world and what we lack in strength we make up for in brain power. we have learned the ways neture adapts and we have synthesized this power of adaptation and made it better by allowing our species to adapt much faster. for example: we don't have a telepathic relation ships with other beings in our species like ants or birds have and we lack superiority in the "Swarm effect" so we made the internet and now we communicate much better and faster.

B. God doesn't exist we are on our own.
we might have great connections with unknown energy like threads of like energy reacting to a void but an energy that has free will does not exist and if it did it would not be the master of the universe it would be just as important as we are (semi-important).

C. how do we die of 'unatural causes'?
when i strangle or shoot a man that doesn't make his death unatural at all. i was more fit than he was and i won the fight. survival of the fittest. this is what drives evolution and evolution IS natural. i survived for i was fit and he was not. therefor every death was a natural one. also, animals kill each other, not only for food either. some animals kill for a mate. we kill for things that happen to de just as important to us than mating to them. why these things such as money and power and love and peace are as important to us as the survival of our species is to them is a mystery to me. but this is still natural manifistations of hate built in our mind carried out by our bodies.

D. I like your theorie but i hope its a metaphor and not what you actually think energy is like

E. and finally: these things might be natural but it doesnt mean i support them.
i wish we could live without murder and hate. i do not support them and i think we can evolve without them. i agree with you that these things will most likely lead to our own demise but 'natural' and 'unatural' are the incorect words. everthings is natural and part of this universe otherwise it wouldnt exist. 

_____________con'd @ 20.2

Doug 08.15.07  20.2  (15)

solaron_zim, it sounds as if you have read the 'book' and are not just reacting to key words. Thank you for your interest. I will reach out to the limits of my capacities to answer your questions and in doing so may go beyond where I am now. For the moment, that is my partial definition of natural activity. I can't continue now because I first must complete my response to Sauwelios. Then I am going to look at Joker's post to me again despite the fact I suspect he did not read the 'book'. I will respond to what I can even though he appears to be a complete nihilist and so responding seems to be meaningless. I don't have to say much to Ierrellus except thanks. He and I have a history of nearly 100 exchanges and the only aspect of what I write he finds problematic is God. I have to agree with him and I will address the problem. So please be patient. If you just want to chat with someone immediately about some philosophical key words, look around at other threads. I will talk to you later.

_____________con'd @ 20.3

Doug 08.18.07  18.5  (15)

Sauwelios  wrote:
I want to reply to your OP again in the light of new insights I have had.

Doug wrote:
Is there any chance these are insights you can share?

Sauwelios  wrote:
It is the "philosophy" of one Harry Neumann, whose out-of-print book "Liberalism" I have recently finally obtained.

Sauwelios wrote:
The idea of "others" and the idea of "God" are themselves plugs to stop the plug hole.

Doug wrote:
Although it doesn't seem like you wrote this sentence with your usual care and precision I am going to assume I know what you meant and agree your observation could be correct. In my view "others" and "God" are involved in both natural and the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void.

Sauwelios wrote:
"Stopping the plug hole" is just another way of saying "filling the void". You say:

"Natural activity is reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Its consequence is self-realization. Unnatural activity is trying to fill the void."

I do not distinguish the two, and contend that the imagining of "others" and "God" is itself an attempt to fill the void. Indeed, you mention "self-realization"; and my critique of "God" and "others" is essentially a critique of the idea of a "self" ("God" and "others" are just outward projections of this idea).

"[S]cience is the simple realization that whatever is experienced -- a self, a world, the law of contradiction, or anything else -- is nothing apart from its being experienced. When students complain of "identity crises," I tell them not to worry, since neither they nor anyone else has an identity about which to have a crisis! For science, genuine knowledge of reality, reveals a world of nothing but empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them."
[Liberalism, page 140.]

In Heidegger's terms, who phrased your "last why" (Why am I?) as "Why is there something at all, and not rather nothing?", the question is made obsolete by Nietzsche's insight that the idea of "Being", of "things", is an error.

"Nihilism means that nothing -- and only nothing! -- has an identity or nature, a being not subject to radical change at any moment. No natural or divine support exists to reinforce the common-sense faith that anything is more than nothing. Nothing is more than what it experiences or what is experienced about it. Nothing is more than empty experiences (thoughts, perceptions, feelings, etc.), impressions as Hume called them. Nihilism is not solipsism nor does it make man the measure of things. The nihilist "self" or "man" which experiences its "world" is itself no more than empty impressions. It too is nothing."
[ibid., page 27.]

Sauwelios, when I read your quote “[S]cience…as Hume called them. [Liberalism, pg 140] I searched for “Liberalism by Hume”. I looked for about an hour but could find no reference to any piece of writing titled “Liberalism” by Hume. Then in one of the many times I read your post, I connected “Harry Neumann, whose out-of-print book ‘Liberalism’”, with [Liberalism, pg 140]. Now, that’s what I call an insight! And as a bonus, during the search I learned about Hume. Immediately after the ‘light’ went on I searched “Liberalism, Neumann”. When I clicked on the entry at the top of the page I found a review of “Harry Neumann: Liberalism, entitled ‘A Living Nihilist’”. My first thought was that “living Nihilist” was oxymoronic. Then I thought it’s no wonder a book about nothing is out of print. What is there to print? I laughed until I realized in a ‘church’ full of nihilists there is nothing to laugh about so I quit laughing because I wanted to give them nothing to be upset about. My final thought was to ask you why you even bothered to look for and said it was an insight when you found this book about nothing. (S: All books are really about nothing, according to Neumann. That is his insight. )¹

Although I was over come by a moment of skeptical silliness, when it was over I searched nihilism and began another in a series of serendipitous searches motivated by recent conversations on this thread. The first few sentences I read confirmed my dictionary definition that nihilism “rejected all moral and religious principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless”; but then I ran into my old friend Fred Nietzsche. He was still bemoaning the fact he felt most people who read “Will to Power” misinterpreted his biological principle as philosophical concept. He went on to say how annoyed he was that practically everyone labeled him a nihilist as defined in my dictionary. According to Wikipedia, Fred’s definition of a nihilist is someone who “(discarded) any hope of meaning in the world and thus…(invented) some compensating alternate measure of significance”. He used Christians as a collective example because of his apparent “low estimation of Christianity in general”. However, in my view he need not have ended there. He could have included every other “compensating” religious/philosophical “measure of significance” including ironically the philosophy of nihilism which he apparently did not advocate “as a practical mode of living”. Then he could have added to that group of religious/philosophical reactions to the void the remaining seven (par11) ways I suggest we can try to fill the void in our effort to give life a “measure of significance”, a measure of meaning.

What an insight! Until this conversation I had never even considered reconciling nihilism with my view of life. Using N.’s notion of nihilism though, I can clearly see that we are all more or less nihilists and complementarily less or more idealists. I suggest we could all be idealists if we only reached out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the natural activity that is the “idea reaction to the void”. (par 5) However, to live devoid of all “compensating alternatives measures of significance” as N. might have said or as I say, to live without trying to fill the void, is the ultimate challenge requiring a super human effort it seems we are not yet up to and may never be. Because it is without challenge we choose instead to replace some measure of natural activity with the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void; and independent of the way we try, the measure we choose determines the level of nihilism that characterizes our existence. So, with the “ideal reaction” of entirely natural activity we would be full of idealism and devoid of nihilism; but its level rises with increasing unnatural activity and complementarily decreasing natural activity until devoid of idealism we become completely nihilistic when our life amounts to nothing at which point we self-destruct.

In my view nihilism is now not simply a philosophical abstraction that generates heated esoteric arguments over notions of meaninglessness and other ‘no-things’ such as self. We are individual nihilists more or less but we are not isolated individuals. Our individual blends of natural and unnatural activity add together to form a resultant of human activity. It is my assessment that we are generally more nihilistic than idealistic and as a consequence there is within humanity a pervasive nihilism that affects us all. Pervasive nihilism provides nihilistic philosophers with the material to create a “compensating alternative measure of significance” about nothing, with which they try to fill the void. Nihilism deflates our spirit and is the thief of meaning. It causes students to ask questions when they first become aware of the nihilism that permeates their fabric of existence.

I asked these questions when I was at University. Although I acquired the degrees that would have allowed me to teach, unlike Neumann, (S: Neumann is an emeritus at Scripps College.)² I decided not to start until I found the answer to the questions about purpose, identity and generally the meaning of life I anticipated students would ask me. I never did teach but not because I didn’t find the answer. It just took me 30 years longer than I thought it would. Now, if the students my search kept me from teaching asked “the last why” (par 1), I would say, the nihilists notwithstanding, there may be an answer but not in the conventional sense. Indeed, if there is an answer to “the last why” I am betting my life we will only find it written between the quotation marks at either end of our DNA.

For reasons that are open to eternal speculation, it seems a sense of meaning commonly referred to, is a by product of reaching out to the limits of our genetically determined capacities, of becoming what we are capable of being, of biological self-realization. This is part of the ultimate challenge because we are reaching out into the unknown with no external clues. In essence we have to reach out into nothing to realize something. It is inversely easy to reach out to something and become nothing, a nihilist. In my view this sense of meaning can not be found without reaching out to others and to God. Indeed, only by reaching out to our mother were we able to start realizing the capacities inherent in our first single cell. The part of the ultimate challenge in reaching out to others is to stop short of grabbing hold of others in an effort to fill the void. If we try to fill the void with others we become a nihilist, someone with nothing of our self in side which becomes painfully obvious when we lose one of our “others” and sense the subsequent emptiness. The part of the ultimate challenge in reaching out to God is that to do so is beyond all reason. Then we must stop short of trying to fill the void with a concept of God or we become a nihilist. God without concept might seem like nothing but still it seems the very act of reaching out beyond humanity generates meaning in becoming something for no apparent reason.

The “ideal reaction to the void” is challenging enough but what adds to the challenge at the present time is moving the resultant reaction of humanity to the ideal when it is being dominated by our inherited efforts to fill the void and thus permeated by nihilism. To move our resultant reaction to the ideal from where it is now, we need to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God more than at our present level; but to make room for those increases in natural activity we need to empty the void of all permutations and combinations of the eight ways we try to fill it. Imagine one billion Catholics telling the Pope he is unemployed. One person can begin the process but will have virtually no effect on the resultant of humanity. To move the resultant activity of humanity toward the ideal also requires others to empty the void. The more there are the quicker it moves and the easier moving it becomes. To move the resultant of humanity right to the ideal would require the participation of everyone for in my view one of us can not entirely reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God unless we all engage in natural activity. Why bother? In idealism at the very least there is the extreme challenge; in nihilism there is nothing.

In reconciling nihilism with my view of life I think I lost my friend Fred only when I mentioned God. Although he seems to have said there is meaning inherent in “the world” (S: He said there was no inherent meaning but I guess that's what you meant.)³ I think he would have followed me to the point where I suggest there is meaning in a life of natural activity. It seems we both recognize the “super” challenge. His notion that nihilists try to give meaning to life because they can’t find any in living is congruent with my view we are all nihilists to the extent we try to fill the void. Even though Nietzsche talks about “emptying the world…” of restrictions, again we could talk about emptying the void in the same breath. In a post of yours in another thread you said Nietzsche despised idealism but I think he might accept my use of the word idealism in describing the life generated by the “ideal reaction” to the void, especially the life left after completely emptying the void. Finally, though I have never used the word “liberalism” in my view of life I have expressed the notion that in emptying the void we free ourselves from the restrictions placed on us when trying to fill the void. I could have used the word “liberate” that has the same root as “liberalism” so perhaps Fred and I would align here as well.

I haven’t a clue where I would stand in relation to Neumann. I read those quotes from “Liberalism” and I did not understand them. I think it takes a special person to make sense of that convoluted language. If it requires a philosophical gene then I readily admit I have a genetic philosophical deficiency. I am not at all concerned that Neumann is one of many religious/philosophical writers I don’t understand. I am completely satisfied with my understanding of life. That understanding includes the idea of emptying the void and if we ever get around to that, the entire life support of nihilism will disappear. If we don’t get around to emptying the void, in my view we will self-destruct so everything that has been written will be inconsequential anyway. That’s not to say I haven’t benefited from my searches. Who would have thought a rigorous nihilist and a poetic idealist could have a useful conversation. If you plan on coming back Sauwelios, give me a few days. I have a couple other responses to work on and I haven’t got time now for another search. If you don’t come back, thanks again for your rigor; and for your support the other day.

(S: "Emptying the void"? The void is already empty. Indeed, that is what "void" means.) ⁴

(S: You still distinguish between "natural" and "unnatural" activity. I would say that all activity is unnatural in the sense that it is a revolt against nothingness, which is natural. Activity presupposes a teleology. For it presupposes a will, and a will presupposes a goal. On the other hand, all activity is natural, as it too is nothing. "Others", "God" - they are all empty.)⁵

_____________con'd @ 18.6 

Doug 08.20.07  19.3  (15)

Joker wrote:
Man's reaction is absurd and the void is a natural existance that just is.

 Doug wrote:
Joker, I won't say that man's reaction is not absurd because I don't know. If you have other than a baseless opinion that allows you to proclaim with absolute authority that "Man's reaction is absurd" then I want to hear about it.(1) In the meantime I will continue to think the biological natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God makes sense.(2) On the other hand, I think the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void is the absolutely absurd reaction.(3) So perhaps we have one foot each on common ground. As I said in my previous post the two hands work together with one more or less dominating the other so except for the ideal reaction which is entirely natural activity, all our reactions to the void will seem more or less absurd.(4)

In my view, "the void is a natural existence that" is just the missing answer to "the last why", the ultimate question of meaning. Perhaps here we will both have two feet on common ground.(5)

to (1) Joker wrote:
Well isn't the reaction always in a opinionated form of ideology or built upon a form of assumptions?

I think the reaction is absurd because the moment after it was implemented it became to be operated on a bunch of uncertainties that had no way of being substantiated beyond that of blind faith.

Separately these words have meaning. Together they don't make sense to me; but I am neither a philosopher nor a politician.

to (2) Joker wrote:
I don't mind reaching out to find our individual capacities but I acknowledge that such a act is always the first start of enslaving others.

Since reaching out has always perpetuated human slavery in various forms of history it is exactly my point of seeing it as self defeating.

I have a different vision. I see it is a biological fact we have unique physical/mental capacities. Therefore, reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God is the only activity we can engage in that does not generate conflict.

 to (2) Joker wrote:
Now one may be in complete wonder of that view opposed to slavery combined with my amoralism and might is right sentiments. In replying to such questions I would say that it is better for all parties of man to have a chaos where inequality is prevailing but at the same time each opposing party is allowed a 50 percent chance of succession over each other where only the stronger individual will of each side randomly succeeds versus a existance where one party who utilizes a imaginative reason considered untouchable has a 85% of succession in survival even though their instruments have no substantiation upon reality. ( I am probally confusing you or sounding mad at this point.)

( I am really trying not to. Bear with me.)

Your are right! You are confusing me; but I am a simple carpenter. I am easily confused. No you were not "sounding mad"; simply confused. If you suspect you are writing something confusing, you shouldn't write it.

to (2) Joker wrote:
Where does a god come in?

God doesn't come in. 'God' is at the open end of reaching out to others. Every once in awhile there is an add on T.V. for Christian songs. It features the typical drop dead pretty blonde belting out the words, "God is in control." *** When I first heard these words I thought, "Holly Crap! How can anyone say this and expect to be taken seriously?" 

to (3) Joker wrote:
I can agree with you there.

Good 

to (4) Joker wrote:
I am under the Marxist position that under times of so called peace or cooperation there still exists warring conflicts of the societal classes( In a state society anyways.) while at the same time I am under the primitivist sentiment that might is the only equilibrium of balancing human suffering out where each side is allowed to fight equally both the oppressors and the oppressed for the right to live by any means.

See comment to (1).

to (4) Joker wrote:
Those who don't fight have no appreciation of life and therefore don't deserve to live.
( I hope that made sense.)

This made perfect sense. See *** above

to (5) Joker wrote:
In my view the void is a natural existance that isn't missing any answers as it just is while the cognitive human being is the one who creates the missing pieces all by himself without them ever existing in the first place beyond humanity.

I think that everything we see is all that exists.

"one who creates the missing pieces all by himself" makes sense if I equate "missing pieces" to "reactions to the void". The rest of it doesn't make sense to me.

 _____________end

Ierrellus 08.22.07  9.98  (15)

I thought I had nothing more to add to this conversation until I took on reading a MS given to me for critique by a beginning writer. As an aside here, I found the MS had great ideas expressed poorly. Now I hesitate to correct these problems of expression because when I tried to do that here, I was accused of being a stoic asshole. My dear mentor once was approched by a student who asked her advice about a poem. My mentor said that the poem would be better if certain words were changed. The student said that nothing needed changing. The poem flowed. My mentor replied, "So does diahrrea, but that doesn't make it good."
Anyway, I find no such fault in your expressions here. So, with considerations of the poor writer who put his MS in my hands and from my own reading, I'd like to state Sartre's concept of the void. According to S. life has neither meaning nor value since ultimate values do not exist.
We therefore approach the void with nausea, knowing that any idea we might have about it is meaningless. This is supposed to make us face our ultimate responsibilty as beings who are free to color reality as we choose, realizing only that our personal colorations affect all other humans who are trying to do the same thing! A physical perspective finds creations of meaning and value to be part and parcel of human evolution. Nietzsche toyed with physical explanations of reality so long as they did not contradict the overman outcome he so desired!

_____________con'd @ 9.99

Doug 08.22.07  20.3  (15)

 solaron_zim wrote:
A. what exactly is 'natural'?
i see machines as just as natural as our own children. children are offsprings of the reproductive organs and machinnes are offsprings of our minds. (sort of off topic but, the mind is stronger than the body and our offspring of the mind are slowly gaining superiority over the offspring of the body.) also, evolution has brought us to where we are today. we have unfit bodies for this world and what we lack in strength we make up for in brain power. we have learned the ways neture adapts and we have synthesized this power of adaptation and made it better by allowing our species to adapt much faster. for example: we don't have a telepathic relation ships with other beings in our species like ants or birds have and we lack superiority in the "Swarm effect" so we made the internet and now we communicate much better and faster.

B. God doesn't exist we are on our own.
we might have great connections with unknown energy like threads of like energy reacting to a void but an energy that has free will does not exist and if it did it would not be the master of the universe it would be just as important as we are (semi-important).

C. how do we die of 'unatural causes'?
when i strangle or shoot a man that doesn't make his death unatural at all. i was more fit than he was and i won the fight. survival of the fittest. this is what drives evolution and evolution IS natural. i survived for i was fit and he was not. therefor every death was a natural one. also, animals kill each other, not only for food either. some animals kill for a mate. we kill for things that happen to de just as important to us than mating to them. why these things such as money and power and love and peace are as important to us as the survival of our species is to them is a mystery to me. but this is still natural manifistations of hate built in our mind carried out by our bodies.

D. I like your theorie but i hope its a metaphor and not what you actually think energy is like

E. and finally: these things might be natural but it doesnt mean i support them.
i wish we could live without murder and hate. i do not support them and i think we can evolve without them. i agree with you that these things will most likely lead to our own demise but 'natural' and 'unatural' are the incorect words. everthings is natural and part of this universe otherwise it wouldnt exist.

  A. "natural": 1. Existing in (harmony with)[my words] or derived from nature; not man made, caused or processed by humankind. 2. in accordance with nature; normal or to be expected: natural death. ref: The Canadian Oxford High School Dictionary. Machines, weapons, even computers are man made; therefore they are not natural.

B. On a T-shirt I saw: "God is dead: Nietzsche." "Nietzsche is dead: God." It was too amusing to keep to myself. Clearly the "God" you deny does exist. We created "God" as surely as we created the atomic bomb. Both are unnatural. "God" has been more destructive. We create "God" in our image.

C. "Unnatural causes of death" by the dictionary definition are not "in accordance with nature". My definition is more specific. In describing my view of life I define "natural activity" as reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. It is in accordance with and expected by nature. I say it is a condition of life so if we don't engage in some measure of natural activity we die. However, it not dictated by nature. Activity outside the definition of natural is unnatural, not "in accordance with nature". I define two types. There is giving up, not trying to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God; and trying to fill the void, to give unnatural meaning to life. There is only one natural activity and one way to give up; but we can each try to fill the void in our own way by combining some measure and number of eight ways. Exclusively reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God creates life. Exclusively giving up is not in accordance with nature; thus it is an unnatural cause of death. We can't be "reaching out..." while trying to fill the void; thus each way we try is an unnatural cause of death. Specifically, to "strangle or shoot a man" in an effort to fill the void with "things such as money and power and love" for example, is an unnatural cause of death.

In theory we can engage exclusively in natural activity. In fact we can neither exclusively give up nor try to fill the void because some amount of natural activity is a condition of life. In practice we combine complementary amounts of natural and unnatural activity. In my view the consequence of natural activity is self-realization that can be considered evolution, becoming what we are capable of being from a beginning as a single cell. When we replace natural activity with unnatural activity we diminish our evolution. At the point where the amount of activity in our blend of life activities exceeds the amount of natural activity, evolution becomes devolution. My assessment is that while it continues, it is not "evolution", but rather devolution which "has brought us to where we are today". Indeed, I suggest humanity is dying by "unnatural causes" and if we don't reverse the process of devolution we will self-destruct.

D. I am not sure to what this refers. Since I do not recall ever using the words "vital energy" in anything I have written in ILP, I am going to guess you read a recent post in which I referred to "spirit" as the 'electricity of life'. I intended this to be a metaphoric comparison. However, I saw an interview of Malcolm Muggeridge in which he related an experience he had while doing a 1970 documentary on Mother Teresa. The producers wanted to film a scene inside one of the so called hospitals in which Mother Teresa worked. According to their light meters there was insufficient light to expose the film and no power for their lights. Nevertheless, they filmed the scene. Apparently all involved in the production of the documentary were dumbfounded when upon viewing the film, they found it perfectly exposed. So who knows? Perhaps if Francis Crick changes his focus of study from the philosophical soul to the biological spirit he will discover as I maintain it is seamlessly joined to both the physical and the mental in our continuum of body/mind/spirit. If he does make this discovery, the fact that we are presently unaware of its potential will be one additional piece of evidence the amount of natural activity we are engaged in is insufficient to generate appreciable spirit.

E. It should be obvious by now I disagree that "'natural' and 'unnatural' are (not) the incorrect words". To return to an earlier example, atomic bombs clearly "exist". Nevertheless, I hope by now you see that by definition they are not "natural and part of the universe".

 ____________end

Ierrellus 08.23.07  9.99  (15)

Our star, the sun, does atomic explosions constantly, hence these are natural. What is unnatural is holding such energy over the heads of others in order to get them to come to our way of thinking. Or is this naturally human? It is the premeditated use of energy for destruction that is the problem, not the energy as it naturally exists. As usual, the motive sucks, not the means of expressing it.
As for Muggeridge, I once read his ideas about Tolstoy's final days of madness and concluded that it was M. who lacked understanding, not the man driven mad by pitting his own personal-substantiation beliefs against a realization of a universe that appears oblivious to human values. M. was offended by the supposed egocentric stench of madness, not considering that any disease, physical/mental, draws one into oneself where pain overwhelms.

_____________con'd @ 9.100 

Ierrellus 08.24.07  9.100  (15)

About nihilism--Nietzsche really swatted that fly. One says yes to lfe or no to it.

_____________con'd @ 9.101 

intro. page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 comments

 
MrRuslan 04.26,07  16.1  (14)

Forgive me for skipping 330+ post but I thought about something like this void concept a lot. I revolve around the idea that there is no understanding in a complete absence of existence is therefore it is not possible. there is understanding in the state of right now therefore the possibility is there always. So the void that is so capable as described in the first post is not actually a void at all but is rather a source. I'm very new but I love philosophy and I hope I'm not being over redundant.

_____________con'd @ 16.2

Doug 05.09.07  16.2  (14)

MrRuslan, you are forgiven for not reading 330+ posts. I am however disappointed that someone who has "thought about something like the void concept a lot" did not take time to read the link to my short essay "the void" I left in my OP.  Had you read it you might have replied to something you didn't understand and your observation would have helped me improve my explanation. At the very least I would feel more comfortable about telling you I have no idea what your collection of words means. You should develop in a thread of your own your concept that "a void...is not actually a void at all but is rather a source". It would be interesting to hear of what you think the void is "a source". Your void would be contrary to the dictionary meaning "an empty space". That's all it is for me, the empty space where we would like to find the answer to "Why am I?". The void is certainly not the source of any power over us. The only power it has is what we give it with our fear of the unknown. It is like we are afraid of the 'dark' and we turn on every artificial philosophical light we can find then power them with fear. It is fear that will destroy us not the void. To paraphrase Harry Truman I believe, it is our fear we should fear.

_____________end

Doug 05.21.07  9.89  (14)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
I really like your latest post. Let me add only one thing--The Golden Rule appeared in various cultures--Greek, Middle Eastern, Far Eastern (Plato, Buddha, Confucious)--circa 500-300BCE. It is a truth that trancends time and place.

Timequake
Jesus split our time's flat line,
Shook the Buddha's hopeful feet;
And, on this, cluttered, painful street,
Makes to tremble--mine. (See Boethius on temporality)

Agreed--Jesus did not intend to start a religion; Paul did! Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandia did. Augustine did.
Nietzsche goes too far in his critiques. It seems to be an extemely personal matter with him; and he would throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Hi Ierrellus. I am back. I don't like to hop from one train to another and I wanted to complete my precis before collecting my thoughts for this reply. Both required more time than I anticipated and I don't rush. I appreciate your patience. I hope your health has returned to normal.

I searched Boethius to see if I could find the context for the poem you quoted. I thought for sure I would find it in the "Consolidation of Philosophy", a text he wrote in both poetry and prose. I didn't find it; but while searching I stumbled upon the fact that Boethius also wrote a commentary on the "Isagoge" by Porphyry that apparently was about the "problem of universals". It seems that in medieval philosophy there was quite a discussion about whether "universals...are subsistent entites which would exist whether anyone thought of them or whether they exist only as ideas." Since Boethius was a Christian philosopher I can imagine him speculating about the possibility that a principle like "the Golden Rule" was a universal of human nature the way the law of gravity seems to be a universal of nature, at least at the level of macro physics; and that God was the creator of both.

I didn't read Boethius' commentary so I'm not sure on what specific universals he was commenting. If he argued for whatever "Laws of Nature" he was aware of, existing without thinking of them, I believe I'd have no problem. I still believe the force that caused the apple to hit Newton on the head existed without him thinking of it. If Boethius made the same argument for universals in human nature, I'm afraid he'd leave me behind. I have no problem though, talking about universals in human nature, within our thoughts. When, prior to the plastic age, I began directing my thoughts into the problem of pervasive conflict, I had the notion that in all the obvious diversity there had to be one explanation of human life, a universal law of human nature. However, I never thought of it being 'written' anywhere outside our capacity to think of it. I never considered this law of human nature to be more than just an explanation of how we 'worked'. I viewed human life as a 'watch' I could take apart and analyze its inner workings without being distracted by thoughts of "the watch maker". The law of human nature explains the 'mechanism' that moves our 'hands', independently of why the 'watch' exists.

In my view, as stated briefly in my OP, the universal mechanism that moves "our hands" is our reaction to the void. At the present time each of us has a different reaction to the void that is a blend containing a measure of the ideal natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God; and a measure of either the absloutely restrictive reaction, unnatural activity of trying to fill the void; or the absolutely permissive reaction, unnatural inactivity of giving up. I consider the ideal to be a universal of human nature. Not only is it universally in some measure part of our present reactions to the void, it is universally part of every reaction to the void back to the first single cells of humanity. Prior to our ancestor asking 'the last why", biologically motivated natural activity was the only activity. It was responsible for creating our present human form and by replication it created each of us.

After asking "the last why" our ancestors began trying to fill the void and succeeding generations increased their efforts. I believe humanity has an innate resistance to this unnatural activity an observation supported by the various versions of "the Golden Rule", that appeared in isolated societies. They appear often enough that it is tempting to call them universals rather than what they are, sincere attempts to return to the universal ideal "...reach out to others...". However, the resistance was weak. As a consequence, over the millennia efforts to fill the void have increased to the level that they now dominate our present activity. The new 'golden rule' is get as much money as you can any way you can in an effort to fill the void.

We do not have to continue living by the materialistic 'golden rule'. If we choose to though, according to the law of human nature and confirmed by the laws of nature, we will self-destruct. 

_____________con'd @ 9.90

Doug 06.05.07  0.10  (14)

On Sunday May 27 Coberst began a thread "Is freedom a possibility"? I answered his question and commented on each of his statements thus:

Is freedom a possibility?
Yes, within boundaries. For greater detail click here and read (2) below

All thought is 95% (accuracy +/- 3%) unconscious thought.
Invariably I awake with aligned thoughts.

The mind is embodied.
Yes. same link read paragraph 4

The ego says, Halt, Hold it.
The container is one of the primary schemas in which we think.
I am not sure what what you are saying in the previous 2 sentences.

If you put it all together its spells:
• Human ideas are conditioned by deep psychological and social forces.
(1) see paragraph 2

• We can operate freely but our horizons are limited.
(2) see paragraphs 6,7, and 28


• To facilitate free action we must recognize these horizons and these forces.
• Our horizons are determined by the historical reality into which we are born.
(3) see paragraph 3

• Knowledge of our horizons and forces marks a beginning of free action and an ideal marks the telos of our action.
• Democracy is a suitable ideal as our telos.
(4)Surely "the ideal", rather than democracy, should be our our telos(ultimate end). read from paragraph 5

Coberst replied, "It will take me awhile to read most of your statements", an aparent euphemism, but in response to my comment on his statement about "ego" Coberst copied his post "Ego says Hold it. Time Out!". Read it at the link to his OP if you are interested. Tell me what you think if you like. I glanced at his post again and I came to the same conclusion I made the first time I read it. I have been thinking about and working at articulating the explanation of what's happening for about 40 years and I have never ever found it necessary to complicate the explanation with the completely theoretical concept of ego. Indeed, the theory of ego is as unnecessary to the explanation of what's happening as say the Christian theory of "the trinity", except to say our belief in both theories contributes to conflict.

This statement is not just my opinion. It is supported by the fact that virtually everyone on the face of the earth gets along in life without ever considering the nebulous notion of ego. Furthermore, I guarantee that a survey of Christians will reveal 100% of them get along in life without need of Islamic theories; and a similar survey of Muslims will reveal 100% of them get along in life without need of Christian theories. Now if Christians can get along without Islam, if Muslims tried, they would also find Islam unnecessary to life; and if Muslims can get along without Christianity, then if Christians tried, they would also find Christianity unnecessary to life. Based on these conclusions I extrapolate to the prediction that if we empty "the void" of all the theories we don't need to get along in life, we will get along in life. 

_____________

Ierrellus 06.05.07  9.90  (14)

I'm unsure of the connection between my poem and Boethius' ideas. Even went to good philosophy encyclopedias to verify and found nothing.
Sorry about that. Your thread deserves better.

_____________con'd @ 9.91

 
Human existence is neither illusion (East) nor corruption (West). It is a focal point where the universal becomes particular, hence personal. Since the particular point of reference moves by expanding back into the universal, those who would attempt to describe it as static out of desire for fixed meaning and value cannot do so without seeing it as illusion or corruption of a static ideal.

But---what if true ideals are incorruptible? What if the corruption amounts only to underdeveloped ways of seeing, which are the sources of all illusions? Why should the human psychic trinity of body, mind and spirit be seen as devided or devisive? Doesn't holy simply mean being whole? What we see is what we can make or do, which is our experiences of ourselves. What we see is who we are at any given moment of seeing.

The void is an illusion. Were this not so an illusion could not be considered as anything other than its appearance. Yet, its appearance can be deconstructed. That this can be done does not make the void any less real for anyone who sees the unknown as unknowable or who sees personal meaning and value as dependent on stasis rather than on process, on polarity rather than on complementation, on lines of demarcation between phases of process rather than on fluid continuums of growth and development.

The physical world is rife with possibility and potential. These characterize our free will and our ability to create. Being is its own right to be. Being is becoming. Fear is natural protection so long as it is not the lens for all seeing. We are not souls trapped in bodies. We are bodies attempting to recognize our souls.

_____________con'd @ 9.92

Doug 06.25.07  0.11  (14)

Creating this post was particularly difficult. In my view we generate the spirit component of our body/mind/spirit by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Without some measure of this natural activity there is no spirit and no life. Ideally it should be our only activity but it isn't. Blended with our natural activity is the inherited unnatural activity of trying to fill the void, that actually replaces our natural activity. In so doing unnatural activity not only restricts our ability to "...reach out..." thus to generate spirit , it diminishes our spirit as well, both to the extent we try to fill the void. The person closest to me and my greatest source of spirit is my 91 year old mother who has lived with me for the last six and a half years. During the last 4 weeks my formerly elderly but healthy 91 year old mother appears to have become frail elderly. Seeing her lose her spirit is draining mine. When this loss is compounded by the wars, terrorist's bombings, the battles against pedophile clubs, the conflict over same sex marriage in the Anglican Church, excessive repetitive "mundane babble" on ILP and all the other spirit sucking activity I see and hear about everyday, my spirit is being diminished more quickly than it can be generated.

I have four siblings that in my view should reach back to me to help bear the weight of our mother's decline. For a moment this past week I had hope that the one of my two sisters who lives a day trip away might make the effort to reach back. She responded to the dozens of emails I have sent to her and my other siblings to keep them appraised of our condition. After a brief phrase of thanks my sister told me she liked reading about Lord Nelson, my male cat who when he is awake is so bored he follows me around to see if I do anything interesting. Apparently he finds watching me clean my teeth interesting so it has become his habit to jump onto the toilet tank then up to the window sill to get the best view. Usually he performs this routine without newsworthy incident but one day his back left paw landed on the flush lever instead of the tank top. After flushing the toilet he lost his balance and fell backward into the garbage can which he knocked over as he scrambled out. As only cats can he lifted his head and tail and calmly walked away as if nothing had happened.

I suggested to my sister that our memories of perceived offenses should be as short. Then thinking I might have thawed her heart somewhat and that she might be trying to force the sides of her mind apart I gave her the link to another cat story I thought she would like, that is on my website. Neither she nor my other three siblings gave me the couple minutes it would have required to read the story. I am not sure of the excuses any of them would have given for not reading the short memory of my first cat. However, after my brother-in-law read my view of "Sin" and "Life After Death" and my sister read Harmony a poem I wrote for her in an effort to create some harmony several months ago, I believe they decided both me and my website should be burned at the stake for heresy.

I wrote the note at the beginning of a week during which it seemed our mother could die at anytime. I had become more and more anxious with each day. I felt I really could have benefited from any indication there was a brother or sister at the other end of my emails. Though a small indication, reading that short story about my beloved cat Puss would have had a huge impact that would have lasted a life time. Had my sister and other siblings reached back to me at this time of extreme stress they would have gained respect and given me a much needed 'puff' of spirit. By greeting me with a wall of silence they instead sucked some spirit from me. My interpretation of this situation is that in their effort to fill the void, three of the four have "followed the Lord" for so many years they can't find their way back to me. I have less of an idea of what happened to the fourth, a younger brother who lives five minutes away. His inability to reach back could be due to an effort to fill the void with preeminence which he perceives he can't do in my company. Whatever, though his effort is different from the others it has precisely the same effect. When trying to fill the void we can't reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. .

I do have a cousin, a Christian surprisingly, who "...reaches out..." and infuses my fabric of existence with a 'puff' of spirit quite regularly. She looks after her father, my mother's brother. We share the joy and sorrow of living with declining parents. I also have a special niece. In addition, last week I received a "puff of spirit" from the most unlikely source, a member of ILP. Kriswest spent time with me here early in the life of this thread. This time however, we were having a conversation in the creative writing forum, stimulated by my poem Heaven which is also about divisions. During the course of our conversation I left a link to a short piece I wrote called Humanity Divided 2. Not only did she open the link she commented on God Loses, another short view. From one of her stories I gathered she can't refuse refuge to a stray cat so I left her the same link to the story of my first cat that I gave to my sister, only she read the story. Then she came back a third time. Kris' "reaching back" was totally unexpected. Typically an exchange of messages on ILP occurs when someone says something that activates someone else's play button and they send a recorded message. Kris was definitely not the first member of ILP to follow a link I've left in my posts and to the considerable number of those who have followed those links I express my sincere gratitude. However, Kris was the first to respond and at the perfect time. Like all members of ILP she holds tightly to a great number of views and opinions but for a moment it seems she let loose with a message that wasn't a recording. For a short time she was my surrogate sister.

I will be pleasantly surprised if I receive this "reach back" again from any ILP member. This really is an uptight group of individuals that I may yet discover is a representative example of humanity. I will be shocked to the point of cardiac arrest if any of my siblings let loose their views. Ah! and what about me? Should I not consider the views of others? Well, I think I have considered the views of many others both living and dead, for the past 45 or so of my 60 years. This is precisely why I hold the view that the views we hold, our efforts to fill the void, restrict us from "...reaching out..." to family members and to the family of humanity. The results are "the wars, terrorists' bombings, the battles against pedophile clubs, the conflict over same sex marriage in the Anglican church, excessive repetitive 'mundane babble' and all the other spirit sucking activity I see and hear about every day". These restrictive views cause conflict in families. As my sister so astutely observed at a time when I suggested we work at getting along better, "Your unbelief is an impediment to our getting along." Nevertheless, I will keep trying until I run out of spirit. That will happen if activities that withdraw spirit from my being continue to exceed its generation. Under the present circumstances I lose spirit daily. Occasionally it is replaced. I am sure I will take a huge hit the day my mother dies. I hope I have sufficient reserves.

Update Aug 18. After venting here on June 25 I didn't write to my siblings for about 2 weeks. Sometime during the interval my younger sister commented on a poem I wrote called Mother's Leaving. At the end of the interval my older brother phoned to see why I hadn't written. I began writing letters again. Since, my younger brother has visited twice. Two weeks ago my older sister visited for the day. Most helpful though, my mother had recovered her health enough that the three of us went on a berry picking excursion. There is hope and renewed spirit.

_____________ 

Coyote Ugly 06.25.07  17.1  (14)

God defined as a true being is a false image of God, only a mere icon.
For God must remain always one step beyond our imagination, or he ceases to be God, that of whom which none greater can be conceived.

Closer still to God are the godless ones, who exist on the edge of the void of chaos and nothingness with unceasing dedication to create the world of the highest imaginings, one step at a time.

Teetering at the edge of the void, the Will to creation becomes most finely tuned.

_____________con'd @ 17.2

Coyote Ugly 06.26.07  17.2  (14)

Ierrellus wrote:
 For any who think this matter is trivial;, the current resurrection of an old culture war between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists could not be possible without firm beliefs in self-affirming absolutes at the expense of any future of mankind. The crusader and the jihadist are true believers, i. e., they have attempted to split spirit from body and mind with disasterous results.

Coyote Ugly wrote: 
The allies of jihadist nihilism in the modern instance are simply not the Christian fundamentalist, but the nihilism of Western liberalism instead.

On the surface it would seem odd that the religious, fundamentalist jihadist of the far right could end up sharing the same bed with the far left secularists who for all appearances would seem to be their polar opposite.

But, dig a little deeper, and it is the contempt for life that binds these two groups of Chomskyists and Ayotollahs into such a bizarre fornication of wills.

For the Ayotollahs, it is the classical nihilism of the afterworld, and the classical contempt of the illusory life in favor of the 'Real World' of the spirit that drive them to proclaim that they hate life and love death.

It is the same disease that Nietzche diagnosed in Christianity in centuries past.

For the Chomskyists, their embarrassment and contempt for their own life and their own Western heritage is only a more progressed and entrenched form of the same nihilsitc condition.
Really, the twin serpents of the Chomskyists and the jihadists are entwined into a symbiotic union of mutual benefit. The jihadists rely on the leftists media to fight their war in theater of propoganda. They rely on leftist cyncism to continue to propogate the valueness of the modern life, be it on the streets of London, Madrid or Palestine, to supply them with an unending supply of suicidal youth.
And the Chomskyists, useful idiots that they are, welcome their jihadist executioners, as only those too jaded and decadent to continue on living can.

Their nihilism is of course a fatal condition at any rate, and birth rates aproaching 1.35 are a sure indication of this.

To the extent that it is the Christian fundamentalist that are being vehemently opposed by both these forms of nihilistic thought, it is probably just not accurate to place the modern Christian crusader on the same nihilsitc course as the leftists and the jihadists.

(Perhaps there is just something about American values of motherhood and apple pie, after all, that provides a reprieve from such a condition for the American Christian fundamentalists. ).

Even if, compared to vigorous conquering sprits of the past, the American Christian is hardly an icon of greatness.....
yet for all that, relative to the leftists in the last throes of civilization, they evidently have enough of greatness left in their cause to stir up the old resentiments.

 ____________con'd @ 17.3

 Doug 06.26.07  17.3  (14)

In my last post I wrote:
Typically an exchange of messages on ILP occurs when someone says something that activates someone else's play button.

Right on cue 2 hours later the Ugly Coyote began to howl. Coyote Ugly, had you turned your recording off at the end of, "God defined as a true being is a false image of God, only a mere icon. For God must remain always one step beyond our imagination, or he ceases to be God, that of whom which none greater can be conceived.", I  would have thought you may be Coyote Ugly but you could also be Coyote Smart. Unfortunately you let it run on, and on, and on...and without stopping you picked out another quote and let it run on, and on.... You have been here 12 days. I've been here over a year. I have heard your recording a hundred times. You could have played it on as many threads. I feel like Bob Eliot describing the Komodo dragon to Ray Goulding. If you are too young to know what I am talking about, search Komodo dragon or Bob and Ray and play the audio. I'd find it for you but it's been my experience I'd be wasting my time.

By what you have written I do not know what is your notion of the void. Here is the link to my essay "the void" (it took no time to find). In it you will see that in my view what we create while "teetering at the edge of the void" as you put it , are ways we can try to fill the void that we then label Christian fundamentalist, Islamic fundamentalist, jihadist nihilism, Western liberal nihilism, Chomskyists and on and on and on...(this is a recording). As I have said 100 times before or perhaps it's now 101 times, the labels are really completely irrelevant. It is not what we try to fill the void with rather it is the act of trying to fill the void that creates all the shit that's happening.

Now, if you would like to talk to me some more about what I've written in these 14 pages during the past year, do some reading first. If you just wish to make groundless definitive statements as if you were born an authority, start your own thread or play your recording on another thread because this dialogue is not worth taking this thread further from my last post which, if you read, will explain why I am a bit edgy these days. I make no apology.

_____________con'd @ 17.4

Coyote Ugly 06.29.07  17.4  (14) 

Hmm, the first post was a response to my poem in the OP, which captured my interest.
I never really read much further in the thread at that point.
Since I would have thought that that was most immediately relevant to your interests here, I would have thought that is what you may have engaged me on that as you recognized some of your works taking root in a reader- a student of your own works as it were.

But no, it was my response to another poster, totally unrelated to the first that was directly relevant to your own poetry, that seemingly pushed your own play button into overdrive. (It's stuck on pompous, btw).

I would have hoped that you would have been more interested in the first, and would be able to ignore the second, if that is not what really interest you. Instead, you all but ignored the first, and reacted only to the second-which was directed at another poster after all!

Unfortunate, isn't it, that no one left any comentary on your poem, in the link provided in the OP. I was going to, but for my impulse led me to place it here instead.
I can see why that no one had commented there, though, after reading your response to me here. Any good ideas you may have are all but obscured by the pomposity and general unpleasantness of your dismeanenor toward you fellow posters.

But now that I have discovered a little of the actual personality behind what on first impression I had found to be a well-thought out philosophy of life, I guess I am not really intested in engaginig you any more. If that is all the effect that such ideas have had on their own creator, apparently they could not really be all that relevant anyways.
Like faith, even wisdom imust be dead without a corresponding inner transformation of the one philsophizing.

 ____________con'd @ 17.5

Doug 06.29.07  17.5  (14)

Coyote, to repeat, I had no idea the first 2 lines of your post:
"God defined as a true being is a false image of God, only a mere icon. For God must remain always one step beyond our imagination, or he ceases to be God, that of whom which none greater can be conceived. Closer still to God are the godless ones, who exist on the edge of the void of chaos and nothingness with unceasing dedication to create the world of the highest imaginings, one step at a time." was related to anything I had written. I made no reference to a poem in my original post. I did however leave a link the last why which is a poem. I also placed the link in my signature where I do identify it as a poem but I seriously doubt you read it. It is 1600 words long and if your first two lines are a reaction to it while your second post is in reaction to Ierrellus' post, I should be even more impatient that I was. My guess is that you clicked on God in my signature and read that 80 word poem. I have to guess because the word "God" is the only thing your comment and my poem have in common. If anyone who reads both says what you wrote and my poem have more than the word "God" in common I will apologize.

You have misinterpreted as pomposity my increasing impatience with 'video game philosophy'. There is nothing in this thread that is "unrelated". 

You are wrong to think I ignored your first post. It was your totally unrelated references to the void that pushed my impatience button. You are fortunate that I responded to your second post which was to Ierrellus. He and I have had 90 cordial conversations. On other threads he has been considerably more impatient than I was with you. 

 I will consider your assessment of me along side Ierrellus and the other contributors that have given longevity to this thread.

_____________end

Ierrellus 07.09.07  9.92  (14)

My concept of the void has little to do with religion and politics except as they exist in attempts to fill it, as Doug has consistently argued well. It has to do with first-hand experience. Suffering from major depression, my mind often drops into an abyss of nothingness. In that place there is no meaning or value. In that place everything I have done, said or thought appears to be sand blowing in the wind. I would not wish this experience on my enemies, much less on my friends. Yet, these deflations of ego appear, when I'm able to survive them, as good antidotes for personal hubris and as renewed, fresh ground for creative endeavors.

It is some comfort for me to realize that this experience is universal, is not the sole province of us lunatics. Eastern and Western religions and philosophies are rife with examples of deep thinkers who have met the void and who have proposed ideas as to how one can survive this experience and restore meaning from its default position. Enough said.

_____________con'd @ 9.93

Doug 07.18.07  9.93  (14)

 Ierrellus, I don't usually take this long to reply to a post of yours but I was delayed by an edit. On June 24 I wrote a post (06.25.07  0.11  (14)) about "spirit", specifically my diminishing spirit. A few days ago prior to copying it to my website I reread it and I didn't like what I had written which didn't surprise me, given the circumstances. My first thought was to delete it; but not only is that against the law, it would have made a mess of my thread. So in case anyone happens to read it again I rewrote the post.  Now to your posts.

Ierrellus wrote:
 Human existence is neither illusion (East) nor corruption (West). It is a focal point where the universal becomes particular, hence personal. Since the particular point of reference moves by expanding back into the universal, those who would attempt to describe it as static out of desire for fixed meaning and value cannot do so without seeing it as illusion or corruption of a static ideal.

But---what if true ideals are incorruptible? What if the corruption amounts only to underdeveloped ways of seeing, which are the sources of all illusions? Why should the human psychic trinity of body, mind and spirit be seen as devided or devisive? Doesn't holy simply mean being whole? What we see is what we can make or do, which is our experiences of ourselves. What we see is who we are at any given moment of seeing.

The void is an illusion. Were this not so an illusion could not be considered as anything other than its appearance. Yet, its appearance can be deconstructed. That this can be done does not make the void any less real for anyone who sees the unknown as unknowable or who sees personal meaning and value as dependent on stasis rather than on process, on polarity rather than on complementation, on lines of demarcation between phases of process rather than on fluid continuums of growth and development.

The physical world is rife with possibility and potential. These characterize our free will and our ability to create. Being is its own right to be. Being is becoming. Fear is natural protection so long as it is not the lens for all seeing. We are not souls trapped in bodies. We are bodies attempting to recognize our souls.

In this post you have created a vision only parts of which I see. If I were to use the words "illusion", "corruption" and "ideal" in the description of my view, I would say our present existence is corrupted by illusions we have created which restrict the dynamic ideal. When I use the word "ideal" the meaning I intend is "best suited". The ideal in my view is the biologically determined natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God which I suggest is the only activity "suited" for life. It is the only activity by which we create meaning that I propose is the ideal reaction to the void. In my view this ideal is "incorruptible" and immutable. I maintain a measure of natural activity is a prerequisite of life. However, the amount we engage in is diminished by the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void by which we create the restrictive "static ideal" illusions such as the perfect religious life, that corrupt our existence. The harder we try to fill the void, the greater the illusion and the more corrupted will be our existence.

I don't think my definition of the void can be considered an illusion. I define it simply as the answer we find when we ask the last why, the ultimate question of meaning. I can't imagine how I would go about deconstructing the notion of a missing answer. In the ideal I do imagine seeing the void as a benign white emptiness upon which we 'paint' our self-realization. However, the less natural activity we engage in the more the white emptiness disintegrates exposing the illusion of a self-destructive black hole that for the sake of humanity should be deconstructed and emptied. By emptying the void we allow existence to become body/mind/spirit in the ideal reaction to the void, the continuous "process...of growth and development", the process of self-realization.

I am not sure what you have in mind when you say "It(human existence) is a focal point where the universal becomes the particular..." I can connect and only vaguely to this thought if I substitute the words collective and individual. Then I can imagine a camera in space focusing on humanity and then zooming in until it focuses on a single individual; but then it is the focal point of the camera that is moving from the collective to the individual and not existence moving back and forth from particular to universal.

Finally, I have no difficulty with the first five sentences of your last paragraph but you lose me when you say "We are not souls trapped in bodies. We are bodies attempting to recognize our souls." "Soul" is one of those inherited religious/philosophical illusions that I believe has contributed to the corruption of our existence over the millennia. It is a static ideal we could argue over for an entire life time and never get anywhere. In fact a "Sisyphus" introduced the concept yet again in a thread not long ago. The closest I would come to a similar statement is that from the point of conception we are potential attempting to become realized. 

Ierrellus wrote:
My concept of the void has little to do with religion and politics except as they exist in attempts to fill it, as Doug has consistently argued well. It has to do with first-hand experience. Suffering from major depression, my mind often drops into an abyss of nothingness. In that place there is no meaning or value. In that place everything I have done, said or thought appears to be sand blowing in the wind. I would not wish this experience on my enemies, much less on my friends. Yet, these deflations of ego appear, when I'm able to survive them, as good antidotes for personal hubris and as renewed, fresh ground for creative endeavors.

It is some comfort for me to realize that this experience is universal, is not the sole province of us lunatics. Eastern and Western religions and philosophies are rife with examples of deep thinkers who have met the void and who have proposed ideas as to how one can survive this experience and restore meaning from its default position. Enough said.

