 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (2)dariusgriffin big ...and 173 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614119 Today 2 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jupitah: "what is the meaning of life" ... but your question is an interesting point. what if the meaning of life was such that one ought not concern oneself with the meaning of life? absolute demands always get interesting results. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
language is a system of symbology, i.e. the symbols are not themselves the meaning, but point to the meaning. never when we speak to eachother is an exact copy that which is desired to be expressed comminicated. i am suggesting the possibility that something as profound as the universal meaning of life might be a feeling or state, something abstract to the point of not being able to sufficiently symbolize it (something of infinite "abstractness" maybe?). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sounds like zen to me :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
like how buddhism is about extinguishing desire, but zen is like extinguishing the desire to extinguish desire, which is a desire in itself... thus zen is about accepting paradox in a way, but it's more than that, because the purpose of zen cannot be put into words. yet hints can lead the way where you might find the purpose. or that is how i understand it, which is to say i would guess that i don't understand it, because it cannot be understood but experienced. so i guess zen might have been what i was refering to without knowing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
perhaps infinite only insofar as it can not be expressed in language ... or more broadly is infinitely contrary exemplifying the "meaning" explicitly? lingering as a quasi-delusional concept - or perhaps it will be buried completely. Zen hehe .. maybe. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Meaning of life? Balance within all things. The universe started out as nothing(0), but nothing is just a place holder for something(1). You cannot have 0 without a 1. From this is which all things are made, and pure and utter balance. Its takes only 1 line to draw a circle. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i'm simply saying that whatever meaning one applies to life it is always subjective. there is no universal meaning, as far as i'm concerned, outside of survival, which is not an abstract concept. then again, this is probably due to my being human and being unable to fathom or comprehend any "meaning" to life. i would say that not concerning oneself with the why but more with the "how" is the way to go. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you say a lot in few words! but yeah, infinity. one of those things you say, but it's not really grasped is it? we just fool ourselves, but the mind can't really comprehend infinity (stephen hawking, or some physicist talke a lot about this). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
concerning oneself with the "HOW?" is certainly a valid way to go. also valid is concerning oneself with the "WOW!". i know that meaning is subjective, i'm just playing with concepts that i can't correctly put into words, for precisely the reasons i described. i think when i discuss "the meaning of life" the term "meaning" takes on a new meaning for me. in other words, what i communicate is mere approximation of that which i desire to express. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what many appear to fail to realize is that in order to be content with one's individual existence within the scope of not only one's personal reality, but also a collective reality in which all things exist, it is necessary for one to embrace life (however one chooses to define it) for both its beauty as well as what can subjectively be considered its "flaws". existence would not be possible if it were not for the opposite of it - namely, non-existence. one would not be capable of appreciating pleasure if it could not be contrasted with pain. and yes, it's all very yin & yang, but sheer logic would dictate that this is indeed very much the case. life is very much a paradox in that it both has a meaning and is utterly devoid of it all the same. there may not be such a thing as a unified "meaning of life" applicable to all, but for this very reason, given an absence of a singular "meaning", it is up to each one of us to define that meaning for ourselves, thereby making life worthwile and meaningful - hence the paradox of existence. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
to plaidzebra [#00664977] . out of sheer curiosity, i could be utterly wrong with this assertion, but you sound suspiciously as though you're a virgoan. are you by any chance one of those "blessed" with the "burden" of having been born in the month of september? "a circle is perfect, but the world isn't round - a virgo can prove it". i'm a virgo myself, and have agreed with your thoughts on the issue of life and whatever its meaning may be, so i'm curious if the likemindedness derives from anything other than you having arrived at some simple albeit fundamental truths about existence, or is your way of analysing the world, to paraphrase a fellow virgoan Slug of Atmosphere (from Minneapolis, nonetheless!) "embedded in your optics"?!? "it is what it ain't and it ain't what it is - is the theme of a virgoan" anyhow. just a silly question. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think existence/non-existence opposition is fundamentally different from pleasure/pain type oppositions. whether existence/non-existence is an opposition that can ever be grasped i doubt very much. our notion of non-existence already comes from the perspective of existence* (necessarily so), we can not imagine what death is like - its like looking beyond vision ... maybe your paradoxical conclusion only arises from such a opposition. opposition is always within |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so you are saying that you can't be content with life without being content with every aspect of it? there doesn't seem to be anyway around that. though, i guess i don't strive to be content about absolutely every aspect of life because i feel it's silly to be content about suffering. the only way i could be content in the face of suffering would be to go numb, emotionally/physically as the form of suffering calls for. the entire universe were content with itself, it would stop moving. and what is the self but the entire universe? i'm a virgo, fellow manticore, and i greatly appreciate the words our man sean! i was born august 31st, so no september blues for me. i can't seem to put much time into astrology because it just seems that the influence of the cosmos is always for more complex than any of the interpreters can manage to grasp. the truest interpretion of my own relationship with the cosmos would be my own interpretation, which would take a lot of time that i don't have. hopefully at some point in time though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"we can not imagine what death is like - its like looking beyond vision..." as terene mckenna put it, death is the event horizon of consiousness! the patterns of nature and physics and psychology are just endlessly repetative. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
