Something I posted not quite eight years ago (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=34263&postcount=8):


I don't recall how long ago I wrote this down, but I'm pretty sure I was high:
We are products of the universe. We exist and behave according to the laws of the universe and the laws of nature as we have learned them. We are the eyes, ears, voice, and memory of the universe. What we touch, it also touches. What we experience, it also knows. There is nothing more important to the universal whole than to understand its meaning. All sentient life must therefore strive toward this goal.

(#34263/8 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=34263&postcount=8))

Posted yesterday at Slog (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/the_reason_for_reason) by Charles Mudede:

Our purpose on this living planet might very well be the production of pictures like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7282385.stm):

http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2008/03/Picture%2016.jpg (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7282385.stm)

.... What does all of this mean? Not that humans can see the universe and record its happenings, but that the universe itself has the ability to see and think of itself. The universe not only produces stars, it produces thoughts about those stars and other cosmic events. The meaning of human beings is to be the means by which the universe thinks and records itself. We were made for the universe to see the universe.

(Mudede (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/the_reason_for_reason))

Perhaps more important than any inner gratification I might find in the notion that I am not alone in one of my more obscure beliefs is the proposition itself. I do believe there is a purpose to life. I do believe it involves sticking around to find out how the whole Universe ends. We cannot, as individuals, accomplish this goal, so we must endure as a species.

We humans are the only known witnesses to the Universe. Someday, we will find others, and we will teach what we have learned, and learn from them what they have learned. The key is lasting long enough for that to happen.

It's also a very romantic notion because it means we do matter in the larger scheme of the Universe, that we aren't simply a random accident of ratios.
____________________

Notes:

Mudede, Charles. "The Reason for Reason". Slog. March 7, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/the_reason_for_reason

Thats beautiful. And I agree with it. To me its a kind of looking in the mirror to see what we are made of, what we mean to us and how we are. We being the universe.

A sort of incipient universal narcissism perhaps, that our life and times are nothing more than an opportunity to ooh and aah at ourselves. :p

yeah but that the concept of evil and good is irrelevant on a universe scale.

A sort of incipient universal narcissism perhaps, that our life and times are nothing more than an opportunity to ooh and aah at ourselves. :p

think of us as cells in an organism...each doing their own business, making sure we get nourished well and multiply and interact with proteins with other cells and such...meanwhile by doing just this we fulfill the grand scale of the organism unaware of the design we are part of.

think of us as cells in an organism...each doing their own business, making sure we get nourished well and multiply and interact with proteins with other cells and such...meanwhile by doing just this we fulfill the grand scale of the organism unaware of the design we are part of.
You seem to be aware.

You seem to be aware.

I can relate to it, but I cannot fully understand that purpose of me as a cell in an organism to me in universe...it is as if a cell with no brains and intelligence tried to understand that it is one of the trillion cells needed for integration of this organism function which is in itself totally unrelated to the indirect simple functions of me the cell.

If you are born of Adam, sit like him
and behold all his progeny within yourself.
What is in the jar that is not also in the river?
What is in the house that is not also in the city?
This world is a jar, and the heart-spirit is like the river;
this world is the chamber, and the spirit is the wondrous city.

Mawlana Jalal ad-din Rumi

Mathnawi IV: 809-811
Version by Camille and Kabir Helminski
“Rumi: Jewels of Remembrance”
Threshold Books, 1996

I can relate to it, but I cannot fully understand that purpose of me as a cell in an organism to me in universe...it is as if a cell with no brains and intelligence tried to understand that it is one of the trillion cells needed for integration of this organism function which is in itself totally unrelated to the indirect simple functions of me the cell.
I could be wrong, but it seemed like other posts of yours have seemed to claim a deeper awareness of what is going on than this rather mechanical cell analogy indicates.

If you are born of Adam, sit like him
and behold all his progeny within yourself.
What is in the jar that is not also in the river?
What is in the house that is not also in the city?
This world is a jar, and the heart-spirit is like the river;
this world is the chamber, and the spirit is the wondrous city.

Mawlana Jalal ad-din Rumi

Mathnawi IV: 809-811
Version by Camille and Kabir Helminski
“Rumi: Jewels of Remembrance”
Threshold Books, 1996
Rumi is out there on the edge with the mystics of other religions, that region where they begin to look the same. Are you out there too, SAM?