In your previous post you said the void is an illusion and then went on to create a vision I felt I needed to clarify. When I first read this post my initial inclination was to click the "quote" button and then type "indeed; enough said". You have experienced my definition of "the void" at depth I appreciate you not wanting me to know. However, I also struggle with thoughts that what I do is meaningless. It is of great comfort to me having you support both by personal experience and by the information you've acquired through extensive reading, my contention the experience could be universal. In my view the reason it may not be accepted as universal is that it is possible by restricting our mental activity, to maintain an inherited reaction to the void to the extent the question which uncovers the void is never asked.

It is also comforting to know that you as well survive the winds, in your case the tornado of meaninglessness, with creative endeavour. I am not sure what you have in mind when you use this phrase. As I just said, in my view creative endeavour is biologically determined natural activity, the only activity that can create meaning. It is reaching out to the limits of my capacities, reaching out to others because I need others to reach out to the limits of my capacities, and reaching out to God because I choose to live in the freedom of possibility rather than die in the prison of certainty.

_____________con'd@ 9.94 

Ierrellus 07.19.07  9.94  (14)

  Much to consider here, Doug. First, I use the word "soul" in your sense of the reaching out we do. The word has gained some credence in books such as Carl Jung's "Modern Man In Search Of A Soul" and Francis Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search For The Soul." In both instances, that of the psychologist and the scientist, the word "soul" is used to describe a part of the human pyche. Religions have no monopoly on the word. Philosophers from Plato on have used it in various ways, some to support religious dogmas, some to express the human reach to anything beyond themselves.

As for illusion, we humans are animals in dire need of having events enhanced by meanings and values. This is doubtlessly the result of our having acquired a cortex which renders us self-conscious. Illusion is in the eye of the beholder! I cannot condemn, however noxious they might to me, beliefs of persons whose senses of meaning and value are dependent on some need of a static rest from the horrors of change--that is unless their need is used to deny my existence. We humans saw stars in the night sky and connected the dots. We saw every force in skies, seas, forests and field as beings, as good or evil spirits. Illusion is the reality we try to outgrow.

_____________con'd @ 9.95

Doug 07.27.07  9.95  (14)

Ierrellus, in my view illusion and soul should be discussed in the same post. That was my plan. However, while searching for soul I had an interesting trip from which I haven't completely returned. Give me a few more days and I will tell you about my search. In the meantime I would like to comment on a related but side issue.

Ierrellus wrote:
I cannot condemn, however noxious they might to me, beliefs of persons whose senses of meaning and value are dependent on some need of a static rest from the horrors of change--that is unless their need is used to deny my existence.

In my OP I introduced my view that our individual activity weaves a fabric of existence all of which more or less weave together to from the fabric of humanity. Our activities are motivated by our "beliefs" that I call our reactions to the void. I suggest our present collection of "beliefs" is threatening our "existence"; and if it matters that humanity survives we have a responsibility to "condemn" all "beliefs" including our own that are contributing conflict to and destroying the fabric of humanity. In my view the time for tolerating our perceived individual right to fill the void in our own way is long past. One of those ways includes the illusion of the soul and the significance placed on its salvation.

_____________con'd @ 9.96 

Doug 08.11.07  9.96  (14)

 Ierrellus, while considering whether or not to begin the second part of my reply to your post by reiterating my contention humanity would be best served by deleting the word "soul" from our language, I decided to search "origin of soul". It was a serendipitous decision. On top of the page that appeared was "Church Fathers: On the soul and its origins (Augustine)". When I clicked on the entry I discovered why J.K. Rowlings has a long way to go to become the greatest writer of fiction. Augustine wrote four books on the origin of a philosophical illusion. Before leaving the site to search elsewhere for my 'soul' I clicked on a link to "Fathers of the Church" and discovered the reason the church is so messed up. It had 60 fathers; and since its birth, who knows how many sons of fathers have had a hand in guiding the 'child'.

After leaving that site my next click was on Wikipedia. In a box below a short introductory paragraph I clicked on etymology and found my 'soul'. I read: "The word "soul" is clearly an adaptation by early missionaries to the Germanic peoples...of a native German concept coined as a translation of the Greek psyche, "life, spirit, consciousness. The particular myth was that the spirits of the dead resided at the bottom of the sea and that "soul" might be a derivation of a German word for sea. Apparently psyche is derived from a verb meaning "to cool, to blow" an obvious reference to breathing; and it seems plausible that psyche is connected somewhere farther back along the line to the Hebrew word "nephesh" that means "life, vital breath".

As I read I retrieved from 45 year old archives a story I think is true but do not want to take the time to verify. It seems another Christian missionary was trying to convey to an African tribe the meaning of the words. "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in me". The problem was the people the missionary was trying to convert believed that if any internal organ could be troubled it was the liver. So in translation the first sentence of the quote became "Let not your liver quiver;", that like "soul" was yet another brick in the tower of babble we've created in our effort to explain the inexplicable while trying to answer the unanswerable.

I searched both Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis: the scientific search for the soul" and Jung's "Modern Man in Search for a Soul". I read neither. However, I read one reviewer of T.A.H. that didn't even mention the "s" word. It seems the title of Crick's book could have been "T.A.H.: brain physiology" but that wouldn't have been sexy enough to sell the book. Crick's hypothesis is, "(Our) joys and (our) sorrows, (our)memories and (our) ambitions, ( our) sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerves and their associated molecules". Another reviewer essentially said Crick is full of crap. He has probably also written that Darwin too was full of crap because any suggestion the world was not created in six days 6000 years ago would have been another threat to a component in his reaction to the void. I couldn't find a review of Jung's 80 year old book but I gather the title of it could have been "Modern Man's Search for Meaning in Dreams".

Nothing I read has changed my opinion any search for our "soul" and efforts to save it are as unnatural as would be searching for and trying to save the unicorn. Instead, I believe what we should be doing is searching for our spirit, our "nephesh" our "vital breath". Evidence of spirit can be found for unlike our "soul", spirit is biological. In my view I have defined spirit as our 'light of life'. I suggest the source of spirit is the continuum of natural physical/mental activity with which we reach out to the limits of our physical/mental capacities, to others and to God. This natural activity generates the 'electricity of life' that powers our 'light'. The continuum of activity generates a spectrum of spirit that at the physical end is indistinguishable from "vital" breathing, our fundamental natural activity. King Lear looked for it in his daughter Cordelia by watching for the motion of the feather he held next to her mouth. Had it moved, Lear would have seen the 'light' flicker. Then had Cordelia opened her eyes, moved, got up, reached out to hug her father and danced around the room shouting, "I am alive", Lear would have been seeing her spirit becoming 'brighter' with both increasing natural physical/mental activity and the completion of its spectrum to the last mental aspect of "vital breath".

This is the end of an act but not the end of the 'play'. Had Cordelia revived as imagined, King Lear, almost completely dispirited by the apparent loss of his daughter, would have felt the 'electricity of life' return to his being as he reconnected to his daughter. Indeed, in the second act Lear would have seen evidence that though we generate spirit with our natural activity, it is a biological fact that we cannot reach out to the limits of our capacities in isolation. Thus we can neither generate nor maintain any level of spirit without reaching out to others beginning with our mothers and ending with reaching out to all of humanity, the mother of us all. In the third act we reach out to God because it seems we are unable to generate spirit unless we reach out beyond ourselves.

I suggest we should be looking for spirit because in my view our spirit continues to diminish. I make this assessment based on the fact that to generate spirit we need to reach out to others and while we are without doubt "reaching out..." to the extent we are not in a situation of total conflict, there appears to be more conflict than "reaching out..."; and the trend seems to be toward increasing separation from our natural, spirit generating activity. It was a process that began when our ancestors were first becoming self-aware. There should be no question our ancestors first made the association between loss of blood and loss of life and concluded blood was the visible, physical essence of life. However, it couldn't have been too long after that they noticed death occurring without loss of blood but with the cessation of breathing and concluded breathing was the invisible essence of life. They called this essence 'spirit' a name derived from their word for breathing. They then concluded their spirit was the part of them that dreamed; and that when they died their spirit went to the place of dreams. Next our ancestors connected breezes with the spirits of their departed ancestors and concluded a strong wind was evidence of a great spirit who they decided must be the source of all spirit.

This might have seemed like a good idea at the time but in retrospect, making God the source of spirit, separated us from our source of spirit. The separation was initially insignificant but in our minds God became gods that then isolated us from each other. Over time following our 'gods' took us further from the natural activity that generates spirit. The increasing unnatural activity has even separated us from nature to the extent we can see the possibility our human spirit is diminished to the level we will take our last vital breath. It is as possible as not it does not matter that we self-destruct. However, if it does matter we won't know if we do. So, if we like the possibility of discovering it matters that we continue to breath we really should begin again looking for spirit at its source. If we do I suggest that in addition to saving our spirit, while looking for it we will also find a sense of meaning, for reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the source of spirit, is also incidentally the ideal reaction to the void.

Given my view, I would encourage Francis Crick to abandon his search for our "soul" and instead search for our spirit. I am quite confident when he finds the biological mechanisms responsible for our spectrum of spirit he will confirm what we already instinctively know, that they are activated by natural activity. However, he will still be left wondering why; and he might then discover the spirit of God.

_____________con'd @ 9.97

Sauwelios 08.11.07  18.1  (14)

I want to reply to your OP again in the light of new insights I have had. 

Doug wrote:
 Although we don't think of our lives in this way, I suggest they are reactions to the void. I see the void being simply what we discover when we question the meaning of life, ask the question I call "the last why". I suggest the void is our motivating force. If we haven't already, we will get a sense that life is this reaction to the void when part of an 'inheritance' we probably didn't even know seemed to be giving meaning to our life, is removed and we experience the emptiness most often referred to as the void. Once its effect is felt, we don't take long reacting to the void.

We can think of our reactions to the void as weaving fabrics of existence with 'threads' of activity. There are only two types. Natural activity is reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Its consequence is self-realization. Unnatural activity is trying to fill the void.

  The idea of "others" and the idea of "God" are themselves plugs to stop the plug hole.

_____________con't @ 18.2

Doug 08.11.07  18.2  (14)

Is there any chance these are insights you can share?

As I was reading this quote from my OP I realized "the void is a motivating force" could imply I am saying the void is actually a force acting on us. I do not wish to leave that impression so I replaced the second sentence with "The missing answer cannot be a force that acts on us; but I suggest merely being aware of the void causes us to react." I hope my meaning is now clearer. Had you not published this quote I may not have thought of clarifying my ideas. Thanks.

Sauwelios wrote:
The idea of "others" and the idea of "God" are themselves plugs to stop the plug hole. 

Although it doesn't seem like you wrote this sentence with your usual care and precision I am going to assume I know what you meant and agree your observation could be correct. In my view "others" and "God" are involved in both natural activity and the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void. One of the eight ways I suggest we try to fill the void is with our religious/philosophical reaction, essentially answers to "the last why" with which we try to fill the void. In the religious aspect we find pre-packaged MacGods that are definitely part of the "plug". In a specific example of using "others" I suggest we have a romantic reaction to the void based on the myth the love of another can "plug" the void. On the other hand, in natural activity there is no notion of consuming God or the love of another in an effort to fill the void. Indeed, in natural activity the emphasis is on "reaching out.." to connect with others and God while reaching out to the limits of our capacities.

In theory, I can identify two hands. In fact they work together but one dominates. One of the characteristics of using the wrong hand is conflict. One of the characteristics of using the right hand is unconditional cooperation. Given the predominance of conflict in our fabric of existence it is reasonable to conclude "others" and "God" can only be "plugs". However, I suggest that by using the right hand to remove conflict from our existence we will feel the ideal connection with others and God that creates a sense of meaning that minimizes the indirect effect of the void.

I think I have conveyed these ideas as well in LOVE, GOD, and HEAVEN

_____________con'd @ 18.3

Sauwelios 08.13.07  18.3  (14)

Doug wrote:
Is there any chance these are insights you can share?

It is the "philosophy" of one Harry Neumann, whose out-of-print book "Liberalism" I have recently finally obtained. 

 "Stopping the plug hole" is just another way of saying "filling the void". You say:

"Natural activity is reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Its consequence is self-realization. Unnatural activity is trying to fill the void."

I do not distinguish the two, and contend that the imagining of "others" and "God" is itself an attempt to fill the void. Indeed, you mention "self-realization"; and my critique of "God" and "others" is essentially a critique of the idea of a "self" ("God" and "others" are just outward projections of this idea).

"[S]cience is the simple realization that whatever is experienced -- a self, a world, the law of contradiction, or anything else -- is nothing apart from its being experienced. When students complain of "identity crises," I tell them not to worry, since neither they nor anyone else has an identity about which to have a crisis! For science, genuine knowledge of reality, reveals a world of nothing but empty experiences, impressions as Hume called them."
[Liberalism, page 140.]

In Heidegger's terms, who phrased your "last why" (Why am I?) as "Why is there something at all, and not rather nothing?", the question is made obsolete by Nietzsche's insight that the idea of "Being", of "things", is an error.

"Nihilism means that nothing -- and only nothing! -- has an identity or nature, a being not subject to radical change at any moment. No natural or divine support exists to reinforce the common-sense faith that anything is more than nothing. Nothing is more than what it experiences or what is experienced about it. Nothing is more than empty experiences (thoughts, perceptions, feelings, etc.), impressions as Hume called them. Nihilism is not solipsism nor does it make man the measure of things. The nihilist "self" or "man" which experiences its "world" is itself no more than empty impressions. It too is nothing."
[ibid., page 27.]

_____________con'd @ 18.4

Joker 08.13.07  19.1  (14)

Man's reaction is absurd and the void is a natural existance that just is.

_____________con'd @ 19.2

intro. page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  16 comments

Doug 03.05.07  11².2  (13)

Membrain, had I not been nearing the end of a major addition to my website I would have been annoyed with your post. At the time of our first exchange I felt I explained "the last why" simply, to the best of my ability and your follow-up question, which you reposted a few days ago, just indicated I could spend the rest of my life trying to explain "the last why" to you and you wouldn't get it. So I decided that I wouldn't continue and ignored your follow-up.

This thread is about 11 months old. I have put my supreme effort into every post. It is the kind of thread I wanted to have on my own site and a while back it occurred to me that is where it should be. I asked Ben if I could copy this thread to my site and he gave me permission. I just completed the 4 week process of copying yesterday. This link is to a short introduction to "dialogues" and at the bottom is an index. Click on 8 and when the page opens scroll down just less than 2/3 and look for "Membrain 09.14.06 11.1 (8) and you will find your original question and my thorough, simple reply.

The title of my website is "THE LAST WHY". When I set it up 20 months ago I added the subtitle "The essence of life", a reference to my poem "The Last Why" that for me explains the essence of life. I am not sure when but during the last month, perhaps when I was copying our first exchange, I had the idea of using the space allotted for a subtitle, to explain the significance of "the last why".

The statement that "the last why gave birth to humanity" which you found "ironic", is a very recent addition to my thoughts. I think the first time I expressed it was in the post where you found it. For me "why am I?", which I call "the last why" was the last in a series of questions that transformed "homo" into "Homo sapiens", a process it is hoped we repeat. However, after due consideration, I am allowing that the last why is at the same time the first why, a threshold question, the omega and the alpha, the death and the birth.

In the space allotted for the subtitle I can not include the notion of "the last and the first" and the more important consideration that when all other questions that can be asked are answered, "why am I?" will remain. It will be the "last why". So in my subtitle I included only the idea that the last why gave birth to humanity and that it will never be answered. I think I have done that. Only comments will tell.

Membrain, this has been a useful post. I will copy it to my web site. Thanks.

_____________con'd @ 11².3

Doug 03.05.07  14.2  (13)

North, I should leave your post here. You copied my OP and then ranted on about your own concept of god without reference to anything in my post. You could have capitalized your entire post and it would still remain weightless. I urge you to begin a thread of your own with this post of yours:

north wrote:
actually I think that it is a form of brainwashing thinking that this void is only filled , satisfactorily by some sort kind of concept of god. and quite frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing about it.

it is this concept of god(s) that has caused ALL this MESS in the World first place.

if we , as a being , a unique being , called Humans , in this Universe believed in ourselves, beyond any concept of god(s), our life , our existence , is more important than any teachings from any god , from the begining of our time in this Universe. WE would ALL RESPECT each other NATURALLY , no matter where in the World you were from.

I believe in the Human Spirit. and NO other , EVER. NATURALLY.

You could go on to define "the Human Spirit", and "EVER. NATURALLY" then make sense of your third collection of phrases. In the process you might help raise ILP from the trough of drivel that is diminishing the ranks of the legends.

_____________con'd @ 14.3

Membrain 03.05.07  11².3  (13)

Cool. Your flexibility is a testament to your thoughtfulness. While I still don't completely grasp your philosophy, it is encouraging to know that any comments will get an intelligent review. Well done and thanks for the positive experience!

_____________con'd @ 11².4

Doug  03.07.07  11².4  (13)

Membrain, it is gratifying to know you have made an effort to "grasp" my "bio-philosophy". It is not worth spit if I am the only one who can 'see' it. Perhaps sometime you will shine your light on another dark spot.

_____________end

north 03.05.07  14.3  (13)

the meaning of life , to us Humans should be the preservation of our very existence. and the Human Spirit. we see a " void " when we ask for the meaning of life because we simply don't respect our ourselves , we are not Proud of our own being. as a being in this Universe which has survived. we don't turn inward examine what we have been through to get to this point in time in our history.

disease, viruses, preditors, fear , wheather , and more of which this Earth and the Universe can throw at us. all of which were delt with by our ancestors. and allowed us to still be. and now that we have survived and evolved into a thinking being , we suddenly question what the meaning of " Life " is?

this concept of god has distorted and taken away , it seems , any hope of us Human Beings of ever , as a whole of Humanity , just simply believing in ourselves.

let me ask you this; if an astroid, big enough to destroy all life on Earth, 20km in size , was coming directly to Earth. would you do nothing and pray for god to do something. or would you use your brain power to think of a way to either destroy the astroid or divert it? to do the latter is the answer to your void question.

we have abstracted the " meaning of life " question to the point where the meaning of life has gone beyond our own existence. this concept of god has made our own existence seem irrelevant.

our existence is the meaning of life. it always has been and in the end all that matters. we just have to understand this. in the end

_____________con'd @ 14.4

Doug 03.07.07  14.4  (13)

North, you need a sluice box. I think I see a few 'nuggets' here but they are difficult to separate from all the 'gravel'. Again, you sound like a preacher, the only difference being you recite a collection of vaporous secular phrases. Your view of God is a certainty, mine is only a possibility. Based on the evidence to date I have no doubt that if all of humanity asked God to save us from the "asteroid" of global warming, we will prove with the "certainty" of our self-destruction that God was not in control. If on the other hand all of humanity reached out to the limits of our capacities, to each other and to God, I think we will live on and continue to wonder about the "possibility".

_____________con'd @ 14.5

kingdaddy 03.06.07  13.8  (13)

What if your question to the meaning of life has been comprehensively answered to your complete satisfaction, what if that Void has been filled, is your life over?

_____________con'd @ 13.9

Doug 03.07.07  13.9  (13)

Kingdaddy, I am surprised by your return visit given you are convinced you have the absolute truth. I can't imagine you have been plagued by doubt over the intervening weeks so perhaps you are just looking for another opportunity to present your view. Nevertheless, I appreciate your question because it gives me an opportunity to explain my view that absolutes are self-destructive.

The last time we talked you said you couldn't open the link I provided for "the void". The problem is definitely yours because I've had several people open the link since. If you have upgraded your browser here again is the link. If you still can't open it and want to read my short essay "the void", it is on page 11 of this thread in my Nov 29 10:59 post.

I can't answer your question with a yes or no but though it might seem a bit pedantic, I can tell you why. In my view the void can not be filled so I can't answer a question that begins with the premise that the "void has been filled". There is no question that we try to fill the void and I observe that we are making a hell of a mess of our existence trying to fill it with our materialistic reaction to the void, our religious/philosophical reaction and the other six ways we can try to fill the void.

Had you asked me "is (our) life over?" if we try exclusively to fill the void I would not have hesitated to answer, absolutely. In my view, to live is to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, which is the natural activity that is, incidentally, the ideal reaction to the void. Any effort to fill the void, with for example religious theories, restricts the ideal reaction and diminishes life in proportion to our efforts so the exclusive effort to fill the void means our life is over.

You are alive so by my definitions you are not trying exclusively to fill the void. However, given your conviction that you know the absolute truth I suggest you have restricted your natural activity and consequently diminished your life to the point you are somewhat more dead than alive. Like my sisters you can't reach out to the limits of your capacities, to me or others or to God because you have your 'arms' wrapped around your beliefs.

You are certainly not alone. The mess I suggest we are in at the present time is I believe, the consequence of humanity generally being absolutely convinced if we just try harder we can fill the void in our own way. Indeed, we are more dead than alive. Based on this assessment I maintain if we continue our present activity we will eventually be all dead. If we increase our efforts to fill the void we will self-destruct sooner rather than later. I hope it is not already to late and if it isn't, our only salvation is to empty the void of all ways we try to fill it and exclusively reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God.

_____________end

Coberst 03.09.07  15.1  (13)

Doug, I think that you have experienced understanding which I describe as the creation of meaning. I describe understanding as the peak experience that can happen when we go beyond just knowing. It is a constant building of a subjective experience which culminates in an unusual confluence of emotion and intellection.

I think that Becker puts all of these things together in his attempt to provide us with an intellectual comprehension of why humans do as they do. I think that few people have this kind of experience.

Becker tries to tie this together with the aesthetic experience. He does so with the help of the work of James Mark Baldwin �Thought and Things�. I have a �Friends of the Library� card from a local college and thus have access to a very large library and have borrowed a copy of Baldwin�s book. It is a tuff read but I am slowly getting a sense of the aesthetic and how it relates to the things that you and I have discovered. I do think that there is a definite correlation between what we do and what an artist does. We all create meaning and that is truly creative activity.

(this post was in response to Doug 03.02.07  0.9   (12) )

_____________con'd @ 15.2

Doug o3.11.07  15.2  (13)

Chuck, back in Doug 10.06.06 12.10 (10) I replied to a post by Jacob in which he used the phrase "create meaning". I had never used that phrase but the notion that reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God creates in us the greatest possible sense of meaning has always been fundamental to my view of life. For me the consequences of "reaching out..." has always been self-realization but I have no difficulty equating self-realization with self-creation. Still the phrase create meaning was one of those secular religious vaporous phrases until I changed it to "we all create (me)aning". Then the statement "by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God we create (me)aning" enhanced my view.

I don't think our analyses of my aesthetic experience are similarly congruent. I have replayed the experience over and over and I can not see in it any evidence that I was creating (me)aning. As I stated I think the experience of understanding certainly creates (me)aning. However, at the moment I am inclined to think the aesthetic experience goes beyond understanding and still creates in much of humanity as it has throughout our history, the possibility of God.

Chuck, you say Baldwin is a "tuff read". Has it ever occurred to you that it might be the more difficult a writer is to comprehend the less he knows about what he is writing. I may not have yet been able to communicate the fact but I think life is an easy read. It is simply a "reaction to the void".

_____________end

north 03.10.07  14.5  (13)

Doug wrote:
North, you need a sluice box. I think I see a few 'nuggets' here but they are difficult to separate from all the 'gravel'. Again, you sound like a preacher, the only difference being you recite a collection of vaporous secular phrases. Your view of God is a certainty, mine is only a possibility. Based on the evidence to date I have no doubt that if all of humanity asked God to save us from the "asteroid" of global warming, we will prove with the "certainty" of our self-destruction that God was not in control. If on the other hand all of humanity reached out to the limits of our capacities, to each other and to God, I think we will live on and continue to wonder about the "possibility".

actually my view is that whether god exists or not is, irrelevant , to our existence in the first place and always has been.

while we ponder the "possibility" of god , we , as Humans , must continue on with using our intelligence to , I hope in the end , to preserve our very existence.

for in the end the only thing that can let us down , Humans down , as far as our continued existence , is not the belief in any god or such.

but Really, is the belief in ourselves.

and in my experience , the belief in the Human Race is shamefully lacking.

our ancestors, from 50,000 yrs ago , and back further , would be appalled. by how we view ourselves.

_____________

justcurious wrote: north,
I agree and would add not only the belief in ourselves will continue our journey through life, but also a vision of where we are going, always someplace new, someplace better.

_____________con'd @ 14.6

north 03.12.07  14.6  (13)

I agree

your statement should take care of any "void". but "they" will continue to search for the answer to the void because "they" just don't get it.

you and I are in class of Humanity that there are very few members. and where there is NO void at all

_____________con'd @ 14.7

Doug 03.13.07  14.7  (13)

North, I am so happy you honored us with one last post to my thread because you really are wasting your time here. I think I managed to extract enough meaning from you first collection of phrases to say I don't share your view. I think our historical record is evidence enough to show that the "possibility" of God has been relevant "to our existence" now and "always has been". I think we are finding that as we dismiss the possibility we are becoming philosophical monsters for whom, given the technology, survival of the fittest is taking on new meaning.

I am just guessing but I think your second collection of phrases sounds close enough to "to preserve our very existence" we must reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God that I can agree with you but it really was a stretch.

A while back I wrote a poem I called SOLDIER'S LAMENT in which I tried to express a dead soldier's critical view of life. I thought you might be trying to convey the same sentiment in your last collection of phrases but I wasn't sure.

To decipher the three remaining collections of words whether taken separately or together has been a real struggle and thankfully your most recent post revealed the reason, so I can give up. You and justcurious truly "are in class of Humanity that there are few members". Your understanding of life is so superior to my own I wonder again why you are wasting your time commenting in this thread. For the second time I urge you to set up your own thread. The first time I suggested you start by explaining "Human spirit" and "Ever Naturally". To these I add "belief in ourselves" and "belief in the Human race". Justcurious could contribute to your thread by presenting "a vision of where we are going, always someplace new, someplace better". I listened to an interview with a man whose son was killed by the Atlanta tornado. He said, "My son is in someplace better". Perhaps that was the same place justcurious was talking about. Whatever, I look forward to seeing your thread lead the "class of Humanity" the rest of us are in, out of the darkness.

_____________end

Ierrellus 03.12.07  9.78  (13)

Doug,
You might wish to examine what Chinese philosophy has to say about the Void. Xunzian can best describe that.

_____________con'd @ 9.79

Doug 03.13.07  9.79  (13)

Ierrellus, you know how highly I regard your contributions to this thread but this one leaves me feeling we have temporarily lost our connection. I have described life as a reaction to the void because that allows me to suggest our efforts to fill the void have brought us to the brink of self-destruction. However, it has also allowed me to suggest that if there is still time, the only way to reverse our direction is to empty the void of all the ways we try to fill it allowing the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God to transform the void from the destructive black hole we have created into the impotent expanse of "white emptiness" that we would no longer talk about except to evoke the image of a 'canvas' on which we create ourselves. So I'm not sure why I should examine what Chinese philosophy has to say about the void when I suspect I would advocate removing it from the void along with all religious/philosophical reactions and the other 6 way we try to fill the void. However, as always I am open to education.

_____________con'd @ 9.80

Ierrellus 03.13.07  9.80  (13)

Doug,
There is little in Chinese philosophy that does not address your thesis and has done so centuries before any Western philosophers began to tackle the epistemological quandaries that arise from known experiences of being and becoming. The void, just as you describe it, was, and probably still is one of the hottest topics in Chinese philosophy. Why I would recommend that take on your subject is because the Chinese thinkers often seek to integrate or synthesize ideas, whereas we Westerners are happy making dichotomies and polarities, dead-end abstractions!

_____________con'd @ 9.81

Doug 03.20 07  9.81  (13)

Hi my good friend. I searched "the void" and Chinese Philosophy. All I saw was an unnecessarily complicated view of life that is an anathema to me. However, because you have read more than most, as always I am keenly interested in the reason you might have associated the words "dichotomies and polarities, dead-end abstractions!" to my writing. As far as I know the only "dead-end" I mention in my writing is self-destruction. It is definitely the opposite of open-ended self-realization but there is nothing I can do to reconcile them, nor would I want to. They are nevertheless on a continuum like the rest of what I see.

_____________con'd @ 9.82

Ierrellus 03.20.07  9.82  (13)

Doug,
I recommended certain aspects of Chinese philosophy, not as a criticism of anything you have said here, but as a possible expansion of your ideas. If you look closely, it is the arguments of those who oppose your entire thesis that rely on dead-end abstractions. Personally, I opt for dynamic, organic considerations, which is why I posted in your thread in the first place and which is why my posts elsewhere suffer.

_____________con'd @ 9.83

Doug 03.27.07  9.83  (13)

Ierrellus, I always welcome opportunities to thank you for posting "in (my) thread in the first place". "My posts elsewhere suffer" as well. I am not sure why. A few months ago Bill Walton said my explanation of life was "an over simplification". He became quite irate when I questioned how an explanation can be over simplified, especially an explanation of life which is inherently simple. Still he unintentionally make a good point. As long as he is convinced life is complex he will never understand my explanation. Likewise, my Christian siblings will never understand the freedom they claim Christianity gives them is only the freedom to quit thinking.

If restricted minds on a philosophical site are the reason my posts suffer then I will quit writing sometime. In the meantime I am hoping that the readers of my thread are just unfamiliar with my language. In an effort to make it more familiar I have been rewriting a precis of my essay that contains my full view of life. I am at this time working on the last few paragraphs in which I explain that our individual reactions to the void combine to form our collective reaction to the void, the resultant reaction of humanity. I will use the image in my original post in which I suggest we consider the natural and unnatural activity in our reactions to the void, threads of activity we weave into a fabric of existence that becomes part of the fabric of humanity. You will know what I mean, no dichotomy, no polarity, no room for any discussion of individuals separate from some segment or all, of humanity. Indeed, we are in this life together

Someone else who would understand is Tu Weiming. Unfortunately, I think he is dead. I found this gem in Xunzian's signature.

"The more one penetrates into one’s inner self, the more one will be capable of realizing the true nature of one’s human-relatedness. . . . The profound person does not practice self-watchfulness for the intrinsic value of being alone. In fact, he sees little significance in solitariness, unless it is totally integrated into the structure of social relations."

When I finish my precis I will publish it on my website right next to the more compact and thus perhaps more intimidating poetic presentation of my view. Even at precis length it doesn't fit into the context of this forum but I will at least post a link to it in Membrain's thread about "cutting edge philosophy". Perhaps it will attract the attention of one or two people who would be willing to help me hone it so I can be assured that language is not the problem. I need to know I've made it clear I am not presenting a "dead-end" answer. It is merely an explanation of why we answer and that the only possible answer to "the last why" is that we keep on looking. Otherwise we will self-destruct perhaps even by continuing to focus on money, the dominant answer in our present resultant reaction to the void.

_____________con'd @ 9.84

Murdoc 03.27.07  15.1  (13)

I wish I was in the making of this.

_____________con'd @ 15.2

Doug 04.03.07   15.2  (13)

 Murdoc, "I wish (everyone) was in the making of this" common existence of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the ideal reaction to the void. The alternative, the absolutely restrictive reaction of trying to fill the void in our own way is destroying humanity. We are generally so committed to "self-affirming absolutes" to quote my friend Ierrellus in "The problem with Kierkegaard", we can not be open to possibilities. My own absolutely committed Christian sister can't stand to be in my company because I once told her if God is, God wouldn't believe in Christianity or any other religious/philosophy. Our mother lives with me and my sister won't visit. Multiply that by 9 billion and you get a vision of humanity, each of us driving our vehicle through life looking in the rear view mirror and arguing about what we see. Is it any wonder we are about to "hit the wall". WAF waste.

_____________end 

Ierrellus 04.03.07  9.84  (13)

Doug,
My favorite book in the Bible is the NT Book of James. Right at the outset James explains that being holy means being whole. He goes on to explain that the wars outside us begin with wars inside us. The wars inside us amount to imagined conflicts between parts of the human, psychic trinity
of body, mind and spirit. (Edgar Cayce thought this human trinity is our image of God.) Religions that deny the value of mind or body inflame our inner conflicts, disallow our wholeness (holiness), which should be a given. Philosophies that deny body or spirit do the same.
In "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas", scholar Elaine Pagels notes that the Gospel of Thomas, with its ideas of a possible kingdom within, was probably left out of the NT because it seemingly contradicts the religious tenets the first "church fathers" believed were established by John. Likewise, it is a wonder that the book of James made it into the NT, since it is a direct argument agains Paul's faith formulation.
For any who think this matter is trivial;, the current resurrection of an old culture war between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists could not be possible without firm beliefs in self-affirming absolutes at the expense of any future of mankind. The crusader and the jihadist are true believers, i. e., they have attempted to split spirit from body and mind with disasterous results.

_____________con'd @ 9.85

Doug 04.11.07  9.85  (13)

Ierrellus, what a reassuringly post. I am just now finalizing the last paragraph in the hand written draft of the precis I referred to a couple posts ago. In the past few days I have been explaining conflict within us, between us and with Nature. In my view that we are body/mind/spirit in reaction to the void I say that at conception we began to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, an individual process of natural, biological change that more or less continues until we die. I say we become more or less what we are capable of being because we have inherited the ability to interfere with this ideal reaction to the void by introducing into our reaction a measure of the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void. It is by introducing the unnatural component that we create within us the conflict between it and the natural.

To explain the conflict between us I introduce the concept of a resultant reaction to the void that is the sum of all our individual reactions. Like the individual reaction the resultant has resultant components of natural and unnatural activity that create the conflict between us and with Nature. However, I do not see that the conflict is caused by the different ways we try to fill the void. The differences really are irrelevant. Indeed, despite apparent conflict over religious/philosophical differences, the conflict that is dominating our present resultant reaction to the void is over the same thing, money. The actual cause of conflict is due entirely to the inward direction of the unnatural activity, toward the void within, that puts us in opposition to all other efforts to fill the void regardless of the way.

Finally, to explain the obvious variability in both the amount and intensity of conflict I say it is due to the relative sizes of the the natural and unnatural components of activity and thus the proximity of the reaction that contains them, to either the ideal or the absolutely restrictive end of the continuum. The bigger the size of the unnatural component and thus the smaller the complementary natural component in a reaction, the closer it will be to the absolutely restrictive end and the greater will be both the amount and intensity of the conflict.

Your latest post in "Ex Aspiration" confirms you will understand. Judging by his post I am quite sure Al would understand as well. After my last post I wrote and invited my sister to join our mother and me for a picnic lunch by the ocean during a trip we had to make to Vancouver. She accepted and we had a decent time. Although I suspected her motives she visited us on Good Friday and left without taking our mother with her for a proper Easter. Perhaps the many letters I have written to her have had an effect. My hope extends beyond tomorrow. It looks as if I will write for at least a few more weeks. 

_____________con'd @ 9.86 

Ierrellus 04.14.07  9.86  (13)

 "The last Christian died on the cross."--Nietzsche.

_____________con'd @ 9.87

Doug 04.24.07  9.87  (13)

When I first saw this quote I thought I would just segue into a quotation from the precis I have been writing. I didn't want to do it right away because though I had written the particular paragraph in longhand, an ingrained habit I like, I hadn't yet typed it and wouldn't until I finished the precis. I have but now that I return to his quote I find I'd like to spend a little more time with Nietzsche.

I think Nietzsche said there was the original Christian and the rest were copies. I don't know what Nietzsche said before or after his quote. I say "the rest" have only more or less copied the original. I suggest the closest approximation would be someone who lived simply according to "the golden rule" and the deeper anyone sunk into the holy crap, the less like Jesus they would be. However, this statement should not be interpreted as an endorsement of copying others to any degree. In my view that life is a reaction to the void, we have original genetic material to work with and that copying anyone subtracts from our becoming what we are capable of being. In HARMONY a short poem I wrote for another purpose I said it with these words:

I can not hold to your belief.
I have my own you see.
Belief that tells me what to do;
It can not let me be.

My gut feeling is that Jesus felt the same way and in no way intended to begin a new religious/philosophical reaction to the void for others to follow. In my interpretation of the events of 2000 years ago Jesus merely wanted to change his inherited reaction to the void. As the only illustration of change I wrote in my precis:

"In one that is well known, Jesus apparently found that Judaism, the part of the unnatural component in his inherited reaction to the void, made it far too restrictive. So he made it much less so with his “Golden Rule”. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a more natural direction for activity by which Jesus moved his reaction to the void closer to the ideal. It seems successive followers of Jesus didn't hear the message for they buried it deeper and deeper in a reaction to the void that became so restrictive it split into two about 1000 years later. Even so, 500 years after the schism Martin Luther decided his inherited Roman Catholic reaction to the void was far too restrictive, apparently particularly with respect to sex, and began his Protestant Reformation. The reformers removed a fair amount of the accumulated unnatural activity from their inherited reactions to the void but less than Jesus removed from his so their reactions found locations on the continuum of reactions accordingly further from the ideal."

There a few paragraphs after this one but in the end I suggest if it matters that we don't self-destruct we have to continue the reformation of all our reactions to the void and go back to our individual biological original, the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, and become what we are capable of being. 

_____________con'd @ 9.88 

Ierrellus 04.25.07  9.88  (13)

Doug,
I really like your latest post. Let me add only one thing--The Golden Rule appeared in various cultures--Greek, Middle Eastern, Far Eastern (Plato, Buddha, Confucious)--circa 500-300BCE. It is a truth that transcend time and place.

Timequake
Jesus split our time's flat line,
Shook the Buddha's hopeful feet;
And, on this, cluttered, painful street,
Makes to tremble--mine. (See Boethius on temporality)

Agreed--Jesus did not intend to start a religion; Paul did! Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandia did. Augustine did.
Nietzsche goes too far in his critiques. It seems to be an extemely personal matter with him; and he would throw out the baby with the bathwater.

_____________con'd @ 9.89 

intro. page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 comments

 
Ierrellus 11.30.06  9.70  (12)

For me, the darkest void is realization of the blight within the seed, of the fact that grain can die on the stem, grapes can wither on the vine and humans can, like flowers' "waste their fragance on the desert air" (Gray, "Eligy Written in a Country Churchyard") The precedent of some of us have it and some of us don't causes virulent negativity, as Jakob observed.

_____________con'd @ 9.71

Doug 12.03.06  9.71  (12)

Ierrellus wrote:

"Opposition is true friendship."--Wm. Blake. If I read only what enhances my point of view, I learn nothing. If I read what contradicts my point of view and am able to see beyond the contradiction, I have learned something and my point of view can become more valid for anyone with questions about it.
In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" Blake also believes we should stand in awe of genius. By genius he meant creative power exemplified in action. This, to him, was evidence of the divine inherent in the seemingly mundane. I can't be Einstein, but I can revere him as a spirit who obliterated concepts of absolutes so that the rest of us can move beyond these stagnant stopping places.

Ierrellus, If as Blake says "Opposition is true friendship" then you and I are true friends, Blake and I are true friends but I am not sure you and Blake can be true friends. I have an opposing view that I am ready to modify if your opposition is convincing. To be consistent with my view I have to say unconditional cooperation is true friendship and its opposite, conflict, is the death of friendship. Between these two extremes is a continuum containing all degrees of conflict and conditional cooperation. In my view the source of all conflict is not the way we try but just our effort to fill the void. The void is within our being and consequently the direction of the activity with which we try to fill the void is inward. So, regardless of the way, if I try exclusively to fill the void, the absolutely restrictive reaction to it, and you try exclusively to fill the void, our directions, are opposite, in opposition, conflict. Our 'horns' are locked; we both die.

I consider unconditional cooperation a necessary condition of the ideal reaction to the void. With it there can be no conflict because we reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God in the same direction, along parallel lines, to our unique capacities. We begin life "reaching out..." unconditionally to our mother. To continue "reaching out to the limits of our capacities..." we must similarly reach out unconditionally to others because quite simply we can't "reach out..." alone. We need my true friendship. Unconditional cooperation is diminished by our efforts to fill the void and as we move away from the ideal unconditional friendship, it becomes increasingly conditional and confrontational until we reach the conflict in the extreme.

Again, if he is correct in saying "opposition is true friendship" I think Blake's view of genius also makes us true friends. I agree "we should stand in awe of genius" and with "by genius he meant creative power exemplified in action....(which)...was evidence of the divine inherent in the seemingly mundane". However, if Blake divides us into genius to be revered and dunces to despise then we part company. In my view we all have creative power that I equate to the power for self-realization so as I told Jakob, my definition of genius is anyone among us who exercises their power to become what they are capable of being regardless of their capacities. The spirit of a person who manages to carry on though depressed by the weight of life is as worthy of reverence as the spirit of the person who discovered E=mc2

Ierrellus wrote:

A biological take on the void, for what it's worth. According to some, evolution began when DNA became encapsulated within a cell wall and extended to bodies, which allowed mobility and protection for the constructing proteins. Encapsulation provides both protection and limitation. Human minds, arriving at self-consciousness, become aware of both. Religions have generally seen limitations as corruption, thus fostering a not- OK sense that can be exploited. Consequently, such religions have been antagonistic to scientific endeavors that push beyond the limitational envelope. The protective box, in religion and philosophy, often becomes more important than creative mobility.
"The cistern contains.
The fountain overflows".-- Blake.
Psychologically, repressive containment produces suffering and incentives to cause suffering. Biological containment is the only house that is free to move and to rebuild itself by moving. Its confinement, seen as a prison, is a social meme.

Don't question the worth of your biological takes. However, in what you have written I think you've omitted a word. I don't think religions can see "limitations as corruptions" and also be "antagonistic to scientific endeavours that push beyond the limitation envelope". Other than that I couldn't agree more. I hope that my failure to be in opposition to you does not mean we are not friends. Wait a second. I oppose your use of the word "often". In my view, "The protective box in religion and philosophy...(without exception, restricts)...creative (power)". So we are true friends. 

Ierrellus wrote:

For me, the darkest void is realization of the blight within the seed, of the fact that grain can die on the stem, grapes can wither on the vine and humans can, like flowers' "waste their fragrance on the desert air" (Gray, "Eligy Written in a Country Churchyard") The precedent of some of us have it and some of us don't causes virulent negativity, as Jakob observed

I don't know for sure what your "blight within the seed" refers to but it works for me if the blight is our efforts to fill the void and we are the seed. Our attempts to fill the void cause a great deal of "grain (to) die on the stem, grapes (to) wither on the vine...and...flowers (to) waste their fragrance on the desert air". It is our religious/philosophical reactions in particular that create the concept of "haves and have not", geniuses and dunces and as I have said, I consider the division unnatural to begin with and any subsequent thought of discarding the "have not", myopic and self-destructive. I think unnatural philosophical selection is a devolutionary process that can only lead to our self-destruction. 

_____________con'd @ 9.72 

Ierrellus 12.03.06  9.72  (12)

Doug,
Much here to comment on. I'll take the quotes first. As for "opposition is true friendship", it is the opposition that stops a child from running into the street after a ball in front of a moving car or stops a loved one from believing in cult explanations of their value and meaning. As for the "worship of genius", it is the indictment of those who will not recognize the genius that is in us all, when precedents for it are freely given.
About the blight in the seed-- what is natural is not always kind or obliging to humans. Aids is natural. To decide who deserves such illness is a moral quandary. If you believe no one deserves it, you must answer as to why it exists. Gray, in the poem cited, was realistic enough to realize that not everyone can make it--to even a simple fulfillment of life. Tennyson recognized that "nature is red in tooth and claw"-- not always the Wordworthian ideal. In trying to establish a philosophy that entails the value of all existence, we must recognize those instances in which our ideals do not apply and ask, Why?

_____________con'd @ 9.73

Doug 12.07.06  9.73  (12)

Ierrellus, thanks for the improved context for your quote "opposition is true friendship". It is still somewhat problematic but I have a solution with which I am comfortable. Definitely my sister was a true friend of her young daughter when she opposed her inclination to run into traffic to retrieve her soccer ball. However, my sister also considers herself a true friend when opposing my niece's attempts to run into life, by confining her behind the Christian "cult explanations of (her) value and meaning". In this context I consider my sister to be an enemy of her daughter and my sister would certainly not consider me a true friend if I opposed her efforts. Of course I would disagree with her but this time after considering the contexts you provided for it, I can agree with "opposition is true friendship".

The way I see it now, when opposing my niece's "inclination to run into traffic" my sister's opposition prevented my niece's possible self-destruction. Thus she was indeed a true friend. However, since I consider all religious/philosophies restrictive, by opposing my niece's effort to escape hers, I see my sister preventing her daughter's self-realization and thus contributing to her self-destruction, not at all the actions of a true friend. So I can say "opposition (that prevents self-destruction and allows self-realization) is true friendship"; and "opposition (that causes self-destruction and prevents self-realization) is false friendship". We can be true friends to ourselves.

I oppose all religious/philosophies and the other seven ways we try to fill the void, all of which contribute to self-destruction, so in my view I consider myself a true friend of humanity. Both my sisters consider me an enemy of Christianity but only the older one refuses to communicate with me. My sense is that essentially the rest of humanity will consider me an enemy of one way or another we try to fill the void. It is comforting to know my mother loves me; but with each day that is added to her 90 years and 343 days I get a little more nervous.

Now "about the blight in the seed"...I agree "what is natural is not always kind or obliging to humans. Aids is natural.", and so is E. coli and death. I have never questioned why E. coli or aids exists. To me that's equivalent to asking why we exist and the answer is the same.... The only question I have ever asked is "why is there so much conflict within us, between us and with nature?" The answer I saw in our existence is our unnatural activity of trying to fill the void; and it is not a recent phenomenon. I have suggested our level of unnatural activity has increased since our ancestors first asked why we exist, "the last why." The environment this activity creates is certainly the context in which Grey and Tennyson wrote their poems causing the former to conclude "not everyone can make it" and the latter to conclude "nature is red in tooth and claw".

I happen to think our level of unnatural activity continues to increase, fewer of us are making it and the unnatural environment we are creating is becoming more "red in tooth and claw". We are thus getting further from my ideal. However, this trend in no way diminishes my ideal because it is not a philosophical construct. My ideal is simply to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. There are no "instances in which (it does) not apply". It is not an abstract we strive for but activity we engage in. I suggest that by engaging in this natural activity to an ever increasing level we will make our environment more natural and more of us will make it. I also suggest that if we ever take humanity to the point of the ideal where we all engage in natural activity, and a naturally occurring agent such as HIV is still destroying us, only then will we have a "moral quandary". 

_____________con'd @ 9.74

Doug 12.13.06  0.2  (12)

 I left some comments on violence in the "Violence as Creation" thread, but I want to elaborate on the related but more agreeable notion that conflict can be creative, in the context of my thread. In my last post I came to the conclusion with the help of Ierrellus that "opposition (which prevents self-destruction and allows self-realization) is true friendship" while "opposition that causes self-destruction and prevents self-realization is false friendship. From here it is only a short step for me to conclude conflict that prevents self-destruction thus allows self-realization is creative while conflict that causes self-destruction thus prevents self-realization is destructive.

To explain how I come to this conclusion I must recall from my view of life the continuum of reactions to the void and the direction of the activity associated with each. At the point of the ideal reaction where I imagine us all reaching out to the limits of our capacities to others and to God, there would be no conflict in the resultant reaction of humanity. It is absent because we "reach out..." in parallel directions toward unique potential capacities. At the absolutely restrictive end of the continuum there is only deadly conflict in the resultant reaction because our individual activities are directed toward the void within us and thus are opposed to everyone else. I suggest our present resultant reaction to the void is positioned on the continuum closer to the restrictive end than to the ideal. Though this means conflict clearly dominates our existence, it is by no means close to exclusive. There are significant efforts to "reach out..."

Although I say it is impossible for one of us to "reach out..." exclusively unless we are all "reaching out..." and that it is impossible for us to exclusively try filling the void and still be, imagine that these reactions to the void are possible. In a relationship, individuals with these respective reactions would be in conflict for the individual "reaching out ..." would be resisted by the individual trying to fill the void. To see the conflict in this relationship in contrast to the other two, imagine activity in the ideal relationship to the void being represented by two arrows pointed in the same direction. In the absolutely restrictive relationship the arrows would be head to head. In the relationship between an individual with an ideal reaction and one with an absolutely restrictive reaction the arrows would be tail to tail, pulling in opposite directions. In my view this conflict would be seen attempting to prevent self-destruction and allowing self-realization. Thus it could be considered creative conflict.

(I sincerely hope the conflict I've had with my sister over my mother has been creative.)

_____________

Doug 12.21.06  0.3  (12)

There is a thread "Why murder is wrong" which has morphed into a discussion about love. I think the metamorphosis occurred when a poster said murder is wrong because it puts one's own desires above the life of another, just the opposite of love. Before this tangential comment another poster expressed a similar do not do unto others view by stating, "I wouldn't want to be murdered so I shouldn't murder. Then among arguments about Christian morality and subjective morality, a poster expressed the view that "even asking the question is quite disturbing". Still another poster said it all depends on the circumstances.

I have no desire to argue with any of the opinions presented in that thread but I would like to place then within the context of this thread. The first step in that process is to establish my ideal definition of murder because in my view the dictionary definition is too restrictive. In it murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by another". I find this definition restrictive because it does not include the pre-birth human beings we lawfully "abort" every day. Nor does it include the human beings we legally kill in war. Furthermore, I don't consider all "killing" premeditated. I see us killing hundreds of thousands of our fellow human beings with preventable diseases and starvation without much thought. To be ideal then, my definition of murder cannot contain any reference to law or planning. Thus my definition of murder is simply: the killing of other human beings.

Now in my OP and in many recent posts I suggest we each have a reaction to the void somewhere on the continuum of reactions between either the absolutely restrictive or absolutely permissive and the ideal. I have also talked about the notion that our individual reactions to the void add together to form our collective reaction to the void; and have mentioned concluding by my interpretation of current events that our resultant reaction to the void is located on the part of the continuum between the absolutely restrictive and ideal reactions, closer to the former than to the latter.

This location accounts for the fact that the question "Why is murder wrong" is asked at all and for the disparate opinions and religious/philosophical views of murder. If we all were reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the natural activity that is the ideal reaction to the void, then the word "murder" like "abortion" would be placed on the inactive list, a relic of the past. In the ideal resultant reaction to the void, that is entirely natural activity, there is no room for murder because we need each other to reach out to the limits of our capacities. In the absolutely restrictive resultant reaction to the void which would be entirely the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void that puts us all in opposition to each other, God would see legalized complete mass murder. In the resultant reactions between these two extremes we would see a mix of the consequences in the extremes. So in resultant reactions increasingly removed from the absolutely restrictive, the number of murders would diminish from mass murders to none in the ideal, along with the laws that allow murder and their religious/philosophical justifications.

