DIALOGUES page 8

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