I could be wrong, but it seemed like other posts of yours have seemed to claim a deeper awareness of what is going on than this rather mechanical cell analogy indicates.

well tell me how you see this awareness? I just seem to come to conclusion that it is impossible to realize truly the purpose of self in the greatness of universe, all this realizations are just illusions to keep self on right track, living on.

Rumi is out there on the edge with the mystics of other religions, that region where they begin to look the same. Are you out there too, SAM?

Aren't they all the same? Just different ways of getting to the same place?:)

http://www.destoop.com/trip/3%20DAYBYDAY/020105%20Beirut/Derv01.jpg

Aren't they all the same? Just different ways of getting to the same place?

I cannot prove that they either do all lead to the same place, or that they do not.

However, if it were true that all would lead to the same place, this would mean that it ultimately does not matter which religion or philosophy one would practice.

If it ultimately does not matter which religion or philosophy one practices, then anything goes.

If anything goes, nothing makes a difference.

If nothing makes a difference, human action is for naught.

If human action is for naught, we cannot get anywhere. There is no goal for us to reach, we can never arrive anywhere, and all there is is the same mixture of pleasure and pain that we have now, for ever and ever.

Considering this, the proposition that all religions/philosophies lead to the same place, is pernicious.
If one wishes to accomplish or attain something, one has to believe that one path is superior to all others. Which implies that only one path can be the right one.

well tell me how you see this awareness? I just seem to come to conclusion that it is impossible to realize truly the purpose of self in the greatness of universe, all this realizations are just illusions to keep self on right track, living on.

You contradict yourself.
To call something "the right track" implies the purpose is already known - that the purpose of self in the greatness of universe has already been truly realized. Without such a realization, there could be no notion of "being on the right track".

I cannot prove that they either do all lead to the same place, or that they do not.

However, if it were true that all would lead to the same place, this would mean that it ultimately does not matter which religion or philosophy one would practice.

If it ultimately does not matter which religion or philosophy one practices, then anything goes.

If anything goes, nothing makes a difference.

If nothing makes a difference, human action is for naught.

If human action is for naught, we cannot get anywhere. There is no goal for us to reach, we can never arrive anywhere, and all there is is the same mixture of pleasure and pain that we have now, for ever and ever.

Considering this, the proposition that all religions/philosophies lead to the same place, is pernicious.
If one wishes to accomplish or attain something, one has to believe that one path is superior to all others. Which implies that only one path can be the right one.

You skipped a beat there.:p

You contradict yourself.
To call something "the right track" implies the purpose is already known - that the purpose of self in the greatness of universe has already been truly realized. Without such a realization, there could be no notion of "being on the right track".

well than I guess we share this main purpose with the rest of the universe, to live. I do realize that now.

You skipped a beat there.

Explain. How does the sentence you bolded not fit in with the course of others?

well tell me how you see this awareness? I just seem to come to conclusion that it is impossible to realize truly the purpose of self in the greatness of universe, all this realizations are just illusions to keep self on right track, living on.

A cell has decided that many other cells are deluded and cannot know what the purpose of things is. This cell has a lot of faith in its ability to be objective, in fact as much faith as the other cells it is critical of. It is very sure of its epistemological rules and limits and the limits of other cells. You could call it a kind of negative philosophy, with claims about what cannot be known, but even this is founded on a great deal of certainty about what is possible.

Aren't they all the same? Just different ways of getting to the same place?:)

http://www.destoop.com/trip/3%20DAYBYDAY/020105%20Beirut/Derv01.jpg

Actually, I don't think so. But I do think there are mystics from a number of the major religions who speak similarly. I tend not to feel like their goals are my goals and I would call myself and be considered religious. Also within each of the various traditions I don't think the members are aiming at similar states, goals, or places, even if they use the same words sometimes.

Explain. How does the sentence you bolded not fit in with the course of others?

You're assuming you're anybody. That all sizes can fit you. That your own substance has no limitations or needs.

You're assuming you're anybody. That all sizes can fit you. That your own substance has no limitations or needs.

How do you figure that?
I have made no such assumptions.

Of course people have different predispositions. But the argument was not about that. It was about whether all religions/philosophies have the same goal.