Of course, as our resultant reaction to the void moves away from the absolutely restrictive toward the ideal the endless, tiresome argument and debate will diminish as well; and the question "Why murder is wrong?" will be asked less often. I would welcome these changes because I see the ideal as a possibility so that in my view one murder is too many and any debate about it is merely a sign of self-destructive inertia. I say let's quit talking about murders , get on with reducing the numbers and with this activity, move toward the ideal.

___________

Doug 12.28.06  0.4  (12)

Kevconman started the thread "Superiority and the need to be right". Check it out. It is still on page one. He has made an astute observation that I would like to comment on here so I don't have to drag my context to another thread. In my OP I suggest there are eight ways we can try to fill the void. I've already mentioned our materialistic reaction to the void which I consider the way we try to fill the void that is most dominant in our lives; and our religious/ philosophical reaction that I think comes in a close second. They are pretty well blended though so it is really hard to tell which dominates. However, from my point of view arguing over their relative dominance makes no sense because they are equally destructive and thus like all ways we try to fill the void should, rather than argue about, be eliminated from our existence.

Now getting to the topic, a third way we can try to fill the void is with what I call our pre-eminence reaction. I suggest that as well as trying to fill the void with money and all the stuff it buys, with religious/philosophical answers to the last why and five other ways we can try to fill the void, we can also try to fill it with pre-eminence in what ever endeavour we can conceive. For example, as individuals we can try to fill the void with being the richest, the most powerful, number 1 in any sport, in the world and on and on.... Collectively as nations we can try as well. At the other end of the continuum, pre-eminence can be winning the argument with one other person over which way to put a roll of toilet paper on the spool. Between these limits we can for example try to fill the void by being the pre-eminent authority on someone else's philosophy in the forum at ILP. Neither the activity nor the size of the group matters. The efforts to fill the void with pre-eminence are equally self-destructive.

As noted in my OP we can not try exclusively to fill the void with in this case, pre-eminence for without some measure of the natural activity, reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, we self-destruct. Our lives can be a blend of just trying to fill the void with pre-eminence and a complementary measure of natural activity but we can also add to the mix other ways of trying to fill the void. Of particular interest is the mix that contains the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void with pre-eminence along with our religious/philosophies and the prerequisite natural activity.

I have mentioned several times in this thread that I suggest there is a sense of right which accompanies our natural activity. It is a sense that remains with reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God regardless of how little natural activity we have in our blend of activities; and at whatever amount, it pervades the mix. As a consequence we come to believe our theories, in particular our religious/ philosophical answers to the last why are pre-eminent. This is tragic for even though when as an individual we try to fill the void with pre-eminence we destroy only ourselves, when we try to fill the void with the pre-eminence of our religious/philosophies we destroy humanity.

_____________

Doug 01.07.07  0.5  (12)

Thanks to coberst's thread "The Big problem: unity of knowledge", now on page 2, I learned about Ernest Becker who had he not died in 1974 at age 49, could still be with us. Apparently he said something like:

...science has provided us a comprehensive knowledge of human nature that indicates that we are not innately the horrible creatures that Hobbes speculated we to be. It is the societies that we structure that make us do the things we do. We need a new secular morality that must be based upon scientific knowledge but is also acceptable to most people. We need an ideal that all people can rally about. We need a unity of knowledge that can be kept up to date and that can represent the shared pool of understanding whereby we can reason together to attempt to reach our ideal.

It seems Becker's assessment of our existence is very similar to my own except his lacks motivation. In my OP I suggest our motivation is an instinctive fear of the void. It is this fear that "make(s) us do the things we do" that I call our reactions to the void. I pictured our reactions to the void as weaving threads of natural and unnatural activity into our individual fabrics of existence that together create the fabric of humanity. I suggest the fabric of humanity is equivalent to Becker's "societies that we structure".

Now tfdmissmatch asked, "Any idea what this 'new secular morality that must be based upon scientific knowledge but is also acceptable to most people' might be?" It appears that Becker "laid out a rational for action but no action toward accomplishing this has been undertaken". I would like to try answering the question. I suggest the "scientific knowledge" upon which we base the "new secular morality" is biological. The facts are that we can each become the sum of the genetic knowledge written in our DNA, our individual book of life. I suggest that we learn this knowledge by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. I have called this natural activity, I say begins at conception, the ideal reaction to the void. The consequence of this activity is self-realization, a knowledge of ourselves that should be "acceptable to (all) people". We should be able to "rally about" this ideal that is identical for us all yet creates individuals. The knowledge that we gain with our natural activity would create a "shared pool of understanding" that we each draw from as we "reason together (in our) attempt to reach our ideal."

In my OP I present the ideal as a possibility. I also describe the reality that our lives both individually and collectively are blends of the natural activity, reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God and the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void. I repeat, the consequence of natural activity is self-realization and the consequence of unnatural activity is the self-destructive conflict within us, between us and with our environment. If we engaged exclusively in the ideal natural activity we become what we are capable of being. The further removed our activity is from the natural and is thus more unnatural, the more we become like the "horrible creatures that Hobbes speculated we be".

In response to coberst's question "What truths is man to pursue for the sake of Man?" I provide the link to truth. 

_____________

Ierrellus 01.07.07  9.74  (12)

Doug,
The controversy over human nature which you refer to in Coberst's post is well articulated in Leakey's "Origins". In that book Leakey presents Aubrey's ("African Genesis") idea that humans evolved from killer apes and are naturally aggressive and territorial. The idea is well refuted by Ashley Montague and Leakey. Hobbes was out to lunch! Thanks for the reference to biology. If we cannot understand what we are, how could we ever expect to understand what we can be?

_____________con'd @ 9.75

kingdaddy 01.07.07  13.1  (12)

What void?

How can you discuss a reaction to something no one has ever faced?

_____________con'd @ 13.2

Doug 01.17.07  13.2  (12)

Kingdaddy, I was going to ignore your comment because in Sabrina's abortion thread you said," I don't subscribe to any particular religion but I would personally call myself a Christian because I endeavor to follow the teachings of Christ and firmly believe in them." and that contradictory statement casts doubt on everything else you say. Nevertheless, I searched "the void" again to make sure I wasn't dreaming the first time I looked. I wasn't. There are about 82,700,000 references. Somewhere among them is my short essay "the void". So, all I can say is that it is unfortunate that I and the authors of the other 82,699,999 references did not have the benefit of your pronouncement prior to our writing.

_____________con'd @ 13.3

Doug 01.16.07  9.75  (12)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
The controversy over human nature which you refer to in Coberst's post is well articulated in Leakey's "Origins". In that book Leakey presents Aubrey's ("African Genesis") idea that humans evolved from killer apes and are naturally aggressive and territorial. The idea is well refuted by Ashley Montague and Leakey. Hobbes was out to lunch! Thanks for the reference to biology. If we cannot understand what we are, how could we ever expect to understand what we can be?

Ierrellus, I can't recall a post of yours to this thread that has not taught me something or reinforced my view with a reference from your incomparable list. Trying empirically to "understand what we are...(and thus)...what we can be" and could become, has been my major life long activity. I began publicizing my understanding about 18 months ago and I continue with this post. In it I want to present my view of "human equality". This is the topic of a thread which as far as I can tell has yet to discuss either equality or inequality and probably won't because the last time I looked the posters were into sex.

In my view we are all identically body/mind/spirit in reaction to the void. This is what is happening but for the purposes of this thread I didn't mention body/mind/spirit and thus the title, "Life: a reaction to the void". Despite our identical nature however, only in the extreme circumstances are there conditions of equality. I am able to suggest we are identically body/mind/spirit by discarding definitions of body/mind that describe form and function and creating one of process. I could see that for each of us, both our body and mind consist of unique potential capacities, activity and knowledge that preclude any claim of commonality. However, I overcame that problem by defining body/mind as the integration of realized potential physical/mental capacity, physical/mental activity and physical/mental knowledge. In defining body/mind as the process of integrating the facets of body and mind rather than defining the variable facets, we have a definition of body/mind that is identical for us all and yet allows complete individuality. Spirit I define as our "light of life", an aggregate of emotions that indicate to us the degree of integration and thus the complementary degree of disintegration that characterizes our living. Yes the degree of integration can vary and though the intensity of our spirit varies accordingly, the 'light' is always present in our lives. Thus defined we are the identical, monitored process of integrating unique body/mind facets with apparently unequal results.

The degree of integration and the complementary degree of disintegration of our body/mind can vary because not all activity integrates their facets. The only integrating activity is the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the ideal reaction to the void I introduced in my OP and have mentioned probably at least 150 times since, in this thread. The unnatural activity of trying to fill the void, which I also introduced in my OP and have mentioned probably 150 times since, is active disintegrating activity. In "THE LAST WHY", my longer explanation to life and I think somewhere in this thread I introduced the unnatural inactivity of giving up which allows disintegration. As well, I suggested that though it is possible for us all to exclusively reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, our present reactions to the void are blends of this natural activity and either the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void or the unnatural inactivity of giving up. Consequently, the degree of integration of our body/mind varies with the ratio of natural to unnatural activity in our reactions to the void.

I see us all being equally capable of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God and thus in the extreme ideal circumstances in which we all engage in natural activity, I see us all being equally, completely integrated. When we diminish our natural activity by replacing some of it with the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void we become less equal. We can not fill the void nor are we equally capable of trying to fill the void with money for example, or with religious/philosophical theories, or with any of the other six ways we can try . It is therefore a competitive activity which the less equal become even less equal and lose their integration. The harder we try to fill the void the more unequal we become and the more vicious is the competition until in the extreme at the instant enough of us try exclusively to fill the void we will all become equally, completely disintegrated.

Although I have used "life" as a synonym for living in the title to this thread, "Life: a reaction to the void.", I have also used "life" to define self-realization, the consequence of exclusively reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. I defined the consequences of trying exclusively to fill the void as self-destruction, death. Between these two extremes, living is something more or less than death and life. Thus I suppose I can say that in my view there is "human equality" in the extremes of "life" and "death" but somewhat less in between. 

_____________con'd @ 9.76

kingdaddy 01 16.07  13.3  (12)

kingdaddy wrote:
What void? How can you discuss a reaction to something no one has ever faced?

Doug wrote:
Kingdaddy, I was going to ignore your comment because in Sabrina's abortion thread you said," I don't subscribe to any particular religion but I would personally call myself a Christian because I endeavor to follow the teachings of Christ and firmly believe in them." and that contradictory statement casts doubt on everything else you say. Nevertheless, I searched "the void" again to make sure I wasn't dreaming the first time I looked. I wasn't. There are about 82,700,000 references. Somewhere among them is my short essay "the void". So, all I can say is that it is unfortunate I and the authors of the other 82,699,999 references did not have the benefit of your pronouncement prior to our writing.

Huh, what?
I don’t understand a thing you wrote and I cant open the link.

Where are all these references to the Void and how do they differ from my interpretation of its meaning. What’s so cryptic or difficult about the meaning of the word “Void”?

Also, why does my description of my beliefs have any relevance to this subject or my post on this?

Who has faced the “Void” and what did they say about it? What is this “Void”?

_____________con'd @ 13.4

Ierrellus 01.18.07  9.76  (12)

Doug,
There is little in your thoughts that an old fart, cranky biologist can disagree with. Regarding "reaching out", Xunzian in one of my threads accurately called this "optimization", which accounts for the strivings of all of us organisms. Those among us who cannot see spirit as included in optimization apparently have an axe to grind because they are claiming to know exactly what the limits of human potential are. Carry on.

_____________con'd @ 9.77

Doug 01.26.07  13.4  (12)

Kingdaddy wrote:
Huh, what?
(1)I don’t understand a thing you wrote and (2)I cant open the link.
(3)Where are all these references to the Void and (4)how do they differ from my interpretation of its meaning. (5)What’s so cryptic or difficult about the meaning of the word “Void”?
(8 )Also, why does my description of my beliefs have any relevance to this subject or my post on this?
(6)Who has faced the “Void” and (7)what did they say about it? (5)What is this “Void”?

(1) How much have you read?

(2) There are probably hundreds of ILP members that can tell you for sure why you can't open the link but I am not one of them. I have been told that not all browsers can open all links so it could have something to do with your browser. I do know that other ILP members have been able to open the link I left to my web site since it is much easier to do, because their anonymous visits have been logged. If you are interested in reading my short essay on the void try the link again. If it still doesn't open you can find a copy in this thread around page 10 perhaps.

(3) I open my firefox browser and Google, type in "the void", click search and a page containing the top 10 of 82,200,000 references to the void appears.

(4) What is your interpretation?

(5) Nothing. In my view "the void" is empty space. It is the missing answer, what we discover when we ask what I call "The Last Why". It could be, "Why am I?"; "What is the meaning of life?"; "What is the meaning of existence?"; or any number of related questions. Since there is no answer in the conventional sense to these questions , when we ask them we discover "the void".

(6) To begin with I think I wouldn't be exaggerating if I said I have heard more than a handful of your fellow born-again Christians claim that Christ filled the void in their lives. The rest of the references I have collected are similarly personal, like people saying they experienced a sense of emptiness with the loss of a loved one. Nick-A, the first person to post in this thread had a lot to say about a favorite writer of his who dealt with the void. If you want more examples type the words "philosophers" and "the void" into your search engine and see what opens up.

(7) It is the most wretched debilitating feeling.

(8 ) This question affects me the same way as your initial questions "What void?" and "How can you discuss a reaction to something no one has ever faced?"; and your statement, "I don't subscribe to any particular religion but I would personally call myself a Christian because I endeavour to follow the teachings of Christ and firmly believe in them." They all make me wonder how carefully you've thought about what you say. I've said enough about "the void" and those who have faced it. As for your beliefs, surely they "have... relevance" to everything you do and say; and if you "follow the teachings of Christ", do you not "subscribe" to the Christian religion?

Now, I could be wrong about sensing a lack of diligence in your thought. If your "teachings of Christ" begin and end with "Do unto others as you would have then do unto you" then I will owe you an apology. If however, they contain the notions of sin, guilt, forgiveness, salvation, eternal damnation and the rest of the self-destructive 'Christian' theory I believe restricted my father's life to name one of billions, then I think you owe humanity an apology for perpetuating one of the crippling religious/philosophical reactions to the void that are contributing to, to quote from my OP, "the mass of clashing colors" in our fabric of existence. 

_____________con'd @ 13.5 

Doug 02.06.07  0.6  (12)

Even in the absence of a response from kingdaddy I am going to, in the words of my friend Ierrellus, "carry on" for awhile longer in a continuing effort to evoke a universal dialogue about what's happening. I am making this effort because I have been formulating "my view of life" for about 40 years and now I am taking this opportunity to discover if I was a fool to have spent my allotted time believing it matters that we come to a common understanding of life. It is a personal quest that became clearly universal on 02/02/07.

In the northern hemisphere 02/02 is the day on which several celebrity groundhogs emerge from their dens to predict an early spring if they don't see their shadows and six more weeks of winter if they do. On this day this year a group of eminent climatologists from around the world emerged from their 'den' with a rigorous, ominous, unanimous report stating that if we persist in living the way we have been, we will continue to create an increasingly hostile 'winter' humanity will not survive. The scientists' "if" suggested the possibility this 'winter' need not be inevitable. They said, apparently we still have time to recreate a 'spring' that would renew life. Being scientists they presented explicit findings but implicit in them are the questions, "Do we really care that we are contributing to the self-destruction of humanity; are we even generally capable of making that connection?"

I don't know the answers to these questions. To be honest I have my doubts the answers will be yes; but I will await the evidence we present in the coming months before concluding I've been a fool. In the meantime I will assume the affirmative so that I can offer my view that we will not recreate 'spring' by tinkering with the status quo. In issuing their report the climatologists concluded with 90% certainty that human activity has been responsible for the global warming that threatens our continued existence but beyond the production of too much greenhouse gas they didn't specify what human activity. Had they asked me I would have referred them to my OP and then told them that it is our unnatural activity of trying to fill the void that has taken us to this level of self-destruction; and I would not have waited for them to ask how to change the 'seasons'. I would have told them that for us to change our 'winter' into 'spring', to save humanity from self-destruction and to restore life will require nothing less than our supreme collective effort to empty "the void" of all efforts to fill it.

In my view I see eight ways we can try to fill "the void", all identically self-destructive, unnatural activity. They are all familiar to you but I only need two to connect our efforts to fill "the void" to the reported environmental crisis in which we find ourselves; and to connect emptying "the void" to recreating life. With our materialistic reaction to "the void" we try to fill "the void" with money and all the stuff it can buy. I am not sure when our ancestors first tried to fill "the void" with money but it has recently risen to prominence as, I suspect, more and more of our not too distant relatives became increasingly aware that their inherited religious/philosophical reactions are no more able to fill "the void" than any of the other seven ways we can try. It probably didn't hurt that religious/philosophical reactions are completely abstract while money and what it can buy are in large part concrete things we can actually hold.

Over the centuries our materialistic reaction, religious/philosophical reaction and the other six ways we try to fill the void have created an unnatural environment for our being. The natural environment would be the one in which we are able to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the natural activity I call the ideal reaction to the void. This environment exists for pre-birth individuals who, except for the occasions when they are aborted or their mothers introduce abnormal substances into their environment, are only able to engage in natural activity. Sadly though, at birth we enter an environment, a fabric of existence in which our natural activity is more or less severely restricted by the more dominant efforts to fill "the void". We continue natural activity to some degree for that is a condition of life but mostly we train to climb the vertical, cone-shaped economy that has evolved over years of trying to get as much money as we can any way we can, to fuel our effort to fill the void; we learn to use a religious/philosophical shovel; and we pick up the other techniques of trying to fill "the void". "The void" can not be filled and trying is addictive and all consuming. In this unnatural environment nothing else matters, not ourselves, others or the environment. In a continuing effort to fill "the void" we will destroy ourselves, others and the environment. The scientists have confirmed this prediction.

So if it matters that we don't destroy it, we don't need to save the environment; we just need to save ourselves. If we return to life, life will return to the environment. Life is the result of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Death is the result of trying to fill the void. Thus, to return to life we must empty the void of all the ways we try to fill it. Now, I know at least my two Christian sisters will be horrified. However, if they would listen to me I would say to them just look at what we call life. If God is in control, who are we going to ask for help. Yes, all religious/philosophies appear to have associated with them the natural activity essential to life, but in my view this is not the case. Because natural activity is a condition of life, what seem like strictly religious/philosophical reactions will have an ideal component that is the sole source of all reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God.

Indeed, not only are our religious/philosophical theories not responsible for any "reaching out...", they actually restrict our natural activity.

So rather than being essential to life, they result in self-destruction and death. If we were to remove from the historical perspective all natural activity I am certain we would see that the only consequences of all religious/philosophical reactions to "the void" is humanity divided. Trying to fill "the void" with religious/philosophical reactions to it divides us from our natural activity, divides us from others and our environment. They even divide God. It is not enough to say we can live without religious/philosophical reactions to "the void". Given that they replace some of the natural activity that is essential to life it has to be said we can't live with them or any other way we try to fill the void. To save our environment we must empty "the void".

I hear at least one voice insisting that if we empty "the void" there will be nothing left of life. I pause, consider the 'groundhog report', look again at what we call life and humbly suggest that if we empty "the void", there will be nothing left but life. Ah, but does it matter? May the dialogue continue. 

_____________

kingdaddy 02.07.07  13.5  (12)

In my mind there is no unanswered questions, all questions have been answered and proven in this reality. The problem is that we continue to make our own truth which obfuscated the real Truth so we cannot see the answers.
So in conclusion there is no last “Why” in my mind. I can satisfactorily answer all the big whys like the meaning of life and so forth with great continuity to this reality.

To me the Void is not a mental concept but a description of what was before creation of the physical universe, this Void is what space-time is expanding into and displacing but since it is infinite it will never shrink. The Void is where Hell must be, there is no other logical explanation in my mind and God is a Logical God.

 ____________con'd @ 13.6

Ierrellus 02.07.07  9.77  (12) 

kingdaddy,
While I do not speak for Doug, I cannot help noticing your atavistic responses as not too well thought out at least. I still live in a universe that is in a state of flux. In this realm nothing has been ultimately resolved, finished, concluded. There are no absolute answers. There is the human quest for some sort of stasis in a given experience of moving temporality. If the answers are already given, we humans might as well stop striving toward anything better than static responses to dynamic experience.
If mankind is going to survive, it will take the brightest minds addressing our common problems. It cannot afford the unnecessary, dragging weight of static resolutions, which are never universal anyway.

_____________con'd @ 9.78

kingdaddy 02.07.07  13.6  (12)

Ierrellus, then you obviously don’t believe in any form of Absolute, which all evidence point toward in my estimation, therefore I feel that you have not given much in depth thought to ultimate origins. I never claimed that the answers are easy to grasp or accept, only that they are plain and not hidden.

_____________con'd @ 13.7

Doug 02.09.07  13.7  (12)

kingdaddy, although my good friend Ierrellus is capable of defending himself, he has graciously agreed not to, acknowledging there is already too much space between this and my previous post.

My final post to you is a sincere request that you set up a thread in which you present "the answers (that) are (not) easy to grasp or accept...(but) are plain and not hidden." and the " Absolute, which all the evidence point toward". 

_____________con'd @ 13.8

Doug 02.14.o7  0.7  (12)

Jakob, a welcome contributor to this thread began one he called "All great thinkers are traps". In it he stated that each "lures you to think and do all sorts of stuff, (that) does not release you from the itchy feeling that lured you to this thinker in the first place; the feeling that there is something to be found out about life". My response, specific to his thread was that in my view the "great thinkers  are (not) the trap". Rather the "trap" is the notion that "the void" can be filled with theoretical answers to the question about the meaning of life that reveals "the void", the question I call "the last why".

I went on to suggest the notion occurred thousands of years ago, to a better thinker who created a theory designed to fill the void. It didn't and when succeeding generations of better thinkers realized their inherited theories failed to fill the void they tried to improve them and the consequence is the present collection of inherited ways we try to fill "the void". Finally, I proposed that to extricate ourselves from this "trap" we need succeeding generations of "great thinkers" who realize "the void" can not be filled and that the ideal reaction to it is to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God.

Jakob responded by asking, "Reaching out to one's full potential is good, but to what end? What are we capable of being if we don't have ground to stand on?"

I replied, "Jakob, I suggest we are not now but could be on solid biological 'ground'. Reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God is natural biological activity that we begin at conception and by it every one of us replicates the life of humanity. Now, as I said to Sauwelios in his thread 'The Meaning of Existence', 'The 'whither' of...(this) ideal reaction to the void is the 'situation' of self-realization; but the why, neither the reason, the cause and the purpose', 'to what end?', we do not know. It is a mystery, unlike the 'whither' of 'the unnatural religious/philosophically motivated activity of trying to fill the void' that clearly separates us from our 'ground'; and we know ends and will end in self-destruction. So we don't know before we start, the 'end' of self-realization. At least by becoming what (we are) capable of being we enable the possibility of discovering why".

Given our history Jakob, I think you will know what I mean when I say we have this choice. We can continue to pick the 'rose' and suffer death by the thousand cuts of its 'thorns' or we can simply "reach out..." and smell the 'rose'; and possibly discover why."

Jakob then asked, "Doug; I like the roses metaphor. And I agree that we cannot precisely know what we will accomplish before we accomplish it. But I have certain purposes, certain goals, which are at the limit of my potential as I conceive it. They are well defined goals, and even if I don't know how I will turn out I know that I certainly have a definite idea of how they will turn out - if I succeed. So the question is: do we focus on the thing we aim to create, or on ourself?"

My response was, "My short answer is 'we (should aim to create ourself. The thing we aim to create is part of the trap'. I am working on a longer answer I will post in my thread".

I could have elaborated my short answer in Jakob's thread but the elaboration required enlarging his contest. Jakob focused only on what I see as trying to fill the void with our religious/philosophical reactions to the void. However, to repeat in his words what I said in my previous long post, our religious/philosophical reaction to the void is only part of the "trap". Another part is believing we can fill the void with money and all the stuff it can buy. I also mentioned in that post, I see in my view of life six other parts to the trap which, in my words now, are woven into a fabric of existence we inherit when we are born and begin contributing to with our individual activity.

Now, my contention is that our fabric of existence entraps us all. At the same time however, we create the "trap" with our activity. So, even though we can't escape our fabric of existence we can change it so that rather than entrapping us, our fabric of existence sets us free. We can change it by aiming "to create ourself" rather than "aiming to create part of the trap". Specifically this means aiming to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God instead of trying to fill the void.

The former, the ideal reaction to the void, is I suggest, the only way we can relieve our bio-philosophical 'itch'. Though the "ideal", reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God is difficult for it requires the supreme sensitivity to the gentle biological breezes that blow within. Despite being impossible to fill , trying to fill the void is easy. We just allow ourselves to be sucked into the vortex of our present existence. We live in the consequences of the latter. Until we try to "reach out..." , we can only imagine the consequences of the "ideal". 

_____________ 

 
In my previous post I alluded to what I thought was a very useful conversation Sauwelios and I had on his thread, "The Meaning of Existence" that serves my purpose to extend and clarify.

Sauwelios wrote:
For the question "What is the meaning of existence?", two kinds of possible answers exist. The first includes all possible answers to the question "Whither?"; the second includes all possible answers to the question "Whence?".

You see, existence may have a goal toward which its evolution works - it may be the means to an end. - Or it may have been brought into existence out of a profound need - existence may itself be an answer, the resolution of a crisis. It seems to me that most people who have thought about the meaning of existence hitherto have sought an answer to the question "Whither?".

Doug wrote:
Sauwelios, I have been thinking about the "meaning of existence" for a long, long time. I have never asked, "To what place or from what place?" My only question has been "Why?" When confronted by all the conflict in our existence I asked "Why?" My short answer is life is a reaction to the void. My longer answer is THE LAST WHY.

Sauwelios wrote:
I have never used the word "place" in this context. And what do you mean by "why"? Merriam-Webster defines it as follows:

"for what cause, reason, or purpose"
http://m-w.com/dictionary/why

Which of the three do you mean here, Doug?

Doug wrote:
Sauwelios, I apologize for appearing to have given unintended context to your words. I am old but no where near old enough to have ever used "Whither" or "Whence" either in my writing or conversation. I was quite certain I knew what the words meant but I looked them up anyway. Here is what I found in Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1whence
Pronunciation: 'hwen(t)s, 'wen(t)s
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English whennes, from whenne whence (from Old English hwanon) + -s, adverb suffix, from -s, genitivesingular ending; akin to Old High German hwanAn whence, Old English hwA who
: from what place, source, or cause <then>
- from whence : from what place, source, or cause <no>

Main Entry: 2whence
Function: conjunction
1 : from what place, source, or cause <inquired>
2 a : from or out of which place, source, or cause <the> b : by reason of which fact : WHEREFORE <nothing>

Main Entry: 1whith·er
Pronunciation: 'hwi-[th]&r, 'wi-
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hwider; akin to Latin quis who and to Old English hider hither -- more at WHO, HITHER
1 : to what place <whither>
2 : to what situation, position, degree, or end <whither>

Main Entry: 2whither
Function: conjunction
1 a : to what place <knew> b : to what situation, position, degree, or end
2 a : to the place at, in, or to which b : to which place
3 : to whatever place

Which do you mean?

To answer your question concerning the meaning of "why", in my view "why" can mean for what cause, for what reason and for what purpose depending on the circumstances. When I asked, "Why is there so much conflict in our existence?" "why" could mean either cause or reason. I don't see any difference. If I was asked what is the cause of conflict I would answer that in my view the cause of conflict is our efforts to fill the void because the activity of filling the void is directed inward, so the effort puts us in opposition to each other. Similarly, if I was asked what is the reason for conflict I would be able to repeat that answer. However, I do not have an answer for the purpose of conflict. To me conflict serves no purpose.

If I were asked why we have reactions to the void I would tell you the reason for them is they are our way of dealing with the ultimate unknown and thus their apparent purpose is to help us deal with the "void". As for their cause, that "why"another version of "the last why". I call the philosophical question "Why do we exist?" the "Last Why" because this question will remain unanswered after all other questions have been. Here again "why" could mean reason for or purpose but not cause of existence.

Sauwelios wrote:
To answer your question I wish "whence" to mean "from which source of cause" and "whither" to mean "to what situation, position or end"

(1) But you just said you did not see any difference between reason and cause.

(2) In any case, it appears that in asking "why?", you do or did so in the sense of "whence", not "whither": (3) you can answer what is the cause or reason of conflict, but not what is its purpose. Very well. (4)Furthermore, you say that it is a reaction to the "void". I think I can relate to that, as for me, all becoming is indeed a creation or vision meant to veil the "void":

Doug wrote:
to (1) At the time of the conversation I didn't respond to this comment. Now I will say again that there are circumstances when asking the cause of something or the reason for something will evoke precisely the same response making the reason and cause interchangeable with why; and there are circumstances where this is not the case.

to (2) Sauwelios, you are half right and the only reason you are not all right is I didn't tell you that after asking "whence" I asked "whither". In my view, to repeat writing in this thread, I see two types of activity. There is the natural biological activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, which begins at conception; and there is the unnatural philosophically motivated activity of trying to fill the void that begins when we start to 'think'. The "whither" of the former, the ideal reaction to the void, is the "situation" of self-realization. I know the cause and the purpose but not the reason why. The "whither" of the latter is the "end" of self-destruction. I know the reason, the cause but for the life of me I can see no purpose.

At the time of the conversation we passed right over "whence": "from which source or cause". To that question I respond our source individually is indisputably our first single cell, the biological cause being the fusion of a sperm and an egg. I suggest our individual histories replicate the history of humanity so I conclude that collectively we have the same cause. As for the source, perhaps it was God and Mother Nature, but really I have no idea.

to (3) After viewing yet another scene of carnage on TV my 91 year old mother will often say, "I think the purpose of war is to get rid of a lot of people." I say, "No, no Mom. That is the purpose of abortion. I don't think guys in suits sit around a table and decide to have a war to get rid of people." In this sense of "why" I do not have an answer.

to (4) You made my day, or at least the next couple hours.

Though he didn't say it at the time, after I suggested in Jakob's thread he made his discovery "All great thinkers are traps" by looking behind the "veil", Sauwelios made it very clear to me he had no intention of making my day or even a couple of hours. Apparently he did not intend "veil the void" to be equivalent to "reaction to the void".

The clarification was disappointing because it was a useful vision. In my OP I suggest that in reacting to the void we weave 'threads' of natural and unnatural activity into a fabric of existence. I further imagine the natural thread being clear and the unnatural threads being 8 different colors. Although I say we try to fill the void with unnatural activity, I can at the same time see the colored fabric of existence attempting to cover, obscure or "veil the void". It doesn't matter that a clear fabric would not "veil the void" for as I see it natural activity is not a direct reaction to the void. To me, natural activity is a reaction to innate biological motivation to become what we are capable of being, the process of self-realization that just happens to be the ideal reaction to the void.

So, the "whence" is clear. For the "whither" there is self-destruction or self-realization. For self-destruction there is a cause, a reason but no purpose. Self-realization is a purpose and the cause is biological. Sorry, I don't know the reason why. Perhaps we would find the "meaning of existence" in becoming what we are capable of being.

_____________

Doug 03.02.07  0.9  (12)

On February 19 2007, President's Day, Chuck Coberst posted "Aesthetics--I need some help here!"His first sentence was:

Chuck wrote:
The last paragraph highlights my need for illumination.

That last paragraph was:
Becker says “Aesthetics gives the highest pleasure because it is the category that merges all the others, that pulls all the loose and disparate strands of experience together into one harmonious whole. Intellect, imagination, the whole organism of feeling—thought and dream, flesh and blood, emption and nerves—all are fused into one integrating merger. The aesthetic object draws man’s world together, by drawing the whole man firmly into it. In contemplating the aesthetic object, the totality of the life force is awakened and stilled at one and the same time.” "Beyond Alienation"--Ernest Becker

Chuck wrote:
Have you had aesthetic experiences that will give us clarity regarding Becker's meaning here?

Doug wrote:
I think I have Chuck. I think though I will relate my story in my own thread in a few days when I have time to tie it into my context there. I will say though that I believe it is, for example, what a figure skater experiences when they begin a program and come to the end of a perfect skate without remembering the intervening minutes. Athletes describe the experience as being in "the zone". I call it experiencing "the ideal"; and it is not confined to athletics. It is a beautiful feeling that is rarely experienced in our present "fabric of existence".

Chuck did not respond at all, let alone indicate he was eagerly anticipating my story. Nevertheless, this post is for him.

My response to you on Monday was an instantaneous reaction to phrases Becker used that resonated with me. Today while trying to visualize the ideal framework to contain my experience I reread Becker's quote. This time I struggled like I do when trying to make sense of religious language. In particular the word "category" in the phrase, "because it is the 'category' that merges..." presented a problem. I could understand a category of something "merging all the others" but not just the category doing the merging. In other words, I felt I was missing the context.

So I searched "Beyond Alienation" to see if I could find the context. I didn't find the book. However, on the first page of Google's list of references for Becker I clicked on a Faculty of Washington Lectures entry and found a biographical sketch. The first two sentences were, "What makes people act the way they do? This was the absorbing question of Ernest Becker's intellectual life." It would seem that Becker's entire context is our motivations so in the absence of the actual context of the quoted paragraph I think I will not distort Becker's meaning if I insert "of motivation" after category so that Becker's first sentence reads "Aesthetics gives the highest pleasure because it is the category (of motivation) that merges all the others,.... Before anyone can tell me I am wrong I will relate my "...aesthetic experience that will give... clarity regarding Becker's meaning..."

To set up my experience I need to go back to my university days in the late 60's. While all my classmates were planning careers, mostly in teaching, I was struggling with a severe lack of motivation. I wondered why. I progressed to questioning why we act the way we do and in particular why there is so much conflict in our existence. As I questioned I recorded the 'answers' and for the first time in my 5 years at university I felt motivated. I do not know why I or any of us should 'feel' motivated. Regardless, I decided I was going to have an answer to the question, "Why do people act the way we do?" before I began to teach.

I thought I had the answer, well articulated, in the spring of 1996. Coincidentally, after 16 years of being alone I thought I was beginning a relationship. My doctor arranged for a patient of his, a philosophy professor to read my essay. The final sentence of his review was, "Good luck on other projects". I crashed like one of those WWII fighter pilots who was shot down; only, I survived. Two days later when the 'dust' settled enough I could see to write, I managed a response to the professor. As I entered into the parking lot of the post office, there, waiting to cross the entrance was my 'angel'.

The story of my aesthetic experience began on a day in February 1997. A busy summer of building had distracted me from the memory of my crash but now I was at loose ends. I decided to go snow boarding. On the way to the mountain I stopped at my mail box where I found a "Dear Doug letter" without the "Dear". It was a gloomy day anyway so I continued on to the hill. At the bottom of the third lift I encountered a "sea of humanity". It was President's Day and it seemed the population of the entire Pacific North west was waiting to get on the lift. This was not a day a savvy local goes boarding. Given the circumstances of my life though, it was fitting that I was there. At that moment I could have headed down but I chose instead to go to the top of the mountain for one long run home.

The final lift accessed an area called "7th Heaven". Despite having been closed all day for avalanche control I proceeded along the long road to its base thinking it might open. As I neared the lift I could see it was running and I didn't see a soul. I couldn't believe my good fortune. For the first time in my life I was first on the lift and I was well up the hill before I saw the lineup begin to grow. As an added bonus a huge hole appeared in the thick cloud cover allowing the sun to work its magic on hundreds of acres of fresh snow. At the top of the mountain riders can go down the south side to the base of the lift or go down the north side. I chose to go north right down the center of the massive glacier onto a huge dome. At the bottom I turned around to look back up the hill. It was a beautiful sight, one set of perfectly sculpted turns on a hundred acres of pristine snow carving a crescent in a patch of blue sky.

Chuck, even on the worst day, boarding in powder is an exhilarating experience. On this day it was an aesthetic experience. As Becker said,...it pulled "all the loose and disparate strands of (life) together in one harmonious whole". The experience drew me "fully into it". "It awakened and stilled (me) at one and the same time". It motivated me for whatever reason. The next day I began rewriting my essay.

Ten years later I am motivated by the extraordinary interest in my thread, especially by those who have contributed. Even though the last several posts are essentially monologues, I will continue to write them as long as people continue to read them, at least until my mother dies. Her needing my help and full time company to enjoy her life has allowed me to enjoy the past 18 months of mine like never before by enabling me to publish the results of my life on the web. Seeing her every morning is an aesthetic experience. The fact that she is 91 makes me nervous; but my 'angel' passed through my space on Wednesday. Perhaps another aesthetic experience awaits that will motivate me to continue explaining "my view" that "life (is) a reaction to the void". 

_____________

Membrain 03.03.07  11¹.1  (12)

Doug wrote:
Even when calling it the question that gave 'birth' to humanity, I see it as the last question before discovering "the void".

Membrain wrote:
So if the "Last Why" gave birth to humanity, I find it somewhat ironic, since before the birth of humanity, I assume that we weren't asking any questions superior to that of the other animals. By that I mean, I assume that many animals asks questions like "How do I catch that antelope?" or "How do I get over this river to escape the raging forest fire?", etc. and that those questions are NOT specific to "humanity". I assume that you are saying that the "Last Why" is (or could be) what defined the beginning of the human-specific question: in other words, the first question that separated us from animals.

So feel free to set me straight on any of those assumptions. My comment merely was to point out the irony of the Last Why being the First Why if in fact that's what you are saying.

I wrote this on 09.14.06  and I couldn't find a reply. Any reply? Thanks.

_____________con'd @ 11².2 

north 03.03.07  14.1  (12)

Doug wrote:
Although we don't think of our lives in this way, I suggest they are reactions to the void. I see the void being simply what we discover when we question the meaning of life, ask the question I call "the last why". I suggest the void is our motivating force. If we haven't already, we will get a sense that life is this reaction to the void when part of an 'inheritance' we probably didn't even know seemed to be giving meaning to our life, is removed and we experience the emptiness most often referred to as the void. Once its effect is felt, we don't take long reacting to the void.

We can think of our reactions to the void as weaving fabrics of existence with 'threads' of activity. There are only two types. Natural activity is reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Its consequence is self-realization. Unnatural activity is trying to fill the void. There are eight ways we can try to fill the void and the consequence of each is self-destruction. (for more detail see the link below)

We weave our fabrics of existence according to the law of human nature which has only two stipulations. First, we must be using some natural 'thread' or we will cease to exist. The law also stipulates there is a limit on the amount of 'thread' we can use. Thus, when we are at our limit, if we wish to add more unnatural 'thread' to our fabric, we must displace an equivalent amount of 'natural' thread. Conversely, if we wish to add natural 'thread', it must replace that amount of unnatural 'thread'. Within the unnatural component we can use any amount and any number of the unnatural 'threads'. Depending on the ratio of natural to unnatural 'thread' we choose to use in our weave, our fabric of existence is either dominantly self-realization or self-destruction.

Though we each weave a fabric of existence they have no boundaries. They weave together to form humanity's fabric of existence. We become part of this fabric the moment we are conceived. When we die naturally we fall away from the edge. When we die unnaturally we leave a hole in it. We are influenced and restricted by the fabric of humanity; but at the same time we can change it and the restrictions by changing our individual fabrics.

To 'see' the fabric of humanity, imagine the 'threads' of unnatural activity are different colours and the 'thread' of natural activity is clear. At present the fabric is a mess of clashing colours. We can see through it quite easily but only where there are holes. If we continue to weave with our present mix of 'threads' the fabric of humanity will self-destruct and God will not save it. Nor can any of us alone prevent self-destruction; but together we can. By reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the ideal reaction to the void, we can create a flawless fabric of existence through which we may see "God's Glory".

north wrote:
actually I think that it is a form of brainwashing thinking that this void is only filled , satisfactoryily by some sort kind of concept of god. and quite frankly I'm sick and tired of hearing about it.

it is this concept of god(s) that has caused ALL this MESS in the World first place.

if we , as a being , a unique being , called Humans , in this Universe believed in ourselves, beyond any concept of god(s), our life , our existence , is more important than any teachings from any god , from the begining of our time in this Universe. WE would ALL RESPECT each other NATURALLY , no matter where in the World you were from.

I believe in the Human Spirit. and NO other , EVER. NATURALLY.

_____________con'd @ 14.2 

intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

Doug 11.12.06  9.61  (11)

Ierrellus wrote:

Jakob,
What of those of us who have been given a deck of 51, who inherit the blight in the seed, who live in a world in which humans are seen as winners or losers according to what they are able to accomplish? I've not seen much of any praise for being the best one can be despite handicaps. I've witnessed instead the notion that a one-legged man must run as fast as a two-legged man or be left out of the race, even if the race is only for necessities. Personally, I don't want sympathy; I merely want access.

Doug,
The idea of a fertiled egg becoming anything is based on recapitulationism, the concept that fetuses appear to recapitulate the history of mammalian evolution in instances such as showing evidence of gills, etc. The concept was proposed by Ernst Heinrich Haeckel in the late 19th century, CE. It is currently discredited by most scientists, but has been used by such as Piaget, who compares the evolving of a human child to that of other members of our species. But Piaget, a psychologist-geneticist would in no way insist that the future of a fertilized egg is up for grabs as far as species designation, a genetic mandate, is concerned. Possibility includes and excludes.

Ierrellus, I can't identify with you. I was given 54 cards. My only concern is that in one of the hands I draw I will find both jokers. I'll be doubly the fool. My feeling is we are wired to feel better when we help others up than we do when we walk over them. If it helps I want you to know you've often been my second leg.

Thank you for the biology lesson. You'll have to work with me on you assertion that "possibility includes and excludes". Having thought about it for only a few minutes the associations I make are that possibility includes; certainty excludes.

______________con'd @ 9.62

Jakob 11.12.06  12.19  (11)

Doug wrote:

Jakob, I want to return to your post after I study it for a time but I want immediately to say I was not aware I was deconstructing your thoughts. I thought I was trying to reconcile your thoughts with mine the only way I know how. I could have asked you at the end if I understood the meaning of your words. I shouldn't have assumed you would understand my intention. I am sorry.

I understood your intention, but observed that it resulted in completely altering what I said. You also altered the word in that dictum, remember? If you'll look at it again you may see it results in a difference in meaning. The dictum only has meaning the way it is

______________con'd @ 12.20 

Ierrellus 11.13.06  9.62  (11)

Doug,
Bless you!!! You are right about what excludes from intentions. Here's a story you might like. A PBS nature show was about a bower bird. What this male bird had to do to attract a mate was to build a small arch she could pass though. If she liked the arch, she would accept him as her mate. So he set to work and constructed his arch while she looked on. It was a magnificent structure, enough to please any female bower bird. But then a snake crawled through it and tore it down. Nonplussed, the male bird started from scratch one and built a second arch. This time it became infested with ants. The female left. The expression on that male bird's face, even if I anthropomorphize it, was one of palpable dismay. Among humans there should be infinite chances to build our arch. Yet certainty most certainly prevents this. And certainty is the joker in the deck. If possibility could simply be allowed its creative potential, no handicap could prevent it from moving from exclusion to inclusion.

______________con'd @ 9.63

Doug 11.14.06  12.20  (11)

Jakob wrote:

Doug - thanks for your elaborate response, but I have to say that in order to understand and appreciate my thoughts and intentions you would have to abstain from altering my sentences before you comment on them. I choose my words with delicate care, and your adaption of them to your tastes results in destruction of my ideas. It is not surprising that you don't agree with them since you comment on them after the descruction.
Sorry for putting it so harshly but that's what happens. If I would've meant creative power I would have have said so. I'll come back to what I mean later this post.

As you will have understood I don't think the world now is less beautiful than in the renaissance - in terms of art I think the world today is vastly superior to back then. This has everything to do with the far more powerful means we have now to create. Our creative powers have been enhanced by exposure to genius.

I sort of expect to to disagree with me even more now - differences were sure to arise sooner or later. I am grateful for the white / black void, even though I have misunderstood your conception of it. To me life is not about filling a void, I am a Zen-man through and through and my conception of the void is being-nor-non-being. The gaps between different cultures and species need to be bridged; but I believe this will only happen through the realization that the fact that we will never understand each other as we can only, in a stroke of genius, understand ourselves, does not mean we are a threat to each other. A Westerner does not need to be understood by an Easterner. Mystery is a friend of genius. The gap is bridged by those who take delight in difference, not by those who fear it.

Ierrelus - I've been an outcast in this world and have been considered a loon by most all my life. This and other misfortunes have caused me to suffer, and long for access. What I say here in this thread is what has made access possible for me.
I can offer only what I have.

_______________and

I understood your intention, but observed that it resulted in completely altering what I said. You also altered the word in that dictum, remember? If you'll look at it again you may see it results in a difference in meaning. The dictum only has meaning the way it is

 Jakob, in order to understand how my watch works I have to remove the cover. To understand how your mind works I have to remove the words with which you cover your mind. I think I have removed your cover; I think I am beginning to understand. Referring to your first paragraph, in a previous post you wrote, "Common sense is a residue of genius. It does not exist by itself. All acts that keep us alive through the day are acts of genius". As soon as I saw the word "genius" I thought of Einstein. Apparently you would have thought of Beethoven because of his 9th. In spite of this immediate and common word association I looked up genius. I found the meaning of genius is: "exceptional intellectual or creative power". Despite the equivalence of their meaning, I created my offence when I substituted "creative power" for "genius" because I believe you want "genius" to mean a "Beethoven" or an "Einstein". By making the substitution I acknowledge I changed your intended meaning. It seems you have a view of life that includes a "superman", or an "over man", or a "genius". How "The residue of (elite) genius is common sense"; how "it does not exist by itself"; or how the" acts of genius keeps (the rest of ) us alive" you will have to explain.

In the meantime let me present my seemingly contrary view once again, this time without deconstructing yours. In my ideal view of life we all reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. I call this natural activity self-realization but I do not object to it being thought of as self-creation. I see unique capacities so obviously one among us will have the greatest capacity. However, being unique I see the contribution we each make to the self-realization of humanity equally essential. I feel this is enough of a description but once again I don't object to my description meaning we all have the power to self-create and contribute to the creation of humanity. Now isn't it amazing that just by substituting its meaning for the word "genius", I can use your statement without changing its unintended meaning, to describe my contrary view. "Common sense is a residue of a (common) creative power." is an all inclusive statement. It should be obvious that "(common) creative power does not exist by itself ". Finally, if we do not exercise some measure of creative power we die for "(the) acts that keep us alive through the day are in essence acts of creative power". Having established my desired connotation I have no difficulty with saying in my ideal view we are all equally geniuses with equal "access" to life.

In my real view I believe we are restricting our "genius". Not long ago in this thread I transferred from my other thread the idea that if what I propose is our common human nature needed a physical model, it would be the tetrahedron with the equal sides and base representing respectively, body/mind/spirit in reaction to the void. If we imagine them in the ideal view on a level plane we would see our entire unique structures stretch out like a range of mountains with life flowing through the valley floors. I suggest that in reality we've managed to dam(n) the flow of life so that all but a few 'peaks' are submerged in conflict, their creative power drowned by the flood of efforts to fill the void. I suggest that if we can break that dam, then we will see the true genius of humanity.

With reference to your second paragraph I ask what is "beautiful"? "In terms" of our life support system, is it "vastly superior to back then"? Are there more fish in the sea? Is the air cleaner? Is Africa greener? Is the "far more powerful means we have now to create" able to create harmony between us?

In your third paragraph you say, "To me life is not about filling the void". In this we have absolute agreement in one of what I'd consider the 3 fundamental statements about life. The second is, life is not about giving up.The third is, life is about reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. To elaborate the third, life is about exercising our creative powers; it is about being geniuses.

You also say, "Mystery is a friend of genius." Again I have to agree. Mystery, the unknown of our potential capacities is indeed a friend of genius. The rest of what you wrote will require more effort to understand but I'd say we have a solid beginning and I'm willing to continue. 

_______________con'd @ 12.21

Ierrellus 11.14.06  9.63  (11) 

In my last response I referred to inclusion and exclusion in two different senses. I realize that such is problematic. Exclusion is a social priority. Social organisms practice it. What is similar, but not the same, in a biological sense is the fact that potential involves many things that are not immediately useable. For example, many sperm are produced while it takes only one to fertilize an egg. The extra sperm are assurance that the job gets done. In the conservation of energy, hence matter, excess becomes recycled. If humans could see the given dignity of recycling as necessary for new beginnings, even social exclusions could become extinct. In the conservation of energy there is no such thing as waste, no such thing as excess, no such thing as duds.

______________con'd @ 9.64

Jakob 11.14.06  12.21  (11)

Doug - I will comment on this more later, for now I feel I should explain why I am intent on using the word genius. Not because everything is Beethovens 9th, that is not so. But because existence itself is, as far as the intellect goes, ununderstandable, so it could only be created by genius, which is ununderstandable to the intellect.
Creative power doesn't cut it. What created this creative power? Rationally it is impossible to trace back to anything comprehensible. That is why genius is needed - it is a word that represents the untouchabThegeneology of the
Einstein is, I think, a much more appropriate example of genius in this case than Beethoven. Beethoven made something exceptional, Einstein did the impossible.

______________con'd @ 12.22

Doug 11.14.06  12.22  (11)

I look forward to your elaboration. In the meantime I will puzzle over "...existence itself is, as far as the intellect goes, ununderstandable..." I thought I understood existence is becoming what we are capable of being. Why? Now, that is unknowable; that is the void

Further, I thought "What created this creative power(?)" is the fusion of a sperm and egg. Why? That is unknowable; that is the void.

Finally, I thought "Einstein did (what is) impossible" only for the rest of us; and that we can do something that would have been impossible for Einstein, become what we alone are capable of being, create our own '9th symphony', our own 'E=mc2'.

______________con'd @ 12.23 

Jakob 11.17.06  12.23  (11)

What is 'we'? what is 'becoming'? what is 'capable'? what is 'being'?

What is 'fusion'? What is 'sperm'? What is 'egg'? What is '(un)knowable'? 

Doug wrote:  Finally, I thought "Einstein did (what is) impossible" only for the rest of us; and that we can do something that would have been impossible for Einstein

Do you really believe that?

______________con'd @ 12.24

Ierrellus 11.17.06  9.64  (11)

My question is that if our biological heritage from which our thinking comes cannot be described as having voids or gaps of any kind, since it is progression, is the void a social meme? An abstraction taught as being real?

______________con'd @ 9.65

Jakob 11.17.06  12.24  (11)

Doug - explaining genius is, on second thought, counterproductive. I see the bliss of anwereness resulting from it's adoption drowning already when contemplating explanation. My reason for taking it as the foundation of all, including reason, is that it is beyond reason. This has direct relevance to the 'all formulations are wrong' contention, particularly the material discussed in that thread about thought beyond language. I hope you'll forgive me for cutting the discussion about genius short here. I have a lot to lose, and nothing to gain, and don't believe you're going to find yourself lacking of stimulants if I withhold from you any stumbling attempts to do what I take delight and relief in knowing to be impossible.

