DIALOGUES page 11

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