dunno who terene mckenna is? mmm.. dunno bout the event horizon thing :) seeing that quantum physics can still establish things about the "beyond" black hole. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it is not necessarily that we must be content with our existence at all times. that's not quite what i was implying. it's moreso about striving for a balance between the negative and positive aspects of existence. it should be obvious that life would appear to oscillate between those two extremes, and thus at certain points in one's existence, most things can add up to a negative sum of its parts, whereas in other times, the opposite will appear to be the case. while we may never be fully able to grasp what the proportion of those two seemingly opposing (but all the while non-exclusive) elements may be at any given point, it will always be a "happy medium" between the two towards which we always seem to strive. in answer to your question, by acceptance i mean to say recognition of why there are such emotions (be it physical or emotional) as pain and/or pleasure. this is not to say that one should blindly accept one's fate and, as an example, be happy with the fact that one is dying of cancer or some other terminable disease - no one would be humanly capable of such a feat unless you are the ultimate zen master! hehe! and yes, existence and non-existence is not the same as pleasure and pain - they are merely comparable. all things are fundamentally diffrent from each other, even if only in the most minute of aspects, but by the same token, there are also fundamental similarities between all things. so in a way, everything can be potentially comparable all the while maintaining its individual characteristics. i hope i haven't gone off on too much of a tangent here. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"they are merely comparable" no - i was trying to say - they are a different TYPE of opposition, although i kind of undermined my point by mentioning an existence/non-existence opposition. as the thought about non-existence lead to misleading thoughts. existence underlies every other opposition, in virtue of existents constructing such oppositions. although i'm digging a hole here ... i know. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lao tzu said, when you make some things beautiful, you make other things ugly. zaphod said, "if it cannot be communicated in language than it would seem that meaning is absent, as meaning is generally a subjective approximation of something, and is usually oriented with human language." -many mathematical ideas cannot be expressed in what we generally consider language, yet meaning is not absent. unlike language, mathematics is objectively symbolic. indeed, we should use language as a tool and recognize its limitations. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
t mckenna was man on a strange trip. one of those guys who talked a lot, and people loved to listen. many things he spoke of might not have been of valuable puruit (he seemed to go off on wierd tangents) but he also said a lot of things that i respect. but the event horizon analogy goes: light is to black hole as consiousness is to death quantum physical theory can theorize what is happening beyond the critical boundary, but it cannot make the light come back. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
word, limitations to be respected everywhere! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there is a fun novel about the limitations of language/logic/symbolic capacity, in a way. it's called "just a couple of days." plot involves the symbolic capacity destroying "pied-piper virus" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i admit, i worded that wrong. kind of ironic. anyway, i've pointed out before that meaning is subjective. also, mathematics is a language in and of itself, and it is indeed limited. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
evolume said, "when i say i believe my existence is a coincidence i mean to say that though i may be the product of the physical laws of nature, i am not the product of the deliberate act of some higher concious being. " -where did the physical laws of nature come from? who is articulating them, as they precede our awareness and understanding? indeed, as i asserted earlier, creation is not the generation of physical form, it is an extension, a bestowal. in the hindu tradition, there is a story in which god chooses to enter the body of a pig. once in the pig, god contented himself with his slop, and his mud, and his porcine companions. people would come to see him, but he did not recall that he was god, so absorbed was he in his experience. after some deliberation, the people decided to slaughter the pig and release god. but when they did, god refused to believe that he had forgotten himself in the pig... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, note that the phrase "objectively symbolic" is a contradiction in terms. i see what you're getting at, but mathematics, like everything, is effected by our viewing the laws it attempts to define. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
language is the house of being language is the prison which is not one of being? i think the whole preoccupation with limits is fishy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
manticore, i am aries. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
parmenides and zeno had it down. zeno's paradoxes kick ass. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
zaphod- you will not agree that infinity can be literally expressed in mathematical terms? and yet, in language, infinity becomes strictly symbolic. nevertheless, most important is our capacity to conceptualize these huge ideas, it makes me think of an ant trying to get a grip on a boulder. i do think that language is a different class of coded meaning than mathematics. i am not a mathematician, however. and not afraid to acknowledge my deep ignorance. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