______________con'd @ 12.25

Doug 11.18.06  9.65  (11)

Ierellus, when I first read your question I thought I would respond immediately that the concept of the void is a social meme. Then I thought "void" is a word that is somewhat equivalent to "unknown". Moreover, I think it is acceptable to say that we have the same instinctive fear of the unknown as all other animals and that this instinctive fear seems to be passed along in our genes. Now, the language we develop to describe the biological effect of an unknown and ways of dealing with the void are obviously passed on as a meme. Given our mutual inclination toward using terms like bio-philosophy, bio-psychology, and bio-epistemology, could we consider the possibility of a bio-meme somewhere on a continuum beginning with genes and ending with memes?

While I was thinking about this I had a related thought. I think it is just a philosophical fantasy but I've always imagined the possibility that animals evolved along parallel lines and thus from our beginning humans have always had and will always have 46 chromosomes. These determine our individual and thus collective potential physical and mental capacities. There is no similarly constant number of memes. We started with none and the number has since increased exponentially. Do you think this continued unregulated proliferation of new and mutated memes could cause us to evolve into self-destructive monsters despite our biological instructions.

______________con'd @ 9.66

Doug 11.18.06  12.25  (11)

Jakob, years ago there was a commercial on TV for Rolaids. The essence of it was the question, "How do you spell relief?" The answer was R-O-L-A-I-D-S. I suspect the answer to the question, "How do you indicate "pissed off"?" could be,

"What is 'we'? what is 'becoming'? what is 'capable'? what is 'being'?

What is 'fusion'? What is 'sperm'? What is 'egg'? What is '(un)knowable'?

Do you really believe that?"

You asked if I believed that " 'Einstein did (what is) impossible' only for the rest of us; and that we can do something that would have been impossible for Einstein, become what we alone are capable of being, create our own '9th symphony', our own 'E=mc2' ". To answer this question we, you and I, have to agree we can know that a female egg is a 'packet' of 23 genes , a sperm is a complementary 'packet' of 23 genes that under a microscope looks like a tadpole, and that when the lucky one out of many thousands impregnates the egg they join together to form the single cell with the potential of becoming a human being. Immediately upon fusion the cell begins to become what it is capable of being, to transform itself from a single cell to an adult human form. If we can agree that these observable, physical entities and process involved are not figments of our imagination, then it is a scientific fact that "we", collectively each of us, becomes what no one else can be. There is no element of belief whatsoever. 

Jakob wrote:

Doug - explaining genius is, on second thought, counterproductive. I see the bliss of anwereness resulting from it's adoption drowning already when contemplating explanation. My reason for taking it as the foundation of all, including reason, is that it is beyond reason. This has direct relevance to the 'all formulations are wrong' contention, particularly the material discussed in that thread about thought beyond language. I hope you'll forgive me for cutting the discussion about genius short here. I have a lot to lose, and nothing to gain, and don't believe you're going to find yourself lacking of stimulants if I withhold from you any stumbling attempts to do what I take delight and relief in knowing to be impossible.

I think it is wise that you refrain from formulating a definition of genius given your contention that "All religious/philosophical formulations are wrong". Libraries are overflowing with attempts to explain the impossible. That's why I decided long ago that my attempt to explain life would not stray far from the biological formulation. The dictionary definition of genius being "creative power" fits nicely into that formulation. In it I see the possibility that we all have the unique power to contribute to the creation of humanity. We can all be geniuses; but to the degree we fail to use that power, we are fools.

______________con'd @ 12.26  

Jakob 11.18.06  12.26  (11)

Doug wrote:

If we can agree that these observable, physical entities and process involved are not figments of our imagination

My contention was not that all xxxxx formulations are wrong, but all formulations are wrong. if you weren't so intent on assuming things you would perhaps be able to see that precisely the x's you put there are the wrong things about the formulations.
I take you seriously - but that will stop pretty soon if you keep using assumptions to what I agree on and perversions of my sentences to make your points.

Pissed off, Jakob

______________con'd @ 12.27

Ierrellus 11.19.06  9.66  (11)

Doug,
I see the rift between you and Jacob as semantic, not as indicating any real opposition of ideas. You both can work this out without coming to a parting of the ways. It's not up to me to say how.

______________con'd @ 9.67

Jakob 11.20.06  12.27  (11)

If we can agree to differ there is no problem. Doug: If you leave my sentences intact I'll be happy to continue.

______________con'd @ 12.28

Doug 11.20.06  12.28  (11)

Thanks Jakob; and thanks to you too Ierrellus. I have been working on a 'bridge' for the last 3 days. I am using only my material. It it almost ready to place. If rain continues to fall today and my Mom and I are unable to go for a walk I should be able to post tonight after our game of scrabble and Mom's session of computer solitaire. The only other complicating factor is whether or not she gets a perfect game right away. She is competitive. She hates to quit before getting a perfect game so I give her some of my typing time.

______________con'd @ 12.29

Doug 11.23.06  12.29  (11)

Jakob, when I seemed you might not reply to my previous long post I started preparing, for this thread, a probable conclusion to a useful conversation I had with Carleas in "The God Delusion" thread. In light of your most recent replies I will continue because it is now doubly useful. The conversation went like this:

Doug: I hesitated to post in this thread because it is a relaxed discussion about a book and the views of Dawkins who I have not read. I tried to watch one of the docs that I think Obw posted but I couldn't figure out how to keep it going. I know of Dawkins because BillWalton tried with several posts on my thread to convince me with the enthusiasm of a fanatic born again Christian that Dawkins really is our 'savoir'. I also hesitated because on my own thread I am allowed to be tedious and I worry about causing eyes to roll on other threads.

However, when Xunzian mentioned Dawkins goes too far when he "places religion as the root of evil", tentative said, "His meme theory is just as faith based as any religion" and a couple others added related thoughts, I pushed my hesitation aside. As always but in another way I would like to suggest that at the root of all evil are our efforts to fill the void. Certainly our religious/philosophical reactions to it are some of the ways we can try to fill the void and Dawkins adds one more. A long time ago religious leaders correctly noted that our materialistic reaction to the void is also at "the root of all evil". There are others.

As always but in another way I will suggest that at the root of all good is our effort to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. With that I will return to my own thread. 

Carleas: Doug, Dawkins does lay out a fairly convincing case for religion causing more harm than good. One thing I was surprised to read, but and idea to which I am coming around, is that he claims religious indoctrination to be a worse ill than sex abuse. He thinks that convincing children of a theory that has no evidence, and uses fear and other traumas to ingrain a belief in its victims, is worse than a pedophile touching a child in a way that the child cannot understand.
This is a radical view, and one most would reject, but what made me listen was that he revealed that he was subject to sexual abuse and religious indoctrination as a child, and is more upset about the religious abuse. He cites another case from a personal correspondence with a woman, also a victim of both forms of abuse. One of her non-christian childhood friends died, and her young and indoctrinated self was traumatized by the belief that her firend was suffering in perpetuity. Meanwhile, she recalls her sexual abuse as merely "yucky."
Dawkins also informs that there are support groups for people with a paralysing fear of hell, even after they have lost their faith in their religion. The point seems valid, and religion has a lot going against it.
Doug, your point is undermined entirely by 9/11, another of Dawkins' examples. It is not "filling the void" which impelled the hijackers to kill. It was the unfounded and outdated beliefs that they used to fill it. They WERE reaching for god, and you would be hard-pressed to convince anyone that any good at all came of it. 

Doug:  Carleas, you were doing really well until you got to the last paragraph then you got lost. It was probably my fault. I am not so sure of what I am saying that I will put it in bold capitals; and the only reason I am repeating my view here is that I can use a form of the word delusion. It is my view that the events 9/11 were caused by a group of susceptable individuals who were deluded by the purveyors of Islam claiming that their religion will fill the void. The hijackers activities were just at the extreme end of the continuum on which we also see Christians sending millions of dollars to the miracle channel believing an act of God will fill the void in their lives; and the rest of us variously addicted to other unnatural activities. Perhaps the hijackers were reaching out to god but if they were, it was a god long dead, suffocated by the wrap of Islamic, Christian and other religious threads. It was just as likely though that the hijackers were reaching out to the 30 or 40 virgins their god promised for martyrdom.

Carleas: Doug, I don't think that it was the act of filling the void that caused the problems. It seems clear that many people fill the void without killing themselves and thousands of others. Clearly, the problem is with what they were filling the void. They were reaching for a version of god, and they were inspired to kill to achieve it.

Doug: Carleas, you may not agree with it but with a little work you would understand my view. You are almost there. However, what you have written is not relevant to a Dawkins thread and I don't want repeat myself here; but I am happy to repeat myself as many times as I am prompted to, on my thread, to create an understanding of my view.

______________end 

In my simple view of life we cause all "problems" with our unnatural activity of trying to fill the void; and the solution to our "problems" is to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, our common natural activity. The former I call the absolutely restrictive reaction to the void; the latter I call the ideal. In my OP which presented the view that life is a reaction to the void, I stated that our reactions to the void are blends of natural and unnatural activity. I explained that the blends of activity we use in our reactions can range from the theoretically possible completely natural, through diminishing amounts of natural and increasing, complementary amounts of unnatural activity, to an end of completely unnatural activity.

The consequence of completely natural activity is self-realization; the consequence of completely unnatural activity is self-destruction; the consequence of blended activity is a measure of self-realization and a measure of self-destruction determined by the amounts of natural and unnatural activity in the blend. Although we can choose self-realization, I don't think anyone actually chooses to self-destruct. Rather, we choose to try filling the void; but the problem is the void can not be filled. So we try harder. The harder we try to fill the void the less we "reach out...", the more meaningless our effort becomes, the harder we try... until eventually we empty our reaction to the void of natural activity and we self-destruct. Thus I suggest that when the extremists hit the twin towers, they were trying with one last exclusive "act (to fill) the void".

Furthermore, the reason "It seems clear that many people (try to) fill the void without killing themselves and others" is that our reactions to the void are not exclusively trying to fill the void. They contain a measure of natural activity and the more we reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the less we can try to fill the void so that it is possible to try filling the void to some measure without killing ourselves and others with an extreme act. If our reaction to the void is dominated by self-destruction, it will just be somewhat more or less gradual and the harm to others more or less obvious.

Although we labeled the extremists who flew into the towers Islamic, "Clearly the problem is (not) with what they (were trying to) fill the void." While there is only one way to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, there are eight ways we can try to fill the void. In the reaction halfway along the continuum between the ideal and the absolutely restrictive reaction, in which the natural and unnatural components of activity have an equal effect, I 'see' in the unnatural component equal 'weights' of all eight ways we try to fill the void. This incidentally gives rise to the "everything in moderation" philosophy. In reactions increasingly removed from the midpoint, closer and closer to the ideal, I 'see' the numbers and 'weights' of the ways we try to fill the void randomly decreasing in a diminishing unnatural component, until in the ideal there is individual self-realization. In reactions increasingly removed from the midpoint, closer and closer to the absolutely restrictive, I 'see' the number of ways we try to fill the void decreasing and the 'weights' of the remaining ways increasing in an increasingly unnatural component, until in the extreme our reaction is exclusively any one of the eight ways we try to fill the void but identical self-destruction.

In my OP to "The God Delusion" thread I used the word evil for the first time in explaining my view of life. However, since Dawkins brought it up and given the harm they cause I found it useful to characterize the eight ways we try to fill the void as being evil; and reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God as being good. I suggest that our religious/philosophical reaction to it, collectively all religions and philosophies, is one of the ways we try to fill the void. It is definitely evil so Dawkin's statement that "religion (alone) is the root if all evil" is not totally without justification; but it is myopic. While our religious/philosophical reaction to the void does result in a great deal of destruction and self-destruction, I believe our materialistic reaction causes as much harm. Those of us trying to fill the void with money and all the stuff it buys are "reaching for a version of god (the economy) and (we) are inspired to kill to achieve it"; and we don't have to hijack planes. They are parked in neat rows like crosses in a war cemetery, along runways at air force bases and they are loaded with smart bombs so there is no need to fly them into buildings to cause harm.

Of course we don't consider our materialistic reaction to the void evil. We believe with the conviction of a born-again Christian that we are right in spreading the gospel of materialism, protecting our freedom to make as much money as we can any way we can and defending our dollar values. Without exception we all believe our particular reaction to the void is right and for good reason. In my simple view there is only one right and that is reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Trying to fill the void in any way is therefore wrong. However, our reactions to the void are never exclusively trying to fill the void, except in the extreme. They are all blended with a measure of natural activity and the associated sense of right. This sense of right characterizes our blended reaction regardless of how little natural activity is in our reaction. Only in the extreme, in our last act of trying to fill the void do we discover too late we are dead wrong.

This misinterpreted sense of right is obviously imbedded in my initial statement that "we cause all 'problems'...by...trying to fill the void". Conflict between apparently different efforts to fill the void certainly causes enormous problems. However, I believe a far greater problem is our conflict over the same thing, money. Our addiction to the materialistic reaction to the void is already widespread and continues to grow. Tragically, no amount of money is any more able to fill the void than a never ending supply of the most powerful opiate. Our increasing efforts to fill the void with money are taking us closer to the extreme. If we don't look closely we seem to be having a good time; but you know...I think that's only because we haven't yet hit the wall.

So there you have it Jakob, another one of my efforts to explain what's happening. It is as simple as I can make it without help. You have helped in the past but you have also on occasion tried to make my explanation more complicated. You do that with elegance. Your posts in AI are completely unintelligible to me; but due to my philosophical deficiency so are the rest of them. I do not need help complicating my explanation of life. I will do my best to keep it simple, an effort that will include deconstructing complex philosophical structures. If my thread dies due to waning interest so be it; but I won't, if I can help it, let it die of complications.

______________con'd @ 12.30

Ierrellus 11.24.06  9.67  (11) 

"Opposition is true friendship."--Wm. Blake. If I read only what enhances my point of view, I learn nothing. If I read what contradicts my point of view and am able to see beyond the contradiction, I have learned something and my point of view can become more valid for anyone with questions about it.
In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" Blake also believes we should stand in awe of genius. By genius he meant creative power exemplified in action. This, to him, was evidence of the divine inherent in the seemingly mundane. I can't be Einstein, but I can revere him as a spirit who obliterated concepts of absolutes so that the rest of us can move beyond these stagnant stopping places.

_____________con'd @ 9.68

Jakob 11.26.06  12.30  (11)

Doug, How then is life a reaction to the void?
Is life unnatural?

I took the (white) void to be a stimulus to life. I still take it to be - I have learned something from completely misinterpreting you. Typical - Whenever someone intends something, chances are the universe will ignore that intention but use the materials produced by the intention in it's own unfathomable play.

_____________and

I understand now that your void means difference between people, and that filling the void is trying to equalize all life. Is that correct?

_____________con'd @ 12.31

Ierrellus 11.26.06  9.68  (11)

A biological take on the void, for what it's worth. According to some, evolution began when DNA became encapsulated within a cell wall and extended to bodies, which allowed mobility and protection for the constructing proteins. Encapsulation provides both protection and limitation. Human minds, arriving at self-consciousness, become aware of both. Religions have generally seen limitations as corruption, thus fostering a not- OK sense that can be exploited. Consequently, such religions have been antagonistic to scientific endeavors that push beyond the limitational envelope. The protective box, in religion and philosophy, often becomes more important than creative mobility.
"The cistern contains.
The fountain overflows".-- Blake.
Psychologically, repressive containment produces suffering and incentives to cause suffering. Biological containment is the only house that is free to move and to rebuild itself by moving. Its confinement, seen as a prison, is a social meme.

_____________con'd @ 9.69

Jakob 11.26.06  12.31  (11)

If evolution begins when DNA already exists, how does one see DNA? As a given that does not need to be explained? I see evolution at work from the initial formation of the first atoms until Google's takeover of you tube.
- If religions see limitation as corruption, and are antagonistic to endeavors to push beyond limitations, they see themselves as corrupted. Which religions are those?

_____________con'd @ 12.32

Ierrellus 11.26.06  9.69  (11)

Jakob,
Good point. Evolution does go beyond the arrival of DNA. I just used that parameter in order to consider the confinement issue, which appears important only to humans, pets, or animals trapped in zoos.

_____________con'd @ 9.70

Doug 11.26.06  12.32  (11)

Jakob wrote:

Doug, how then is life a reaction to the void?
Is life unnatural?

I took the (white) void to be a stimulus to life. I still take it to be - I have learned something from completely misinterpreting you. Typical - Whenever someone intends something, chances are the universe will ignore that intention but use the materials produced by the intention in it's own unfathomable play.

I understand now that your void means difference between people, and that filling the void is trying to equalize all life. Is that correct?

Jakob, in my hope for helpful questions you have surpassed my expectations. Thank you.

Ierrellus, have no doubt I appreciated your Friday post. I will respond.

Please give me a few days to catch up though. It is snowing where I live in the mountains. My 91 year old mother and I are going out to shovel the snow off the driveway so that we can go grocery shopping. In the photo album on my web site there is a picture of my home that I took last winter. You can see what I am up against if you wish. Jakob, don't make a special post but the next time you do, tell me, are you driving the car in your video or are you the cameraman? I still haven't been able to keep one of these videos going but from what I can tell it seemed like a frenetic trip around Amsterdam, a projection of your life I suspect.

_____________con'd @ 12.33

Doug 11.29.06  12.33  (11)

Jakob wrote:

 1: How then is life a reaction to the void?
2:Is life unnatural?
3:I understand now that your void means difference between people, and that filling the void is trying to equalize all life. Is that correct?

I took the (white) void to be a stimulus to life.

Jakob, I think I answered your first question in "The Void". I have copied the post. To repeat what I said when I first posted it, this is a rewrite of an entry I made to my web site last year. I have rewritten it twice as a result of conversations I've had here at ILP. If you or anyone else can tell me where it is lacking or is still too complicated, I will rewrite it again. 

THE  VOID

When I began thinking about publishing my epic poem THE LAST WHY, my first thought was some type of hard copy. I talked to an artist friend about a graphic. She planted the web seed; but I still wanted "a picture... worth a thousand words" for my home page. I suggested a single red rose on a black canvas representing respectively, the last "why?" and "the void", the two concepts at the beginning of my thoughts. She declined.

Left on my own I thought of a mother's day rose on what could appear to be an endless expanse of white snow covering the ice on the lake. The result was inspired. A red rose on black is such a negative image. However, until I saw the red rose on white snow I had never 'seen' the void as a white emptiness rather than a black hole. The void represented by white emptiness is the positive image I had intended to convey.

In my view of life we create the void, or more accurately, we discover it if we question the meaning of life. I call this question the last "why?" because it seems when all the other questions are asked and answered, this one will remain. There does not appear to be an answer in the usual sense to the last "why?"; thus the void, to me, is simply a missing answer. Though simple and perhaps experiencing its apparent effect depends on asking, I believe the void has become the primary motivating force of our existence.

That might seem odd given we have to ask, to be aware of the void. However, for the void to be our primary motivating force, the question that discovers it only needed to be asked once and it was, many millennia ago, sometime after one of our ancestors asked the first "why?" When s(he) 'picked the rose', s(he) reacted in the way s(he) had to previous unknowns. S(he) experienced fear, anxiety, panic, terror, the urge to escape, then created a theory to fill the void, shared it and acted accordingly.

We would still be acting according to this first theory had it filled the void but since it and all subsequent theories did not, the void was rediscovered again and again and.... Each time the void was rediscovered an individual altered the theory, changed the action and shared the reaction. The individual could have altered the theory by either adding to or subtracting from a preceding theory. Not every one accepted the new reaction so the old one continued to exist. These reactions to the void accumulated over the millennia and were passed from generation to generation. We are living that inheritance today.

Though the reactions to the void we've inherited can vary from the differently named but synonymous, minutely detailed theoretical world views with prescribed activities, to reactions of activities without apparent theoretical framework, they can all be traced to the original discovery of the void. That is our history. We may not be aware of this primary motivation because it seems possible to live our entire lifetime without questioning our inherited activities. More likely though we will lose part of our inheritance and feel a "void in my life"; or just feel that "something was missing"; or experience a floating anxiety and as have some in all preceding generations, we will be motivated to modify our inheritance or convert to another reaction to the void.

Although the void motivates simply by being, it seems to act with a force that can vary from being apparently insignificant to being the most powerful disintegrating force imaginable. My interpretation of our perception the void has a variable effect begins with the theory that prior to asking the last "why?" which gave birth to humanity, our ancestors, by nature, had been reaching out to the limits of their capacities, to others and to God. They were fulfilling their biological purpose of becoming what we are capable of being as had preceding generations back to the conception of humanity. I then suggest that replacing this natural integrating activity with the unnatural disintegrating activity of trying to fill the void confuses our being to the degree of replacement.

So quite simply, the more we try to fill the void and thus diminish our natural activity, the greater will be our confusion. Among the other consequences of substituting unnatural activity for natural activity is conflict within us, conflict between us, meaninglessness and of course questioning. The more confused we are the more often we question the meaning of life, thus rediscover the void and experience the fear, anxiety, panic, terror and the urge to increase our efforts to escape the meaninglessness, in the various ways we try to fill the void. In the extreme, when we have created a black hole by replacing all our natural activities with the disintegrating unnatural activity, it will seem as if the void has caused our self-destruction.

Despite the abundant evidence of unnatural activity, I don't think self-destruction is the inevitable legacy of the void. It doesn't seem like we are being forced to continue trying to fill the void so there is no reason we couldn't begin to empty it and diminish its apparent effect. To say emptying the void wouldn't be easy is the ultimate understatement. Changing an inherited reaction to the void is difficult enough but living without one would be the supreme challenge. Nevertheless, as surely as our ancestors tried to fill the void with them, we can remove all the theories that have accumulated in the void throughout our history.

As a consequence, we would shed all the restrictive, disintegrating unnatural activities which prescribe what to be; and replace them with the natural integrating activity that allows us to become what we are capable of being. According to the theory, conflict, confusion and questioning the meaning of life would then diminish. Eventually, the void would appear to become an impotent white emptiness. We can't and wouldn't wish to, return biologically to the 'womb'. However, we could philosophically 'replant the rose', let it be and 'watch' the sense of meaning in self-realization grow around it as we reach out the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, apparently the ideal reaction to the void.

So, if the theory is fact, does it matter whether self-destruction or self-realization is the legacy of the void? I don't have and answer for that question. However, I am certain that in self-destruction we will never know. I suspect that in self-realization, we might discover why.

_____________

My answer to your question "Is life natural?" is a qualified yes. I think it is acceptable to say life is activity. In our collection of life activities I see natural activity and unnatural activity. Natural activity is the innate reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God that has transformed us collectively and transforms us individually from a single cell life form to our present level of realized potential physical/mental capacity, activity, knowledge and spirit. Activity outside this definition is unnatural. I see two types, the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void and the unnatural inactivity of giving up. The ultimate consequence of the former is active self-destruction while the ultimate consequence of the latter is passive self-destruction and in both cases that means death. The ultimate consequence of natural activity is self-realization, life. Thus defined, life is natural; but our lives are not entirely natural. To restate from my OP our lives are reactions to the void which are currently all, blends of natural and unnatural activity so our individual lives are somewhat less than natural and consequently so is the resultant life of humanity.

Now I am going to skip your third question and comment on your statement "I took the white void to be a stimulus to life". It is not because I am saving the most difficult question until the end like I did when taking exams. There is only one question about my view I can not answer and that is "the last why". I am skipping to your statement because my comments regarding your statement provide even more background for the third answer. Before I begin I want to compliment you on an excellent (mis)take. To explain I am going to recreate an image of motivation or to use your word "stimulus", that occurred to me years ago. In my rough drafts of this post I was presenting minute details about the evolution of the image but I found I was burying it in answers to questions you have not yet asked. So I decided just to describe the image, use it to comment on your statement and answer questions you might ask after you ask them.

The image is essentially a circle but it is incomplete. I leave a small gap in the circumference at the bottom. I created the image because in my analysis of our reactions to the void I ended up with a continuum of blended reactions. At one end I had the absolutely restrictive reaction, what I called, exclusively unnatural activity of trying to fill the void. At the other end I had the absolutely permissive reaction, what I called unnatural inactivity of completely giving up. Reactions to the void increasingly removed from the absolutely restrictive became less restrictive as natural activity replaced unnatural activity of trying to fill the void. Reactions increasingly removed from the absolutely permissive became less permissive as natural activity replaced the unnatural activity of giving up. In the middle of the continuum was the ideal reaction that is entirely the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Even though the ultimate consequence of the absolutely restrictive reaction is active self-destruction and the ultimate consequence of the absolutely permissive reaction is passive self-destruction, self-destruction is self-destruction and it didn't make sense to have self-destruction at both ends of a continuum. So I 'bent' the line into the shape of a circle leaving a small gap between the ends.

Although I created this image to present the continuum of reactions to the void I saw immediately that if I imagined the circle enclosing the void, I had the perfect image of motivation. The only addition I needed to make was to state that I believe we have an innate biological motivation to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. This motivation is behind that natural activity, which transformed us from a single cell to our adult form. I maintain that as long as we are alive we continue to experience some measure of this innate motivation but note that it is diminished by giving up and restricted by our efforts to fill the void.

To see this image of motivation as I originally created it, imagine standing at either the absolutely restrictive or absolutely permissive end of the circular continuum, oriented so that your line of vision is along the diameter between you and the ideal reaction. At this point you will see nothing but the void, emptiness, nothingness, a black hole; and will give up or try filling the void. Now imagine moving along the continuum away from either absolute, toward the ideal all the while maintaining your original visual orientation, parallel to the line between the gap and the ideal. With each step you will see less of and thus be less motivated by the void, 'freeing' on the restrictive side or reacting to on the permissive side, that much more of the innate biological motivation. At the reaction halfway between the absolutes and the ideal you will see the void with one eye and the possibilities of "reaching out..." with the other and be motivated equally by both. As you keep moving toward the ideal your view of and motivation by the void will continue to diminish and your view of and motivation by the possibilities of "reaching out..." will continue to increase until in the ideal your only motivation is the biological, to reach out to the limits of your capacities, to others and to God.

I repeat, this is the image of motivation as originally conceived. I am now changing it in response to our conversation, but I want to emphasize, by only adding my rose and coloring the area outside the black void, white. Now as we move away from the extremes toward the ideal, we gradually lose sight of the impossibility in the black void and gain the vision of possibility in the white emptiness, until at the ideal we see the "rose" in nothing but white. At this point I suspect you might be thinking, "Yes! the white void is the stimulus to life". Again I say this is an excellent (mis)take and add, a beautiful (mis)interpretation. My only objection to saying "The white void is the stimulus to life" is its philosophical connotation. It might seem like a minor quibble but I simply prefer my original notion that the motivation behind reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, was at the beginning, is now and will remain until our end, biological. I'll leave the philosophical motivation to the black void. However, I really like the idea that the white emptiness is a 'canvas' upon which we 'paint' the results of our "reaching out...", around the rose.

I trust by now you can see that your understanding "that (my) void means difference between people and that filling the void is trying to equalize life" is not correct. The only equalizing effect of trying to fill the void is identical self-destruction. Although the void can have a different motivating effect depending on our place in the continuum of reactions, it is for all of us the same constant missing fact we discover when we ask the last why. Contrast the black void with the white emptiness where I do see the equalizing possibility of us all having a 'canvas' on which to 'paint' our unique 'pictures'.

Jakob, I think I have answered your questions and related my view of the "white void". Only you can tell me for sure. I thank you again for your help. 

_____________end 

intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

Doug 10.06.06  9.49  (10)

Ierrellus wrote:

There is no way I would wish to trash a thread as timely as this one is. I would, however, ask that some of its fundamental assertions be explained. The most pertinent to me is whether or not there is a universal reaction to the void, one that can be found in the written or oral traditions of all humans.

Ierrellus, had you not written I was going to recall the image of the CN tower I mentioned a few posts ago but since you asked to have "some... fundamental assertions" explained I am going to give you my answer to your first question. It is no, not within either written or oral traditions. However, if you allow me to introduce instinctual tradition as a third option, I will say yes. I hope I don't create a logical linguistic tangent by using instinctual and tradition together. I used tradition only because I wanted three similarly worded options. I struggled with the choice between instinctive and instinctual and only chose the latter because it had a 'psyc' tag.

I just want to point out that we do not learn to turn on the 'light' in our eyes when as a child we suddenly realize the capacity to do something. It seems reaching out to the limits of our capacities is instinctual. Reaching out to others with 'hands' open to the unconditional exchange of realized capacities also seems to be instinctual. So apparently is reaching out to God. Thus, reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God is my suggestion for a "universal, (ideal) reaction to the void". It has been handed down from generation to generation but increasingly ignored in favor of the more easily followed written and oral traditions that have been created, with which we try to fill the void.

______________con'd @ 9.50

Doug 10.06.06  12.10  (10)

Jakob wrote:

When the void is taken to mean 'meaninglessness', as it can be, then the first real reaction to the void in western philosophy came in the form of Nietzsche's idea that life can only justify itself, that there is no predefined context, no purpose, no structure to relate it to and to provide it with substance.

I think many interpretations of the great monotheistic faiths have been denials of the void. Zarathustra's observation that God is dead means to me that the void is again the void, instead of a hypothetical reality.
As frightening as this void is to people who have no personal meaning in their lives - existence would become devoid of meaning - so encouraging is it to those who do recognize that seed of reality that they discovered at a certain moment, when they were invited into the mystery of life. A challenge, which can only be answered proudly, boldly - I will CREATE meaning. That is my reaction to the void. I think, to put it impossibly naive, that the first thought existence had when it came into existence was; 'if I am going to exist anyway, there is point in holding back!'
That's the only explanation I can think of for existence not to be a mass of nano-goo. My answer to the question that Darwin left to be answered.

Whether or not this, or another reaction, is written in the different scriptures of the worlds history I don't know. Of course in Zen, all joy in life is a reaction to the experience of the void, the experience of the void is the first reaction to the void. The experience means that the experiencer must be separate from the void, which is a purely extactic awareness of undeniable and undivided existence.

Jakob, I am glad you switch between threads as easily as you seem to switch between languages. When you speak to me here I think I understand most of what you are saying. The middle part of your quote seems a bit fuzzy to me but I think I got the essence. As an observation in no way intended to oppose what you say, I suggest the error of those who practice the great monotheistic faiths is that they expect God to fill the void. When they discover God can't fill the void they try harder and harder and complicate life beyond recognition.

If you don't mind I would like to modify your statement "I will CREATE meaning" to "I will create ME(aning)". The inference is that in creating me by reaching out to the limits of my capacities, to others and to God, I will experience the greatest possible sense of meaning.

My final comment is indeed, "...the experiencer must be separate from the void." Smell it, but do not pick the 'rose' and be condemned to trying to fill the void.

______________con'd @ 12.11

Doug 10.06.06  9.50  (10)

Ierrellus wrote:

Creativity is our image of God"--Nicholas Berdyaev. Yes!!!. And that is why I attempt to describe the potentials involved in physical evolution, upon which mental evolution is built, as excursions into the unknown, but not unknowable, as reaches into a bounty of possibility. IMHO, this universal, physical excursion is a reaction to the void that sustains and verifies existence.

Ierrellus, do you think this great quote "Creativity is our image of God" has the same root as the Bible verse "We are created in the image of God" we heard when we were younger? If only the people who read the verse to us explained that we do the creating out of our potential physical/mental capacities. If they had told us "the image" is that of creating and not our physical appearance we wouldn't be stuck with and God wouldn't be restricted by the image of an old man with a white beard.

Where you have written physical excursion would it distort you intention if I changed "physical" to "physical/mental/spiritual"?

______________con'd @ 9.51

Ierrellus 10.06.06  9.51  (10)

Doug,
I tend to use the word physical because it is so underestimated by anyone who cannot see it as a fountainhead of development into what we label mental and spiritual realizations. I cannot separate the knower from the known in order to deify pretty abstractions. That sort of separation is done by many who cannot or will not fathom physical sources of ideas, usually done out of hubris, seldom done out of concern for anything other than self.

Yes. N. Berdyaev was a Russian theologian. He meant exactly what you are saying. We create out of our potential. This is our image of God.

_______________con'd @ 9.52

Jakob 10.06.06  12.11  (10)

In Zen tradition, the void is called being-nor-non-being. So no, it doesn't exist. But that's exactly the reason it is being summoned as an idea - because all life, when confronted with the naked reality of itself, is set against an incomprehensible lack of background.
What we experience as the void can be either existential fear, horror vacua, or, if we seek out the void, nirvana. It is just a matter of holding on or not.
"If you hold on to life, you see demons tearing you apart,
if you let go of life, you see angels setting you free" - as I remember it from Jacobs Ladder - one of the profoundest films I ever saw.

Life as a reaction to the void can be seen as life that cannot look back, because there is nothing there, and is forced to look forward, which results in it creating itself-forth.

We as human can never understand our reason for existence, until the moment we create ourselves, and realize we are ourselves the reason for our existence. But this is not a given - meaning requires exertion, effort - an active, creating life.

______________con'd @ 12.12

Doug 10.13.06  12.12  (10)

I can't over emphasize that in my view of "life (as) a reaction to the void", Jakob's "creating life", which is synonymous with my "self-realization", though individual activity, can not be separate from the activity of humanity. To repeat part of my original post, we do create an individual "fabric of existence" by 'weaving' our particular blend of natural and unnatural 'threads' of activity. However, our individual "fabrics of existence" 'weave' together to form the "fabric of humanity". The relative 'weights' of natural self-realizing activities and unnatural self-destroying activities in each of our individual 'fabrics' add to create the resultant 'weights' of natural and unnatural activity in the "fabric of humanity". So what we do with ourselves, we do to humanity which sets an upper limit on what we can do with ourselves. Individually we can use more natural thread in our weave than is in the resultant. Indeed it is by rising above the resultant that we raise the upper limit but we are still restricted by it. We can try but one of us can not use entirely natural activity in our reaction to the void unless we all use entirely natural activity. If we ever get to that point our self-realization will be bound by only our biological limitations.

Among the reactions to what I've just said I imagine two silent questions. My response to the first is that I use the phrase "individual vs. group rights" only to catalogue evidence of self-destructive thinking. In my view there is only one right and it is reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. This right is the same for all of us and the consequence of this ideal reaction to the void is individual self-realization. Any unnatural infringement on this right is wrong. Our perceived right to try filling the void in our own way is absolutely wrong and the consequence is identical self-destruction. Have I just arbitrarily set up a system of morals? Heaven forbid. I have described a "right to do" not a "do what's right". Trying to fill the void is not wrong because it is self-destructive. Wrong is just a word used to define what is possible outside the "right to do". My book of ethics is only one phrase long.

My response to the second imagined silent question is no. Here I try very hard to avoid suggesting self-realization is the purpose of life knowing the controversy that phrase can cause. However, for the life of me I am unable to see how anyone can object to considering self-realization the possibility of life. Life is happening. We eat; we excrete; with no thought of purpose. Beginning as a single cell we have become what we are both individually and collectively without much thought of purpose. We agree self-destruction is a well documented possible out come of our activities. Surely we should be able to agree that self-realization is a possible alternative without getting our shorts in a knot over purpose, and then talk about the two possible outcomes of our activities.

______________con'd @ 12.13

Ierrellus 10.14.06  9.52  (10)

Doug,
Our "biological limitations" are not sufficient to prevent our physical expansion into potentials. If they were, we would not be here to talk about it.
It seems that I can offer little more to your thread other than reiterations of a biopsychological perspective. These are--1. that attraction/repulsion appears to be the link between organic and inorganic chemical activity. 2. that organisms survive by being able to identify in their environments the chemicals that comprise their own structures. We eat what we are. To identify what we are outside ourselves is to project our composition onto the outside world or to sense from sensory feedback what is out there that is us. Like attracts like. , 3. and that DNA programmed activity appears goal oriented, giving us our first experiences as purposeful. In short, our biological experience reveals being, becoming and belonging.

______________con'd @ 9.53

Doug 10.20.06  9.53  (10)

Ierrellus, if I said something to evoke, "Our biological limitations are not sufficient to prevent our physical expansion into potentials.", I need to know what it was so I can avoid repeating it. Somehow "biological limitations" became a barrier between us and our unrealized potential. I intended biological limitation to be beyond. My understanding of "biological limitations" comes from personal experience. When I went to school prior to the "plastic age", sports programs were part of the curriculum. While participating in track and field events I realized I had a biological limitation that prevented me from running 100 yards in less than 11 seconds. I had no potential of greater speed into which I could expand. However, in one race no one in the city could keep up to me over a mile. I never did reach my biological limitation in that distance but I am quite sure I did not have world class potential. I was a much better skater than a runner so given the limitations imposed on my time I chose hockey over running and discovered "biological limitations" prevented me from making the N.H.L. I have no difficulty with the thought that somewhere beyond my present realized potential mental capacities, there are similarly genetically determined limitations. Is this not an acceptable understanding of "biological limitations"?

Now, I didn't get all of your biopsychological perspective. I haven't yet been able to appreciate the significance of your first reiteration. I am also having difficulty with, "To identify what we are outside ourselves is to project our composition onto the outside world or to sense from sensory feedback what is out there that is us." I am quite sure your third reiteration is confirming my view that the DNA program which guides the single cell formed by joining an egg and sperm, through the activity of becoming an adult human being supports my suggestion the ideal possibility of life is to become what we are capable of being by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God.

This last point is critical to my view of life so I almost pursued a conversation with Peter Kropotkin in Jenny Heart's thread "The seven celebrations of Christmas". The particular celebration had to do with supporting the pro-life movement. I didn't reply to Peter's post. Apparently a mod asked him to edit it because he questioned Jenny's "intelligence" so by the time I decided to question his statement the quote was gone. In essence though I believe he said life didn't begin at conception because at the beginning, life is just a collection of cells that could become anything. I wasn't aware of this, are you? Man, I am really going to be bummed out if someone gives me the scientific evidence that the single cell formed by the joining of a human sperm and egg can become something other than a human being. Without that foundation, my entire view will collapse.

I am already in the minority with my contention we are all in this life together. Six out of ten agreed with Jenny's statement "...No friggin' way. Scrooge was right and money's my god! If the widows and orphans and other week among us can't compete...then let them hurry up and die, and thereby reduce the surplus population!" There were similar responses in the creative writing forum on Phaedrus's thread, "Can any one write a poem...". I had a brief conversation with LHW who asked ''...who is to blame...(for all the shit that's happening)?" My answer to his question was that it depends of course on our point of view. If I see myself as an individual existence among isolated existences then no one is to blame. However, if I see myself as an individual existence connected to all other existences then we are all to blame. Our entire history of ancestors are to blame for creating the life circumstances we find ourselves in and we are to blame for perpetuating our inheritance. Jakob posted next and that's where the thread ended, without a resolution. Even if I have to stand alone on this point I will not change my view that we are all connected both horizontally through the present and vertically back to our beginning as a single cell life form; and it is the collective 'philosophy' that we 'eat' that determines whether or not we all die in "shit". 

______________con'd @ 9.54

Ierrellus 10.21.06  9.54  (10) 

Doug,
Your view of biological limitations is, IMHO, correct. I, like you, are arguing against those who pose such ideas as a disconnect between organic and inorganic matter or that there is no basic interconnection between all existing entities. I did not intend to imply that you could not understand biological limitations. I suffer from major depression, which prevents me from doing much of what I would wish to do. But it does not stop me from being the best I can be given the handicap. If I succumbed to comparisons and imagined myself in leagues in which I cannot compete, then I would be only self-condemnatory. I compete with no one but myself; and improvement follows.

There is no truth to the idea that a fertilized egg can become anything other than what its genetic ancestry has determined it to be. Life predates conception. It is continuous. Even contraception amounts to abortion. But I don't see abortion as wrong or immoral. It is a natural phenomenon. Miscarriage is an example. The body rejects what it cannot support.

As for the identity/projection business, I wondered how the Adam organism, the first ever life form, "knew" what to eat. Since it was constructed from the chemicals that exist outside its body, it needed these chemicals for fuel. Some mechanism inside the organism had to make a distinction among external nuitrients, toxins and nonnuitritive/nontoxic chemicals. Outside the organism the nutrients are found in compounds and complexes different from those inside the organism. For the sake of parsimony in survival techniques, the organism had to identify the external sources of its external needs by, either having senses that projected its structure onto the external structures thereby finding the necessary identity or by having senses that filtered out what was extraneous or toxic, but allowed in what matched need and supply. In either situation, it is a matter of like attracting like, not of opposites attracting. We eat what we are made of. We know better than to try to eat rocks.

I did not say that I could offer little more to your thread as indicating any conflict between your and my ideas. It was from the understanding that your ideas are fine as they are and that mine may offer little or nothing to their validity. Slough off the naysayers and carry on. Your ideas are good! The scrooge argument is about the most ignorant I have heard yet.

______________con'd @ 9.55

Jakob 10.24.06  12.13  (10)

Doug,
I'm glad you responded affirmatively to my conclusion that we would do best to leave God up for speculation. It reminded me of this thread and the fact that I've found the white void very helpful in conflicting situations, for example during kung fu practice. It creates room for effortless exertion of natural power. It also reminded me of the feeling I had when contributing to this threads, that I had finally found a philosophy that I can pursue with heart and soul.

Yesterday I had some extreme experiences which I will not describe but which ended in the insight that 'he who suffers is not, he who heals is it'
This of course relates to two parts of myself, the chaotic and the cosmic side. And this all relates to the difference between the white and the black void. It seems I am most at home in this thread. I am able to formulate opinions on a lot of things, but not always stand by them. Here, I believe that what I say represents what I am.

To continue in your line of questioning - it would not unsettle me at all if a sperm and egg cell could become anything, but choose to become human - I think the universe has become human because it wants to - because humanity is the most effective form for self realization it could conjure up. Through us it will find more effective forms - that is, for example, my understanding of Nietzsche's superman. But I Think some of us already are potential supermen compared to the people Nietzsche's days, given what we van do with technology alone, expression / realization wise.

Are we all together? I think not. Not yet. There are too many beliefs which contradict each other, which really want war, like you say in your signature. I do believe a synthesis of these beliefs will be violent. But I think it will occur, and lift humanity to a global consciousness.
I think it is important to face the harsh reality of conflicting world views in order to realize the possibility of a united one. I'm not 100% certain that it is the best way of looking at it. But rationally, I have to see the conflict for what it is.

______________con'd @ 12.14

Doug 10.28.06  9.55  (10)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
Your view of biological limitations is, IMHO, correct. I, like you, are arguing against those who pose such ideas as a disconnect between organic and inorganic matter or that there is no basic interconnection between all existing entities. I did not intend to imply that you could not understand biological limitations. I suffer from major depression, which prevents me from doing much of what I would wish to do. But it does not stop me from being the best I can be given the handicap. If I succumbed to comparisons and imagined myself in leagues in which I cannot compete, then I would be only self-condemnatory. I compete with no one but myself; and improvement follows.

There is no truth to the idea that a fertilized egg can become anything other than what its genetic ancestry has determined it to be. Life predates conception. It is continuous. Even contraception amounts to abortion. But I don't see abortion as wrong or immoral. It is a natural phenomenon. Miscarriage is an example. The body rejects what it cannot support.

As for the identity/projection business, I wondered how the Adam organism, the first ever life form, "knew" what to eat. Since it was constructed from the chemicals that exist outside its body, it needed these chemicals for fuel. Some mechanism inside the organism had to make a distinction among external nutrients, toxins and nonnuitritive/nontoxic chemicals. Outside the organism the nutrients are found in compounds and complexes different from those inside the organism. For the sake of parsimony in survival techniques, the organism had to identify the external sources of its external needs by, either having senses that projected its structure onto the external structures thereby finding the necessary identity or by having senses that filtered out what was extraneous or toxic, but allowed in what matched need and supply. In either situation, it is a matter of like attracting like, not of opposites attracting. We eat what we are made of. We know better than to try to eat rocks.

I did not say that I could offer little more to your thread as indicating any conflict between your and my ideas. It was from the understanding that your ideas are fine as they are and that mine may offer little or nothing to their validity. Slough off the naysayers and carry on. Your ideas are good! The scrooge argument is about the most ignorant I have heard yet.

Ierrellus, you have not yet failed to give me a push from behind. Obviously you are infinitely more aware than I am that it is difficult to keep going some days so I would like to be able to return your gifts of momentum with interest. I am amazed you have any to spare. You are an inspiration.

I didn't really expect you to confirm that the single cell formed by the union of a human sperm and egg could become something other than a human being. My question was a bit mischievous. However, I've reconsidered Peter K's assertion that the first single cell of a human being can become anything. It has to be able to become anything required of it to become everything needed to be human.

Your statement that "life predates conception" has a really intriguing conclusion. It is so obvious that the lives of my parents predate my conception and the lives of their parents predate their conception. Now, when I fast backward the film I eventually arrive at the conception of life. Was that original conception also predated by life? I wonder.

Thirstformetal started the thread "abortion". I don't think I would have contributed to that thread because of all the context I would have to take with me that is already here. However, since you 'knocked on the door' I will open my perspective. The following is a copy of an entry I made for my web site several months ago. I spent most of yesterday improving it. If you understand this draft I might save it.  ABORTION

______________con'd @ 9.56

Doug 10.28.06  12.14  (10)

Jakob wrote: 

Doug,
I'm glad you responded affirmatively to my conclusion that we would do best to leave God up for speculation. It reminded me of this thread and the fact that I've found the white void very helpful in conflicting situations, for example during kung fu practice. It creates room for effortless exertion of natural power. It also reminded me of the feeling I had when contributing to this threads, that I had finally found a philosophy that I can pursue with heart and soul.

Yesterday I had some extreme experiences which I will not describe but which ended in the insight that 'he who suffers is not, he who heals is it'
This of course relates to two parts of myself, the chaotic and the cosmic side. And this all relates to the difference between the white and the black void. It seems I am most at home in this thread. I am able to formulate opinions on a lot of things, but not always stand by them. Here, I believe that what I say represents what I am.

To continue in your line of questioning - it would not unsettle me at all if a sperm and egg cell could become anything, but choose to become human - I think the universe has become human because it wants to - because humanity is the most effective form for self realization it could conjure up. Through us it will find more effective forms - that is, for example, my understanding of Nietzsche's superman. But I Think some of us already are potential supermen compared to the people Nietzsche's days, given what we van do with technology alone, expression / realization wise.

Are we all together? I think not. Not yet. There are too many beliefs which contradict each other, which really want war, like you say in your signature. I do believe a synthesis of these beliefs will be violent. But I think it will occur, and lift humanity to a global consciousness.
I think it is important to face the harsh reality of conflicting world views in oder to realize the possibility of a united one. I'm not 100% certain that it is the best way of looking at it. But rationally, I have to see the conflict for what it is.

Jakob, I also had an extreme experience this week that I will relate to you. On Tuesday my sister took my mother to her home for a few days. Thank God she will be returning Sunday afternoon but her absence was a dark reminder of a time to come. I've had a philosophical itch to explain life for about 40 years. It was because my mother is living with me that I was able to begin sharing the results of my scratching about 18 months ago on my web site and about 6 months ago on ILP. I have lost track of how many times I've felt doing this is next to what might be the dumbest thing I've done. Then from the pit of self-doubt I would 'see' the purpose in caring for my mother. She has been my 'light'; but she is 91 years old. It got pretty dark here Tuesday but Wednesday morning when I read your post I saw some 'light'. Thank you.

I know nothing about Nietzsche's "superman" but if he is the equivalent of my "ideal" individual he will not quote "The Will to Power", the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, Buddhist writings, Hindu texts, or any other religious/philosophical formulations. "Ideal" individuals will express themselves through what they have become. I must admit that while reading the Nietzsche threads I did find one of his statements enlightening. I know I'll be corrected if I am wrong but I think he was credited with saying that the Europe he lived in had devolved since the Renaissance. I don't mind at all echoing Nietzsche's observation when suggesting our existence today represents a further devolution from his time. I know we've made tremendous advances in science, medicine, technology, communication and so on but in my view these signs of progress are not evidence of evolution. The way I see life, evolution will only occur if we reverse our direction by beginning to increase our reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God; and progress notwithstanding, devolution will continue as more and more of us increase our attempts to fill the void, further diminishing our remaining paltry efforts to "reach out..."

In this effort we can not be together in the sense that we are going in the same direction for when trying to fill the void within, our activities are opposed to each other. However, we are together in the mess of conflict this activity creates. I don't think a syntheses of beliefs is possible; but I do believe a synthesis of humanity is possible and without violence. We can only come together though, if we break out of the shells of beliefs that contain us and reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. If we do, our efforts will result in self-realization. We will become "ideal" people. We will "lift humanity to a global consciousness". Our "fabric of existence" will be flawless and clear. Through it we might see "the glory of God".

My signature statement "We agree to die for our various beliefs because we can't agree on the one reason to live" was a response to a reply made about a poem I posted to the creative writing forum, called A SOLDIER'S LAMENT. It was written from the perspective of a dead soldier who was pissed off now that he could 'see' why he died. I think perhaps I didn't do a good job. I don't think anyone got the message. I still have a glimmer of hope though. My mother remains healthy and I seem to have a couple of friends. 

______________con'd @ 12.15

Ierrellus 10.29.06  9.56  (10)

Doug,
Thanks for your kindness. When I was able to work, I drew a cartoon and posted it over my desk. The cartoon showed a line of ants carrying food up a hill. One ant was on its back, kicking at the sky. The caption read "Some days you just can't get it up." Management removed the cartoon promptly. Some days when I try to write my words come out as dyslexic or spliced together. Yet I have comfort in the belief that my intentions are good. (Eric Burden's song "Don't let me be
misunderstood.") Your offering of a thread that can encompass the thoughts of a bioepistemologist such as myself and a "rational" mystic such as Jakob and can find us mostly in agreement is outstanding.

On the abortion issue. I was gratified to note that you included the young men and women who fight old men's wars as being aborted. I would include victims of capital punishment. Some abortion is justifiable; some is not. On the "life precedes conception" comment . It is not ours to imagine ultimate beginnings or ends. We move through history and, as Santayana (sp.?) noted, we must learn from our past or suffer the consequences of it. We apparently do not retain information on ultimates, but on what has worked for us in the past as what will work for us in the future.

______________con'd @ 9.57

Doug 11.04.06  9.57  (10)

Ierrellus, first let me thank you again for your continuing conversation. Generally I abhor labels and what they represent. Shia and Sunni are two that immediately come to mind but these just begin a list that includes every religious/philosophical label that exists. They represent the walls that divide and conquer humanity. However, though it is not entirely clear to me what a bioepistemologist is, it sounds like it could be someone more interested in unity than division.