How do you figure that?
I have made no such assumptions.

Of course people have different predispositions. But the argument was not about that. It was about whether all religions/philosophies have the same goal.

Of course, but like everything else, not everything will be alright for everyone. Its why I think everyone should try out a religion for size and see what satisfies them most. Nothing is perfect but there is something in every religion that appeals to someone or the other. Everyone goes to hell (or heaven) in his own way.

Of course, but like everything else, not everything will be alright for everyone.

But my argument wasn't about that.


Its why I think everyone should try out a religion for size and see what satisfies them most. Nothing is perfect but there is something in every religion that appeals to someone or the other.

Just because something "fits" you does not mean that it is the best for you, or that it will bring you where you truly want to come to.


Everyone goes to hell (or heaven) in his own way.

This is just a specific tenet of a religion/philosphy, not something that would be true regardless of the frame of reference of a particular religion/philosophy.

A bit from a poem I encountered:

the universe is alone

did it give birth to us
to fill its emptiness
with eyes to see
that there was nothing to see
or did we create it
to fit us
to fill eternity
with exploration

(O'Connell (http://www.hd-image.com/poetry/24th_century_reflection.htm))

Anyway, I think that's a hell of a question.
_____________________

Notes:

O'Connell, Kit. "A 24th Century Reflection on Emptiness". Aberrant Dreams. April, 2008. http://www.hd-image.com/poetry/24th_century_reflection.htm

Something I posted not quite eight years ago (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=34263&postcount=8):
We are products of the universe. We exist and behave according to the laws of the universe and the laws of nature as we have learned them. We are the eyes, ears, voice, and memory of the universe. What we touch, it also touches. What we experience, it also knows. There is nothing more important to the universal whole than to understand its meaning. All sentient life must therefore strive toward this goal.

Perhaps more important than any inner gratification I might find in the notion that I am not alone in one of my more obscure beliefs is the proposition itself. I do believe there is a purpose to life. I do believe it involves sticking around to find out how the whole Universe ends. We cannot, as individuals, accomplish this goal, so we must endure as a species.

We humans are the only known witnesses to the Universe. Someday, we will find others, and we will teach what we have learned, and learn from them what they have learned. The key is lasting long enough for that to happen.

It's also a very romantic notion because it means we do matter in the larger scheme of the Universe, that we aren't simply a random accident of ratios.

Kind of a variation on the anthropic principle. I like it.

I have a similar idea with respect to the science/religion dichotomy many people believe in. To quote Asguard:

Fundamentalist Christian says
"E=MC^2 was wrong because god said so"

To me, that view is ridiculous. If you believe in God, then the universe is the work of his hand. When you study it, you study him. To ignore the evidence of your mind and your senses is to spit in the face of God. To not feast upon the beauty and wonder he laid before us is like sending back a gourmet meal untouched, or walking through a museum with blinders on.

Yes, it is our duty as sentient beings to learn all we can. To study, to build, to observe. To try to understand the universe down to the smallest subatomic particle and the largest galactic cluster.

Something I posted not quite eight years ago (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=34263&postcount=8):



Posted yesterday at Slog (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/the_reason_for_reason) by Charles Mudede:



Perhaps more important than any inner gratification I might find in the notion that I am not alone in one of my more obscure beliefs is the proposition itself. I do believe there is a purpose to life. I do believe it involves sticking around to find out how the whole Universe ends. We cannot, as individuals, accomplish this goal, so we must endure as a species.

We humans are the only known witnesses to the Universe. Someday, we will find others, and we will teach what we have learned, and learn from them what they have learned. The key is lasting long enough for that to happen.

It's also a very romantic notion because it means we do matter in the larger scheme of the Universe, that we aren't simply a random accident of ratios.
____________________

Notes:

Mudede, Charles. "The Reason for Reason". Slog. March 7, 2008. http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/the_reason_for_reason


Oh Tiassa, if only had you seen some of what I wrote about something very similar to this.

"The universe" bah!- most psychics talk about it like it's the bread and butter; but really it's true. Leads into talk about God and thing and perhaps purpose and meaning.

Also try, "there is nothing outside of this universe."

I do believe it involves sticking around to find out how the whole Universe ends.


It ends in death, thank God.

Anything else would be Hell.