no, i agree. all i'm saying is that mathematics is a language created by humans as a slightly better way of expressing processes in the natural world than words. mathematics is not perfect, and the example you give is a good one for the argument that normal language is even less perfect. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
zaphod, your last point is well taken, as indeed we cannot truly separate "mathematics" from the mind that contemplates it. what i meant by "objectively symbolic" was that mathematics is strictly denotative, and its symbols, unlike language, have very specific, discrete definitions. i think also there is something to be said for the zen tradition of direct pointing. the truth, as it is, cannot be communicated, but can be discovered by the individual. the zen teacher uses various methods in an attempt to promote discovery, but the revelation is the task of the student. admittedly, though, many of the "various methods" i've heard of left me with a "?" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what a bunch of platonists :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like to think of the arc of human history as the process by which humanity comes to know god. i don't mean god in the conventional, mainstream sense, but in a mystical sense. our understanding is still growing and changing. in the future, science and spirituality will be seen as the same process. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
whatever your beliefs, prepare to be surprised. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
how about some Hegel everyone ... Plaidzeb. you know there was a time before the monotheistic mysticism - its not the only way. Mysticism is seductive for sure ... its a nice place to hide stuff in. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
plaidzebra: virgo and aries folks are of a like mind, in as far as i'm aware. now if only i could find myself an aries girlfriend! haha! anyhow, back to the discussion at hand: does essence precede existence or does existence precede essence? DISCUSS! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I haven't taken any philosophy classes, though I'm reading an epistimology book right now. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also: i'm rather surprised that not all too many of you have elaborated on the concept of life as being enshrouded in dreams, in as far as the border between reality and non-reality at times being so thinly vailed as to be indistinguishible. how do we come to perceive and define reality - what factors are responsible for how we come to define and distinguish certain things as either solely a figment of our imagination and others as tangible, fixed, existing in time and space? do i think therefore i am, or i am therefore i think? and what follows such a statement? even if i come to conclude that i indeed exist, for whatever reason, how can i claim that everything around me exists on the same plane as i? we ought to bring Richard Linklater's ingeneous masterpiece "Waking Life" into it all, i reckon: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
manticore: Re: essence : zeno's paradox undermines essentialism quite nicely. That aside, the essence before existence or vice versa will always be a problem, if one considers it to be a problem. in virtue of how the problem is construed any solution (within the context of the problem) will not be adequate .. incomplete. "i think therefore i am" the cartesian way of doing things has caused a lot of head aches. for one, it already presupposes the "i" for which it can not account, but which is fundamental to the question, because it is I that poses it. again, the whole subject object distinction passes over some fundamental aspects - to use heideggers term - the worldiness of the world. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i hope that i can make this observation make sense, here. the place that we are in, the people who we are...look different depending on the perspective from which you view. i don't mean to repeat the cliché about the subjectivity of experience, i'm trying to communicate that there exist transtemporal and multidimensional perspectives that are not more or less valid but very different from our perspective from in this place, as these people. also, in describing the arc of human history as the process by which people discover god, i do not mean to limit this to any particular system, or to impose judgement on any particular tradition that seeks to know god. while i am committed to nonjudgement, i would still, for example, helpfully suggest to people that one cannot serve god through murder. we try to effect transformation, yes, but with compassion and nonjudgement. i have a personal vision, and i use it as a platform from which to speak, but would not consider it monotheistic. i cannot see a god that is separate in any way. as i have said, also, there is no plateau of understanding. maybe what i am making most clear, however, is the difficulty in clearly expressing these ideas in a way that is understandable! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Mysticism is seductive for sure ... its a nice place to hide stuff in." that's interesting; i'm curious what exactly you mean. life is very seductive; mysticism is personal. do you mean seductive in a slightly negative sense, something to be skeptical of? (as in the fear of the "wicked seductress") my personal mystical inclinations are more about facing fears and denial, being as open and honest as i possibly can with myself so that the mythology of my life can unfold without letting my inhibitions or past imprints get in the way... the very opposite of hiding things. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