I didn't need to but I looked up "bio" and found: "of living being". I looked up "epistemology" again and found: "the theory of knowledge esp. with regard to its methods and validation". Then I read that "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." which seemed to omit my notion of knowledge entirely. I haven't been able to put them together so I still don't feel comfortable with the term bio-epistemology. I suspect you, XUNZIAN and Duende are talking about it in your thread "The Rockness Monster" and I will continue to read you there to see if I can gain an understanding. So far the only statement I've comprehended is at the end of Duende's post on Tues Oct 31 @ 11:06 PM. D. concluded, "... nothing can be separated from its environment; no man is an island, etc..." I agree completely. We are indeed all together.

You've also used the term bio-psychology on occasion which I would like to feel more comfortable with because I suspect that like bio-epistemology, it has the same implication as bio-philosophy, a term I first used in my thread "The definition of knowledge and understanding". The term came to me in a mild fit when two commenters thought it would be fun to begin an historical discussion I felt would be as discouraging as watching the 'dog fight' over the bones of Nietzsche this past couple weeks. I suggested we have studied history enough already to know we are "suffer(ing) the consequences" of our inability to conclude what we are doing is not working; and that it is time to 'study' bio-philosophy.

I define bio-philosophy as the view of truth, knowledge of reality, the nature of humanity and the principle governing existence, in short, my view of life, from the foundation of biological facts. It wasn't obvious to the commenters that the principle I have in mind is that life is and has been throughout our history, a reaction to the void. In the facts of biology I see a common human nature that is a unity of body, mind, spirit in reaction to the void. In our bodies I see the integration of realized potential physical capacity, physical activity and physical knowledge; and in our minds I see the integration of realized potential mental capacity, mental activity and mental knowledge but I recognize the body/mind continuum.

Our potential capacity is genetically determined thus unique. My interpretation of the facts is that our activity can be a blend of the natural, reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God and the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void; or a blend of the natural and the unnatural activity of giving up. The consequences of natural activity is the expansion of our realized capacities, self-realization, the ultimate biological reward. With unnatural activity we prevent self-realization, can actively or passively diminish our realized capacities and cause self-destruction, the ultimate biological punishment. Through activity we acquire factual knowledge, theoretical knowledge, sensory knowledge and emotional knowledge. Knowledge acquired through natural activity fills expanding realized capacities while that acquired trying to fill the void, can not; and is self-destructive. "Spirit" I see as the 'light' of life the brightness of which we regulate with the amount of natural activity in our reaction to the void.

Standing on this foundation I suggest our reality is a measure of self-realization and a complementary measure of self-destruction that we determine with the ratio of natural to unnatural activity in our reaction to the void. I think we can have knowledge of that reality from anywhere along the continuums between objective and subjective and between factual and emotional. Only with completely natural activity, the ideal reaction to the void, can we know real life. As we substitute greater amounts of unnatural activity for natural activity, the reality we know will be correspondingly less real. I believe we find truth in self-realization, in becoming what we are capable of being. It is a universal truth, common to us all; but we create our own truth by reaching out the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Since we create our truth with natural activity it is not absolute. Created truth can be diminished by unnatural activity; and as we diminish the truth we create, we replace it with truth we invent, then label and with which we try to fill the void.

When I consider the number of labels I see I can only conclude we are a long way from created truth. I don't know whether it matters or if this might indeed be our only and fixed reality. If the "ideal" is a possibility, I do know that realizing the truth will require a universal creative effort, but not necessarily a lot of time. All that's required is a change of attitude. A change of attitude only takes an instant but can also take forever. If a change is possible and we decide to make it, on the way to the "ideal" we could call ourselves bio-philosophers, or bio-epistemologists or even bio-mystics. Whatever, by the time we got there though, I think we'd just be calling ourselves individuals.

_____________con'd @ 9.58 

Ierrellus 11.05.06  9.58  (10)

Doug,
I agree about labels. Yet how many of our labels are a matter of expediency? Of using the generic because we cannot afford to spend the time or energy on anything else? When I described Jakob as a "rational" mystic, I realized that mysticism does not have to be rational; but the descriptive words, although apparently contradictory, seem to come together in Jakob's ideas about Jewish mysticism as interpreted by rationalists. Likewise, epistemology is simply the branch of philosophy that deals with knowing. Psychology is an attempt to descibe the mind from behavior. Biology brings the two together. Yes, we are all in the same boat. Yes, no man is an island. Bioepistemology only suggests that our knowing has physical sources and is part of a continuum. In my thread about knowing, what Duende, Xunzian and I have in common is our belief that the sources of knowing are commonly shared by all organisms.

______________con'd @ 9.59

Jakob 11.08.06  12.15  (10)

Doug wrote:

I don't mind at all echoing Nietche's observation when suggesting our existence today represents a further devolution from his time. I know we've made tremendous advances in science, medicine, technology, communication and so on but in my view these signs of progress are not evidence of evolution. The way I see life, evolution will only occur if we reverse our direction by beginning to increase our reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God; and progress notwithstanding, devolution will continue as more and more of us increase our attempts to fill the void, further diminishing our remaining paltry efforts to "reach out..."

In this effort we can not be together in the sense that we are going in the same direction for when trying to fill the void within, our activities are opposed to each other. However, we are together in the mess of conflict this activity creates. I don't think a syntheses of beliefs is possible; but I do believe a synthesis of humanity is possible and without violence. We can only come together though, if we break out of the shells of beliefs that contain us and reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. If we do, our efforts will result in self-realization. We will become "ideal" people. We will "lift humanity to a global consciousness". Our "fabric of existence" will be flawless and clear. Through it we might see "the glory of God".  

The glory of God is not exclusive to a future. It is in all things, and when things run in harmony, the glory increases in brilliance.
You seem very pessimistic, very saddened. I think that looking ahead to an ideal people enhances this sadness- I've come to see that sadness results from allowing factors of which one has no essential knowledge to determine one's heart. Joy rises from self causation. Related to life as a reaction to the void - again the white void and versus the black one. White is possibility, it stimulates and nourishes all that is present in the rose's seed. Black is danger, it obstructs all that is inherent in the seed. Growth from black deforms. Growth from white results in beauty.
The reason I've not responded for a while is that I have experienced a breakthrough in terms of will and love, and was not sober enough to respond to the seriousness present now in this thread - the void has darkened here - I had no adequate response. There is no adequate resonse in terms of common sense. All good now must come from the uncommon, the exceptional, and in fact that is where hope has always been in times of crisis. Common sense is a residu of genius. It does not exist by itself. All acts that keep us alive throughout the day are in essence acts of genius - but our having grown accustomed to them makes us forget that. The world is impossible to conceive in terms of common sense, much like a rose is. This is no different now than it was in the renaissance. The world is impossibly beauitiful, always. The state of mankind at large depends on it's recognizing of this. So does the state of man in private. I am suddenly reminded of this poem:
I saw an old and weary star
look down upon my glory
I saw that old and weary star
rejoice another morning.
It came to me on a moment intimate with destiny, an evening which was a forebode of thoughts followed by events to sweep me off my feet and turn me upside down, for me to realize I had been standing on my head all along. As I am stabilizing on my new, real feet, my reason speaks: Do not be still. Travel to the places you are afraid to love. All wisdom is in motion, and it's meaning can only be understood when in motion. The glory of God is in discovery. I remember this suddenly: 'the mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled' 

______________con'd @ 12.16

Doug 11.08.06  9.59  (10)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
I agree about labels. Yet how many of our labels are a matter of expediency? Of using the generic because we cannot afford to spend the time or energy on anything else? When I described Jakob as a "rational" mystic, I realized that mysticism does not have to be rational; but the descriptive words, although apparently contradictory, seem to come together in Jakob's ideas about Jewish mysticism as interpreted by rationalists. Likewise, epistemology is simply the branch of philosophy that deals with knowing. Psychology is an attempt to descibe the mind from behavior. Biology brings the two together. Yes, we are all in the same boat. Yes, no man is an island. Bioepistemology only suggests that our knowing has physical sources and is part of a continuum. In my thread about knowing, what Duende, Xunzian and I have in common is our belief that the sources of knowing are commonly shared by all organisms.

Ierrellus, I think I understand you use bio-epistemology so that you can ground your understanding of knowledge in the origin of living beings rather than have it float around in a somewhat separate philosophical mental space. This is precisely my motivation for defining the term bio-philosophy. It is a view connected to our biological origins. If I have understood correctly then bio-epistemology can make a valuable contribution to bio-philosophy especially if it simplifies the facts of life as well as you simplified the contents of your thread with, "Bioepistemology only suggests that our knowing has physical sources and is part of a continuum. In my thread about knowing, what Duende, Xunzian and I have in common is our belief that the sources of knowing are commonly shared by all." This is my kind of philosophy, explaining life simply, as it is.

In my last post I used and defined the term "truth". I decided to transform the definition into a poem to publish in the Creative Writing Forum; but before I did I searched the web for "truth". There are 309,000 entries. Prominent is the one from "Wikipedia":

* 1 The major philosophical theories
o 1.1 Substantive theories of truth
+ 1.1.1 Correspondence theory
+ 1.1.2 Coherence theory
+ 1.1.3 Constructivist theory
+ 1.1.4 Consensus theory
+ 1.1.5 Pragmatic theory
o 1.2 Minimalist (deflationary) theories of truth
+ 1.2.1 Performative theory of truth
+ 1.2.2 Redundancy and related theories
* 2 Formal theories of truth
o 2.1 Truth in Mathematics
o 2.2 Semantic theory of truth
o 2.3 Kripke's theory of truth
* 3 Truth in Classical Philosophy
o 3.1 Classical philosophers
o 3.2 Aquinas and the scholastics
* 4 Truth in Continental thought
o 4.1 Kant
o 4.2 Hegel
o 4.3 Kierkegaard
o 4.4 Nietzsche
o 4.5 Heidegger
o 4.6 Fromm
o 4.7 Foucault
o 4.8 Baudrillard
* 5 Truth in Eastern thought
o 5.1 Nishida
* 6 Types of truth
* 7 Truth in religion
o 7.1 Buddhism
+ 7.1.1 The Four Noble Truths
o 7.2 Christianity
+ 7.2.1 Biblical inerrancy
+ 7.2.2 "Double truth" theories
o 7.3 Hinduism
o 7.4 Jainism
* 8 Truth in jurisprudence
* 9 Notes
* 10 References
* 11 See also
o 11.1 Truth in logic
o 11.2 Theories of truth
o 11.3 Major theorists
* 12 External links

I scanned the substantive theories of truth. I think they left out the convoluted theory of truth. After the scan I wrote:

                      TRUTH

Rose seeds become the rose, is truth;
A constant for all living things.
So when we hear a song bird's song
It's what that song bird always sings.
Don't search in 'bones' of men long dead.
Their truths invented are all dust.
The truth that God wrote in our genes
Can be the only truth we trust.
We must "reach out..."; become our 'rose'.
To become less...a falsity.
The truth we search for we will find
Becoming what we each can be.

I was going to use these contrasting views of truth in a post to Love to Think's thread "Can philosophy actually improve your life:" but then decided to save it for my thread. My answer is that it depends on whether you consider philosophy an activity or a view. I am inclined to believe that climbing the Everest of information searching for "truth" will continue to take us to self-destruction. I know it would drive me to drink. On the other hand I suggest finding truth in "becoming what we each can be." will probably improve the life of humanity. I think life really is this simple. Our explanation should not obscure this simplicity. 

______________con'd @ 9.60 

Ierrellus 11.08.06  9.60  (10)

 Jakob,

What of those of us who have been given a deck of 51, who inherit the blight in the seed, who live in a world in which humans are seen as winners or losers according to what they are able to accomplish? I've not seen much of any praise for being the best one can be despite handicaps. I've witnessed instead the notion that a one-legged man must run as fast as a two-legged man or be left out of the race, even if the race is only for necessities. Personally, I don't want sympathy; I merely want access.

Doug,
The idea of a fertiled egg becoming anything is based on recapitulationism, the concept that fetuses appear to recapitulate the history of mammalian evolution in instances such as showing evidence of gills, etc. The concept was proposed by Ernst Heinrich Haeckel in the late 19th century, CE. It is currently discredited by most scientists, but has been used by such as Piaget, who compares the evolving of a human child to that of other members of our species. But Piaget, a psychologist-geneticist would in no way insist that the future of a fertilized egg is up for grabs as far as species designation, a genetic mandate, is concerned. Possibility includes and excludes.

_______________con'd @ 9.61

Doug 11.11.06  12.16  (10)

Jakob wrote:

The glory of God is not exclusive to a future. It is in all things, and when things run in harmony, the glory increases in brilliance.

You seem very pessimistic, very saddened. I think that looking ahead to an ideal people enhances this sadness- I've come to see that sadness results from allowing factors of which one has no essential knowledge to determine one's heart. Joy rises from self causation. Related to life as a reaction to the void - again the white void and versus the black one. White is possibility, it stimulates and nourishes all that is present in the rose's seed. Black is danger, it obstructs all that is inherent in the seed. Growth from black deforms. Growth from white results in beauty.

The reason I've not responded for a while is that I have experienced a breakthrough in terms of will and love, and was not sober enough to respond to the seriousness present now in this thread - the void has darkened here - I had no adequate response. There is no adequate resonse in terms of common sense. All good now must come from the uncommon, the exceptional, and in fact that is where hope has always been in times of crisis. Common sense is a residu of genius. It does not exist by itself. All acts that keep us alive throughout the day are in essence acts of genius - but our having grown accustomed to them makes us forget that. The world is impossible to conceive in terms of common sense, much like a rose is. This is no different now than it was in the renaissance. The world is impossibly beautiful, always. The state of mankind at large depends on it's recognizing of this. So does the state of man in private. I am suddenly reminded of this poem:

I saw an old and weary star
look down upon my glory
I saw that old and weary star
rejoice another morning.

It came to me on a moment intimate with destiny, an evening which was a forebode of thoughts followed by events to sweep me off my feet and turn me upside down, for me to realize I had been standing on my head all along. As I am stabilizing on my new, real feet, my reason speaks: Do not be still. Travel to the places you are afraid to love. All wisdom is in motion, and it's meaning can only be understood when in motion. The glory of God is in discovery. I remember this suddenly: 'the mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled'

_____________and

There is nothing that binds us to the black void but our own will. Simply replace it with the white void, and be redeemed. A man starts with himself, inspires others to do the same, and before we know it, there is a cultural renaissance. All that keeps us from believing this is the black void. The black void says; but the world is evil, history has proven it, I see it in the paper daily, I don't dare to trust man anymore.

People were talking of tyranny, intelligent people were seriously comparing Bush with Hitler. Today we've seen that America at large is wiser than these people; it has chosen the white void over the black. I saw Bush's press conference, and he seemed genuinely relieved to be rid of Rumsfled and the Republican majority. He was welcoming, witty, intelligent. I had never seen him like this. He is set against the white void as well now. Possibility instead of fear. All who now say; 'this means nothing. There will be new evil' talk from the black void. All pessimism comes from the black void. He who grows from the white void often seems naive. But 'Those who don't hear the music think the dancer is mad'.

If I die by the hands of pessimistic hordes I will be their conquerer. When a rose is killed by a jealous man it is the loss of the latter. The rose has lived in splendour, the jealous man's life is determined by the loss of the rose, and the memory of it's beauty.

Ierrellus: there is no 'we' you need to worry about. When you grow from the white void, you are the universe's reward.

Jakob, it is with a smile that I say, "Whoo! I don't want my thread to be moved to the religious forum". In the morning when my mother and I are involved in breakfast activities we watch a local TV station, mostly to see if we will be able to go outside without getting drenched. At 9 o'clock a Christian program begins and before I can turn it off I hear the station announcer saying, "The views expressed are those of the producer". As much as I enjoy reading your posts and I do welcome your continued participation and exuberant support I feel I must issue a similar disclaimer.

In reference to your first post, I would never say "The glory of God is not exclusive to a future...(or)is in discovery...(or) is in all things", because I don't know God is. In fact, I find all pronouncements about God distracting and the resulting divisiveness self-destructive. This is not to say "God" does not pass through my lips. There is of course my signature statement but I just consider it my faint hope clause. It is in this context that I use "God" three times in my explanation of life, THE LAST WHY. I use it once at the very end when I imply that if we save ourselves from self-destruction, by self-realization, we may be seeing "God's glory". However, I repeat, this is only a faint hope, not a statement of fact.

I also say "God damn" a lot in reaction to mounting evidence I interpret as an indication of how stupid we are. Even when faced with scientific consensus there will be chaos within 10 years if we don't immediately and significantly reverse the destruction of our environment, the miniscule shift in power notwithstanding, humanity, lead by the USA remains hopelessly divided. I often say, "God damn I am stupid for believing unity is a state that should be". Then too, when I don't feel like writing another word I sigh, "God help me." I try not to say this often though because usually after uttering these words my 91 year old mother will fill my darkened room with the radiance of her toothless smile and cheery, "How is the writer this morning? Will you glue my teeth in and make breakfast?" She makes me wonder as I see her "rejoice another morning".

I am neither "very pessimistic (nor) very saddened". If I was very pessimistic the period at the end of this sentence would be my last. As you I think correctly observe, the difference between what is and what we hope could be, is sadness; but I suggest only if there is lost hope and I don't yet know if my hope will be lost. This is fortunate because for the life of me I do not know how to quit thinking about what could be, short of a chemically induced stupor I have so far been able to resist trying.

I wouldn't disclaim the poetic journey you took through the colours of the void; but I would be more strict with my use of "common sense" and I would substitute its definition "creative power" for the word "genius" which for me has an undesirable elitist connotation. Then I could agree with "common sense is the residue of creative power.... All acts that keep us alive through the day are in essence acts of creative power". However, I would want to immediately add that not all acts are of "creative power". In fact I repeat my contention that self-destructive unnatural activity significantly outweighs the natural activity of self-realization I equate to "creative power". Having said "common sense is the residue of creative power" it should also be acceptable to say that "common sense" of purpose is the fuel of "creative power" and that it is possible to conceive of the world with this "common sense " of purpose.

I don't think I can support your assertions that "(the conception of the world) is no different now than it was in the Renaissance... (and that) the world is impossibly beautiful always." In my view that life is a reaction to the void, it is that "now", was during the Renaissance and was back to the beginning of humanity. However, my interpretation of history is that the degree to which we try to fill the void is greater now than it was during the Renaissance and thus the world is different and I say less beautiful. In fact as commentators like to remind us, it has further degraded since 9/11. Even if we also allow "world" to mean "earth" I suggest the beauty of our 'mother earth' has been significantly diminished by the scars we have left on her face.

The final thoughts in your first post resonate but again to maintain the consistency of my thought in this thread I would say "(We must) not be still" so we must not restrict ourselves with efforts to fill the void. We must reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. In this natural activity is the greatest possible sense of meaning. In it is the creative power, the self-realization that fills the "vessel" of our being. In the "motion" of natural activity is truth.

Now in reference to your second post I have to deal with three of your conceptualizations to feel comfortable in my thread. First of all, your use of "the void" generally is far more prominent than I'd like it to be. I need "the void" to introduce the suggestion that all the conflict we create is a consequence of our efforts to fill the void. However, I do not see the void as a mystic symbol that should dominate a discussion of the solution for conflict. I feel this discussion should instead focus on reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God with perhaps an incidental reference to the fact this natural activity just happens to be the ideal reaction to the void because it ignores the void altogether.

To deal with your second conceptualization requires a more drastic measure. I need to delete the word redeem. I know I mentioned in my remarks about God a few minutes ago the possibility of saving ourselves from self-destruction by engaging in the natural activity that results in self-realization. Nevertheless, this possibility of saving ourselves from physical extinction is as far away as it is possible to get from even the slightest hint of a religious/philosophical concept of salvation or the notion of a redemptive plan. So in my view there is no room for any form of the word redeem and the baggage it brings.

Finally, I need to clarify your statement "There is no 'we' you need to worry about". I've said it before and I say again now that I believe we are all together in what we call life. We are individuals but we can not escape the boundary of humanity. Thus if humanity is in the state I think it is and we care, then we should be worried about us; but I shouldn't worry about you and the rest of humanity. I should start to worry and remain uneasy about my activities until I can be sure they are all natural and I contribute nothing but my self-realization to the self-realization of humanity. I suspect if we each reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, then there would be "no 'we', (we) need to worry about".

______________con'd @ 12.17 

Jakob 11.12.06  12.17  (10)

Doug - thanks for your elaborate response, but I have to say that in order to understand and appreciate my thoughts and intentions you would have to abstain from altering my sentences before you comment on them. I choose my words with delicate care, and your adaption of them to your tastes results in destruction of my ideas. It is not surprising that you don't agree with them since you comment on them after the descruction.
Sorry for putting it so harshly but that's what happens. If I would've meant creative power I would have have said so. I'll come back to what I mean later this post.

As you will have understood I don't think the world now is less beautiful than in the renaissance - in terms of art I think the world today is vastly superior to back then. This has everything to do with the far more powerful means we have now to create. Our creatve powers have been enhanced by exposure to genius.

I sort of expect to to disagree with me even more now - differences were sure to arise sooner or later. I am grateful for the white / black void, even though I have misunderstood your conception of it. To me life is not about filling a void, I am a Zen-man through and through and my conception of the void is being-nor-non-being. The gaps between different cultures and species need to be bridged; but I believe this will only happen through the realization that the fact that we will never understand each other as we can only, in a stroke of genius, understand ourselves, does not mean we are a threat to each other. A Westerner does not need to be understood by an Easterner. Mystery is a friend of genius. The gap is bridged by those who take delight in difference, not by those who fear it.

Ierrellus - I've been an outcast in this world and have been considered a loon by most all my life. This and other misfortunes have caused me to suffer, and long for access. What I say here in this thread is what has made access possible for me.
I can offer only what I have.

______________con'd @ 12.18

Doug 11.12.06  12.18  (10)

Jakob, I want to return to your post after I study it for a time but I want immediately to say I was not aware I was deconstructing your thoughts. I thought I was trying to reconcile your thoughts with mine the only way I know how. I could have asked you at the end if I understood the meaning of your words. I shouldn't have assumed you would understand my intention. I am sorry.

______________con'd @ 12.19

intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

Ierrellus 09.23.06  9.37  (9)

Jakob wrote:
It takes two to tango and three is a crowd...

Ierrellus wrote:
What is important for me to understand is whether two indicates complementation or polarity.

Jakob wrote:
How could there be complementation without polarity? If one thing complements the other, it is necessarily characterized by complementary properties.... or do I misunderstand you?

I'd like to ask you to read this short essay by Aleister Crowley on the subject of duality:
http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/littleessays/love.html It is written in a very strange style and by no means a scientific explanation, but if anything, it should widen the scope of your thoughts regarding the subject.

______________con'd @ 9.38

Doug 09.23.06  9.38  (9)

Jakob, your previous posts were eloquent, pertinent, supportive and gratefully received. Ierrellus, I shouldn't have to tell you again how much I have appreciated your insight and unlimited supply of relevant quotes. However, I have a feeling that you two are about to take my thread in a direction in which I do not want it to go, toward obtuse obscurity.

I started this thread to introduce my view of life. Jakob, I read the essay at the link you provided. Then I had a nap, reread it and I still didn't understand the author's view of love. Thus I have no clue how to relate it to "Life: a reaction to the void". If you can relate it to the title of this thread please continue. If it has no relevance, please start a thread on numerology and carry on.

Here, if you would like to read and comment on it, is the link to my really simple-minded essay on love. Also read LOVE

______________con'd @ 9.39

Ierrellus 09.24.06  9.39  (9)

Doug,
Perhaps Jakob or I should start a separate thread in which we discuss the issues of complementation and polarity. These issues are entirely relevant to your discussions since they tell of how we relate to the void, of what perspectives we take in considering anything. I'm sorry if that does not relate to your intentions in doing this thread. At this point, I'm wondering what those intentions are. Do you want agreement without dissent? Are we remiss if we do not follow your idea of what we should say?

______________con'd @ 9.40

Doug 09.24.06  9.40  (9)

I really want you to stay and talk to me Ierrellus. I'll explain myself in a bit. At the moment though I have to prepare breakfast for my Mom and me.

______________con'd @ 9.41

 Doug 09.25.06  9.41  (9)

My intention here, as with all my writing, is quite likely the same as yours when you started your thread the "5th paradigm". I want feedback to my view of life. The feedback can be positive as yours and Jakob's have been, it can be negative which some has been or it can be silence as a huge amount has been. I would like a lot more but I won't get any more if my thread breaks.

This thread, like I believe life has, will break if we become polarized. A couple posts ago I felt the three of us were a perfect complement. I could have panicked but when Jakob introduced that esoteric essay on love I felt that you two were going to become one in a conversation that was going to polarize us. The separation didn't bother me but the thought of you taking my thread with you did for it would then no longer provide the feedback I wanted, the original intention of my thread. You have been equally protective of your threads. Please don't think I am being unreasonable for wanting to protect mine.

I think you can see I fully understand the significance of "complementation and polarity". They are completely relevant to this post. In my view however, I talk about the absolute conflict characteristic of the absolutely restrictive reaction to the void. I am thinking you would use the term absolute "polarity" to describe the situation in which everyone is opposed to every one else. At the ideal point in my continuum of reactions to the void I talk about universal unconditional cooperation. Does that sound like a precise definition of absolute "complementation"? Let's talk more about these ideas. Perhaps we can elicit additional feedback.

______________con'd @ 9.42

Ierrellus 09.26.06  9.42  (9)

Doug,
Here are the problems I face. First, when I wake up in the mornings, I have to use whatever energy is available to me. First I read. Then I write. Then I go to the web for communication. The hospital poems are nearly two decades old. I don't spend much time there these days. Second, I found your topic to be one that is very important and is discussed in much philosophic and theological writings. 10,000 people have looked at the thread. Yet only a few comment. That is discouraging. Third, I have my own questions about how much of our take on the human condition is socially conditioned attitude. If I were a native living in a tribe deep in the Amazon, would my take on life not be what the tribe is able to think? Would I question the validity of my existence or its purpose at all? I tried to get responses to this problem in two other threads, without much success. Fourth, I probably discourage participation by my insistence on biopsychology, something many do not find meaningful. I can argue moving potential and "white void" to the max without stirring an ounce of critical thinking from those who must have absolutes, ultimates, time-stopped-change, immobile references for self evaluation.
Yes, that's me with guitar and harmonica. I've since grown a beard--look like Karl Marx!!!

______________con'd @ 9.43

Jakob 09.27 06  12.3  (9)

You're right, I should not have introduced that essay. It only obscured what I was trying to explain, and it draws the correspondence into the details polarity and away from the elementary meaning of the thread as I understood it.
Let me offer a simple quote to get back to the context of the void and the last why:

"If I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree"
-Martin Luther King Jr.

I think that all successful existence comes about by unconditionally supporting the 'other elements in the equation' one is part of, or one chooses to be part of. Such a cooperation is always a journey towards the unknown, as it is based on the acceptance of a lot of unknowns.
The basis of this basing-on, that is, the reason for the cooperation and the necessary faith in it's outcome, is what I would call a primordial will, which is apparently aimed at developing a seed into a rose, for reasons which I can only understand in a term like beauty.
I am defenseless in the face of this will, I can either accept it as a great mercy and source of energy challenging me to rise above what I am, or just be reasonable, have nothing to do with such fantasies and find all the energy fleeting from my life.

Ha - I'm truly grateful to be able to formulate this; the void, to me, is 'being reasonable'.

I thought it over under the shower and concluded that what I mean here by reasonable is to only take into account the known in an equation - and considering the unknowns, until they are known, as negatives.

A white void is possibility, a black void uncertainty, unreliability - danger. A white void sustains, a black void threatens to take away.
The constant challenge, in my life, is to react to the white void even if the black void seems more reasonable.

______________con'd @ 12.4

Doug 09.27.06  12.4  (9)

Ierrellus, Jakob, I am having trouble thinking of a word to describe the feeling your posts evoke so I won't. I will delay commenting so that I don't put any more distance between them and the end of the thread with what I have to say. Nice avatar Ierrellus. I knew you were featured on the ILP banner but I didn't know which one you were. Now I know, second from the left. Nice to meet more of you. I have two pics of me on my web site but when it comes to a choice between them and the rose, the rose wins. I'll talk to you later.

______________con'd @ 12.5

Doug 09.28.06  12.5  (9)

The word I was looking for is harmony and not because it gives me the opportunity to link to a poem. The apparent harmony of thought seems spontaneous and natural; and I don't see it as you two agreeing with what I have said. I claim the thread but not the ideas. I hope we are agreeing on what the 'voice' of humanity is saying and I don't think we are the only ones able to hear the message. I hear it occasionally in statements on other threads but it remains isolated because generally we haven't gotten beyond thinking, "This is mine" to the point of saying "I hear the same message". I think if we could break that dam there would be a flood of agreement from far more than "10,000".

______________con'd @ 12.6

Doug 09.28.06  9.43  (9)

Now Ierrellus, my common sense response to your question, "If I were a native living in a tribe deep in the Amazon, would my take on life not be what the tribe is able to think?", is yes. To your question "Would I question the validity of my existence or its purpose at all?" my answer is no. My guess is their philosophy would involve a harmonious relationship with nature, wisdom I suggest we need to regain. I am not sure exactly what you have in mind when you think of biopsychology. It is interesting though that near the end of my thread "Knowledge & Understanding" I introduced the term biophilosophy. I defined it as: the use of reason and argument in seeking truth and knowledge of reality, especially...human nature, based on biological facts. In response Obw wrote "sounds like a reduced-emissions philosophy..not necessarily a bad idea!" Unfortunately that brilliant reply was the last 'twist' of the thread. It was unraveled by two posts that argued about the importance of studying history. (Once again, forgive my defensive stance.)

____________con'd @ 9.44

Doug 09.28.06  12.6  (9)

Jakob wrote:
Ha - I'm truly grateful to be able to formulate this; the void, to me, is 'being reasonable'.

I thought it over under the shower and concluded that what I mean here by reasonable is to only take into account the knowns in an equation - and considering the unknowns, until they are known, as negatives.

A white void is possibility, a black void uncertainty, unreliability - danger. A white void sustains, a black void threatens to take away.
The constant challenge, in my life, is to react to the white void even if the black void seems more reasonable.

Even before your shower cleaned up your formulation I suspected you didn't mean exactly what you said. I was going to translate "being reasonable" to, being, with reasons; and "the absolutes, ultimates, time-stopped-change, immobile references for self-evaluation" that Ierrellus mentioned to what I call somewhat restrictive reactions to the void.

Jakob, yesterday I published my poem GOD. Later as I scanned the philosophy threads I saw your name so I clicked. Within your post I found..." 'God' is a name for a possibility. It focuses the will and strengthens the heart." That would look good in your signature. Thanks to you too for sharing some of your time with me.

______________con'd @ 12.7

Jakob 09.28.06  12.7  (9)

Doug - I like your poem. The thought that came to me was that the revolution that is necessary in religion is not about setting people free from their dogma, but about liberating God from people's dogma. If anyone is trapped here, it's God. I think this change of focus might release some tied up strength. If God exists, I mean if we assume this, then certainly he does no like to be tied up in a knot. Who knows what He'll do when he smells freedom.
I think poetry is a good way to give God space to play around.

______________con'd @ 12.8

Ierrellus 09.29.06  9.44  (9)

Jakob,
Testy is good! You think for yourself. I like the Greek idea of plenitude--a whole comprised of ultimate variety. Our lack of harmony on the globe and in debates may be due to our intolerance of variety, our personal agendas seen as the only possible world views. What a bland world this would be if there were only roses and no daisies.

Doug,
Biopsychology (See Cosimedes & Tooby) is a relatively new approach to human understanding. Dewey's essay collection, "On Darwin and Other Essays" is probably a good start here. The theme does, however, have a history going back to Spinoza and beyond. Patricia Churchland's "Neurophilosophy" and E. O. Wilson's "Consilience" represent current trends in biopsychology. Both Dawkins and Pinker are into it. OBW was right.
Harmony may be the individual right to coexist and be different, not some forced homogeniety prompted by anyone's ideas of the way things should be for everyone.

______________con'd @ 9.45

Doug 09.30.06  9.45  (9)

Ierrellus, it seems to me we might have lost a significant piece of common ground; but then, perhaps not. In my view we have tolerated the increasing variety of world views long enough. The consequence of this variety is the discord, conflict and self-destruction that characterizes our existence. We are becoming more and more alike in defending our different world views, increasingly restricted by and indistinguishable in our ever improving 'helmets and bulletproof vests'.

I believe we can achieve harmony only by having the same biophilosophical world view, the one that allows us each to become what we are capable of being, without reasons (religious/philosophical world views), "absolutes, ultimates and immobile references for self-evaluation" to quote one of your recent posts. I call this common world view the ideal reaction to the void. It is becoming by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. I see it resulting in "a whole comprised of ultimate variety", a humanity of individuals coexisting without coercion, in complete harmony.

______________con'd @ 9.46

Doug 09.30.06  12.8  (9)

Jakob wrote:

Doug - I like your poem. The thought that came to me was that the revolution that is necessary in religion is not about setting people free from their dogma, but about liberating God from people's dogma. If anyone is trapped here, it's God. I think this change of focus might release some tied up strength. If God exists, I mean if we assume this, then certainly he does no like to be tied up in a knot. Who knows what He'll do when he smells freedom.
I think poetry is a good way to give God space to play around.

Jakob, I am disappointed you haven't added your statement that " 'God' is a name for a possibility. It focuses the will and strengthens the heart." to your signature. It is pure poetry. Thanks too for adding further to the discussion of God and again not going beyond the possibility.

______________con'd @ 12.9

Ierrellus 09.30.06  9.46  (9)

Doug,
The ancient conundrum, expressed in mythologies, religions and philosophies, is how to reconcile concepts of the one (individuals) with concepts of the many(diversities). There can be no problem with diversity if it comprises the ingredients necessary for a larger, more humane whole. In that sense, for me to believe I have the only truths about humans is solypsistic, divisive and often fatal. If I am led to believe that my individual contribution to humanity is viable and good, my difference is not the difference that destroys; it is part of the spices that make for a good recipe.

______________con'd @ 9.47

Ierrellus 10.03.06  9.47  (9)

There is no way I would wish to trash a thread as timely as this one is. I would, however, ask that some of its fundamental assertions be explained. The most pertinent to me is whether or not there is a universal reaction to the void, one that can be found in the written or oral traditions of all humans.

______________con'd @ 9.48

Jakob 10.03.06  12.9  (9)

When the void is taken to mean 'meaninglessness', as it can be, then the first real reaction to the void in western philosophy came in the form of Nietzsche's idea that life can only justify itself, that there is no predefined context, no purpose, no structure to relate it to and to provide it with substance.

I think many interpretations of the great monotheistic faiths have been denials of the void. Zarathustra's observation that God is dead means to me that the void is again the void, instead of a hypothetical reality.
As frightening as this void is to people who have no personal meaning in their lives - existence would become devoid of meaning - so encouraging is it to those who do recognize that seed of reality that they discovered at a certain moment, when they were invited into the mystery of life. A challenge, which can only be answered proudly, boldly - I will CREATE meaning. That is my reaction to the void. I think, to put it impossibly naive, that the first thought existence had when it came into existence was; 'if I am going to exist anyway, there is point in holding back!'
That's the only explanation I can think of for existence not to be a mass of nano-goo. My answer to the question that Darwin left to be answered.

Whether or not this, or another reaction, is written in the different scriptures of the worlds history I don't know. Of course in Zen, all joy in life is a reaction to the experience of the void, the experience of the void is the first reaction to the void. The experience means that the experiencer must be separate from the void, which is a purely extactic awareness of undeniable and undivided existence.

______________con'd @ 12.10

Ierrellus 10.05.06  9.48  (9)

"Creativity is our image of God"--Nicholas Berdyaev. Yes!!!. And that is why I attempt to describe the potentials involved in physical evolution, upon which mental evolution is built, as excursions into the unknown, but not unknowable, as reaches into a bounty of possibility. IMHO, this universal, physical excursion is a reaction to the void that sustains and verifies existence.
What does your geometric design signify? I'm into experiential geometry.

______________con'd @ 9.49

 intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

Ierrellus 08.23.06  9.22  (8)

Doug,
My entire POV comes from attempts to see physical and mental as part of a continuum, not as abstract antinomies, which are only remedies for pains of becoming that have no need of such remedies. The medicine for existential angst is a change in perspective, a realization of what is and that what is has no moral implications. I like Nietzsche's idea of morality as sullying our ideas!. If one must have miracles, existence itself fills the bill. Being is its own right to be; it needs no further explanatory qualifications.

As for my using neuroscience in explaining mental content, yes. I'm guilty simply because I can envisage no lines of demarcation between what is considered mental and what is considered physical. The latter makes the former happen. As for my religious sentiments, or should I say lack of such, let me add a personal note. I'm the son of the last of five generations of fundamentalist, protestant preachers. What their teachings and genetic offerings have done to my life is a sin in itself. I do not discount the idea of God or of a soul. I think that those who state that the physical universe cannot include such place limitations on what is physical that do not exist.

I hate dualism in all of its forms simply because I believe one can get there from here, from physical to mental, from mental to spiritual. Religions that have seen any aspect of the human trinity--body, mind, and spirit, as at odds with, or disallowing the others, have fostered the sickness of hate for millennia. We are of and in matter, which makes matter a precious starting point from which all else can be seen. We are not trapped in corrupt and corrupting bodies. We are given bodies as a base of operations, as an individual site of POV. Am I making sense?

______________con'd @ 9.23

Ierrellus 08.24.06  9.23  (8)

For mitigation of the severity of fundamentalism in thwarting my development I was lucky to have a mother who was a witch, enamored of white magic. She said of my father that he sees only black and white, no shades of gray. So this parentage makes me somewhat of an enigma, chasing both butterflies--the one that lights and the one that moves on.

______________con'd @ 9.24

Doug 08.24.06  9.24  (8)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
Really good ideas. We differ only in terminology. Where you see the void, I see misinterpretations of the pains and hungers, the insecurity, that prompts us to act at all. I'm saddened by the religions and philosophies that consider natural incentives to be sickness or sin, problems in need of resolution or of a final fix. Recurrence of pain and hunger suggests that we are not completed as long as we are alive. After that who knows; and who should really care. "I wish those who long for another world would just go there and leave the business of this one to those who care about it!"-- paraphrased Zarathustra quote.
Humans make artificial environments and must adapt to them.

The only difference I consider significant is that I see the void, not equivalent to but under pain, insecurity and a host of other biological events I call "punishments" which are the negatives to a host of biological events I call "rewards" associated with unnatural and natural activity respectively and meted out according to the "Law of Human Nature".

In my 9.19 post in which I tried to answer your rhetorical question, "Does the void really exist?", I considered drawing an analogy between reacting to physical "hunger" and reacting to philosophical "hunger". It is close but I could see a distracting incongruity so I decided against using the comparison.

When I first joined ILP I posted "Life after death" which Zarathustra might have liked.

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug, about the quote, it all depends on what it is one wants to purify. If it is the natural condition of growth and development by alternating insecurity (hunger, drives, etc) with security (the temporary satisfaction of needs met) it amounts to conflict, at least in humans. If it is wrong ideas about what humans need and how they address such needs, it is certainly in need of purification or at least remedial work.
I hope your mom is doing better.

I am sure we agree here that the natural does not need "purification".

My mother is well thank you. She had a second session with the 'physio' yesterday. I might take her again tomorrow but that should be the final treatment. I will respond to you latest two posts as time permits. Friends asked me to do a couple little jobs to match the other woodworking I did when I renovated and added to their house several years ago. I told them I'd consider the jobs but that I was pretty busy trying to save the world and looking after my mother; and not in that order. I am here at my computer only after washing her hair and before being her personal trainer after she finishes the breakfast dishes and the light house work. I'll talk to you soon. Regards, Doug.

______________con'd @ 9.25

Ierrellus 08.25.06  9.25  (8)

Thanks Doug, for understanding that is more precious to me than differences of perspective.

______________con'd @ 9.26

Doug 08.26.06  9.26  (8)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
My entire POV comes from attempts to see physical and mental as part of a continuum, not as abstract antinomies, which are only remedies for pains of becoming that have no need of such remedies. The medicine for existential angst is a change in perspective, a realization of what is and that what is has no moral implications. I like Nietzsche's idea of morality as sullying our ideas!. If one must have miracles, existence itself fills the bill. Being is its own right to be; it needs no further explanatory qualifications.
As for my using neuroscience in explaining mental content, yes. I'm guilty simply because I can envisage no lines of demarcation between what is considered mental and what is considered physical. The latter makes the former happen. As for my religious sentiments, or should I say lack of such, let me add a personal note. I'm the son of the last of five generations of fundamentalist, protestant preachers. What their teachings and genetic offerings have done to my life is a sin in itself. I do not discount the idea of God or of a soul. I think that those who state that the physical universe cannot include such place limitations on what is physical that do not exist.
I hate dualism in all of its forms simply because I believe one can get there from here, from physical to mental, from mental to spiritual. Religions that have seen any aspect of the human trinity--body, mind, and spirit, as at odds with, or disallowing the others, have fostered the sickness of hate for millennia. We are of and in matter, which makes matter a precious starting point from which all else can be seen. We are not trapped in corrupt and corrupting bodies. We are given bodies as a base of operations, as an individual site of POV. Am I making sense?

Ierrellus wrote:

For mitigation of the severity of fundamentalism in thwarting my development I was lucky to have a mother who was a witch, enamored of white magic. She said of my father that he sees only black and white, no shades of gray. So this parentage makes me somewhat of an enigma, chasing both butterflies--the one that lights and the one that moves on.

Ierrellus, you are "making (complete) sense". I just reread Definitions of knowledge and understanding to see if I mentioned specifically the body/mind continuum. Although I did introduce my definition of knowledge by stating I view knowledge on a continuum from the entirely physical through decreasing physical and increasing mental to entirely mental, I did not specifically make reference to the body/mind continuum. I have since edited this post to reflect the congruency of our views and to emphasize the seamless integration of body/mind/spirit.

I had to smile at your religious history and the wisdom of your mother. Just yesterday on our walk my mother mentioned for the 'millionth' time, telling my father he had to make a choice. He either had to tell his mother to quit trying to save her or he could quit calling. It was only when my parents came to live with me in 2001 that I began to suspect my father had been damaged by his religious parents; and to discover that despite a lifetime of accommodating my father, my mother, like me, never did understand Christianity.

The first September my parents were with me my older brother and sister got together on the idea of turning a celebration of my parents anniversary, in my home, into a religious service. I asked my sister not to considering how Mom and I felt. She said if we didn't want to participate we could leave. Last year when we talked briefly about the extreme tension in our relationship she said my non-belief was an impediment I put between us. I couldn't argue with that. On another occasion when my older brother visited he separated Mom from me and tried to save her "eternal soul". She cried for about 2 hours after he left. She had no idea what he was talking about and couldn't understand what she'd done wrong. When she was finally able to regain her composure she asked me to call my brother and tell him not to visit again. I didn't. My younger sister is a preacher. These siblings and I don't talk much.

I would say God damn the religion that separates me from these siblings, my mother from these children and separated my mother from my father for 63 years, but that would be misleading. I have a younger brother not at all infected by the Christian virus who lives less than 5 minutes walk from us. In the 5 1/2 years our mother has lived with me he has spent less than an hour alone with her. He has a different view of life but the result is the same. So instead I say, God damn the all the unnatural components of our reactions to the void, that separate us from each other. For we share a fabric of existence. It should be flawless. We should be together.

______________con'd @ 9.27

Ierrellus 08.26.06  9.27  (8)

Doug,
Double WOW!!!! An honest post! As yours always are. I tend to get bent out of shape over disagreements about my opinions. (See my thread on paradigms.) It may be from the perspective of an old guy who cannot always muster the strength necessary to ward off attacks on promising self-defintions. I mean no harm in self-defense.

My family is just as balled up about religion as yours seems to be. Remaining siblings who tolerate each other best at an impersonal distance. I would tell your mom that being born makes her precious and real and that her take on God is nobody else's business. As for the siblings, if their love has riders, it is not love because it cannot see reality beyond the self. Not what the greatest spiritual masters have taught us. No God creates waste; only our minds do. What we see as split from ourselves will be the sword that wastes us.

The void for me is the fantastic unknown, the room for potential to move, the glorious mystery that allows us to create and be created. What a small God we see, when we must defend our right to be.

______________con'd @ 9.28

Doug 08.28.06  9.28  (8)

Ierrellus, I want you to know I have not gone on a holiday. I am busy rewriting "The Void", again. This is one of the first posts I made to my own web site. I rewrote it the first time after about a month of feedback to this thread. This second rewrite is in reaction to your comments and other offerings of astute thoughts since that first rewrite. I thank you again for your recent contributions and previous contributors for the effort they put into their conversations with me. I will publish this draft here in a few days in anticipation of further assistance. Once more which is not enough, thanks for your time.

______________con'd @ 9.29

Ierrellus 08.29.06  9.29  (8)

And thanks to you, friend, for believing my take on the matter matters. Will await your return and that of others who think beyond the box.

______________con'd @ 9.30

Doug 09.03.06  9.30  (8)

Hi Ierrellus, this is the latest draft of "The Void" I have posted to my web site.

When I began thinking about publishing my epic poem "THE LAST WHY", my first thought was some type of hard copy. I talked to an artist friend about a graphic. She planted the web seed; but I still wanted "a picture... worth a thousand words" for my home page. I suggested a single red rose on a black canvas representing respectively, the last "why?" and "the void", the two concepts at the beginning of my thoughts. She declined.

Left on my own I thought of a mother's day rose on what could appear to be an endless expanse of white snow covering the ice on the lake. The result was inspired. A red rose on black is such a negative image. However, until I saw the red rose on white snow I had never 'seen' the void as a white emptiness rather than a black hole. The void represented by white emptiness is the positive image I had intended to convey.

In my view of life we create the void, or more accurately, we discover it if we question the meaning of life. I call this question the last "why?" because it seems when all the other questions are asked and answered, this one will remain. There does not appear to be an answer in the usual sense to the last "why?"; thus the void, to me, is simply a missing answer. Though simple and perhaps experiencing its apparent effect depends on asking, I believe the void has become the primary motivating force of our existence.

That might seem odd given we have to ask, to be aware of the void. However, for the void to be our primary motivating force, the question that discovers it only needed to be asked once and it was, many millennia ago, sometime after one of our ancestors asked the first "why?" When s(he) 'picked the rose', s(he) reacted in the way s(he) had to previous unknowns. S(he) experienced fear, anxiety, panic, terror, the urge to escape, then created a theory to fill the void, shared it and acted accordingly.

We would still be acting according to this first theory had it filled the void but since it and all subsequent theories did not, the void was rediscovered again and again and.... Each time the void was rediscovered an individual altered the theory, changed the action and shared the reaction. The individual could have altered the theory by either adding to or subtracting from a preceding theory. Not every one accepted the new reaction so the old one continued to exist. These reactions to the void accumulated over the millennia and were passed from generation to generation. We are living that inheritance today.

Though the reactions to the void we've inherited can vary from the differently named but synonymous, minutely detailed theoretical world views with prescribed activities, to reactions of activities without apparent theoretical framework, they can all be traced to the original discovery of the void. That is our history. We may not be aware of this primary motivation because it seems possible to live our entire lifetime without questioning our inherited activities. More likely though we will lose part of our inheritance and feel a "void in my life"; or just feel that "something was missing"; or experience a floating anxiety and as have some in all preceding generations, we will be motivated to modify our inheritance or convert to another reaction to the void.

Although the void motivates simply by being, it seems to act with a force that can vary from being apparently insignificant to being the most powerful disintegrating force imaginable. My interpretation of our perception the void has a variable effect begins with the theory that prior to asking the last "why?" which gave birth to humanity, our ancestors, by nature, had been reaching out to the limits of their capacities, to others and to God. They were fulfilling their biological purpose of becoming what we are capable of being as had preceding generations back to the conception of humanity. I then suggest that replacing this natural integrating activity with the unnatural disintegrating activity of trying to fill the void confuses our being to the degree of replacement.

So quite simply, the more we try to fill the void and thus diminish our natural activity, the greater will be our confusion. Among the other consequences of substituting unnatural activity for natural activity is conflict within us, conflict between us, meaninglessness and of course questioning. The more confused we are the more often we question the meaning of life, thus rediscover the void and experience the fear, anxiety, panic, terror and the urge to increase our efforts to escape the meaninglessness, in the various ways we try to fill the void. In the extreme, when we have created a black hole by replacing all our natural activities with the disintegrating unnatural activity, it will seem as if the void has caused our self-destruction.

Despite the abundant evidence of unnatural activity, I don't think self-destruction is the inevitable legacy of the void. It doesn't seem like we are being forced to continue trying to fill the void so there is no reason we couldn't begin to empty it and diminish its apparent effect. To say emptying the void wouldn't be easy is the ultimate understatement. Changing an inherited reaction to the void is difficult enough but living without one would be the supreme challenge. Nevertheless, as surely as our ancestors tried to fill the void with them, we can remove all the theories that have accumulated in the void throughout our history.

As a consequence, we would shed all the restrictive, disintegrating unnatural activities which prescribe what to be; and replace them with the natural integrating activity that allows us to become what we are capable of being. According to the theory, conflict, confusion and questioning the meaning of life would then diminish. Eventually, the void would appear to become an impotent white emptiness. We can't and wouldn't wish to, return biologically to the 'womb'. However, we could philosophically 'replant the rose', let it be and 'watch' the sense of meaning in self-realization grow around it as we reach out the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, apparently the ideal reaction to the void.

So, if the theory is fact, does it matter whether self-destruction or self-realization is the legacy of the void? I don't have and answer for that question. However, I am certain that in self-destruction we will never know. I suspect that in self-realization, we might discover why.

______________con'd @ 9.31

Ierrellus 09.03.06  9.31  (8)

Doug,
Magnificent post!!! Why are there so few here who can realize what's at stake here? Please allow me to insert my own opinions for what they may be worth. Use what you can and discard the rest.
If you have ever read Herman Hesse, his heroes discover that the journey identifies them, not any final or ultimate end. Camus' depiction of Sisyphus is that rolling the stone up the hill gives us a sense of purpose regardless of the stone's rolling back down before we can get it to the top.
In other words the static opinion is death; motion is vitality, life. Striving is what we do.
I tried in my posts on the evolution of paradigms as world views to express that the same existential questions about how and why prompted mythological, religious, philosophical and scientific explanations. The constant in explanatory paradigm shifts is basic human psychology, the need to know the why and how of our being and becoming, the need to know our proper relationships between the I , the you and the it. We are here on this planet in order to get these relationships right.
Do you have a website? How can I get there?

