DIALOGUES page 7
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
Email Article