doesn't have to be in a negative way - i'm just weary of dogmatism mixed with mysticism. mysticism is a place you can harbour concepts and render them unquestionable in doing so - or perhaps its implicit, and cannot, in virtue of its nature be made explicit. at the same time however, mysticism often derives a lot of explicit norms from this implicit-mystical realm, which is fundamental to the norms/and world perspective ..? it is seductive, because it seems to "make sense" to people, they "understand" - it seems to express a certain paradoxical complexity of life that cannot be summed up another way. when it comes to imposing ones will on another, it is deemed illegitimate to question the mystical component of such a doctrine. in my opinion, such use of mystical quasi-concepts is a questionable way of dealing with things. it is illegitimate to question, - unquestionable. yet at the same time one has some sort of access to a "concept" that is not one? on top of this mysticism in general is a theory/approach which detracts the mysticiser from the world. "ever metaphysical question can be asked only in such a way that the questioner as such is also there within the question, that is, is placed in question. From this we conclude that metaphysical inquiry must be posed as a whole and from the essential position of existence that questions." -Heidegger |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i do believe that every individual has their own life, their own death, their own path. we are all together, and yet we each have our own vision. personally i see mysticism in general as open-ended, a means of dissolving a dependence on dogma, though i recognize that a human being's capacity for self deception means that mysticism can easily become a self limiting belief. i do believe that there are simple laws that can act as a compass for each individual. i used to think that i was an incredibly complex electrochemical phenomenon, and as i became aware i thought "they fucking forgot my user manual!" now i realize, there is a user manual, and it's written into everyone. i have no interest in imposing my will on anyone, but i can't lie, i am glad when i see that you are smiling. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
plaidzeb. mysticism open-ended ... exactly, but its one way traffic. its open in the sense that you can derive/deduce things from it, but can not question it. i personally don't like that - whilst acknowledging at the same time that mysticism has been and is an integral part of (most if not all) cultures. re: seeing oneself as a biochemical complex ... its quite an interesting way of looking at oneself, also stuff like genetics etc. etc. BUT, for me at least, the way I lead my everyday life is not affected by such thoughts. only on reflection do things like that appear attractive. but when i go and get some beer from the fridge, i don't think that i'm a bio-chemical organism that such such and such, this and that. in a sense though - as soon as you are asked "why" you did something .. things become tricky. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
self-deception .. what are you deceiving yourself from -> the Truth? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
we could talk for years nonstop about the manifestations of self deception. some easy examples: i am worthless. i will have defined myself as superior if i can pass all of these cars. material wealth will solve my problems. i will be happy only if i take this drug. so you see, i meant that in a more everyday sense. was your question a manifestation of your dogma detector? in my opinion, mysticism demands that you question everything. it asks you to seek the subtle details. it asks you to refine your technique. it asks you to take a stand, and prepare for anything. how long until we start a "what is mysticism?" thread? we'll talk ourselves blue in the face. i didn't say that i still believed that i was solely an electrochemical complex. maybe i should have said, this model i employed many years ago. i also didn't say that that's what i thought about when i was doing whatever. i meant that i lived for a time with the fundamental assumption that my existence was defined solely by that physical system. regarding truth, i can only say, truth is. as i said, i do believe there are some simple laws that function as a compass of sorts. the only way to appreciate their value, however, is to put them into operation with sincere intent. and if you have beliefs in conflict with these laws, you will see your implementation fail. you cannot impose truth on yourself or others; when you are ready, it will come to you. i do believe that there are teachers, there is help. "cosmic love is absolutely ruthless and highly indifferent: it teaches its lessons whether you like them or not."" -excerpted from "the dyadic cyclone," by john c. lilly (1915-2001) A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep. -Saul Belloe |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i have to admit that i am need of a good definition of mysticism. i recognize worldviews, concerns and lifestyles similar to my own amongst mystics and i have incredible empathy for the words and art of mytics, yet the things that you question about mysticism are not part of my life. I don't render concepts unquestionable. that to me is dogma, associated with religious fundamentalism, whereas it seems that the mystics of religions have been the ones who were questioning the validity of certain aspects of their religion and sometimes considering certain aspects of other religions (sufis, hasids). to me, what is central to mysticism is the inclination towards personal experience of the divine, rather than the dogma. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wow, i didn't realize how invloved with life john c. lilly was. that quote really hits home. say plaid, i don't know you by chance do i? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i am so glad that you are such an individual! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
mystic ~ 'of hidden meaning' i don't mean to say that dogma = mysticism .. just when the two are combined, it has potential to be a nasty combo. also, perhaps my characterisation of mysticism is a little caricatured ... but the way i see it, what is fundamental to mysticism, that there are two levels of concept if you like, the superficial/explicit and the deep/mythical/implicit. everyday concepts, such as ethical norms or whatever originate from the implicit "realm". thus whilst less dogmatic mysticism may question concepts, in my opinion, unless they are skeptics at heart, there will be some "core" element that is not questioned. and perhaps dogmatism increases the size or magnitude of this "core" (metaphorically) ... i don't mean to say that one ought to justify ethical convictions, but this is exactly what happens (sometimes) - people justify convictions in light of a mystical context. if 'mystic' really is hidden meaning, then are we not deceiving ourselves in gaining meaning from it? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jupitah unfortunately my presence in minneapolis is a bit shadowy. by that i mainly mean that i don't know many people here. is your name mark? mimi- i was just in madison for five days last week. small world. ok, it is only four hours away... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