______________con'd @ 9.32

Doug 09.12.06  9.32  (8)

Once again Ierrellus, I thank you for your extraordinary interest. Your opinions and supporting materials have all been worthwhile. I can't argue with Herman Hesse. I smiled at Sisyphus rolling the stone up the hill. I often imagine myself inside the great 'ball' of human activity, pushing on the wall, trying to move the 'ball' up the slope away from self-destruction toward self-realization, against the weight of all humanity. When I see this image I berate myself for being such a fool but just when I am about to give up again, someone comes along and lends a hand. Your post "the 5th paradigm" motivated me to rewrite "the void". You gave no context for "the I, the you and the it" so I allowed them to mean "self, others and God" which is fine with me. The only opinion you've expressed I would discard is "We are put on this planet to get these relationships right." I won't throw it away. I'll just put it back into the 'deck' because I don't think it is helpful to presume purpose to this extent. I see this presumption creating "The problem with teleology" you deal with in your other thread.

Although as I told you in that thread I had to look up "teleology", I have been thinking about purpose for about 45 of my 59 years, beginning with the purpose of the few rituals retained by the Baptist church I was taken to by my parents. From there I went on to question the purpose of every life activity and thus the purpose of living. Not knowing there were any, I probably broke some rules of teleology by looking for the purpose of living in the biological results of our activities. I found only two possible results, a measure of self-realization resulting from the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God; and a measure of self-destruction resulting from the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void. In my thinking the purpose of living can not be self-destruction so I concluded the purpose of living is self-realization. At this point we can still ask, "why?" and I did but could not find an answer to this last "Why?" I could only suggest that if there is one, the answer will be found in becoming what we are capable of being.

When I reached the end of the preceding paragraph a couple days ago Ierrellus, I was initially quite satisfied with my effort. However, as I reread my reply over and over, I became increasingly uncomfortable with the phrase "purpose of life" I had used, and with thoughts of a couple ways you could misinterpret self-realization given its limited context. I dealt with the first concern by changing the phrase "purpose of life" to "purpose of living". I'm not sure if this does anything for you but to me it seems the latter is more biologically derived than teleologically imposed. I hope I've used the word in a meaningful way. I am going to leave it for a bit but I think I will be changing the title of a post on my web site I called "Purpose of Life" to "Purpose of Living" and by the time I am finished here I will probably have a revised version of the post in my mind. To deal with the second concern I am going to eliminate the two possible misconceptions I can think of, without your help. If I still leave a gap in understanding please let me know.

First I want to eliminate the possibility that you might be thinking I am equating self-realization to a mystical, spiritual, one time "I saw the en(light)enment" experience. To me self-realization is a continuous, beginning at conception "reaching out to the limits of our physical/mental capacities, to others and to God", lifetime experience. Now I think there is a spirit component involved because I believe we are an integration of body/mind/spirit but I see spirit as only but significantly, the 'light of our life' which by its 'brightness' indicates the degree to which we are "reaching out..."

The second misconception I wish to avoid is having you think self-realization is isolated individual activity. Despite what would be an obvious connotation, self-realization in my view is individual/collective activity. I tried to convey this view in my original post by suggesting that though we weave individual fabrics of existence with our threads of activity, we weave them into the fabric of humanity. Indeed, we contribute our individual life activities to the fabric of humanity. So if our activities are dominated by the unnatural component, we contribute to the self-destruction of humanity; but if our activities are dominated by the natural component, we will contribute to the self-realization of humanity.

Reciprocally, if when we add all our individual activity the fabric of humanity is dominated by the unnatural component, our individual efforts to "reach out..." will be restricted to the degree of domination; and regardless of how hard an individual tries to "reach out..." s(he) will not avoid the collective self-destruction. But if when we add all our individual activity the fabric of humanity is dominated by the natural component, our individual efforts to "reach out..." will be facilitated to the degree of domination. If an individual tries to "reach out..." in a fabric dominated by unnatural activity the effect will be negligible. However, if a significant number of individuals tries to reach out in a fabric dominated by the unnatural component, they will significantly diminish that component and ease the restrictions on "reaching out..." I could continue with similar details and I will if these are not enough but I think my view that self-realization is individual/collective activity should now be clear enough to avoid misinterpretation.

So, are we accomplishing our purpose? Relatively speaking, I say no. By my definition, as long as we are alive we are engaging in natural activity to some extent. However, to repeat what I said in my original post, in my opinion the fabric of humanity is dominated by the unnatural component of activity and mainly because of the activity I call our materialistic reaction to the void. Playing a significant supporting role are our religious/philosophical reactions to the void but our desperate effort to fill the void with money and all it can buy needs no help taking us to self-destruction. We don't have to let it. I wonder if we will?

______________con'd @ 9.33

Ierrellus 09.14.06  9.33  (8)

Doug,
IMHO, purpose is being who or what you are. I know my spider plant achieves its purpose when it grows full and plush, as if in a glory of what it is. I know my cat achieves purpose as a nitty gritty kitty by declaring all cat possibility. As a human, can I do less?

______________con'd @ 9.34

Membrain 09.14.06  11.1  (8)

Doug wrote:

My interpretation of our perception the void has a variable effect begins with the theory that prior to asking the last "why?" which gave birth to humanity, our ancestors, by nature, had been reaching out to the limits of their capacities, to others and to God.

I noticed something interesting. Concerning this blurb:

"...prior to asking the last "why?" which gave birth to humanity..."

Are you saying that asking the Last Why is what gave birth to "humanity"?
So the Last Why was the First Why?

______________con'd @ 11.2

Doug 09.16.06  11.2  (8)

Membrain, I read your thread a few days ago. If you read my original post as well as the one prior to this, you will have some understanding of my suggestion that our collective fabric of existence determines to some extent what we individuals become but that we individuals collectively determine what our fabric of existence will be. The degree of determination depends upon the mix of natural and unnatural activity in our reactions to the void. Theoretically, if our collective fabric of existence was entirely natural activity we would all be completely free to become what we are capable of being within the bounds of what is biologically determined. As we add unnatural activity to our collective fabric through our individual fabrics of existence, the degree of determination by the collective increases until in the extreme it is complete in an absolutely restrictive reaction to the void that will extinguish life.

Enough of that for now though. You asked whether my last "why?" should not really be the first "why?" I thought I had presented clearly the reason I called "Why am I?" the last "why?", so I went back to the post on "the void" from which you took the quote, to discover the problem. I think I did. I explained the last "why?" in the third paragraph and you pulled the quote out of the seventh. I then looked at your avatar and surmised that you are probably about my age, an age at which we often forget the beginning of a sentence before we get to the end; but never mind. I really appreciate your interest and the opportunity to repeat myself, even if you are just trying to "yank my chain".

The idea of the last "why?" came to me while I was considering our individual development from conception to our adult form. I saw at some point after birth a young child asking a parent the first "why?", beginning the process of learning that continues to our end. At about the beginning of our teenage years I saw the possibility of us asking, "Why am I?" and thus realizing the capacity to comprehend life in a way that is beyond the result of asking the primitive questions. I then imagined that our individual development repeats the development of humanity right from the time we likely began as a single cell many millions of years ago. Thus at some point in our history the process of evolution gave "birth' to our human form. Probably at about the same time our ancestors realized the capacity to question experiences of life, but it was sometime after that, they realized the capacity to question the meaning of life.

Now, as I have stated, I do not believe the question "why am I?" has an answer in the usual sense. Consequently, even if all the other questions that can be asked are answered, "Why am I?" will remain unanswered. It will be the last "why?" From this perspective I don't think there is solid ground for quibbling about whether "Why am I?" is the first "why?", or the last "why?" Even when calling it the question that gave 'birth' to humanity, I see it as the last question before discovering "the void". If you want my guess for the first question after crossing the threshold into the void it is, "What the hell do we do now?"; and the answer was as I suggest, "Let's fill the void."

I know Membrain, you just asked me to 'unquibble' the first "why?" and the last "why?" and I think I have; but since I've come this far I am going to complete my story again, this time with a simile. In Toronto Canada there is the CN tower, incidentally the tallest freestanding structure in the world. (it can be Googled) It was constructed from start to finish with a continuous pour of concrete. Someone at the time of construction had the foresight to take a picture of the progress from the same location, at the same time every day and then splice the shots into a film that lasts a minute or so, I think. When you look at the film you see a flurry of activity at the top of a growing tower that I think is so much like the history of humanity. We are at the active, living end of history, the flurry of activity on the growing 'tower' of human evolution. I see everyone contributing their particular blend of natural and unnatural activities.

The CN tower was completed. I am not sure that the 'tower' of humanity won't be cut short. In the beginning the 'pour' of humanity into the 'tower' proceeded without problems, by biological determination. However, after our ancestors asked the last"why?" the biological determination of our evolution diminished and its determination by efforts to fill the void increased exponentially until the present time when our evolution seems to be determined almost entirely by this unnatural activity. To me the results do not look good and the future looks bleak. In my opinion based on my interpretation of our present activities, if we do not diminish our efforts to fill the void, the 'tower' of humanity will cease to be, rather than become what we are capable of being. Of course, if it doesn't matter that humanity ceases to be, there is no problem. So really the only significant question is, "Does it matter?"

______________end

Ierrellus 09.15.06  9.34  (8)

Doug,
In discussions with X in my thread he saw being and becoming as the only forces determining our human perspective on existence, that is, if I interpret him correctly. Along with Pierce, I always opt for trinite explanations, not yin and yang, not Hegelian thesis and antithesis, not analytic vs continental, etc., etc. A third perspective stops the other two from becoming polarities. IMO, polarities, dichotomies and schisms are products of mental chess games that inevitably end in relativism or infinite regress.
Being, becoming and belonging are essential mental considerations for organisms involved in flux and change. For humans, cursed with self-consciouness, all of the three b's provide both answers to, and questions about, the big WHY? Answers and questions evolve. But they may possibly all lead to the our essential survival b--brotherhood (or sisterhood), connectivity and interdependence of all entities, organic and inorganic.

______________con'd @ 9.35

Jakob 09.15.06  12.1  (8)

Doug wrote:

The void represented by white emptiness is the positive image I had intended to convey.

In my view of life we create the void, or more accurately, we discover it if we question the meaning of life. I call this question the last "why?" because it seems when all the other questions are asked and answered, this one will remain. There does not appear to be an answer in the usual sense to the last "why?"; thus the void, to me, is simply a missing answer.

And the rose is the missing answer to the question implicated by the void. No language, no formulation could be as meaningful an answer. Good for you that you've made the void white - a background welcoming a 'because' to the question suggested by it's emptiness.
Don't forget that there would be no void if not as a backdrop to our substance.
Don't forget that 'why?' is only word, and words oftentimes suggest meaning where there is none. There may very well not be a real meaning to the last 'why', which, I hasten to add, has caused excruciating angst in me as well. I have now realized the question is only a consequence of the language we happen to be using, the very fact that the word 'why' exists.
The last why for me is; why why? And the answer, in the words of Andres, a friend of mine: "There is no why, there is only because!"

______________con'd @ 12.2

Doug 09.21.06  9.35  (8)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
IMHO, purpose is being who or what you are. I know my spider plant achieves its purpose when it grows full and plush, as if in a glory of what it is. I know my cat achieves purpose as a nitty gritty kitty by declaring all cat possibility. As a human, can I do less?

Ierrellus, I know your intention but I am going to play the fool and answer your question, "As a human, can I do less?" with a most emphatic yes!!! I suggest the ideal is becoming what we are capable of being by reaching out the the limits of our genetically determined physical/mental capacities, to others and to God. This natural activity is restricted by our efforts to fill the void so when engaged in this unnatural activity we become less than we are capable of being. How much less is directly proportional to our efforts. My assessment is that even if our efforts to fill the void do not increase, they are at their present level sufficient to ensure we will cease being.

Ierrellus wrote:

In discussions with X in my thread he saw being and becoming as the only forces determining our human perspective on existence, that is, if I interpret him correctly. Along with Pierce, I always opt for trinite explanations, not yin and yang, not Hegelian thesis and antithesis, not analytic vs continental, etc., etc. A third perspective stops the other two from becoming polarities. IMO, polarities, dichotomies and schisms are products of mental chess games that inevitably end in relativism or infinite regress.
Being, becoming and belonging are essential mental considerations for organisms involved in flux and change. For humans, cursed with self-consciousness, all of the three b's provide both answers to, and questions about, the big WHY? Answers and questions evolve. But they may possibly all lead to the our essential survival b--brotherhood (or sisterhood), connectivity and interdependence of all entities, organic and inorganic.

I see many threes in our nature. I see that we are an integration of body/mind/spirit. I see that our body is an integration of realized physical capacity, physical activity and physical knowledge. I see that our mind is an integration of realized mental capacity, mental activity and mental knowledge. I see a three dimensional representation of our nature. For years I saw the body/mind/spirit concept of our nature represented by the equilateral triangle. My three 'sided' definitions of body and mind complicated that triangle until I realized it could be the base of a pyramid with body/mind/spirit being the three equal sides.

Unfortunately, this particular three dimensional structure has four equal sides but still it represented perfectly my concept of our nature being the integration of body/mind/spirit in reaction to the void, the reaction to the void being the fourth of the four equal sides. The tetrahedron further compensated for disrupting my collection of threes by being the shape of the carbon molecule, the building block of nature. I like the thought that the building block of nature and the building block of humanity are represented by the same three dimensional shape even though it has four sides.

Although I rarely talk about the third, I also see three defining reactions to the void. Besides the ideal and the absolutely restrictive reaction which is trying to fill the void there is the absolutely permissive reaction to the void which is simply giving up. Though there are three defining reactions, my collection of threes is once again disrupted by the fact there are only two possible outcomes. The outcome of the ideal reaction is self-realization. The absolutely restrictive reaction and the absolutely permissive reaction are antithetical but their consequences are the same, self-destruction, the former active and the latter passive. However, in the end I come back the three again. My ideal reaction to the void is to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. I could have stopped at two but I need the balance given by three. I think only it can lead to the "becoming, belonging and being" together that is "essential to our survival".

______________con'd @ 9.36

Doug 09.21.06  12.2  (8)

Jakob wrote:

And the rose is the missing answer to the question implicated by the void. No language, no formulation could be as meaningful an answer. Good for you that you've made the void white - a background welcoming a 'because' to the question suggested by it's emptiness.
Don't forget that there would be no void if not as a backdrop to our substance.
Don't forget that 'why?' is only word, and words oftentimes suggest meaning where there is none. There may very well not be a real meaning to the last 'why', which, I hasten to add, has caused excruciating angst in me as well. I have now realized the question is only a consequence of the language we happen to be using, the very fact that the word 'why' exists.
The last why for me is; why why? And the answer, in the words of Andres, a friend of mine: "There is no why, there is only because!"

I have just one question. Ask your friend Andres if his answer would be just as satisfying for him if it was "There is no why, there is only (become)" what we are capable of being. If he agreed and you agreed with him that would be four of us, quite possibly the beginning of a movement.

______________con'd @ 12.3

Ierrellus 09.21.06  9.36  (8)

I still see threes--ego, id, superego; father, son, holy ghost,; body, mind spirit;male, female, neuter. In nature there are always three possibilities facing hunger-- nourishment, poison, and a neither/nor. The void experienced as pains and sorrows or hungers of becoming offers all three of the natural resources. One can be nourished, killed or rendered impotent. The atom is electron, proton, neutron at its fattest. All of the four chemicals that comprise DNA have three bases! Jakob, are you for 2's or 3's?

______________con'd @ 9.37

intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

Ierrellus 08.11.06  9.7  (7)

What is the psychology behind our need to attach to others and things? I think it has to do with the fact that humans are self-conscious. We see the territory past our deaths as a possible void, demanding of us that we make our lives meaningful. Human needs amount to survival, security and identity. We buy those religious or philosophical paradigms that address these needs favorably (for us).
My cat, Thai, shows some symptoms of existential angst because his fulfillment as a cat cannot really take place in a small apartment. So he sometimes whines his need for any other cat verifications of who and what he is. I cannot help him. I whine for the same reasons.

If as Voltaire has Candide say, "I must cultivate my own garden.", I am at a loss to know where my garden ends and somebody else's begins.

______________

faust

Ierrellus - I'm not sure you have to know this, precisely. Your forsythia may bend over into your neighbor's yard. Her tulips may creep into yours. You can work this out, if you try.

______________

Ierrellus

faust,
I'm talking of gardens that enter twine and complement, not those in need of fences.

______________

faust

Which is which is a matter of perspective. We are talking about the same gardens, I believe.

______________

Ierrellus

faust,
Yes we agree. But it takes more balls to expose one's soft underbelly than it does to slay all tyrants who preach division.

______________con'd @ 9.8

Doug 08.12.06  3¹.30  (7)

faust wrote:

Well Doug that's a clear, well-articulated conception of a view that I can only say is a stupid one. Please do not read me as saying that you are stupid. Pessimism, as a world view, is stupid. It's crap. God glasses, indeed - you have found the solution.

For you have made it all up - it is your own invention. You have posited Meaning, and then "felt" the lack of it. And yes, you have taken on responsibilities for the entire race, for the entire world, and so feel the resultant void when you find you cannot fulfill them.

I suggest you get ahold of a copy of Leonard Bernstein's "Candide" - first read Voltaire's original - but the Finale to the musical is a song called Make Your Garden Grow. If there is a recording of his 75th birthday party, get that instead - it's a great rendition. You'll cry. I cried. Leonard cried when they sang it that night. It was on PBS and I will never forget it.

You have taken a perfectly normal, healthy emotion, which is an activity, and reified it - objectified it - made it a metaphysical entity. I think this is okay, if what you come up with is Santa Claus, but to have this metaphorical dark cloud hover over you and to believe it is real is a grave error. It is, like Scopenhauer, an indulgence. An unhealthy one.

I am giving you hell, yes. I am, at this point, preaching to the choir, I suppose. Yes. Because I do not think you are really in the choir.

This is due to the collective you use - "we" find some activities meaningful. Speak for yourself, sir. It's easy enough to get netted - "we" feel this way about this condition, "we" feel that way - "we" find meaning. "WE" do not. You do. Make your garden grow. Be a philosopher - it's the loneliest type.

This is not to imagine being God - it's to imagine that there is no God. That we are responsible to ourselves first, and then to others. Certain others. We choose. This does not preclude random acts of kindness - it requires active choices. And it requires that you stop seeing only "our" choices, and begin to focus on your choices. This is where we differ. You seem to wish to depend upon the collective to make you happy. You make you happy - you make choices for you. You have, indeed, found the solution.

I hope.

faust, I am not sure the principles of reason allow us to say a "stupid" world view did not come from a "stupid" person; but when it comes to the war of world views, reason is the first casualty.

Yes I made it all up but tell me about one single explanation that is less fictitious. While you are at it show me another explanation that begins with the biological first principles of verifiable genetically determined physical and mental capacities and not an imaginary religious/philosophical construct. My explanation is not entirely my own invention. The elements I use are my inheritance from the history of humanity. Had I not heard the words meaningful, meaningless, related words and phrases containing these words, I would not have known the metaphysical concept of meaning existed. I did not posit meaning. I integrated it as well as the rest of my inherited mental knowledge into an explanation of life.

It is not a pessimistic explanation nor is it an optimistic explanation. My explanation of life is an impartial operator's manual. In the words used in the "Candide", it explains a range of 'growing' conditions that result in a continuum from lush 'gardens' full of life to desert wastelands; or in my own words it describes the possibility of our fabric of existence ranging from a self-destructive mess of black to the flawless weave of clear natural thread that is our self-realization. I say the entire range is the result of our reactions to the void. Again in the words of the "Candide", if we make our realized capacities 'grow' we will have a garden full of life; but if we feel we have to give meaning to our life, to fill the void with say, "millions of piastres", we will just create a desert wasteland. In deed..."and our labor in (our garden) keeps us off" the eight ways we try to fill the void; To live "we must take care of our garden".

It is a simple biological explanation of life. Nowhere in it did I take "on responsibilities for the entire race" and to say I "feel the resultant void when (I) feel (I) cannot fulfill them" is a misrepresentation of "the void" I gave you 95% for comprehending a few posts ago. I now have to give you 0% for long term memory. If I knew what I did when I took "a perfectly healthy emotion, which is an activity and reified it- objectified it - made it a metaphysical entity." I would probably say I didn't do that either. Apparently I created a "metaphorical dark cloud" which I didn't; but even if I did, why should it be okay to create a Santa Clause and not an anti Clause.

faust, the last time I heard only God gives hell. Now you're not telling me...oh no...are you...? Don't just sit there and smile. Okay, don't tell me. At least tell me why you are giving me hell. If it is about the collective I used, I'm sorry. I figured when I said "We" you'd know I meant you and I "We" and not we "we".

God, if you are pissed off because I imagined I am you, I make no apology. We need that perspective to see how our activities are affecting those around us and our environment. We can not live without it. "No man is an island"; our gardens do not have natural fences, as Ierrellus might say; our fabrics of existence make up the fabric of humanity. Even Voltaire through the narrator said "The little society, one and all entered into this laudable design and set themselves to exact their different talents". Indeed we are responsible to ourselves but are also simultaneously responsible to others and to the perspective of God. Yes our others are chosen but our others are responsible to others who are responsible to others and so on to the edges of humanity. We must have the perspective that our individual choices, your choices and my choices and everyone else's choices become our collected choices and if our collected choices create a wasteland, there is absolutely no way an individual 'garden' can survive.

At this point faust, I suspect you might think I am stupid to even contemplate a wasteland either literal or figurative. Maybe thinking about a wasteland is creating that "metaphorical dark cloud" to which you were referring. Perhaps the reasoning is if we don't think about potential environmental collapse it won't happen. Of course if a collapse did occur we could fall back on that line from the "Candide", "If (we) didn't experience all these things we wouldn't be here." wherever here might be. This sounds suspiciously like my sister's line that, "all things work to the good of the Lord" which isn't surprising. Given that Voltaire was educated by the Jesuits some of the "stupidities" he says he learned must have stuck.

With all due respect faust, I am going to stand by my explanation until you or someone else, come up with a sermon less opinionated than mine. I say we have the tools to self-destruct and the tools to 'grow' self-realization. I suggest we need a way of talking to each other about what it means to "grow our garden" and to send "thither the produce". Otherwise as I see it, we will only increase our efforts to build fences while our gardens become deserts through neglect. If it is not a product of my imagination, I believe thinking all the 'shit' we are creating will be magically transformed into rich 'compost' is an unreasonable view. Lately on TV there's been a commercial for inspirational religious music. One of the singers is a drop dead gorgeous female belting out the lyrics "God is in control." It has been played between scenes of devastation in Lebanon and the continuing carnage in Iraq. Each time I see it all I can think is "Holy crap".

______________con'd @ 3¹.31

faust 08.12.06  3¹.31  (7)

Okay.

______________con'd @ 3¹.32

Doug 08. 14.06  3¹.32  (7)

I Agree

______________end

Ierrellus 08.13.06  9.8  (7)

All I know and personally believe is that, faced with a need to define myself in the teeth of the void, I must choose the void of oblivion over ego enticing rewards and punishments. If one human goes to hell, I need to be there also. My identity is not eclipsed by the fact that others have identities; it is enhanced by that realization. It takes all of us to make a human race.
A god of division is not worthy of awe. A god whose truths can be upset by science never had it together in the first place. The paranoia of fundamentalists over what new thoughts may counter their faith in supposed absolute certainties is evidence of faith gone awry. What truth can dispel truth? What falsehood can long stand before truth?
Given the choice, I would rather be uncertain and becoming than certain and stagnant.

______________con'd @ 9 .9

Standard/23 08.14.06  10.1  (7)

I agree with Ierrellus, given the choice, I would rather be uncertain and becoming than certain and stagnant.

"A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions!!!" - Nietzsche

______________con'd @ 10.2

Doug 08.14.06  10.2  (7)

Standard/23, thank you for making me aware of this gem from Nietzsche. This is quite likely not what Nietzsche had in mind but just think of the possibilities for humanity if each one of us attacked and destroyed our convictions, the belief systems we erroneously think are necessary to maintain our integration, our sense of self; to make sense of what's happening, to give meaning to our lives. It doesn't matter if they are a highly organized set of convictions we inherit from a religious/philosophical system or just a collection of firmly held opinions. All that matters is that they have attached to them the sense that we are right; and if we destroy our sense of right we eliminate our need to fight.

I am not sure if Nietzsche came this far and if he did whether he went further. I would like to take it further because as I see life, in what Nietzsche said is the answer to every philosophical question including "Why is it that half the world is poor?" and "Is there something missing?" I was tempted to reply in these threads but I couldn't see starting over again with what I already have here.

I'm quite sure dan020350 just meant to introduce the rich vs. poor question but if I may pick a 'nit' here, the question should more appropriately be "Why is there a continuum of poverty from the richest person in the world to the poorest people in the world?" The answer is that there is within the fabric of humanity the prevalent conviction net-worth is equated to self-worth. Although not universal and some of us choose to more or less ignore it, the conviction is dominant enough to create an economy that arranges the human population into the shape of an inverted cone the top of which most of us equate with the ultimate fulfillment and thus no sense of emptiness, no sense of the void. We further believe that the degree to which we "get ahead" diminishes the sense of the void accordingly. Unless we attack the conviction that creates this conical economy, the continuum of wealth/poverty will remain but only so long as our environment can sustain the related activity. Any guesses?

The answer to Polemarchus' question "What is missing?" could be a number of synonyms like love, compassion, empathy but elsewhere in my writing I've used the word connection. I suggest we feel this connection when we "reach out to others". To reach out to others we need open hands and open arms both literally and metaphorically; but metaphorically speaking, we can not reach out to others while holding onto our convictions. If we feel it and how much we feel the connection depends on the strength of our convictions. Given what seems to be an increasing strength of our conviction that self-worth equals net-worth my guess is we are generally feeling less and less connected with all life, all of which most of us are now able to see. It is a trend that will continue with obvious consequences unless we attack our convictions.

Again I don't know what Nietzsche thought was left of self if he advocated attacking and destroying all our convictions. Nor do I know what Buddhists say is left after achieving Nirvana a process that seems similar to my interpretation of Nietzsche. I don't think Satyr got around to explaining what is left after the process of becoming selfless he introduced in his posts in the poverty thread. Consequently, I will once again repeat what I said in my original post. After we empty ourselves of the convictions with which we try to fill the void we are left with individuals becoming what we are capable of being by reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the natural activity that is the ideal reaction to the void. Only Ierrellus can tell me, but I think he was standing on the same 'ground' when he wrote:

All I know and personally believe is that, faced with a need to define myself in the teeth of the void, I must choose the void of oblivion over ego enticing rewards and punishments. If one human goes to hell, I need to be there also. My identity is not eclipsed by the fact that others have identities; it is enhanced by that realization. It takes all of us to make a human race.
A god of division is not worthy of awe. A god whose truths can be upset by science never had it together in the first place. The paranoia of fundamentalists over what new thoughts may counter their faith in supposed absolute certainties is evidence of faith gone awry. What truth can dispel truth? What falsehood can long stand before truth?
Given the choice, I would rather be uncertain and becoming than certain and stagnant.

______________end

Ierrellus 08.14.06  9.9  (7)

"One who never chages his mind is like standing water & breeds reptiles of the mind".-- Wm. Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell".

______________con'd @ 9.10

Ierrellus 08.15.06  9.10  (7)

Doug,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. There are many, however, who would disagree with our complementary opinions. As I see it, the conflict, which is everywhere magnified in our world, is between those who would avoid change in order to preserve beliefs that enhance their personal identities and those who would venture out into the unknown in order to taste the creative potential we are all given. Alan Watts wrote a neat book, "The Wisdom of Insecurity". Poet Wm. Blake was Nietzschian nearly a hundred years before Nietzsche! In the biological world being is becoming or extinction.
As for your latest post, WOW! Not for its mention of ideas from an old fart like me, but for its astute psychological considerations. Wasn't it the NT James who noted that the conflicts that exist in the world are conflicts within ourselves?

______________con'd @ 9.11

Ierrellus 08.15.06  9.11  (7)

Addendum--please forgive me if I seem to be hogging the conversation here. Matthew Fox wrote "Original Blessings", a contrast to original sins. The pope told him, as a former pope had told Chardin, "Shut up!" Wm. Blake set me straight on this in a line from "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"--"Everything that lives is holy!"
I cannot believe in a corrupt and corrupting world as taught in the Christian tradition. If God pronounced His creations Good, He did not need to go back on his word. We are not souls trapped in a corrupt body. We are DNA enclosed in a protective shield. Our moving potential is our real glory. Nor can I believe that, according to much Eastern religious opinion, we live in a world of illusion. We make our world and are responsible for what it is. If it's an illusion, like the "Matrix", we are not responsible at all.

______________con'd @ 9.12

Doug 08.18.06  9.12  (7)

Ierrellus, thanks again for your posts. I want to reply in some way to each statement in your twinned posts but to address "The Wisdom of Insecurity" in particular I need to add some of the larger context I left out of my original post. It is an image I hope allows me to convey my complete perspective of our reactions to the void and thus where "The Wisdom of Insecurity" and every other facet of life fits into that perspective.

In my larger context I call the reaction to the void that is entirely the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void, absolutely restrictive. I call the reaction to the void that is entirely the unnatural inactivity of giving up, absolutely permissive. As I've mentioned hundreds of times, I call the reaction to the void that is entirely the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the ideal. In my largest context I put the absolutely restrictive reaction at one end of a continuum, the absolutely permissive reaction at the other end and the ideal in the middle. Between these defining points I place all our reactions which are blends of the ideal and absolutely restrictive reaction or blends of the ideal and absolutely permissive reaction.

I've mentioned the consequence of the two absolutes is active and passive self-destruction respectively. So rather than have self-destruction at opposite ends of a linear continuum I bend the line into the shape of a circle with the ideal at the top and the absolutes on either side of a small gap at the bottom. I then imagine that the circle encloses the void I have defined as the one fact we cannot know. Outside the circle is the experience of self-realization. To complete my mental image of life I imagine us all standing on this circular continuum, at a position that is determined by the ratio of natural to unnatural activity in our individual reactions to the void, and with a specific orientation. I suggest we all have an innate biological orientation toward the ideal so that while standing at our location on the continuum, our philosophical vision is in the direction of the diameter between the gap and the ideal.

Now I imagine myself standing at the absolutely restrictive reaction to the void. Given my innate orientation I consequently see nothing but the void, my vain attempts to fill it and all the negative implications. Then I imagine walking along the continuum away from the absolutely restrictive reaction toward the ideal all the while remembering my orientation. With my first step I still see mostly the void but I catch a glimpse of self-realization. With each succeeding step I experience more of self-realization and see less of the void. After my first step beyond the half way point I experience for the first time more self-realization than the effect of the void. You have to know where I am going now so I will shorten the walk by saying at the ideal I experience nothing but self-realization.

This is enough for one post. Besides if you don't see the image as I do my reply to "The Wisdom of Insecurity" won't make any sense. Neither will my perspective on the ideal reaction; but in case I have transmitted my image without distortion I am going to add the few lines required to explain the significant distinction I see between the absolute reactions and the ideal. When I stand at the absolutes I see the void and our reactions to it. When I stand at the ideal I see that the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God is the ideal action of life which just happens to be the ideal reaction to the void. To say it another way, with the ideal reaction we do not back away from the void but rather go toward self-realization. I hope this all makes sense.

______________con'd @ 9.13

Ierrellus 08.19.06  9.13  (7)

Doug,
I understand and like your analysis of our reactions to the void. What is problematic for many is-- does the void really exist? Is it a taught and learned interpretation of human frailty as seen from our self-conscious perspective? From my work in progress "Bioepistemology: A Psychological Synthesis"--
"Since potential for adaptation is regulated by probability, it becomes easy for any prophet of absolute certainty to convince many humans that their struggle to survive is part of some cosmic plan in which corruptions are purified."
An organic continuum allows no void. It is so unfortunate that many of us have learned to interpret the uncertainty of our potential for becoming as a flaw of being.

______________con'd @ 9.14

Ierrellus 08.21.06  9.14  (7)

Here I go again, trying to understand why so few can or will contribute to a thread as timely as this one is.

Doug, about the void. I just prefer to think of it as the unknown. In Ovid"s "Metamorphosis" creation occurred as chaos became order. Things were already there; the just weren't considered by sentient organisms. I like Ovid's description because it seems to me to align with how brains produce minds.

Human brains contain endorphins (endogenous morphine) , which affect our perceptions of "feel-good" about ourselves and what is other than ourselves. This appears to be a fragile system since the endorphin receptors accept almost any addictive substance that can mimic what should be let in. Addicts have bypassed the system for millennia. A close look at the system, however, may find why it appears so fragile or open to distortion.

For brain chemistry to produce I'm OK, you're Ok, the world is Ok, it cannot reach the final high, the ultimate end of hunger. It must allow room for adaptations to changes in environments. Evidence of the trials and tribulations of endorphins comes as the narrative focus on self evolves to a focus on what is other. I've often wondered why the brain blood barrier, like the angels at the gates of Eden, prevents unwanted chemical intruders, but does nothing to stop the intrusion of mimics!

I've also drawn diagrams of the situation of human understanding in ways similar to your own. I describe three circles, all with a common center. The smallest circle is the microcosm. The largest is the macrocosm. Our knowing is from the mesocosm, the middle circle, the middle ground between infinites, large and small, and between the linear progression from solipsism to absolutism.

______________con'd @ 9.15

Doug 08.21.06  9.15  (7)

Thanks Ierrellus. I have a response ready for your twinned posts and I am trying to get my head around your previous post so that I can make a response to it. I will likely post the two of them tonight. Then I will read your most recent post. In the meantime I am off to physio. My mother put her head on crooked a few days ago and she has been in distress ever since. We are going let a physiotherapist work her magic. Oh for a philosotherapist.

______________con'd @ 9.16

Doug 08.22.06  9.16  (7)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
Thanks for the vote of confidence. There are many, however, who would disagree with our complementary opinions. As I see it, the conflict, which is everywhere magnified in our world, is between those who would avoid change in order to preserve beliefs that enhance their personal identities and those who would venture out into the unknown in order to taste the creative potential we are all given. Alan Watts wrote a neat book, "The Wisdom of Insecurity". Poet Wm. Blake was Nietzschian nearly a hundred years before Nietzsche! In the biological world being is becoming or extinction.
As for your latest post, WOW! Not for its mention of ideas from an old fart like me, but for its astute psychological considerations. Wasn't it the NT James who noted that the conflicts that exist in the world are conflicts within ourselves?

Ierrellus, I'd like to expand your view of conflict. I say all conflict is due solely to the direction of our natural and unnatural activities. As I said in a recent post, we experience conflict within us because unnatural activity takes us away from what seems natural; and the amount of internal conflict we experience is determined by how much unnatural activity there is in our reaction to the void. The greater the amount the more internal conflict we experience.

To explain the conflict between us I begin with the theory that since our genetically determined capacities are unique, the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God occurs along parallel lines so there is no conflict. At the other end, we direct the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void, toward the void within us, a direction along the same line, that is opposed to everyone else so there is nothing but conflict. Between these two ends are our reactions to the void which are blends of natural and unnatural activity. Our individual reactions to the void create the resultant reaction of humanity which creates our collective fabric of existence. The amount of conflict we contribute to the fabric of humanity is thus determined by the relative amounts of natural and unnatural activity in our reactions to the void.


From this point of view I conclude the greater the amount of unnatural activity in our reactions to the void, the greater the conflict in the fabric of humanity. Since it is the inward direction of unnatural activity that generates the conflict, what we fight over, the differences we blame for conflict, are irrelevant. The amount of conflict in the fabric of humanity is the most concrete indication of where on the continuum of reactions to the void we place our resultant. Given the amount of conflict I see in our fabric of existence I place our resultant reaction closer to the absolutely restrictive end and self-destruction than to the ideal and self-realization.


I suggest this should be a concern to everyone even those who reasonably maintain our only purpose is biological propagation because in my assessment of the conflict, we are heading for self-destruction, as in extinction. For those who would argue competition, conflict, survival of the fittest is the way of nature I suggest the process of evolution is no longer natural. It is occurring in the unnatural environment we are creating with our predominantly unnatural activity which by most accounts, is trashing our life support system.

Although my assessment seems doom and gloomy, as I said in my original post , from my point of view I also see that self-destruction may not be inevitable. Because our reactions to the void make up the resultant reaction of humanity, by moving our reactions to the void toward the ideal as much as we can within the resultant, we will move the resultant away from the absolutely restrictive. All we have to do is substitute our natural activity for the unnatural we have in our reactions to the void. That involves simply reaching out more to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. This is activity we can engage in from conception to death, a fact that might address coberst's question in his thread about the value of life after 40. Indeed, even the old farts can help save humanity from self-destruction, a worthy occupation.

Ierrellus, as I also mentioned, I want to relate "The Wisdom of Insecurity" to the continuum of reactions to the void. The misguided intent of trying to fill the void is to secure us from its effect, the fear of this eternal unknown; but it fails so we try harder. We lock ourselves in a 'house', then a 'room', then we strap ourselves in a straight jacket. I suspect Alan Watts saw how increasingly restrictive these attempts to create a greater sense of security were and how wise it would be to release ourselves from our 'securities'. I agree but I can't use the phrase "the wisdom of insecurity" because I've used security in a positive context. I see everyone of us trying in our own way to fill the void creating separation, isolation, panic, terror, aloneness and a sense of insecurity. At the other end I can only imagine the ultimate sense of security we would feel as we reached out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, together.

______________con'd @ 9.17

Doug 08.22.06  9.17  (7)

Ierrellus wrote:

Addendum--please forgive me if I seem to be hogging the conversation here. Matthew Fox wrote "Original Blessings", a contrast to original sins. The pope told him, as a former pope had told Chardin, "Shut up!" Wm. Blake set me straight on this in a line from "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"--"Everything that lives is holy!"
I cannot believe in a corrupt and corrupting world as taught in the Christian tradition. If God pronounced His creations Good, He did not need to go back on his word. We are not souls trapped in a corrupt body. We are DNA enclosed in a protective shield. Our moving potential is our real glory. Nor can I believe that, according to much Eastern religious opinion, we live in a world of illusion. We make our world and are responsible for what it is. If it's an illusion, like the "Matrix", we are not responsible at all.

I generally like this. However, with your permission I would like to change "Our moving potential is our real glory." to The process of realizing our potential capacities "is our real glory".

______________con'd @ 9.18

Ierrellus 08.22.06  9.18  (7)

Doug,
Really good ideas. We differ only in terminology. Where you see the void, I see misinterpretations of the pains and hungers, the insecurity, that prompts us to act at all. I'm saddened by the religions and philosophies that consider natural incentives to be sickness or sin, problems in need of resolution or of a final fix. Recurrence of pain and hunger suggests that we are not completed as long as we are alive. After that who knows; and who sould really care. "I wish those who long for another world would just go there and leave the business of this one to those who care about it!"-- paraphrased Zarathustra quote.
Humans make artificial environments and must adapt to them.

______________con'd @ 9.19

Doug 08.22.06  9.19  (7)

Ierrellus wrote:

Doug,
I understand and like your analysis of our reactions to the void. What is problematic for many is-- does the void really exist? Is it a taught and learned interpretation of human frailty as seen from our self-conscious perpective? From my work in progress "Bioepistemology: A Psychological Synthesis"--
"Since potential for adaptation is regulated by probability, it becomes easy for any prophet of absolute certainty to convince many humans that their struggle to survive is part of some cosmic plan in which corruptions are purified."
An organic continuum allows no void. It is so unfortunate that many of us have learned to interpret the uncertainty of our potential for becoming as a flaw of being.

"Does the void really exist?" I sense we could follow the word "exist" into an epistemological black hole and I don't want to go there but I gladly take another run at the void.

Prior to our foolish ancestor asking the first question, the void did not exist. When much to her surprise her mate answered, "I don't know.", the concept of the unknown came into being. Long before the couple was aware of a specific unknown they were afraid of the unknown generally and their fear was a reaction to it. The woman who asked the first why was quite likely not the woman who asked the last why, the question that brought into being the concept of the eternal unknown, because the void is like the hole of a donut. It exists only if it is surrounded by a body of knowledge.

When an ancestor did bring the void into being, she reacted to it with the same fear she associated with other unknowns, and with the same theoretical answers. Other unknowns became known but the void remained and the concept, the fear of it, and all the accumulating reactions to it have been passed from generation to generation as inherited theoretical knowledge, more often than not as facts. The eternal unknown exists today but not because it is defined as "the void". It's existence is verified only by our continued efforts to fill the void. Quite possibly, if we were all reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, we might find the answer to the last why is in becoming what we are capable of being and the void will again cease to exist. Who knows?

I am not sure about the context of quote:

"Since potential for adaptation is regulated by probability, it becomes easy for any prophet of absolute certainty to convince many humans that their struggle to survive is part of some cosmic plan in which corruptions are purified."

It sounds like a negative reference to religious interpretations of life. However, I wouldn't mind considering our present reactions to the void corrupted and attempts to make them more natural a purification. We talk about purifying polluted water. There is no reason why we couldn't talk about purifying our reactions to the void. The latter could be as essential to our survival as the former.

______________con'd @ 9.20

Ierrellus 08.22.06  9.20  (7)

Doug, about the quote, it all depends on what it is one wants to purify. If it is the natural condition of growth and development by alternating insecurity (hunger, drives, etc) with security (the temporary satisfaction of needs met) it amounts to conflict, at least in humans. If it is wrong ideas about what humans need and how they address such needs, it is certainly in need of purification or at least remedial work.
I hope your mom is doing better.

______________con'd @ 9.21

Doug 08.23.06  9.21  (7)

Ierrellus wrote:

Here I go again, trying to understand why so few can or will contribute to a thread as timely as this one is.

Doug, about the void. I just prefer to think of it as the unknown. In Ovid"s "Metamorphosis" creation occurred as chaos became order. Things were already there; the just weren't considered by sentient organisms. I like Ovid's description because it seems to me to align with how brains produce minds.

On my own site I have a post I call the "Law of Human Nature". I have repeated it here but I can not remember where. In essence I suggest that just as the reason the apple hit Newton on the head was in place before he 'discovered' the "Law of Gravity", it is not unreasonable to suggest there is similarly a "Law of Human Nature" in place that explains all our activities and by which we can predict outcomes. Perhaps Ovid would agree.

Ierrellus wrote:

Human brains contain endorphins (endogenous morphine) , which affect our perceptions of "feel-good" about ourselves and what is other than ourselves. This appears to be a fragile system since the endorphin receptors accept almost any addictive substance that can mimic what should be let in. Addicts have bypassed the system for millennia. A close look at the system, however, may find why it appears so fragile or open to distortion.

For brain chemistry to produce I'm OK, you're Ok, the world is Ok, it cannot reach the final high, the ultimate end of hunger. It must allow room for adaptations to changes in environments. Evidence of the trials and tribulations of endorphins comes as the narrative focus on self evolves to a focus on what is other. I've often wondered why the brain blood barrier, like the angels at the gates of Eden, prevents unwanted chemical intruders, but does nothing to stop the intrusion of mimics!

Do you think you have just taken "freedom of choice" into the science of brain chemistry?

Ierrellus wrote:

I've also drawn diagrams of the situation of human understanding in ways similar to your own. I describe three circles, all with a common center. The smallest circle is the microcosm. The largest is the macrocosm. Our knowing is from the mesocosm, the middle circle, the middle ground between infinites, large and small, and between the linear progression from solipsism to absolutism.

When I first read this I thought you might have read my thread "Definitions of knowledge and understanding". Now I think not. Here is the link in case you are interested. KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING

Elsewhere but again I can't remember where, I tried to give the void a visual context that is similar to your three circles. I imagined all the knowledge we have being recorded on a page with boundaries expanding into the unknown. Right in the center of the page I see a missing fact, a tiny hole, the void. The void is my small circle. Around it expanding in all directions is our circle of knowledge and beyond that is the circle of unknowns.

I understand the circle of unknowns represents the void for you. I put the void in the center of our knowledge because it is unique among the unknowns in that it will never be known; and being at the center of attention it generates the philosophical 'itch' we try to relieve by pushing on the boundaries.

______________con'd @ 9.22

intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

faust 08.01.06  3¹.14  (6)

Doug- The sum of all individuals is not the same as the set of said individuals, but that is irrelevant. The rhinos aren't dead yet. But those ants are. I am more interested in how you feel about those dead ants than in how you feel about the live rhinos. But if it's all a metaphor, then I will object no further. Can't argue with a metaphor, but only the explanation of it. You haven't explained, which is fine - it's only a metaphor, and if you have no further point, then there is nothing to argue over - the further point is what counts and not the metaphor itself. I guess I was taking you literally.

Incidentally, I saw some rhinos (I don't remember if they were "endangered" rhinos) at the National Zoo in D.C. once. Their handler, or attendant or whatever he was, was in the pen with them. We got to talking - I have always liked rhinos. He said that a rhino keeper was once killed - or severely injured - I don't remember which - by a rhino once. It seems that rhinos can get very affectionate, if they like you. They will rub up against you like a cat - you know, the way a cat will lean into you? . They don't realise that they outweigh humans by so much, and this one guy got crushed against a wall by an affectionate rhino. I found this to be an endearing story. It may have been about one of the rhinos there. I don't remember. I'm not anti-rhino, for the record.

Sorry about the abrupt departure from arguing. Arguing is never my object - I know that is difficult to believe - it is a byproduct of exegesis in a conversational format. I never know where I'm going either. It's a conversation - I am not responsible for every word. If it was a monograph, I would never argue. Oddly, I know my position very well at all times. Go figure.

Last year there was a big Luna moth on the screen door all night where I live (in summer). This porch has many moths every night. The Luna was a mostly green one, with a cerulean blue patch on each wing. I stayed up late that night, on the porch, watching it (it didn't really do anything but sit there on the screen). It was beautiful. That porch has a large colony of very large spiders - maybe a hundred (it's an old Maine farmhouse with a big porch). At night, they catch many more insects than they can eat. They are very active, reacting to every hit in their webs - even when they could not really still be hungry. Lots of wasted movement, if you ask me. It's interesting to watch - but they never eat all of the insects - many just sit in the web forever. It's wasteful, what these spiders do. Damned spiders.

How am I to feel? Wasteful spiders, dead moths - do I side with the spiders or the moths? Why can't the world be arranged so that I can smile at everything that happens?

______________con'd @ 3¹.15

Doug 08.01.06  3¹.15  (6)

faust I liked where you went the other day when you ended up at health; but back to the ants.

faust wrote:

A dog came into my garden the other day. It just wanted to say hi. I yelled at it and told it to get lost because it was breaking my plants. I could see the eager anticipation of a pat on the head in its eyes, become a look of hurt. Clearly, I had hurt its feelings. I'll bet the rhino's feelings were hurt by the screams of the man he crushed but just couldn't react fast enough. Providing you don't do the research, I am willing to bet my life that if I yelled at the dominant hummingbirds for preventing others from reaching the feeder, they would not show any signs of being hurt. I have told hundreds of carpenter ants to pack up their tools and leave my house but not one of them showed any signs of having hurt feelings. Of course I've never looked into their eyes. It's hard enough to see their tool belts.

So based on my limited knowledge, I would have to conclude birds and ants do not have feelings. However, I want you to know I did give some thought to the ants I was gathering live at great risk so the flicker could eat them fresh. Have you seen the length of a flicker's tongue? But I digress. In gathering the ants I figured I was just temporarily reconnecting a completely natural process that was broken by my brother's 10'x10' picture window the flicker had no way of knowing was set up in its natural environment. I guess I was playing God. I hope I don't get hell for that. I think I get your point though. Once you get sad there's no end to it. So it's best to forget all the shit and be happy. Life's complicated eh?

The hamburger is coming and right after it is health. Everything is related.

______________con'd @ 3¹.16

faust 08.01.06  3¹.16  (6)

Doug - for all we know that rhino pushed harder (it is a show of affection, I was told) with the screams. The rhino might just not have the proper understanding of the physics involved. But, either way, we would have to assign to the rhino a capacity for compassion that we do not know he (or she) has. Rhinos may lack compassion. So may flickers.

But you are basing your view on a discernable compassion. Or discernable "emotions." I have no objection to the notion that some animals have this capacity and that some do not. I just didn't know that this was the basis of your view. Now I do. I also don't know which animals are which.

By the way, couldn't you have gotten the dog out of the garden and given it a pat on the head? Just wondering.

Also by the way, I braked hard the other day when I saw one of our local suicidal chipmunks dash out at my car. He slipped between the front and rear tires. This strategy is a crapshoot - sometimes they stop suddenly, and the better thing would be to keep going. The motorist behind me wasn't pleased. Glad I didn't cause him to swerve into a tree and die himself.

A lot is a crapshoot. Act, Doug. Act, and do your best and feel no remorse for simply failing. And feel no remorse for the failures of others. Recognise them, yes. But recognising those failures does not necessarily involve emotions. That having been said, I'm all for sadness. I am not for unexamined sadness. That is not to say that you haven't examined it. I am trying to examine it a little more.

I lack sufficient compassion to take responsibility for every rhino poacher with a customer in Asia. I have enough to feel bad when I tag a chipmunk, but not enough to dwell on it. I swerve to avoid the many frogs on the road home on rainy nights. I like frogs. I relocate bugs that are bugging me, and only kill the most stubborn. I have even set ticks free. One time I had a ladybug infestation. Thousands. I relocated every one (it took the whole day) out to the yard. But I eat hamburgers. Am I inconsistent?

______________con'd @ 3¹.17

Doug 08.02.06  3¹.17  (6)

What a great post faust. I hope mine made you smile too. That was my intention. I could see you crawling around on your hands and knees rounding up those lady bugs. "Heaw get along you little buggies." I wonder about swerving to avoid the frogs though. It sounds to me like a good story to tell the cops. Chipmunks are like J-walking pedestrians. There are only two types, the quick and the dead.

I think we have exhausted the possibility of further conversation about animal psychology. I never would have thought about the feelings of ants had you not bought it up. It served a purpose though. I no longer doubt your capacity for compassion. I want you to know that I am not immobilized by sadness. It was so many posts ago but I don't think I brought up the endangered rhinos because I was sad about the imminent extinction of that specific type of animal. I introduced them to present the sadness I feel when I think about the group, that's all of us, that will be responsible for the extinction and what that says about us.

My sense that we are all connected was my motivation to give up eating meat many years ago. During the process by which I came to the conclusion individuals taking more out of our life support system than we needed contributed to the self-destruction of the group that sustains us, I read some environmental propaganda that it takes 10 - 15 lbs. of edible food to create 1 lb. of beef which seemed wasteful to me. In addition to this information I read that to raise one methane farting cow necessitated destroying 1 acre of oxygen producing rain forest and the home of many animals. Not being a meat eater allows me the luxury of feeling sorry for the animals we kill to make burgers but more significantly I feel sorry for the group of which I am a member who seem willing to demand beef regardless of the damage scientists say it causes to the environment .

Should we feel sorry that we could be destroying our lives in this way. Does it really matter if increased production of beef to supply the burger outlets planned for China could contribute to the eventual collapse of our life support system? Do we have any responsibility to the collective life that gives life to individuals? I hope it does because then we can talk about how to "Act" for the health of ourselves which you already know something about, and how that affects the health of humanity, the sum of us all.

______________con'd @ 3¹.18

Phaedrus 08.02.06  8.1  (6)

For what it's worth, seeing the thread has been thoroughly hijacked anyways, I never kill anything for no reason. Spiders I generally leave be- they eat a lot of annoying bugs, and bother me not a whit. The rare species that's potentially fatal to me gets squashed, but not the rest of em. I generally kill on sight the ones that prey on me (ticks, mosquitoes, etc) but then only if they're in my environment, not I in theirs (generally speaking).

I certainly eat meat. Animals that die to feed me aren't killed arbitrarily. To my mind there's no more moral issue when I eat a cow then when a fox eats a rabbit. I'm eating what I was born to eat, just as any other omnivorous or carnivorous predator does. Like wild predators I do make an effort not to waste anything that died to feed me, though.

_____________con'd @ 8.2

Doug 08.02.06  8.2  (6)

Hi Phaedrus. I don't think this thread has been hijacked. It will be if it becomes a discussion about the morality of eating meat rather than a conversation about the effect our choices have. Here are two more examples. Our choice to eat Pacific salmon is one of the factors contributing to the demise of the salmon fishery in the Pacific northwest. A similar choice was one of the factors contributing to the collapse of the North Atlantic cod stock. The question here is not whether it is morally right or wrong to eat fish. The question is does it matter if we eat it to the point of extinction? Even though each of us is only one, together we are billions. Our collected choices have an effect.

_____________end 

faust 08.02.06  3¹.18  (6)

Doug - I understood late that you were speaking of the rhinos as a metaphor. I can understand your sentiment if you really mean that you are feeling sorry for yourself - I must add quickly that I have no objection to that - I accidentally stabbed myself the other day opening oysters at a catering gig, and felt a little sorry for myself - not at the moment, because I was too busy to - I was merely irritated. But later. When it hurt. Nothing wrong in caring about yourself enough to be "sorry" that you stabbed yourself (in the fleshy part between the thumb and forefinger - ouch!).

I'm not convinced by the scientists who claim that cattle production is necessarily bad - but I'm not unconvinced, either. I cannot argue that point with you, don't even want to. I think that manmade extinctions says that we are shortsighted - but only in a vague, general way. Because sometimes it pays to be shortsighted. Sometimes people exhaust resources because they - those particular individuals, have no reasonable choice. Rhinos are not a good example of this, since they are killed for their horns only, I believe. While I don't agree that everything every "environmentalist" says, it is clear that we can be, as a group, shortsighted. Mostly, we hurt ourselves this way. But moral choices often come down to this issue alone - the long view versus the short view.

______________con'd @ 3¹.19

Ierrellus 08.02.06  9.1  (6)

Doug,
Did you give up meat because you cannot hear a plant cry? Back in the 70's an experiment was done in which a lie detector test was attached to certain plants. (Google sensitive plants). Putting a flame near the plants made the lie detector screen go wild with spikes! Were the plants lying? When exposed to rock and roll, young tomato plants shrivel up and die. At work, I would put an invading insect outside while my boss was yelling, "Kill it!" Our connection with organisms other than ourselves may have more to do with sound and heat vibrations than we know at present.

My American native friends truly believe in asking the forgiveness of an animal they are about to eat, a consideration found among many primitive cultures, past and present. The biological fact is that we eat what we are, i.e., the chemicals that construct and maintain our bodies. Although it may seem to be more efficient to obtain protein from the plant instead of from the animal that eats the plant, there is no moral line of demarcation between eating plants and eating animals.

______________con'd @ 9.2

Doug 08.02.06  9.2  (6)

Agreed. Still the question remains. Does it matter if our chosen individual inefficiencies result in our collective demise?

______________con'd @ 9.3

faust 08.02.06  3¹.19  (6)

Doug - if I may - I don't care about our collective demise as long as it happens after I am dead. I'm a gambler that way. Maybe after anyone I know is dead. I can take a long view, you know.

______________con'd @ 3¹.20

Doug 08.o2.06  3¹.20  (6)

______________con'd @ 3¹.21

faust 08.02.06  3¹.21  (6)

Slim chance I'll have a child. I'm 48, wait tables for a living, not pretty, and I am choosy about women. But any child I had would fall into the category of "people I know". I can go another generation or two, but there is a limit.

______________con'd @ 3¹.22

Doug 08.03.06  3¹.22  (6)

faust, I almost had to LOL. I was in the forum index scrolling down to the creative writing forum to publish another poem that no one will read because of my rant against the demise of uplifting language, when I saw your name in the rant forum. I clicked to see what you were on about this time and found you ranting about the demise of the book shops in Harvard Square. You named one store after another gone, gone, gone,....While your 'voice' faded I heard my 'voice' in the last couple posts growing louder but saying salmon gone, cod gone, grizzlies gone, rhinos gone, rainforest gone, water gone, air gone, each a stab in the "fleshy part" of life. Funny eh, how things are connected.

I am not sure whether your reference to me feeling sorry for myself was literal or metaphorical. If it was literal I didn't make myself understood. I have yet to feel sorry for myself. That's coming when I decide I've been a fool for trying to make sense of life when I should have been making money. Metaphorically, I do feel a sense of sadness every time we lose a familiar 'bookstore' of life.

Indeed, these "man made extinctions says that we are shortsighted... Because (always) it pays to be shortsighted... (We) people exhaust resources because (we)... (see) no reasonable choice....it is clear that we (are) as a group, shortsighted. Mostly, we hurt ourselves this way." If only we could learn to be more careful with the 'knife' we wouldn't give ourselves the opportunity to feel sad.

______________con'd @ 3¹.23

faust 08.03.06  3¹.23  (6)

Doug - that's the point I was getting at - re the bookstores, I feel sorry for myself. This phrase gets a bad rap, but it is obvious that this is what I mean. I can't feel sorry for anyone else until someone else indicates that they are also sorry. I don't want to invent sorrow, or project it. My sorrow is about me, at least until I know more. My only point to you was that you have every right (if I may use that word loosely) to be sorry about the rhinos, but not to feel sorry for the rhinos until you have heard from the rhinos.

So, I still don't understand. I could accept that you feel sorry for yourself. That's natural and normal. Who do you feel sorry for, then? I thought I understood, but now do not. There is nothing wrong in feeling sorry for yourself. That's what sorrow is.

______________con'd @ 3¹.24

Ierrellus 08.03.06  9.3  (6)

Doug,
You are right! The only morality that is truly inclusive is ecological morality (see Huxley's novel, "Island"). When are we going to comprehend a biosphere, an interdependent constituency that makes a whole? The Greek idea of plenitude (as discussed in A. O. Lovejoy's "The Great Chain of Being") is that it takes an ulitmate variety to make the whole. I'm humbled by W.H. Auden's line in his poem "Sept., 1939", written on the eve of WWII--"We must love one another or die".

Is there an efficiency that would preserve our ecosystem or are we too self-centered in consumerism to even care?

______________con'd @ 9.4

Doug 08.03.06  9.4  (6)

Thank you for your post Ierrellus. Every sentence was appreciated but especially "We must love one another or die". However, I have no desire to be right. All I want is understanding.

______________con'd @ 9.5

Doug 08.03.06  3¹.24  (6)

faust, thanking you for you effort to understand is inadequate. I am motivated by your interest. I will begin to close the gap between us tomorrow night or sometime on Saturday. In the meantime, if a woman in a bookstore gives you a chance at friendship, I suggest you talk about your mother for awhile before you talk about Nietzsche so that your imposing philosophical exterior is not the first impression.

______________con'd @ 3¹.25

faust 08.04.06  3¹.25  (6)

Doug - are you suggesting that I expose a soft underbelly of niceness? And to a woman, of all types?

Madness.

______________con'd @ 3¹.26

Ierrellus 08.04.06  9.5  (6)

Are we too immersed in the self-centeredness demanded by consumerism to be able to really care about what happens to plants, animals, humans?
"If things could only
Make anyone less lonely longer,
There would be nothing
But I and It."--Ierrellus

______________con'd @ 9.6

Doug 08.06.06  9.6  (6)

Ierrellus, thank you for another understanding post.

faust, I am still working on my reply to the post you made before the post in which you mentioned you might have a "soft underbelly". I wanted to pick up a few details prior to the 'big bang'and it is taking me longer than I thought it would. Besides that, I've taken Mom to two physio appointments to have a sore knee "rehabed' so that it won't buckle unexpectedly causing her to fall. I also agreed to dog sit for 2 days. I hate it when real life interferes with life on ILP.

______________con'd @ 9.7

Doug 08.09.06  3¹.26  (6)

faust, in case the gap of understanding between us is not just about my being saddened by the loss of another distinct group of animals, I thought I would take this opportunity to shed a bit more light on this thread by briefly reviewing the events prior to my 'big bang'. I began this thread by stating life is a reaction to the void. I chose this explanation of what's happening because it best described the collection of statements that defined three apparent conditions of life.

One of these collections describes a sense of emptiness most frequently referred to as the void, that we experience with the loss of someone or something that was a significant part of our lives. I deduced that if the void was experienced after something was removed, that something must have been filling the void. Then I concluded that even if we'd never given it any thought, some of what we are doing by inheritance or choice, is an effort to fill the void. This conclusion necessitated a definition of "the void". I found the definition by following the line of questions that invariably followed a loss, to the last "why?" under which I discovered no answer, no meaning, meaninglessness, a missing philosophical fact. It seems we have historically had difficulty dealing with this condition and trying to fill it is thus a reaction to the void. Since the void can not be filled it seemed appropriate to call trying to fill the void unnatural activity.

The second group of statements expresses the sentiment of wanting to give up living because life has no meaning. This is the same meaninglessness we discover below the last "why?" thus giving up is also a reaction to the void. Giving up begged to be left alone and called unnatural inactivity.

Then there are the statements conveying the desire "to do something more meaningful". I did not make this up. I plagiarized it from the book of life where I found a history of us apparently feeling that some of our activities seem "more meaningful" than others. The nihilists notwithstanding I accepted this as a fact of life and I reasoned that if some activities can seem more meaningful than others, there must be a set of activities that are most meaningful. When I looked for them in life I found: reaching out the limits of our capacities; reaching out to others; and reaching out to God which I gathered together and called the ideal reaction to the void. Reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God seemed to be the biological answer to the last "why?" so it was an obvious choice to call the ideal reaction to the void natural activity.

This is the point at which my 'big bang' occurred. I saw us weaving measures of natural activity and the unnatural activity of trying to fill the void, into individual fabrics of existence which we simultaneously weave into our collective fabric of existence that is unequivocally and inextricably woven into the fabric of nature. To make the image more visual I imagined the thread of natural activity was clear and then coloured the ways we try to fill the void. With respect to my emotional well-being this might have been my second big mistake, the first being starting to think about our collected lives in the first place. By imagining natural activity to be clear I created a clear ideal with which to assess our fabric of existence.

Now I make perhaps my biggest mistake of all. I imagine being God. I see a fabric of existence that is not completely but nevertheless predominantly a mess of clashing colours. I see conflict within individuals that is between an innate motivation to be natural and the more dominant choices we have made to be unnatural that causes corresponding, varying amounts of unnatural stress and most of what is called illness. I see the choices resulting in internal conflict creating the continuum of conflict between individuals and groups of individuals that is the dominant pattern in our fabric of existence. I see the conflict within us and thus the conflict between us manifested in obvious and apparently fatal conflict with the environment. Then against this conflict I see what could be, clear individual fabrics of existence, no unnatural stress or illness, no conflict within us, between us or with the environment; and I feel sad.

When I have my 'God glasses' on I see behind everything that happens a change in the relative amounts of natural and unnatural activity in our fabric of existence and thus a movement away from or toward the ideal. Movement away from the ideal makes me sad; movement toward the ideal makes me happy. Specific to your reply faust, in my assessment, the imminent extinction of the white rhino is an indication of unnatural choices having been made that moves us all further from the ideal and that makes me sad. A few posts ago there were some comments regarding the morality of eating meat. I tried to make it clear then that killing a cow to eat does not make me sad. However, if we are, as reported, compromising the 'lungs' of our planet in order to eat meat, that seems unnatural to me and thus makes me sad.

Despite my assessment that our collective fabric of existence is dominated by conflict, I am not sad all the time. I am briefly happy every time my mother gives me a hug. faust, even you unwittingly made me happy when you told me you regularly drive a 10 hour round trip to give your mother a hug. The act of giving $100 to your friend's daughter for back to school supplies made me happy. It made me happy to hear you say you chose to make your life activities more natural (my word) and haven't been sick since. It doesn't really take much for a temporary fix and I am grateful to you.

However, one person changing is not enough to permanently raise my level of happiness. That would require the majority of humanity choosing to weave more natural activity into their fabrics of existence. I hate being a pessimist but I don't see that happening. So to be happier I'm feeling I should just think about me. I should remove my 'God glasses' , whitewash our fabric of existence, then drink the beer necessary to help me kick the habit of thinking about life and watch the good time bubble grow with the fortunate few. Life is probably just an illusion anyway eh?

______________con'd @ 3¹.27

faust 08.09.06  3¹.27  (6)

Well Doug, that's a clear, well-articulated conception of a view that I can only say is a stupid one. Please do not read me as saying that you are stupid. Pessimism, as a worldview, is stupid. It's crap. God glasses, indeed - you have found the solution.

For you have made it all up - it is your own invention. You have posited Meaning, and then "felt" the lack of it. And yes, you have taken on responsibilities for the entire race, for the entire world, and so feel the resultant void when you find you cannot fulfill them.

I suggest you get ahold of a copy of Leonard Bernstein's "Candide" - first read Voltaire's original - but the Finale to the musical is a song called Make Your Garden Grow. If there is a recording of his 75th birthday party, get that instead - it's a great rendition. You'll cry. I cried. Leonard cried when they sang it that night. It was on PBS and I will never forget it.

You have taken a perfectly normal, healthy emotion, which is an activity, and reified it - objectified it - made it a metaphysical entity. I think this is okay, if what you come up with is Santa Claus, but to have this metaphorical dark cloud hover over you and to believe it is real is a grave error. It is, like Scopenhauer, an indulgence. An unhealthy one.

I am giving you hell, yes. I am, at this point, preaching to the choir, I suppose. Yes. Because I do not think you are really in the choir.

This is due to the collective you use - "we" find some activities meaningful. Speak for yourself, sir. It's easy enough to get netted - "we" feel this way about this condition, "we" feel that way - "we" find meaning. "WE" do not. You do. Make your garden grow. Be a philosoher - it's the loneliest type.

This is not to imagine being God - it's to imagine that there is no God. That we are responsible to ourselves first, and then to others. Certain others. We choose. This does not preclude random acts of kindness - it requires active choices. And it requires that you stop seeing only "our" choices, and begin to focus on your choices. This is where we differ. You seem to wish to depend upon the collective to make you happy. You make you happy - you make choices for you. You have, indeed, found the solution.

I hope.

______________con'd @ 3¹.28

Doug 08.10.06  3¹.28  (6)

faust, typical of your posts, my reply to this one, which I liked, is going to require a bit of time. However, I wanted you to know one is coming and that I searched "Voltaire Candide", read the first two and last two chapters and the descriptions of the others. I liked it. How do you like these lines?

(I gave you two parts.) I'll have more to say about the "Candide" in my next post.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to get the CD of the musical without a lot of hassle. The only music store in town went out of business. It belonged to a friend of mine. It was a small shop, maybe 15' x 30'. He sold major labels but also the CDs of local bands. Apparently everyone in the local music scene loved the guy; but his landlord wasn't into music or love. When my friend's lease expired the landlord doubled the rent. My friend lost his 'garden'. At the time I felt sorry for my friend. Now with "Why trouble your head about it....Is it any business of yours?" echoing in my head, I wonder if I was a fool. I will have more to say about this in my next post.

It is raining and my mother doesn't like to go out in the rain so perhaps my post will be sooner rather than later. In the meantime, thanks for the continuing conversation.

______________con'd @ 3¹.29

faust 08.10.06  3¹.29  (6)

We are connected to our friends, not without a rational self-interest.

(You knew I was going to say that, didn't you.)

______________con'd @ 3¹.30

 intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

Nick_A 07.03.06  1³.3  (5)

Mood swings? Who knows anymore at this point.

Don' t take this as an attack but simply an observation on my part. It is, I believe, another of the the damaging things about PC thought. It has led to a negative connotation about winning that doesn't have to be. Have you ever watched animals at play? They win and lose. Do the psychologists of their species protest that it is damaging to self esteem? I personally think such games are natural and beneficial. The harm comes from the artificially created attitudes we develop towards winning or losing.

If we take winning and losing as learning experiences as do animals and recognition of a natural hierarchy of development within a skill, then it is IMO as it should be. Once winning and losing begins to become associated with "good and bad," is when the trouble begins. PC thought tends to stress the elimination of natural competition all animals use including humans, to develop their skills. Most find this unnatural but because of the PC pressure, associate winning and losing with good and bad all the more. So the idea for me of winning and losing is perfectly just. The harm comes through our unnatural acquired attitudes towards this natural distinction.

I just had a new idea for a phallic symbol: the white flag. In the future the state will invent a pill that will gradually change a man so that instead of an erection rising up at the appropriate time, a white flag will stand up instead. This should assure that there will be no "friction" leading to tensions between people and everything will just be nice and instead.

 
Hi Nick. "I don't want to play if we both can't win" was my response to kriswest when an exchange of replies inadvertently became what she described as a "rock piling contest". Recall she joined me in an exchange of replies with as much effort as you. It was very beneficial for me. I know the way to end a matchup is to declare a winner so I turned around to face the same direction as Kris and kept the conversation going. I needed her to keep pushing me to explain.

This notion of needing each other to help ourselves comes directly from my definition of the ideal reaction to the void which I think by now you know is to reach out the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Going back to our beginning we can see if we hadn't reached out to our mother we would not have become what we are capable of being. The generally self-destructive nature of our educational system notwithstanding, had the system not been in place we would be without what limited expansion of our realized mental capacities we now have. We can't learn much alone.

I play tennis. I compete with friends and that helps me improve. I watched the Wimbleton final on Sunday. What I saw was Roger Federer being pushed to a level he had not been before. I saw Raphael Nadal being pulled up to a level where he had not previously been. It was a great match. I saw two winners. The rest of the world saw a winner and a loser, the last one to join the rest of us. As I watched the winter Olympics I was inspired to write for my own site, "Life: an Olympic journey". My point in it was that I adore the Olympic effort athletes make to reach out the limits of their capacities; but I abhor the Olympic goal of declaring and worshiping a gold medal winner and ignoring a bunch of losers.

Declaring winners and losers helps to 'colour' our present fabric of existence. No one likes to lose. When we lose we don't just lose a game or an argument at ILP. We lose ground in a losing struggle to give meaning to our lives. Winning, being number one in the world, being the best and all other forms of pre-eminence, we perceive to be a way we can fill the void. We go to extraordinary lengths to be pre-eminent at something. War is a pretty good example. Taking performance enhancing drugs is another. In the extremist cases some of us willingly lose our lives to win; and the more we lose the more extreme we become. Striving for pre-eminence is such a self-destructive and totally ineffective activity. It will destroy us. No one will win; so I don't want to 'play'.

The only activity that won't destroy us is to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. There can be no competition, for the goal is expanding our unique realized capacities and we need each other to achieve self-realization. This is the 'game' that we all win. I want to 'play'. Thanks for your willing participation.

______________con'd @ 1³.5

Nick_A 07.13.06  1³.5  (5)

I get the impression from your description of the tennis match that you find value in competition but harm in our attitude towards its results. Is determining a temporary "better" and "best" objectively harmful because "no one likes to lose" and it takes meaning from our lives or does it just display an unnatural slavery to the self importance of egotism?

As you know I'm not PC (politically correct) so don't expect this to be fashionable but I believe that hierarchy is good and natural for the soul but only offensive to our acquired personalities. It is perfectly natural to want to determine where our skills and even the level of our being stands in relation to others. It is our pride and vanity that find it objectionable and these are acquired personality traits which are taken advantage of by others.

Profound psychology and usually overlooked in the misguided belief that somehow people "know better." We forget our weakness that allows and justifies such perceptions. This "winning" has nothing to do with anything from our essential selves but strictly the blindness of our ego's need for self justification which for it is winning the good..

You would seek to eliminate competition and the "win" though you admit that in the tennis match, it spurred on both competitors in the Wimbleton Final. The reason seems to be because of the attitude towards losers: "but I abhor the Olympic goal of declaring and worshiping a gold medal winner and ignoring a bunch of losers." But suppose losers didn't have this weakness to consider themselves as "losers"with all the bad connotations you are suggesting, is it still so bad?

How can one learn how to lose in the presence of people looking at him as a loser? That is the more important question for me. It is equally important to the question of winning and how to remember that it is temporary and of relative importance so as to be able to put it into the higher, more universal perspective of "meaning" itself.

Winning an losing is perfectly normal and natural IMO and as such, will always exist. The trick then as I see it, is in learning how to win and lose so as not to cause ourselves more psychological imbalance then we already have.

______________con'd 1³.6

Doug 07.19.06  1³.6  (5)

Nick, although I would use a different language I believe the concepts in Simone Weil's quotes are congruent with my views. Furthermore, I agree with much of what you say about winning and losing in the context you are viewing; but then I change the context. You are right that I "would seek to eliminate competition" but my context is life. Now, the figures aren't important but suppose 1 billion of the present 7 billion people in humanity are at this moment losing the competition for life. In my context I have difficulty thinking that if "the losers didn't have this weakness to consider themselves as losers...(they wouldn't think losing is) so bad".

You could be right that this competition is natural. If it is then I still maintain it will result in the death of humanity. Suppose for the sake of agreement that our environment survives the competition. Then at the end there will be 2 people and one will kill the other to claim the prize just before realizing that in winning he had really lost. If this competition is unnatural then it will similarly result in the death of humanity unless we eliminate the goal of pre-eminence from our fabric of existence and replace it with cooperative mutual testing that raises the level of all humanity.

______________con'd @ 1³.7

Nick_A 07.19.06  1³.7  (5)

People compete because there is something either realistically imagined worth competing for. I cannot believe two people or a bare minimum of people trying to repopulate the world as long as there is clean water, growing food, and shelter available will compete. It is obvious at this point that cooperation is advantageous.

But how do you define the death of humanity. Are you referring strictly to human bodies or inner qualities? Some may think that the death of humanity is approached by lowering human quality. Since we don't know what this is, it is a volatile question. But now I'll give you an example of a current problem that in a PC world is difficult to deal with

Somehow I raised a pair of young angelfish into maturity. They began to breed even though my water is considered to alkaline and hard for angelfish to breed. Somehow, this pair of beautiful semi veil black marble angelfish avoided the books and let nature take its course. Now they produce broods of several hundred with no problems.

I've learned that ethical breeders only put the best on the market and stunted or deformed which worsen the gene pool are destroyed or fed to adults.

I went through it. I didn't know that this pair would do the unusual where I live and breed in this water. Pet stores are glad to buy these young once they are nickel size. On advice of breeders and officials in aquarium societies, I now don't sell or give away anything that doesn't meet the standards of the adults.

In the Amazon river, the natural home of angelfish, a female can lay 500 to a thousand eggs and whatever hatches competes for life. The stunted and deformed are weak and an easy catch for predators. My tank has no predators so I've come to believe that it is my responsibility to do what is required by nature for the gene pool..

Initially I thought that it would be nice to donate some breeding pairs that I can easily raise and since these new breeding pairs will have acquired the parenting skills from their parents care, I thought it would be nice to donate some to schools to show the kids how they lay and take care of the eggs, remove the fry from shells and place them on a leaf, pick them up in their mouth, clean them off, and spit them back out. Then they guard them for the seven days required for the fry to be free swimming and once free swimming, they protect them.

In this day and age where care of young is becoming obsolete, I thought it would be good to show young students what these fish are capable of as parents. It is biology. However, when it comes to maintaining the gene pool by destroying the runts, stunted, and deformed, teachers don't want to deal with it. It is not PC and can lead to difficult questions. How does a teacher explain that it is our obligation to compensate for the loss of natural competition for the good of the gene pool?

So, if you were an elementary school teacher taking over a class with a healthy breeding pair of angelfish that are excellent parents raising a brood and you learn that for the preservation of the gene pool and in the absence of life's normal competition, you will have to destroy a sizable portion of young fish, How would you explain it to the class?

______________con'd @ 1³.8

Doug 07.24.06   1³.8   (5)

but I will say it was lovely and that it was considerate of you to give me

to start my answer.

It seems to me that by putting the fish in an unnatural environment you have created an ethical question that does not need to exist.  In my view, with our unnatural activity of trying to fill the void, to give unnatural meaning to life, we remove ourselves somewhat from the natural environment we create with the natural activity of reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God; and generate countless ethical questions that will remain unresolvable in the unnatural environment we have created.

______________end

Doug 07.28.06  3¹.1  (5)

Thanks faust. You were the third person to visit this thread. Check it out. You entered with one of your attempts to lighten things up and I assumed you were 30 years younger than you are. In "Where is civilization heading?"

This statement was in response to my contention that there is a single reason why we use weapons. I would like to tell you how I come to that conclusion and now suggest that if life matters it would be useful to identify the reason we use them before the continued use of weapons results in our self-destruction.

I suggest that though, as you accurately observe, there are any number of identifiable superficial reasons, our use of weapons is ultimately and solely due to our trying to fill the void. In my original post I describe life as a reaction to the void. Trying to fill it is one of the ways we can react to the void; and out of the eight ways we can try to fill the void that I describe, trying to fill it with money and all the things it can buy is the most dominant reaction to the void in our fabric of existence. Trying to fill the void with religious/philosophical answers is a close second and the two mix.

Filling the void is not possible. More of whatever we try to fill the void with will never be enough. As you wrote, "If everyone had everything they wanted, they would find new things to want". One of the manifestations of trying to fill the void with money is "greed". Another is conflict over insufficient resources and in conflict we use weapons. We could say we use weapons in our wars over resources; we could say we fight with weapons over money because it is our nature to be greedy but down at the bottom we find that we use weapons in our desperate efforts to fill the void.

At this point I could go on to explain that though it seems to be, conflict is not necessarily a part of our common nature. But this post is already too long. Perhaps you will encourage me to explain this statement after I plug the holes you find in this post.

______________con'd @ 3¹.2

faust 07.28.06  3¹.2  (5)

Doug - We may often say that the population of a species has "suffered" great losses, but this does not necessarily mean that any individual suffers as a result. I can't understand how one can feel sorry for a species. A species is a manmade idea, a set. Sets are not real, rhinos are.

Perspectivism is what the philosophy of Nietzsche is often called. My view is something of an amended Nietzscheanism, which I prefer to call contextualism. Since that is my own coinage, I avoided it, and used what I thought would be the more familar term.

I would define, in accordance with the second definiton you provide, a materialist as someone who disavows metaphysics of any kind. That is not a complete definition, but I think it will do for now.

I am a particularist in the sense that I think, in accordance with materialism, that only particulars exist - this is opposed to rationalism, idealism, theism, and, again, any metaphysic. It has nothing to do with politics, nor does my philosophical thinking. I am registered as an independent, for the record. I am opinionated.

These are partial definitions, but I think sufficient for present purposes.

The Woody Allen paraphrase is from, I believe, Annie Hall, a comedy. It's from some comedy of his, at any rate.

You see, I would stop right there, given the present context (contextualism). "Life" doesn't matter - individual lives may or may not matter to a given person. We don't all use weapons, so the term "self-destruction" is, for me, a generalisation of limited utility. This sounds like rhetoric to me ears - a platitude. Grandiose verbage. The collectivisation of humanity as having some common Will, some common Purpose - a commonality that I would not accept without argument.

Such is the gulf that divides you and me, Doug.

This void - I am still not sure what it is. But I suspect that it is a feeling that you have, and that others might. I don't think I have it. I will review this thread to see if I can get a better handle on it. But I think you should know more about my position after reading this post. I will try to learn more about yours.

______________con'd @ 3¹.3

faust 07.28.06  3¹.3  (5)

Okay, Doug - is this void a lack of Universal Meaning? This sounds to me like a religious crisis that an individual may or may not have had. I have never had a religious crisis. I have never posited a Universal Meaning. If my understanding is correct, then there is a void if we think there is a void.

Do not here mistake my tone for flippancy: I don't get laid enough. That is the only void I can think of, and has nothing to do with meaning, universal or otherwise, as far as I can see.

______________con'd @ 3¹.4

Doug 07.29.06  3¹.4  (5)

Would you have understood if I had said I feel sorry for the last 80 remaining white rhinos that will soon be 1 who will not necessarily suffer when the other 79 are shot; and that I feel sorry for the approximately 9 billion human beings because the sum of our existences has been diminished to the point someone will kill the last remaining rhino, cut of the horn and make an aphrodisiac so some other guy can fuck up something else.

God, I hate labels. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Jew, Sunni, Shiite, American, Canadian, Iraqi, Palestinian,..............perspectivist/materialist/ particularist. They are nothing more than the consequences of our efforts to fill the void. I won't be satisfied until no one on the planet has a label, not even human being because we already know we can't agree on what being human is.

Sudden insight!!!! Human beings are label makers. We make them in an effort to fill the void which can't be done so that will keep us going forever if we don't self-destruct first. Self-destruction happens when a walking breathing human self-construction puts a gun to his head, pulls the trigger and instantaneously becomes a self-destruction. Of course the collective can't self-destruct because it is an abstract concept created by the individuals. However, if all the individuals put guns to their heads and pull the triggers the collective would no longer be a concept. We can put the guns to each others heads and accomplish the same result. It is not even necessary for all individuals to have guns. One individual with a few nukes could blow the concept of humanity into non-existence. It is not even necessary to use weapons. We can be the weapons that destroy the concept of humanity. We just need to continue destroying our environment; but maybe that doesn't matter because "Life" or Life "doesn't matter". God, I'm so confused.

______________con'd @ 3¹.5

Doug 07.29.06  3¹.5  (5)

As long as you don't mistake the tone in my previous post for sarcasm. I would give you 95% for comprehension. You would get 100% for: The void is the sense there is no meaning in life. This sounds to me like a life crisis that an individual may or may not have had. I have never had a life crisis. I have never had the occasion to question the meaning of my life. If my understanding is correct, then there is a void if we explain the sensation we feel upon losing a part of our life by saying, "The loss left such a void in my life".

If we are lucky we can get through life without ever questioning our lives. We inherit a reaction to the void. So if we keep the peddle to the metal we might get to the end of a shortened life without ever examining it. That's probably the purpose of life anyway. Good luck.

______________con'd @ 3¹.6

faust 07.29.06  3¹.6  (5)

My main objection to your thinking here is that you seem to be willing to think for me, and everyone else. Yours is one of the strongest cases of projection going. What if I told you that the vast majority of humans on the planet don't care about rhinos? You would just claim that they should? That is your judgement, not theirs. You are upset about the rhinos (and there is nothing wrong in that), but to claim that the extinction of the rhinos hurts everyone, should upset everyone and would if only they knew what you knew is a bit narcissistic, in my view.

The void is not the loss - it is a judgement you make about the loss. That's okay. What doesn't make sense is to project this emotional reaction onto the Universe, and treat your emotions like others can experience them. I had a tooth that was really bothering me. I had it yanked. I do not feel any void.

There is no meaning to life. Why is that even a problem? Why is it even noticeable? Why should I even care about the question? You have to invent possible meanings to even talk about the "loss" of them, or the absence of them. You are just making trouble where none exists.

______________con'd @ 3¹.7

Doug 07.30.06  3¹.7  (5)

faust, you wrote, "There is no meaning to life". I agree. There is no answer to the question , "Why am I?" I see that as a "problem" because everyone including you at the least "invent(s) possible" answers to that question every day. You at least project your philosophical views more forcefully than most on the membership of ILP. It is noticeable in the conflict you create. You make "trouble" where there should be none, as do other members and Jews, Hezbolla, Hamas, Americans, materialists, capitalists, communists and on and on and....... Now, none of this matters of course because life doesn't matter. However, my guess is you like our meaningless existence better than the alternative and although I don't want to think for you I suspect you would like it better if there was less conflict. So I can only guess why you object to me projecting my vision of life without conflict.

I would have written this post Sat. morning but I took my mother raspberry picking instead. I could have rushed home to work on it but we had lunch out. I had to have a nap when we got home because I was up until 3 AM working on my last reply to you. When we got up Mom and I bagged the raspberries together. After supper we played scrabble. I would say we have played at least 5 nights a week since she and Dad moved in with me in 2001. Upon finishing the scrabble game Mom played solitaire on the computer. She is almost 91. I taught her how to play in Nov. She's played every night since under my supervision. Last week my narcissistic sister-in-law brought me an injured flicker she knew I couldn't refuse to care for. I must have spent 2-3 hours over two days capturing ants for it to eat. I was sad to see it die for the same reason I am sad to see the rhinos and great numbers of my fellow human beings die because of what the rest of us do. It is the same reason I spent 40 years working just enough to survive while I tried to figure out and then explain the source of conflict in our lives.

My problem is not genetic for my narcissistic brother who lives 5 minutes from us has spent maybe an hour alone with our mother in over 5 years. No my problem is likely a simple chemical imbalance that causes excessive and utterly foolish interest in others and the foolish fantasy that I think I feel better looking after my mother than I would have had I let her die in a nursing home. I will get it checked out by a doctor when my mother dies to see if there is a cure. In the meantime faust, you write down what you did yesterday and the highlights of what you've done over the last 30 years. I will need a good counselor when I begin transforming myself into a narcissist. If you qualify I'll interview you first.

You wrote, "I had a tooth that was really bothering me. I had it yanked. I do not feel any void". Did you try feeling it with your tongue?

I began this post at 10 PM right after Mom's perfect game of solitaire. It is 2 AM. I am such a fool. I will need another nap tomorrow right after we return from the farmer's market.

______________con'd @ 3¹.8

faust 07.30.06  3¹.8  (5)

Doug - you have changed the example - which is okay, but it is not a direct response to my post. I'm just trying to stay on the same page - this does not in itself constitute any objection to what you have said. To wit: there is a difference between inventing answers and inventing questions.

The question "What is the meaning of life?" is different from "what is the meaning of my life?", for one thing.

I have never answered the question "Why am I?". That is an entirely different question, if I understand the question at all. The answers I look for are more in line with the question "What should I do?". The difference is between looking at my life as a single entitiy, a fait accompli, which is impossible, and as an activity or process. Unless I misunderstand you, my questions are very different than yours.

Real trouble is that which cannot be resolved - it is not disagreement itself. To say that life has no meaning is not to say that life doesn't matter. You are slipping and sliding around with meanings here.

I love flickers and would be sad to see one die in my care. I would be sad enough to see a rhino die, I suppose, but to be sad about an individual is not the same as being sad about a species. That's my view. To be sad about a manmade, abstract entity is a waste of emotion - you may think I am uncompassionate - I am not - I save it for real things.

But I am not sad when I eat a hamburger. We kill. Are you sad for the ants you fed the flicker? You're just gonna wind up sad all the time. Ants have feelings, too. Ants' lives matter to those ants. How could you be so cruel to those ants? How could you murder them like that over a flicker that died anyway? Do you see my point at all? Are flickers sad that they eat ants?

My mother recently went into a home. She would have died if she hadn't - in fact, she very nearly did. I will drive five hours tonight, after work, to see her tomorrow, and then five hours back to work the same day. For the record.

I enjoy feeling the "Void" with my tongue. I actually enjoy it.

______________con'd @ 3¹.9

Doug 07.31.06  3¹.9  (5)

faust, it is 12:45. I have been working on my reply to you since my mother finished another perfect game of solitaire at 9:45. I haven't finished but this time I have decided not to press on because I would not be doing it justice. I will finish it later. I can tell you however that you did not make the short list of possible counselors that could help me become narcissistic; but I have another lead. I can also tell you the gulf between us seems to be getting narrower. When we first started talking I thought it might be too wide for a handshake. Now I think it might be narrow enough for a hug, so be careful.

I am truly sorry to hear your mother had to be put into a home. I trust her health has improved and I hope she has more than one compassionate child. 5 hours there and 5 hours back! That sucks!! If this is the same trip you alluded to in your "first hour report" you've done it before. Had my father not left a pension that pays our expenses I would not be able to hang out with my mother 24/7. I know you don't like me to think for everyone but I believe you should have the same opportunity to tell your mother by your actions that her life mattered. The fact that so many don't is for me a further piece of evidence that our fabric of existence, the sum of what we all do, is diminished.

I'll talk to you later today.

______________con'd @ 3¹.10

faust 07.31.06  3¹.10  (5)

Doug - I make the trip frequently. My mother has dementia and probably alzheimer's disease. She also has a variety of physical ailments that require round-the-clock care. Home care was not an option, for reasons beyond even the financial ones. She is quite happy in the home, or I would make the trip even more often. But there is no reason to be sorry.

That's actually on topic, I guess. My mother is in a private-pay facility. She had been a board member for years, as her mother was before her. She knows many people, when she knows anyone, which she still does most of the time. Her health is better than it has been in several years - what had been a daily battle to get her to eat (between her and my father) is now a routine. I won't go into all the details, but the stereotypical image we have of nursing homes does not describe her circumstances.

My mother is old. Some of her problems are due to her aversion to doctors. She had a chronically bad back, which caused her a lot of pain, for many years. Her back feels fine, now. No one knows why, but it is so. We've just redecorated her room, with a beautiful antique four-poster bed that was her mother's. She has a view of the river. She is about a mile from my father, who sees her daily. Her sister- and brother-in-law reside at the home. The food is better than it is in the restaurant that I work in - I worked in that home, cleaning toilets and such, in my youth, and had to go off the meal plan - I was getting too fat.

I have more, but won't belabor the point unless you make me.

Why are you sorry? We are all very happy to see her in such good spirits (which she often was not at home) and in such good health, and free of the constant pain she had been in. Looking back, we should have done this a couple of years ago - we were blinded by compassion - misdirected compassion. We didn't realise how much better she would be - we still have no idea why her back is pain-free. She often didn't take her meds at home, but that doesn't explain it all.

Don't be sorry. Be glad for her.

______________con'd @ 3¹.11

Doug 07.31.06  3¹.11  (5)

faust, I am happy for us all. You've just moved the sum of what we do closer to the ideal.

I've always thought that our variously unnatural "reactions to the void" generate a continuum of conflict both between us and within us. My contention is that if we diminish the unnatural component of our reactions to allow an increase in the natural, conflict between us will diminish and 90% of what we call illness will disappear.

My mother and father were married for 64 years. I'd never heard an angry word between them until they moved in with me in 2001. I couldn't believe the viciousness of my mother's verbal attacks. A few weeks after they arrived Dad had an episode that made me think he had died. He didn't but in case he did I moved him into my bedroom so Mom wouldn't have to discover him dead. It was a separation of less than 30 feet but by the change in my mother's attitude you would have thought it was a million miles. I slept on my couch for 3 years but it was worth it to see my mother give my dad a bit of a hug and a kiss on the forehead each night. Who knows what tension lurks beneath the surface that could be causing pain?

I am enjoying these exchanges but give me a chance to catch up eh. I am still working on the one before the last one and I have been here long enough. I am going to work in the garden with my mother.

______________con'd @ 3¹.12

faust 07.31.06  3¹.12  (5)

Okay. I'm hitting the shower, then din-din with Dad, then off to see Mom. I will take her outside tomorrow - there is a very nice garden on the grounds.

I think a lot of my mother's improvement has to do with the fact that she is not constantly fighting with Dad. That is a complex dynamic, those fights - he reacted badly, but with good intentions, to my mother's failing health, and she reacted, in turn, badly to him. They get along much better now. She is much less tense, now, which is part of the easing of her pain, I suspect.

Incidentally, I am almost never ill. I used to get the flu every couple of years, but even that frequency has diminished. I have not had a major illness since I was nine (rheumatic fever). I live much less stressfully now that I have given up most of my possessions. I have made other changes as well, that I think contribute to my physical health. I would be interested in hearing more on this subject.

Maybe there's something to this "void" thing - I am not sure how it is connected. Maybe you can elucidate me through this avenue of health.

______________con'd @ 3¹.13

Doug 08.01.06  3¹.13  (5)

Hi faust. Before I get to our health I want to go back to the flickers, the ants and flickers, hamburgers and question and answers but I need more time. I had completed my reply except for sorting out the part about the questions and answers when we started talking about our mothers. The language I used was appropriate for philosophical arm wrestling. You push and I resist by pushing back. Then today you quit pushing so now I have to change my language. Tonight I only have time for the flickers because I am going to bed early. I think I am going to have the best sleep I've had in awhile.

We are together in feeling sad if a flicker in our care died. I don't think I will be wrong in assuming you would be as sad as I would be if two flickers in our care died. I dare say you would still be with me if we skipped right to 10 individuals. I will say here that if I can be sad that 10 individual flickers died I can be sad if all flickers died which scientists would describe as the extinction of a species. Are you still with me or have I crossed an imaginary line that separates individuals from the sum of all individuals.

______________con'd @ 3¹.14

Kriswest 08.01.06  6¹.1  (5)

 Hi Doug, Flickers? Its been too long since I have been here, What the heck is a Flicker? Dare I ask? LOL

Natural void critturs, Doug. Some of us are so attracted to the void that it is like moth to heat. You ever see a lunar moth? It would take your breath away. Its beauty has no words. It is probably larger than your hand. Seeing a picture does not compare to the actual living creature. This wonderous creature strives and fights and batters itself against a window or screen to get itself near the light in the house. Once you see it ,you try to protect it from itself, It is the most wonderous creature to behold. How can it wish to try so hard to be near the light at the cost of its own life and freedom of flight. It will actually destroy itself in order to get inside. That is natural. The light inside is not. The moth sees it as natural because for it ,it is.

At least once a year I see one and I try to get it away from the lights, out into the woods, the durn thing generally beats me back. Sometimes it flys away towards the deeper woods. Now I will take this creature only so far out in the woods, then it must be on its own. Cuz no way am I going any further. There are things that will harm me severely.

this is a true hmmmmm story incase you didn't get it

I am glad to hear your mom is well my friend.

_____________con'd @ 6¹.2 

Doug 08.01.06  6¹.2  (5)

Geez Kriss, had you not left I wouldn't have to explain. It is nice to hear from you again though. You are one of the significant strands in this thread. I always wonder how many people enter the thread at the beginning and how many at the last post. Then I wonder how many of the people who enter by the last post go back to the beginning or go back into the thread far enough to pick it up. I have to do a poll someday.

A flicker is a bird I brought into my conversation with faust when we were talking about being sad for the loss of a species which was a metaphor for humanity. faust, who I think must have read the entire thread, was arguing against feeling sorry for a species until we started talking about our mothers then he just up and quit arguing.

Your metaphor of the moth was beautiful. Your moth is analogous to my flicker. Its completely natural flight was interrupted by a completely unnatural 10'x10' picture window my brother put in the middle of the flicker's natural environment. My admittedly naive purpose at the moment is to do my best to point out what I think are the unnatural 'lights' and 'windows' that are restricting our natural 'flight'. This brings us back to the flickers, rhinos and moths and my conversation with faust about whether or not we should even care. Do we stop at ourselves, after our mothers or do we extend our concern to humanity, the sum of us all?

If you have the answer please restrain yourself for a few days. I don't want to lose control here. I have to leave now to make breakfast. How is your mother bty?

 ____________con'd @ 6¹.3

Kriswest 08.01.06  6.¹3  (5)

wheew, see I remember a candy called flickers or flicks I was trying to figure out what the deuce an old not made anymore candy had to do with rhinos, whales and extinction, thought you all had lost it for a moment. With our friend Faust one never knows where he goes. I hold my reply, my friend. enjoy your time. My Mom is bad off but, Hey we go on.

_____________con'd @ 6¹.4

Doug 08.01.06  6¹.4  (5)

Kriswest wrote:
thought you all had lost it for a moment.

You could be right. You are a perceptive woman. Remember the place you have in my memory. I'll talk to you again.

_____________end

 

intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

Bill 05.23.06  7.11  (4)

Sorry for being so vague in my explanation of you being vague. I was in a rush. Perhaps it is a case where you just haven't explained yourself thoroughly or I missed something.

But some flaws
1)Belief in God---this has already been discuss

but to add to your questions about Dawkins...Yea there is discussion as to why the universe has the laws that it does..in fact this may be "the last why" , some theories are thrown out there such as evolution is a possibility or random chance...etc..but a God isn't the answer and even if it was there would still be one more question"why a god? and how did he get that way?" etc.. so i think the questions never really end and you shouldn't hold your breath for the answers to absolutely everything in your lifetime. But none of that has much effect on on ordinary life. How would you live your life differently if you knew that the Universes laws are the way they are due to quantum randomness or cosmological evolution? if you interested in cosmology perhaps another book you should add to your list is "A brief History of time" by Hawking.

Dennetts book breaking the spell explains thoroughly how through the process of evolution people started believing in the supernatural and organized religions came to be. Fascinating stuff that will without a doubt leave you an atheist.

2)Belief in a Void- Now I am still not exactly sure what the VOID is..

The way my brain works is like math..I have a very hard time with abstract esoteric ideas and can't understand poetry for the life of me. I like things to be explained in precise definition and I need useful examples.

The void=xyz natural activity =when you eat food.

Until you give me a better definition to work I am going with that void= a whole we feel because we don't know why we exist

So unless you give me a better definition, Ill tell you why the void
does not exist.

Our human behavior can for the most part be explained. We desire to have sex because our genes want to propagate. We get jobs so that we can earn money to buy food and other stuff. There is no VOID because there is no "WHY" we need answered. We already know the answer. Who we are and what are and why we do the things we do is due to biological and sociocultural evolution. The end.

If you want to know more about the human situation endlessly read books on human evolution, psychology and sociology. The question Why you are here shouldn't bother you. We know the answers.
There is still is one question though...one that philosophy never answered. What is the best way to live life?

I think the field of psychology is the best prospect for answering this question as lots of scientists are beginning to study happiness.

______________con'd @ 7.12

Doug 05.23.06  7.12  (4)

Bill Walton, I don't know a lot about the US school grading but I think I've heard reference to a 4 point system. If this is correct I would give you a 3.5 on your latest post. It was by far your best. I need a fresh mind to begin dealing with it and 10:30 pm is not my best time. However, I wanted you to know I read it and I will begin to work on a reply tomorrow. I look forward to another exchange soon. If you told me tonight that science is prosaic while philosophy is poetic I have to agree. That is a great start.

______________con'd @ 7.13

Doug 05.27.06  7.13  (4)

Apparently not much has changed in the 40 years since I came to that same conclusion except for the increase in the number of books. I didn't study philosophy as intensively as you but I got a good introduction to it and comparative religious studies in minor courses; and I read a 24 volume history of philosophy. Nowhere in all those books did I find the answer to "What is the best way to live life?" So being the inquisitive type I started to look in the only other place, beyond the books, in life.

In the "book of life" I found "the best way to live life" is to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. I know you want to quit reading now because I have mentioned God but please hear me out. I call "the best way to live..." natural activity. It is rooted in biology. From the time we are conceived we begin reaching out to the limits of our capacities and reaching out to the limits of our physical capacities remains mostly biological. Reaching out to the limits of our mental capacities also begins in the biological domain but gradually society assumes control. The foundation of reaching out to others is similarly biological. We simply couldn't be, without our mother; but here too reaching out to others is eventually directed by society.

I know you want me to stop here because "There is no such thing as God"; but I can't because virtually all of humanity believes in some way that life transcends the biological and most associate that transcendence with "God" or by whatever name we know it. So if I am trying to tell a room full of humanity who believes in a transcendence they associate with God, about the biologically rooted "best way to live life", I can't start by saying "There is no such thing as God", or the room would become empty. I have to explain the biology and how to get that right, include the possibility of God and let everyone decide for themselves.

There are two inseparable reasons why reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God is "the best way to live life". Because we have unique capacities our paths toward our limits don't cross. Consequently, if we were all reaching out to the limits of our capacities there would be no conflict. In its place, in reaching out to others there would be unconditional cooperation. Of course I am assuming there will be agreement that conflict does not fit into the definition of "the best way to live life".

Natural activity is also the ideal reaction to the void in our knowledge. The void is a recurring theme in the history of philosophy. I checked yesterday and found there are 5.4 million philosophical references to "the void". However, I didn't include the concept in my philosophy after intensive study of everything ever written about the void. I added it after 'listening' to the countless stories by individuals explaining feelings of loss in their lives. Invariably the stories included statements like: "The loss of my mother left such a hole in my life."; "The loss of my job left me with such a sense of emptiness."; "When they took the farm I lost all sense of purpose."; "She was my life and when we divorced it became meaningless."; "There was such a void in my life until I found God".

Although there are at least this number of ways to express the experience of loss I chose "void" because it is poetically perfect, it is the most commonly used word when talking about loss and anyone who has experienced loss will know precisely what I am talking about. Those of us who haven't experienced the sensation of having the life sucked out of us by the black hole of loss can still experience the void if we want to, by poking around in the pile of questions about life that come to mind when we look in the mirror. We can start with the physical and move to the biological but it won't be long before we come to the philosophical question, "Why am I?"

I call this question "the last why" because it is the most difficult and being human we tend to leave the most difficult question to the last; and when all other questions have been answered, "Why am I?" will remain. The libraries of humanity are filled with attempts to answer "the last why" and I suggest if we keep on trying we will fill many more libraries because there is no answer to this question. It is missing. Imagine all the answers to the questions humanity has asked are recorded on a page the boundaries of which are expanding into the unknown. Then right in the center of the page I see a spot of white emptiness which I call "the void". There is no answer or anything else that can fill the void; and the effect can be devastating. We are now slightly beyond the point I began this thread, "Life: a reaction to the void" and the brief explanation of "the best way to live life".

______________con'd @ 7.14

Bill 05.30.06  7.14  (4)

It seems we have gone backwards. You have gone back to the thoughts in your original post which were incredibly vague and pointless.

You reiterated the people have kept on trying to answer the question "Why am I" when I thought I made it perfectly clear that this was answered over 100 years ago and no one even questions it anymore.

Any one who asks the question "Why am I" is DUMB or IGNORANT. Why are you troubling yourself with questions WE KNOW the answer too.. You asking me "WHY AM I" is analogous to you asking me "Does the sun travel around the earth or the earth travel around the sun?"...Really it's THAT SILLY.

Your answer to the best way to live life being.."reach out to your full capacities to others and to God" is also just as silly. IT IS SO VAGUE. Why? Because it doesn't tell you one thing to do. Should I start a 401k plan now or not? Should I go to grad school or get a job? Should I lift weights to get up to 180 pounds or 190 pounds? It doesn't give a single answer TO ANYTHING. Should I learn Spanish or should I learn French? How do we solve the world hunger problem, how do we solve the energy crisis, what about global warming? Should I make lasagna or chicken for dinner?

_______________con'd @ 7.15

Doug 05.05.06  7.15  (4)

Trevor wrote:

I do see your point though; that we can be existant in a much more simple way than we usually are, that we can survive and live without many diverse aspirations. Its just a little too simple for most people. Boredom is a fact of life. People like to be entertained and boredom is what happens when we are not entertained.

You will have to be more careful in your writing or you are going to sound more like me. This qualified agreement is beyond my expectations. All I desired was a measure of understanding; and the chances look good that with not much effort I will succeed in creating more.

To begin, suppose I am assessing correctly in my original post that our fabric of existence, from which we cannot escape, is dominated by unnatural activity. By my definition, which I will return to in a moment, unnatural activity restricts our ability to reach out to the limits of our capacities. It in essence puts us in our own 'prisons'. Consider next the possibility that "boredom", rather than being a "fact of life" is merely a consequence of being 'imprisoned'. If this is so then by releasing ourselves through natural activity boredom will disappear from our existence. We can't know this for sure until we try but I am willing to bet my life that if we do release ourselves from our 'prisons' of unnatural activity we will find boredom is only a "fact of (unnatural) life". I also believe we will find we can "live without (all) diverse aspirations" except the aspiration to reach out to the limits of our capacities in which we will discover more than enough entertainment for life. If we make no effort to release ourselves, I agree with you that those of us who have the resources will continue to "party on" with increasing intensity until it is over. See "HAPPY BIRTHDAY (a new age)"

Trevor wrote:

I agree that if we come to know are limitations that we can remove alot of potential failure from our lives. Kind of like what i said about trying to become and astronaught. But that said, when we try to surpass our prior learned limitations and become better people we introduce the possibility of failure. The reason why i say failure is a part of life is that most people try to better themselves and only some succeed.

Is this more qualified agreement? There is also a gap of understanding I am going to try to narrow. Using boredom as a reference I am suggesting once again that failure is similarly a consequence of unnatural activity that would disappear if we released ourselves from 'prison'. I say the only way, in your words, "That we can remove a lot of potential failure from our lives" is to remove "a lot" of unnatural activity from our fabric of existence. To remove it all would be ideal. In the ideal existence there is no good or "better"; there is only the best. In trying to reach out to the limits of our capacities we either try or we don't. If we try we succeed; if we don't we fail life. Reaching a limit is a success because in some aspect of our life we have become what we are capable of being. We fail only if we quit searching for other areas of our being to realize. In the ideal the goal is the total effort to become what we are capable of being. Were we 'planted' in a natural fabric of existence we could not fail to become what we are capable of being and in becoming we would experience the greatest possible sense of meaning.

In our present predominantly unnatural fabric of existence we are hindered in our efforts to reach out to the limits of our capacities because the unnatural activity that dominates our lives forces us to be less than we are capable of being, in our collective effort to fill the void. It is like being planted in barren earth in an environment of poisoned water and polluted air. Then, no matter what amount of effort we put into "bettering ourselves" in our effort to fill the void we will fail for the void cannot be filled. There are not enough degrees of "better" to give any measure of meaning to our lives. 

Trevor wrote:

Its natural that any actions we undertake will have consequences and therefore i can't think of a way in which we(humans) could act in an unnatural way. Humans are naturally aware/sentiant/physical/mortal. After we are born we begin learning; our assumed knowledge is what we base all of our beliefs on. Our beliefs are what motivates us to aspire. If i believe that money is good i will aspire to get money. If i believe i will go to hell/prison if im an immoral person i will likely not kill anyone. But without implying a moral standard one cannot judge actions as natural or unnatural. My idea of the void is the future. The future is full of potentialities and not real experiances.

and

Trevor wrote:

Just to clarify i take your conception of natural activity as any actions which are within our limitations, and unnatural activity as any actions which are beyond our limitations.

I see by these statements I need to work most on my explanation of natural and unnatural activity. To repeat my definition, natural activity expands our realized capacities. In reference to your last statement, if we try to fly we will indeed learn quite quickly that flying unaided is completely unnatural activity for us: however this activity beyond our capacities is not the extent of unnatural activity. Virtually all unnatural activity is natural activity used unnaturally.

Breathing for example is a natural activity. We need to breathe to expand our realized capacities. It seems we are designed to expand our realized capacities at peak efficiency using air that contains 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% argon and trace gases. So by my definition breathing anything less than this natural mixture of gases diminishes our capacities to some extent and thus is somewhat unnatural. We will find breathing in a smoke filled room completely unnatural, like trying to fly. This primary conclusion leads to the secondary conclusion that any activity that pollutes the air we breathe is unnatural. I have just made a significant portion of our present existence somewhat unnatural haven't I? Eating and drinking are also natural activities; but again by my definition eating and drinking in ways that diminish our ability to reach out to the limits of our capacities are also unnatural.

I am going to pause for a moment while you finish your last beer and get out the help wanted ads..........

I could go on but I have gone beyond my self-allotted post size already. Besides I can't expect to close the gap of understanding all at once. Before ending though I will say I have not made any moral judgements with respect to natural and unnatural activity. They are simply biological conclusions drawn from a biological definition of natural and unnatural activity. I will conclude by reminding you that though we are hindered by our fabric of existence we are not victims. We make the fabric. With a concerted effort we can diminish the unnatural activity in our lives. We just have to quit trying to fill the void. (Earlier in this thread Nick A and then Bill Walton and I discussed the void which I see being simply the missing answer to the "last why?" which is a long way from your vision.)

Thanks again for you interest. You are making me work.

You are right. I think it is because we are looking at almost entirely different contexts of life. I know my conception of success is derived from just a vision of what could be. Had I not read your contribution to "how would you make the world a better place?" I would have said your conception of success is derived from looking at only what is. Apparently your focus is wide enough to include a bit of what could be, as well.

You will have to be very careful how far you let your imagination take your suggestion of increasing foreign aid. If you do not put a limit on aid you might imagine increasing it to the point those we give aid to are equally able to succeed in life as we are and thus eliminate a significant amount of failure in our fabric of existence.

If you do carry your aid giving to this point you will have as a consequence, transformed our present vertical cone-shaped economy with its infinite levels of success we can fail to achieve, into a horizontal network with only one level of success. When you transform the economy you unavoidably change its associated educational system from one that forces us to learn how to make a living in a context of failure into one that teaches us how to make a life in a context of success.

Now you will see that by eliminating failure associated with all our economic activity, you will have so significantly increased our success in getting along you will want to eliminate virtually all remaining failures to get along by allowing the dissolution of the boundaries surrounding our religious/philosophies.

You will then be at the place I am, looking at a foolish vision of life without failures that is incomprehensible within the context of what actually is. So don't let your imagination loose.

P.S. I am going to comment on your apparent significant measure of understanding natural and unnatural activity but I need to work on it a few more days. I'll talk to you later. Thanks.

Nick_A 05.02.06  1.15  (3)

Doug, this could be taken wrong and appear cold but it really isn't. The answer though IMO is neither. It is like the old argument if the deer is closer to God than the tiger. The deer is nice and harmless and the tiger is the aggressor so many say the deer. But in truth both are equal in God's will as they manifest together in accordance with nature's way. The language of God is beyond our normal expression. For Man, I believe it means something more than what we do. But you are being nice and kind to your mother and there is nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing and you both profit from it.

As I see it, unless your mother is looking for spiritual council, it shouldn't be pushed on her.

_______________con'd @ 1.16

Doug 05.02.06  6.19  (3)

Both these statements tell me you believe none of us can choose the fabric of existence we weave. You are telling me if I am born to create conflict then I can't choose unconditional cooperation. Conversely, if I am born to be unconditionally cooperative then I can't choose to create conflict. Are you sure this is what you want me to think you believe?

Progress toward what? Isn't the only progress essential to our continued existence that toward universal peace. In the last 100 years, how much progress have we made in diminishing conflict. Is arming Canadian border guards progress? Is erecting walls of any description around our countries progress? Is increasing our military budget by 30% progress? Is teaching another 30,000 of our children how to operate weapons progress?

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on "natural" this time out but I will try to begin the reconciliation. I think I only use natural in conjunction with activity. Natural activity I define as reaching out to the limits of our capacities to others and to God. I am allowed to do this because it is my language. Conflicting activity does not fit within this definition of natural activity, therefore it is unnatural. This does not mean there are not people who generate conflict within the" fabric of existence" allowed by the Law of Human Nature. Clearly, there are. I just happen to believe it is by choice and not by design. Parents can teach children to hate or they can choose to hate on their own but it is still by choice. If after all effort is made to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God and there are still individuals who can only generate conflict, then I will consider the possibility they are born.

_______________con'd @ 6.20

Kriswest 05.02.06  6.20  (3)

Doug wrote:

Kriswest, by any chance are there 30 hours in the day where you live? By my count I am 4 very stimulating posts behind. 3 are yours and Nick left the other. I live in the pacific time zone. I just rolled out of bed after the afternoon nap I need because I am up all hours of the night responding to your posts. Tell me what zone you are in so I can keep track of our temporal relationship. I will begin responding to your posts after our solitaire game tonight. God, I am going to need 2 naps tomorrow. We are going to go for a walk now. I'll talk to you tomorrow, I think. Maybe I am talking to you tomorrow now. I don't know. Temporally I am so confused. Luckily, that is not the case philosophically.

LOL, I work out of my house, Actually I woke up late this morning it is already 5:30am. 4:00 am is my wake up time mostly, I hit the sack around 9:00 pm I am not on east coast It is Central that we are on here in Mississippi. I think. That is the beauty of this type of communication , time is irrelevent. It only moves forward when you do.

______________con'd @ 6.21

Kriswest 05.02.06  6.21  (3)

I know that it seems I am asking you to believe that you have three hands instead of two. That if people are actually born to cause conflict that would harm what you believe. I am sorry. But, do you want me to give in, just to make you happy with me? I can't do that. I surely would though if I could.

I do thouroghly believe that some people are born to fulfill certain neccessary roles, in order to teach others. I believe that there is a choice for them. People do have compulsions so strong that they cannot avoid it nor choose to go against it. but, they can choose to regret, to make ammends to be guilty to accept responsibility. Or they can choose not to. there are many ways of making choice in good vs bad. It does not always mean action or inaction. If you believe in the soul, sometimes the choice lies there only. You do a compulsive act of badness, You really could not stop yourself. You are then given a choice of regret or not regret etc..
We must be given object lessons even painful ones in order to learn. we are given good ones too. Words and thoughts just are not strong enough unfortunately.

Those that are compelled to act in certain conflicting ways are not left without choice they still have choices to make afterwards and during. How they feel afterwards is a crucial choice for them.

Kriswest wrote:
progress is being made by leaps and bounds 

Doug wrote:

I don't think we are going to see eye to eye on natural this time out but I will try to begin the reconciliation. I think I only use natural in conjunction with activity. Natural activity I define as reaching out to the limits of our capacities to others and to God. I am allowed to do this because it is my language. Conflicting activity does not fit within this definition of natural activity, therefore it is unnatural. This does not mean there are not people who generate conflict within the life as dictated by the Law of Human Nature. Clearly, there are. I just happen to believe it is by choice and not by design. Parents can teach children to hate or they can choose to hate on their own but it is still by choice. If after all effort is made to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God and there are still individuals who can only generate conflict, then I will consider the possibility they are born.

Natural activity does that mean mental, physical or both. Or does it mean only choice of action?

_______________con'd @ 6.22

Doug 05.02.06  6.22  (3)

There is so much here and so personal I find it impossible to comment on most of it in my self-allotted space. Besides at the bottom you say

When you are more certain and have the rest of your beliefs organized the way you want and want to discuss them I am willing.

I would like to comment on a couple things though. I did not intend for you to see my 8 ways we can try to fill the void as "lessons that must be achieved to grow". They are unnatural self-destructive activities we do not have to choose to add to our fabric of existence.

As far as Hitler et al. are concerned, they definitely under achieved in unconditional cooperation; but at the same time they over achieved in generating conflict. They chose their threads. We have a historical record of their fabrics of existence and the holes their choices put in the fabric of humanity. We should have learned from them. To suggest God created them to teach us goes far beyond where I am. I have similar serious disagreement with my fellow Canadian who maintained his sanity by believing the death of his wife and 7 children in a house fire was "part of God's plan".

______________con'd @ 6.23

Doug 05.02.06  1.16  (3)

Doug wrote:
Body, mind is two dimensional. Spirit is the third dimension. I just cannot "translate" life into two dimensions. 

At its highest Think triangle. The body (habit) is on the left corner of the base and the mind (intent) at the other. Mental intents are opposed by bodily habits as in a the attempt to diet. The apex of the triangle is emotion in the pure sense reconciling the two as one and adding this third dimension.

 
_______________con'd @ 1.17

Doug 05.02.06  1.17  (3)

Doug wrote:
This is the language my Mom and I speak, Nick. Which do you think is the language of God

Nick wrote:
Doug, this could be taken wrong and appear cold but it really isn't. The answer though IMO is neither. It is like the old argument if the deer is closer to God than the tiger. The deer is nice and harmless and the tiger is the aggressor so many say the deer. But in truth both are equal in God's will as they manifest together in accordance with nature's way. The language of God is beyond our normal expression. For Man, I believe it means something more than what we do. But you are being nice and kind to your mother and there is nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing and you both profit from it.

As I see it, unless your mother is looking for spiritual council, it shouldn't be pushed on her

I think by your response I didn't make the point of my question clear. I was trying to point out that my brother's Christian language prevented him from communicating with our Mom and it is because I don't speak that language my mother and I get along as God intended. My aunt who was married to a professor of Baptist studies loved repeating her favorite saying that, "If you have 3 Baptists in a room you will have 4 differing opinions. Religious languages of any kind ultimately result in conflict. If as we believe God is peace, harmony and unconditional cooperation, religious languages can't be God's language. Perhaps they are the language of men trying inadequately to explain God.

_______________con'd @ 1.18

Doug 05.03.06  6.23  (3)

No, I am sorry! I couldn't be happier with you just the way you are. Don't give in. I don't want to play if we both can't win. Just don't ask me to believe I have 3 hands.

I'll go further. I believe all of us have an equivalent role to play in the lives of others. We must give others the benefits of our realized capacities so that others can realize theirs. 

I do understand and again I apologize. When I wrote that bit on progress it didn't occur to me you might think we were piling the same rocks. Maybe in the near future we can return to the rock piles and work on them together. It bears repeating. I don't want to play if we both can't win.

I consider the integration of body, mind and spirit in reaction to the void to be human being. One of the three components in our body is physical activity, and one of the three components in our mind is mental activity. I do not consider the two activities separate. Rather I see them on a continuum ranging from almost completely physical activity at one end, through decreasing amounts physical activity and increasing amounts of mental through to almost all mental activity at the other end. Anywhere along this continuum our activity can be any blend of natural and unnatural activities according to our choice within the bounds determined by the fabric of existence we collectively create.

_______________con'd @ 6.24

Nick_A 05.03.06  1.18  (3)

Doug wrote:
Nick, consider this three dimensional representation of being human. Body, a structure of three equal sides, physical activity, physical knowledge and realized potential physical capacity, represented by an equilateral triangle. Mind, a structure of three equal sides, mental activity, mental knowledge and realized potential mental capacity, represented by an equilateral triangle. Spirit represented by an equilateral triangle because it is the shape that represents body/mind. Reaction to the void represented by an equilateral triangle because it is the shape that represents body/mind/spirit. Put the shapes together with the reaction to the void at the bottom and they create a tetrahedron the shape of the carbon molecule the fundamental building block of life. It kind of looks like a common design doesn't it? In another post I suggested you could read what I was saying in context by going to my web site and reading my poem. If you did you have already seen this structure in context.

This is hard to explain. I find your diagram neglecting the way down. How to explain that? I won't. I know you are sensitive to these things so look at the Seal of Solomon and the relationship of the triangle pointing up to the one pointing down. Can you fit this ancient symbol into your diagram?

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefshexagram.htm

_______________con'd @ 1.19

Doug 05.03.06  1.19  (3)

This is a cop out Nick. You can't explain it because trying to explain religious/ philosophical concepts is equivalent to trying to grasp a cloud. If I understand Simone, your Seal of Solomon is one of the "objects of affirmation and negation" with which we attempt to cloak the "mysteries of faith". 

I did and I read the page and saw no reference to up or down. So you tell me Nick. Up, down, down, up, what significance do these directions have in the lives of my mother and me. 

Anger is a more appropriate way to describe the feeling I have when you insist on filling the space between us with religious/philosophical symbols and esoteric language.

The tetrahedron is a 3-D representation of human being, body/mind/spirit in reaction to the void. It is not a symbolic representation of a philosophical concept. There is an abyss between my tetrahedron and your Seal of Solomon that will not be spanned.

_______________end

Kriswest 05.05.06  6.24  (3)

Kriswest wrote:
All right your two dimensional and 3 dimensional: As our creator created us are we not then a part of our creator? Built in our creators image does not mean body, it means us ,what our soul is. Created in image also can be interpreted to be opposite of our creator, for that is what an image often is. Or likeness. which is it then? I believe it is likeness. the fabric of man could be equated as sperm or seeds from one plant. With the ultimate goal to return to our origin meaning: become another plant or creature like the one that donated the sperm and put the sperm on this planet "the egg".
Your 8 ways are lessons that must be achieved to grow.
Lets do this a simple way.

I can see us in a classroom each individual progressing at their own pace. I see our creator as a parental figure, that loves us very much but, is rather busy with a whole bunch of other things. So this parent put us here to grow with little or no input. This parent has thoughtfully put lessons for us. Individual lessons and group lessons. As we progress individually we will be able to pass the group lessons together or mostly together. but, to pass, a group lesson, the majority of us must progress to a certain level. There of course will be the over achievers: Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa, Etc. then we have the underacheivers, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Caligula, Ted Bundy, etc... these are there not to underachieve only, but also to learn from, as is the overachievers. So both are natural, both must be, for all to learn and grow. Our parent figure must use some of us as object lessons. I mean think about it. You may be able to pass the written exam to get your license to drive but, getting behind that wheel is a whole other thing. We need object lessons not just words. There is how I see your fabric. I think. This is not the whole of my beliefs but just kind of like a sample portion.

Doug wrote:
There is so much here and so personal I find it impossible to comment on most of it in my self-allotted space. Besides at the bottom you say

Kriswest wrote:
There is how I see your fabric. I think. This is not the whole of my beliefs but just kind of like a sample portion.

When you are more certain and have the rest of your beliefs organized the way you want and want to discuss them I am willing.

I would like to comment on a couple things though. I did not intend for you to see my 8 ways we can try to fill the void as "lessons that must be achieved to grow". They are unnatural self-destructive activities we do not have to choose to add to our fabric of existence.

As far as Hitler etc. are concerned, they definitely under achieved in unconditional cooperation; but at the same time they over achieved in generating conflict. They chose their threads. We have a historical record of their fabrics of existence and the holes their choices put in the fabric of humanity. We should have learned from them. To suggest God created them to teach us goes far beyond where I am. I have similar serious disagreement with my fellow Canadian who maintained his sanity by believing the death of his wife and 7 children in a house fire was "part of God's plan."

Doug you believe in choices.

In reaching out to others and to any god that one may believe in . One must first recognize that this being or beings we call gods are omnipotent compared to us. If we were created by a being for what ever purpose there would be regulators in place. I cannot conceive of anything going to so much effort and not put control mechanisms in place. Sure we are given freedom to choose natural or unnatural activity.

But how do we learn the difference? How does this being try to insure its creation will not fall apart in a short amount of time? It is impossible to have words only as the regulators or control mechanisms.

We are far too diverse for translations to be effective over the long haul. words and their meanings change over time and through societies different cultures and language. Regulators have to be set up. If this being is omnipotent then it would know that. The single most affective way to gain the peoples attention is through object lessons and sacrifice.

I do not seriously think that this being tapped a person in the womb.
For me as I understand the barest rudiments of genetic coding, I really can grasp that in that coding is combinations like blonde, blue eyes etc.
we now know that genes also can control certain portions of our mind and preferences.

I guess the easiest way to say it is there are those of us that are born with the right combinations in our genes that make us sacrificial object lessons and make us sacrifice others for these lessons.

Kind of like a genetic crap shoot. or perhaps designed to show up somewhere somehow in a certain amount of generations or less or more. I don't know. But it is a beginning and it is plausible and possible.

Therefore I think it is possible that people can be born to create conflict.
They still have choices to make but, the choices they make and the types of choices are more like wether they regret or repair the damage they do or not. Or perhaps some other choices.

You see I believe this also goes for the very good people that are born. they too are object lessons or sacrifices. Good / bad. If one coding is possible then so must the opposite.

Do I believe this 100% and that this explains everything? Oh hell no. I am too young to be set in my ways yet and too smart to put my foot all the way in. And I think I can wait for the ending

_______________con'd @ 6.25

Doug 05.06.06  6.25  (3)

Kriswest, I agree with you that being able to communicate over this internet quite possibly has the greatest potential to improve the condition of humanity. There is only one draw back I can see. You do not have a light on your keyboard that flashes to warn you my brain is about to be overloaded. I am going to start with:

______________con'd @ 6.26

Kriswest 05.07.06  6.26  (3)

Hmm, you know I did not think that regulator or control mechanisms would or could be interpreted as laws. But I do see how it could be the wayi wrote it. I did not mean laws though, LOL talk philosophy and invariably it brings in the word law, have you noticed this?

I did mean physical regulators or control mechanisms, I thought I had explained it better Sorry. Genetic coding and or sequencing is what I refer to. We are discovering so much about this subject everyday, it will never reach the end of being researched, it is far too complex. remember i speak of only possiblities and probablility not factual yet. Science I feel is important to philosophy and theology they all are trying to prove the same questions so why shouldn't they be brought together in the search for the answers. they actually work quite well side by side providing you are not deeply rooted in beliefs.

_______________con'd @ 6.27

Doug 05.07.06  6.27  (3)

Promise you won't apologize again and then I won't have to apologize to you. You did explain yourself well enough for me to understand. I think. I read your post a couple times but in preparing my reply post I stopped after the first paragraph. I had forgotten what came after it. I have such a tiny brain.

I agree there could be an 'evil' gene that will account for all the 'shit' that's happening. I have no problem with this belief of yours and I encourage scientists to keep searching for it in the genetic 'law'.

However, I believe the law of human nature allows us to choose evil as well as good. I maintain we see the scientific evidence of both choices in our fabric of existence.

What I suggest is while the scientists look for the 'shit' gene let's all make the necessary choices to eliminate 'shit' from our existence using the instructions in the law of human nature. That way if the scientists do not find the 'shit' gene we won't have had to wade through it in the intervening years. If there is a 'shit' gene our efforts will concentrate the population making it easier for the scientists to sniff it out. Everybody wins.

_______________end

Bill 05.14.06  7.1  (3)

Doug,
You asked me to respond on my thread so I will. And I'd like to first off say that I didn't have time to read all of the other people's comments nor your replies. I only read your first post.

Secondly, I am going to be harsh and tell you what I truly think without buttering it up. Don't take it personal.
At first glance this sounds like new age hogwash..let's see if there is anything deeper...

a) you are starting from a faulty premise. There is no such thing as God. However I don't really see what God has to do with the rest of your philosophy..so we'll continue

b)When you say the purpose of life is to reach out to their full capacities are you making a moral claim? Or are you saying that is what we are put here to do(which is stupid, don't say that). What does it mean to reach out to our full capacities? Use examples..does this mean i should or should not learn French. Should I be able to bench press 300 hundred pounds. What are you talking about here?Make this statement practical, don't be so vague.

c) It also seems your general goal here is to oversimplify human life. Saying our lives are reactions to the void..there are 8 ways to avoid the the void etc... This is a giant oversimplification of human psychology.

_______________con'd @ 7.2

Doug 05.15.06  7.2  (3)

Thank you for your time Bill. You mentioned you only read my first post so I can only assume you did not take 10 minutes to read my poem which would have put my post in context.

Now you are almost right when you say:

I think it is universally accepted that we have genetically determined physical and mental capacities. I can't imagine any significant disagreement with the statement that immediately after conception we begin to reach out to the limits of our capacities. Furthermore I should not get any serious objection to the suggestion that "reaching out..." is an activity we could continue until we die were it not for the fact the majority of humanity is preoccupied with trying to fill the void putting severe but self-imposed restrictions on our "reaching out..." Because our capacities are unique there is no way I can tell you you have the capacity to bench press 300 lbs or learn French. However, I do think I am not alone in believing there are internal indicators that tell us if we are following our genetic plan. I am not sure why you'd say this "is stupid", "vague", "hogwash".

Here is one last point. I don't mind being accused of attempting to start a new age of philosophy as long as that is not misinterpreted as "New Age". I would like nothing more than to begin an age in which 99% of humanity understands and acts with a common purpose. I think that would be an improvement over the present age where less than 1% of humanity discusses philosophy while "waiting for Godot" and the rest of humanity heads off in all directions looking for the reason why.

______________con'd @ 7.3

Bill 05.15.06  7.3  (3)

Ok I read your poem.

And what common purpose is that? Tell me exactly, don't be vague.

P.S - I may come off sounding mean, but really I'm not..sorry in advance.

_______________con'd @ 7.4

Doug 05.17.06  7.4  (3)

I see our philosophical purpose of life as an extrapolation of our apparent biological purpose. I began my really serious analysis of what's happening, at the beginning of life, with my first single cell. I saw only physical activity, potential physical and mental capacities and a limited supply of vital energy. Through no conscious effort that single cell realized my capacity to become an adult, thinking (I hope), human being. Thus when I got around to stating a purpose I began with "reaching out to the limits of our capacities". It was obvious to me that I couldn't have done it without my mother so I added "reaching out to others". I thought this was a reasonable statement of purpose but it still didn't answer "the last why". The entire history of religion/philosophy tells us we can't know why. You might be the latest one to discover the absence of an answer to "the last why" which I call "the void". Still I felt we all need something to go on so I added "reach out to God" to leave open the possibility of finding out.

So there you have my statement of purpose. It is "to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God". It is exactly the same for everyone thus it is common; but the consequences are unique.

My guess is you are about 22. You have about 60 years of life ahead of you. As you stand there contemplating your journey to the end, why are you going to start?

There are other questions in your post to be addressed. I will continue.

______________con'd @ 7.5

Bill 05.17.06  7.5  (3)

I'm still extremely confused as to what you mean by "the last why"....WHY WHAT? What is your question here? I am sure if you just explained this part better I can answer this for you.

_______________con'd @ 7.6

Doug 05.18.06  7.6  (3)

WHY LIVE?

It is at the bottom of a list of philosophical questions. I can think of a couple translations like, "Why am I?"or "Why do I exist?", and if there are any more they all can be shortened to "why?" As I suggested, religious/philosophies have tried to to answer that question. Religions in particular claim to have the answer, however it is just a theory to which you can still ask "Why?". Most of us never do. We are for the most part content to live by an inherited theory because instinctively we think if we do leave our theory we will find ourselves banging on the bars of a philosophical prison asking "Why?, Why?, Why?...."Beyond this "last why?" there is nothing; no answer and no more questions.

Just to complete the circle, I call the nothing beyond the "last why?" "the void" which is hardly original. What I think is original though is that while everyone else who has considered the concept sees the void as the equivalent of a black hole, I have described it as a white emptiness. If you are interested in the origin of that image read "the void". Anyway, as I suggested in my original post I consider life to be a reaction to the void which is just a more poetic way of saying we try to give meaning to life; and the consequence of that effort is our fabric of existence.

Thanks for your question. If I haven't made the answer understandable don't hesitate to tell me. I am not trying to sell you but if you remain interested I won't be satisfied until you understand.

_______________con'd @ 7.7

Bill 05.19.06  7.7  (3)

Doug,
We have KNOWN the answer to this question for over 100 years now. It can be summarized in one Word=Evolution.

If you truly care about knowing why you Exist and it is obvious that you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have devoted a poem, so much thinking and even a website to it. You should spend the next few weeks reading these books. They will answer your questions. It should be noted that the two of the biggest intellectuals out there are Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. They are two incredibly brilliant men at the head of their fields, and what's more incredible? They are two of the best writers on the planet. Both of them have offered award winning books to the public. Men who write science and philosophy books for the general public

Any Richard Dawkins book should do you fine. Some great must read works of his are

"The Selfish Gene" --This one probably answers the questions you are looking for most succesfully. In fact the first chapter of this book is called "Why are people?" You have to read this book DEB, you HAVE TO. IT WILL BLOW YOU AWAY. This book explained many things to me, such as why you get old and why you die. I'll give you a little taste..in an a little bit of an oversimplication living organism are vehicles used by genes to replicate themselves. Hence why you start to age about the time after you are sexually able to give birth to children. Once you have fulfilled your purpose of creating the next generation and therefore obligating the genes "wish"(although they don't really have a desire) of replicating you are no longer needed. You may now just be competing for the same resources as the younger generation and therefore you age and die. Please don't argue this paragraph with me, instead read the book and find out. It will answer all your questions. I Promise.

"The Blindwatchmaker"
and the one I'm reading now...
"The Ancestor's Tale"

Other FANTASTIC books you must read
Matt Ridley-The Red Queen
Dan Dennett- Breaking the Spell, Consciousness Explained,Darwin's Dangerous Idea and the Meaning of Life
However Dennett is far more difficulut, except for Breaking the Spell. I'd start with Dawkins and Ridley.

_______________con'd @ 7.8

Doug 05.20.06  7.8  (3)

Bill, after reading your post Thurs night I searched Richard Dawkins. I read the first three pages of "The Selfish Gene" which is all that was allowed. I then read Dawkin's bio where I discovered "The selfish Gene" was written 30 years ago and how Dawkin's thinking progressed to the point of writing the book. I then read his paper "The Improbability of God". which he expanded into "The Blind Watch Maker".

I liked what I read. So yesterday I went to my local bookstore to buy one of Dawkin's books. At $25 CDN and a 2 week delivery I checked at the library. They didn't have Dawkins listed. I could only conclude that notwithstanding his obvious brilliance, his 'light' has not escaped the confines of academia almost certainly because only a microscopic number of people could understand what he has written and fewer still would understand how it affects their lives. I liked what Dawkins wrote because despite your assessment of it, he confirms my thinking. I think the reason you might not see the confirmation is that I mention God and since you've decided there is "no such thing" you conclude the rest of what I have written is "hog wash".

I know you asked me not to argue with the fact you believe Dawkins has the "answer". However, since I've already stated I believe he and I are on the same wavelength, I hope you don't mind if I make a few observations. You say, "EVOLUTION" is the answer to my "WHY LIVE?" Again I say to you humanity still asks "why?" and the evidence of our attempts to answer that "last why?" for which there is no answer, is our "fabric of existence". In other words our "fabric of existence" is the consequence of our attempts to give meaning to our lives; the consequence of our unnatural reactions to the void, the missing answer.

I do not agree entirely with Dawkin's assessment that believing

There has been a lot of useful "reaching out to others" encouraged by belief. It is our efforts to fill the void with religious/philosophical theories that generates all the conflict. From what I gather even Dawkins's theory has generated controversy among his peers. We should learn from this experience and cease our efforts to fill the void with religious/philosophical theories and then use that learning to extricate ourselves from our efforts to fill the void with money and all the stuff it buys before these efforts end our evolutionary journey.

Also In "The Improbability of God" Dawkin's says:

I want it to be clear here I am not arguing in favour of God; but I wonder how Dawkins is able to base his entire theory of chance and random mistakes on a set of existing "laws of physics" without creating more questions. He also states:

Isn't this a false premise? Perhaps God is as simple as the evolutionary process.

By the way, I love the title "The Improbability of God".

_______________con'd @ 7.9

Bill 05.20.06  7.9  (3)

Doug,

I am surprised you couldn't get a book at your local bookstore. He is a bestselling author. Not just academia and his books are meant for the public. Did you go to Barnes and Noble or Borders? I don't know what they have in Canada. However you can go to amazon.com and get one pretty cheap.

I have concluded everything you have written is hogwash because it explains nothing, is vague an oversimplification and just wrong.

I meant evolution is the answer to why are we here and why there is life. I don't know what you mean by why live? Do you mean why don't we just kill ourselves?

ill answer the rest later. I'm busy right now.

______________con'd @ 7.10

Doug 05.21.06  7.10  (3)

This is grossly unfair of you. How am I to learn from you the nothing I didn't explain. If I have explained nothing then there is a list of some things I have missed you should share with me.

Wait a second! If I am "just wrong" then I must have explained something that is just not right. Now I am confused. Either way, before you do anything else please give me an example of something I missed while explaining nothing or give me an example of something I did explain that is wrong so I can learn something.

_______________con'd @ 7.11

 intro.  page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16 comments

Nick_A 04.29.05  1.8  (2)

Hi Kris and Doug

This may appear now off topic but it really isn't. Trust me.

Kris, you've described yourself as an artist which is a term that has always confounded me. Doug, if you consider yourself an artist, by all means answer also. What would you say is the difference between "art" and "expression" if indeed you believe there is one?

_______________con'd 1.9

Doug 04.29.06  6.6  (2)

LOL LOL It is the amount of information that is packed into your memory that is as

Are you calling me a nut?

You talked before about the signs you see of progress toward a better life. I return to my observation that as long as we are alive there will be signs of "reaching out ...to others..." If these signs are all we see then we will conclude we are making progress. I still maintain the threads of self-destruction out weigh the threads of self-realization. Using just conflict as evidence, I suggest that on the continuum that ranges from deadly conflict, through decreasing conflict and diminishing conditional cooperation, to unconditional cooperation that characterizes our existence, humanity is positioned on the conflict side. So as long as this is the case, regardless the signs we see as progress, we will self destruct.

This is good. Theoretically, the only boundaries in my life are the limits of my capacities. In fact though, I am bound by the limits placed on me by our collective fabric of existence which as I've suggested we can change. I am not religious. I find it impossible "to dissect beliefs". I told one of my believing sisters God gave us pets to show us how enjoyable life can be without complicated belief systems. In your dog you see the possibility of unconditional human love.

You will have to tell me but I will guess you and I have a similar idea about spirit. Body, mind is two dimensional. Spirit is the third dimension. I just cannot "translate" life into two dimensions. I will suggest your daily life is pretty well 2-D until you involve yourself in your art where you sense your third dimension. I believe we are all capable of sensing our spirit but we rarely do again because of the restrictions our fabric of existence places on us due to the choices we have made. Our present existence is so 2 dimensional.

You pick my poem apart anywhere you want. I've waited 6 years for someone to come along and make that request. Don't give another thought about being unworthy of your status.

Sure, start with the toughest. I think this is one that might require a few exchanges. If my first response doesn't satisfy you then you keep asking the right questions and I will eventually come up with the right answer. If you and I just reach out to the limits of our capacities and to each other, our existence will remain 2 dimensional. When we reach out to God it becomes 3 dimensional. Where you go after that I don't mind. At least believe our lives have a third dimension.

______________con'd @ 6.7

Kriswest 04.29.07  6.7  (2)

Hey Doug,

I am thinking, I will reply when the old brain case is at full boil.
I did not call you a nut LOL I meant Iwas going to try acorn thoughts. sorry for the misunderstanding.

______________con'd @ 6.8

Doug 04.29 04  1.9  (2)

Nick, I'm glad you are back; but please restrain yourself. I can only juggle 1 ball at a time and you've given me 2. I think you are up to 5 posts. After the fourth I was going to say you left the best for the last. Finally, here was Nick unplugged from his role of promoting Simone Weil. I read her bio by the way, so because of you one more person knows of your hero. Now you have a 5th post so maybe your best is yet to come.

I was sitting here wondering whether to go on about Christianity and the other 5 major religious sources of colored thread in the fabric of humanity when I was hit on the head by my own acorn. So now I will say only that if God is, I am betting my life God does not believe in Christianity. If Jesus were to return today, I am betting my life he would say, "Oh my God; all I said was 'do unto others (and God) what you'd have them do unto you'. Look what they've done to my song God, look what they've done to my song". I will conclude with a couple lines from my poem.

" God is not in religious thread.
When wound up in it, God is dead."

And incidentally, so are we.

This is right off the top Nick. I am thinking as I go. Art is expression. Kristy expresses herself through her art. I am a carpenter. Most of what I do requires a great deal of creativity but I've never considered it an expression of myself. I suppose my writing might be considered art but I've never thought of it that way. It is just the consequence of trying to explain life.

In case you have trouble bringing the discussion back on topic I will do it for you. The fabric of existence that we weave would be considered art if we used our unique natural threads to create the weave. When using inherited unnatural threads we are merely technicians making self-destructive  reproductions.

Thanks for the question Nick. It was very useful and definitely your best post.

_______________con'd @ 1.10

Kriswest 04.29.06  6.8  (2)

NO, NO, No Doug, I don't express myself through art. I leave that to well trained vocal chords( Dad was a Chief Master Sgt.) He taught me well.

My art is not emotional to me, it is done by sight only, by what clicks as fitting in the right place. It triggers others to express, not me. for me it relaxes and that is it. It is the equivelent of a well drugged birthing.

_______________con'd @ 6.9

Nick_A 04.29.06  1.10  (2)

Hi there Doug

As I said to Kris, when I raise certain unusual questions do not take it as attack or being critical. It is me trying to understand where you are coming from.

Yes, this is what she said last night though being worn out at the time, it was wishful thinking. But I'd better be good or Ben will kick me outa here.

There is this fashionable current trend to completely secularize Christianity. It is a natural outgrowth of how Christianity has devolved from the religion of slaves into the religion of power. This is why Simone Weil stayed outside of the church. Yet her profound arguments are widely unknown and those in universities don't know to add her valuable insights into their papers in order to better distinguish between Christianity and Christendom (man made Christianity) You can read about it on this link particularly in 5) and 6) if you can stand anymore of Simone.

http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/bauer.htm

But back to the tapestry. I've been leading up to the question if we are able as we are to distinguish between the natural and unnatural. This can be a very objectionable question for some. I believe we assume we do which is one of Man's greatest errors. Consider Socrates" observation:

If this is the case and there is a lack of connection in oneself between the inner man and the external man as parts of our being and this connection exists for us only as potential, what is a natural weave? We are just acting unnaturally without being aware of it. Natural and unnatural IMO are being defined through preconditioning and as such, void of any objective natural reality.

A dog creates a natural weave. It is the same inside and outside. IMO as we are we cannot do this so where the dog is natural we remain unnatural regardless of how we flatter ourselves as superior beings?

_______________con'd @ 1.11

Doug 04.29.06  6.9  (2)

Is that singing or shouting?

Let me try again. Your art is an expression of your realized capacities, not your emotions. When you are engrossed in your art it calms your emotions. It puts you in a place it seems you should be. It inflates your fabric of existence with spirit. It lifts you up so that you don't feel you are dragging your life around. Your art I suggest is natural activity. It's expression creates "real life". I think you do not want me to see your art as a substitute for yelling and screaming.

_______________con'd 6.10

Doug 04.29.06  1.11  (2)

Shame on you Nick.

Nick wrote:
I've been leading up to the question if we are able as we are to distinguish between the natural and unnatural.

and wrote:
"May the outward and inward man be at one." Socrates

Life is so much easier for me to understand than philosophy. I guess that's why I abandoned that part of formal studies, became a carpenter and started studying life without religious/philosophical filters. I define natural activity as activity by which we reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Since we have unique capacities our natural activities are unique so the definition of natural is unique to each of us. There is however, a list of indicators that tell us we are engaging in natural activity, which is common to us all. If you wish to read the complete list click on "poem". Ten minutes later you will have read my 'acorn'.

In case you don't, I can tell you one of the indicators of natural activity is unconditional cooperation. An indicator of unnatural activity is conflict. If we engage in natural activity, we get a natural weave characterized by unconditional cooperation. If we replace some natural activity with unnatural activity we get a somewhat less than natural weave characterized by some measure of conflict. For me it is that simple. If I have to talk about inner man and outer man, my inner man would be potential capacities and my outer man would be potential capacities realized through natural activity. At present our inner man and outer man are not one because unnatural activity dominates our weave. Were we all to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God then our inner man and outer man would be one and there is not a philosophical or religious dictation that says this cannot be.

______________con'd 1.12

Kriswest 04.30.06  6.10  (2)

Doug wrote:

Shame on you Nick. Life is so much easier for me to understand than philosophy. I guess that's why I abandoned that part of formal studies, became a carpenter and started studying life without religious/philosophical filters. I define natural activity as activity by which we reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. Since we have unique capacities our natural activities are unique so the definition of natural is unique to each of us. There is however, a list of indicators that tell us we are engaging in natural activity, which is common to us all. If you wish to read the complete list click on "poem". Ten minutes later you will have read my 'acorn'. In case you don't, I can tell you one of the indicators of natural activity is unconditional cooperation. An indicator of unnatural activity is conflict. If we engage in natural activity, we get a natural weave characterized by unconditional cooperation. If we replace some natural activity with unnatural activity we get a somewhat less than natural weave characterized by some measure of conflict. For me it is that simple. If I have to talk about inner man and outer man, my inner man would be potential capacities and my outer man would be potential capacities realized through natural activity. At present our inner man and outer man are not one because unnatural activity dominates our weave. Were we all to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God then our inner man and outer man would be one and there is not a philosophical or religious dictation that says this cannot be.

Doug, what if a person is naturally conflicting? what if a person is and has no other choice but to cause and create conflict? What if a person is born to be a pain in the butt. How would this be unnatural? What if a person is simply a fighting machine not trained, but born that way. How is this unnatural? Fair warning there is another part to this question to be brought forth later.

______________con'd 6.11

Kriswest 05.30.06  6.11  (2)

Kriswest wrote:
NO, NO, No Doug, I don't express myself through art. I leave that to well trained vocal chords( Dad was a Chief Master Sgt.) He taught me well.

Doug wrote:
Is that singing or shouting?

Kriswest wrote:
My art is not emotional to me, it is done by sight only, by what clicks as fitting in the right place. It triggers others to express, not me. for me it relaxes and that is it. It is the equivelent of a well drugged birthing.

Doug wrote:
Let me try again. Your art is an expression of your realized capacities, not your emotions. When you are engrossed in your art it calms your emotions. It puts you in a place it seems you should be. It inflates your fabric of existence with spirit. It lifts you up so that you don't feel you are dragging your life around. Your art I suggest is natural activity. It's expression creates "real life". I think you do not want me to see your art as a substitute for yelling and screaming.

Doug,
LOL If I ever sing my family runs screaming. Yes I shout and yell, I can be quite robust in that area. Only when angry or upset though. I tend to whistle when happy, and that is quite loud I am told. I am not a loud person normally though, most of the time my family wants me to speak louder. I tend to hide in corners when around groups of people, or people that do not know me or I them, so there I am shy and quiet. And as far as your desciption of my art and I , I respectfully can not agree. For most that are in the fields of arts yes, for me no.

Natural activity, yes. I can not help but, to create and think, it is a part of what I am. But it is more like breathing or blinking or birthing then anything else. I express nothing, it is , well it just is. It is done without true thought it just is. I said it relaxes me because that is the closest that may happen. It is really more like reflex or instinct then any other. I really hope this is going to help you and Nick with your fabric and void. Because, I think I might just be muddying the waters here bringing in my perceptions of this.

______________con'd @ 6.12

Doug 04.30.06  6.12  (2)

It is unnatural by my definition. If you know for a fact that a person is "naturally conflicting" can be "born... to create conflict", then everything I believe is wrong. I believe as I have said in my poem,

"We need each other to survive,
We is the state to feel alive."

I believe the purpose of life is to reach out to the limit of our capacities, to others and to God. We cannot reach out to the limits of our capacities without the benefit of the realized capacities of others. If we reduce the human population to two and one is born to create conflict, then that population will self destruct. If we consider the human population to be divided into groups of two and one in each group is born to create conflict then the entire population will eventually self destruct. I hope no one is born to "create conflict".

______________con'd @ 6.13

Doug 04.30.06  6.13  (2)

The only reason I can say it better than this is that I have spent 30 years perfecting my language.

I respectfully disagree with you that you don't agree with me because I agree with you so you have to agree with me. How's that for circular logic. The only reason I can see for you continuing to say we disagree is to be disagreeable. I have not sensed that you are disagreeable just for the sake of winning.

If only we could communicate without words. Sometimes using them is like trying to type while wearing boxing gloves. I was sitting here thinking of what to say next when it occurred to me I'd said something foolish. Of course we can communicate without words. A nod, a sideways glance are both means of communicating. I looked up "express". The definition was "to represent or make known (thoughts, feelings etc.) Clearly express is a synonym of "communicate". I don't think anyone would object if under "etc." I put "talent" and "realized capacities". As we weave our fabrics of existence we "make known" who we are. We "express" ourselves. When I look at your fabric of existence I see a clear thread, a natural artistic activity that helps to "make known", "express" who you are, without emotion.

_______________con'd @ 6.14

Nick_A 04.30.06  1.12  (2)

.

Man is a plurality. He is not one but many. This is why acting naturally means being hypocritical. You are assuming choice where it doesn't exist. This is why before thinking "we" in an objective sense, we must first think "I" and why we don't have it as a unity in our being. Otherwise "we" has no meaning but instead follows the normal cultural flow of hypocrisy.

Yes this is offensive. Science is unconcerned with this. contemporary psychology and modern religion are primarily concerned with self esteem and preaching "right" action. The only thing concerned with it is the non secular essence of religion that is underneath the surface and invites us to witness what we are instead of concealing it through wishful thinking. What a demeaning thought! Who needs this? We are in the 21st century and highly educated. Heh, heh, heh. Naturally then it cannot get beyond continuous preaching and the assertion that resistance is the fault of the other guy when in truth it is just the normal manifestation of the human condition, what we ARE, from which we act naturally hypocritical in spite of the finest platitudes.

______________con'd @ 1.13

Kriswest 04.30.06  6.14  (2)

Um, I belatedly ask your permission Doug, to copy your poem to a word document so that I may study with out being online. If you wish I will delete the copy. I did not think about it until afterwards about asking permision, my apologies for having such slovenly manners.

______________con'd @ 6.15

Kriswest 05.01.06  6.15  (2)

Yes , I believe there are those born to create conflict, history is rife with the more famous ones. Is it bioligic or pyschologic? I think it leans to both. There are many humans that were given good homes and upbringings that create conflict. That, history can prove. For another example look toward the jails. There are many in there that were raised properly yet destroy, fight and conflict. Some may have chemical imbalances, others mental, some both. Why? why if it is unnatural should they be this way? Choice? Some few do it because it is too strong a temptation others it is compulsion. If they are natural then why would they be needed. I believe it is to educate humanity on a whole. They are like the sacrificial goats. they are given their lives in order to teach. How would we know joy if we do not know pain? How would we know right from wrong if not given examples. It is our duty or job to learn. so far learning is slow to us. but, over all we really have not existed for very long. and progress is being made by leaps and bounds. 100 yrs ago things were greatly different. 100 yrs is not that great of a span. My grandmothers both saw over 94 years. They taught me what books do not. from horses to space shuttles is the span of life they lived. Think about it. They both saw progress from different types of lives too. One poor, one wealthy.

So these conflicters are natural the way I see it and they will continue until humanity learns from history. I know that the holocaust has not been learned for there is still genocide throughout the world. I think science and medicine will help but, education and forgotten knowledge will aid too.

_______________con'd 6.16

Kriswest 05.01.06  6.16  (2)

All right your two dimensional and 3 dimensional: As our creator created us are we not then a part of our creator? Built in our creators image does not mean body, it means us ,what our soul is. Created in image also can be interpreted to be opposite of our creator, for that is what an image often is. Or likeness. which is it then? I believe it is likeness. the fabric of man could be equated as sperm or seeds from one plant. With the ultimate goal to return to our orgin meaning: become another plant or creature like the one that donated the sperm and put the sperm on this planet "the egg".
Your 8 ways are lessons that must be achieved to grow.
Lets do this a simple way.

I can see us in a classroom each individual progressing at their own pace. I see our creator as a parental figure, that loves us very much but, is rather busy with a whole bunch of other things. So this parent put us here to grow with little or no input. This parent has thoughtfully put lessons for us. Individual lessons and group lessons. As we progress individually we will be able to pass the group lessons together or mostly together. but, to pass, a group lesson, the majority of us must progress to a certain level. There of course will be the over achievers: Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa, Etc. then we have the underacheivers, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Caligula, Ted Bundy, etc... these are there not to underachieve only, but also to learn from, as is the overachievers. So both are natural, both must be, for all to learn and grow. Our parent figure must use some of us as object lessons. I mean think about it. You may be able to pass the written exam to get your license to drive but, getting behind that wheel is a whole other thing. We need object lessons not just words. There is how I see your fabric. I think. This is not the whole of my beliefs but just kind of like a sample portion.

The void? Well let me think on that one a bit. its forming though.

______________con'd @ 6.17

Nick_A 05.01.06  1.13  (2)

At its highest Think triangle. The body (habit) is on the left cornor of the base and the mind (intent) at the other. Mental intents are opposed by bodily habits as in a the attempt to diet. The apex of the triangle is emotion in the pure sense reconciling the two as one and adding this third dimension.

_______________con'd @ 1.14

Doug 05.01.06  1.14  (2)

Nick, I thought you and I agreed you would give me only one ball at a time to juggle. Even though you have given me two I am only going to juggle one, your previous post (1.12). I will come back to the next one (1.13).

Doug wrote:
Were we all to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God then our inner man and outer man would be one and there is not a philosophical or religious dictation that says this cannot be.

I never said I thought we were close. In fact my concern is that , to use your analogy, we are so far away from the possibility of the inner man and outer man being one that we are in danger of splitting apart, self-destructing.

The rest of what you write is written in a language I don't understand. In your Romans 7 quote there are phrases I have never understood, like "law is spiritual", "sold as a slave to sin", "sin living in me", "law of sin within my members". Neither do I know what you mean by "Man is plurality". I want to know why you say "(a)choice...doesn't exist". I do not know what this quote means: