I was suggesting a possibility there, to get the ball rolling. 'God' is a word with a lot of baggage, so as long as we don't immediately start bringing in beards and commandments, heads of pins and whether this God can lift stones if he tries to make them really heavy and all of that, yes, then 'God' could be an OK word. An immanent one, also.
The problem is that I don't think you can escape the definition from within the word itself ya know. It's simply consequential as to definitions and whatnot that a "universal consciousness" is "god", which is in turn, simply beyond the reach of reason as a consequence of being fundamentally unimaginable and therefore unrelatable. As we exist, we exist individually and as part of a group. We cannot know what it is to be the others in our group, as a consequence of being us is (at least for now) to be us and not them, even if we think we're being them. If you don't find that satisfactory, then consider that "consciousness" and "universal" are human terms. "consciousness" is a condition we derive from ourselves. Is it fair to apply this potentially paultry term to the very system that allows its own existence? Aren't we necessarily doomed to anthropomorphise our environment, in the sense that we relate to it through our experience of it? Since we derive consciousness from ourselves and are as a consequence of existing and havign a perspective, obliged to relate to our environment via the 'lense' of established by our own existence? It just seems to me that if one is truly awed by even the notion of such a being, it is simply unfair to cast our limited gaze upon it and speak of it as knowledge. It is simply too vast for the imagination. To me this renders it practically irrelavent.
yeah i been a bit weird lately and mean and feeling my existance is crap im thinkin of going back to work i rang me old job up not telling me doctor and im going back to work this saturday hopefully as planned need to get my life back in order instead of flippin out all the time its good at times but one can lose sight of the world around im even gonna have to work on me sore foot i dont care as long as im out of this house for a while a day maybe i need a boyfriend but i wouldnt know what to do with one never really had one to call mine never had that thing that people have so maybe i need to get me one of those men ....hehehe
Why not ? Should there be a reason to recover truth ? By the way, any truth is inherently meaningless.
Not in my life. 'Drinking bleach makes me feel like shit'. I consider this both true and on one occasion, at least, meaningful. I find it also useful. I make sure that stuff doesn't even get on my skin or in my air - OK in very low percentages, I do.
Sigh... I thought you were kind of with me on this ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Of course things matter to you or to any person. But it's completely subjective. You at least agreed partially with me on that right ?
I may be kind of with you. I am not sure. I was surprised you would say that all truths are meaningless. In fact the statement kind of cancels itself out. Is science a wasted enterprise?
not knowing all about it would be a given, but that seems no reason for me to assume I cannot realize it exists. There are pleny of things that are beyond my abililty to fully understand that I accept as real. My own unconscious mind, for example. Yours. Evolution. The Big Bang. The subtle incredibly fast way that bodies communicate even as the conscious minds seek out le mot juste and mess the whole thing up. The Stock Market - I mean, jesus, toss in derivatives and all the only the pros mess around with it shit and I don't get square one. I still believe in it. I have struggled with all sorts of scientific ideas and I still don't fucking have a handle on many of them. I am a pretty good chess and Go player. I've played some tournaments. I've had to sit opposite master and once a grandmaster level player. I know damn well he was seeing a lot of shit I was not. I could feel the way his moves were hooked in to patterns I could not see. I know they are there. He could explain a little in the post mortem and my knowledge (briefly) expanded. We apply our consciousness to other creatures. I have also known personally someone with DID or what used to be called multiple personality disorder. Very rare, the real ones, but they do exist. Here you have subpersonalities that can actually be taught about the other personalities, even the main one. Some of them may be aware there are others. Some may have separate memories, skills, and even, get this, eyesight. Like one can be 20/20 while others are not. But that last point is off the topic. What I am suggesting is that parts can be made aware of wholes. If fact those of us who are 'normal' - there must be one or two, not that I am one of them - can, in relation to our unconsciouses and bodies realize that the part we tend to this of as 'I' is actually only a part of the decision making, conscious being we are a part of.
Truths are not meaningless to us because we create this subjective reality in our heads. Things matter to us. But bare reality cannot have any meaning whatsoever as there is no one for it to have meaning to. No, it certainly isn't.
So let me go back to where we perhaps split off. It does not bother you at all that life is a joke, meaning is an illusion and we die eventually - which I took to mean meant there was no afterlife or rebirth etc. Since this does not bother you, you must wonder why so many atheists say that theists believe because they are afraid or have a need to believe in an afterlife, for example. You must think, one, they are confused and two, they are emotionally different from you. The 'brute honesty', implicit assertion that atheists are braver and more willing to face the truth hypothesis is what I am referrring to. Here in this thread perhaps around existential issues and on Wes' thread braver in terms of unity. You would not fit this theory on the atheist side, since you do not care. So you are not being braver than the theists, you do not have a desire, fear, or potential disappointment at stake.
It does not bother me because I can't do anything with it. I am still human, things have meaning to me. I don't want to die... yet I am not afraid to die, only of the pain the process of dying may bring with it. But if I stop and think about it, I see that nothing really matters despite the fact that it seems to us that things do matter. I'm split.. I guess.. :shrug: Perhaps because it is not possible to live like nothing matters.
Well, that sounds logical. But I don't think it's an assertion that has much to do with life. I don't think ideas like this do much but create one portion of the mind that we identify as our policy makers and other parts of our mind as bad or irrational for not aligning with that part of the mind that thinks it is the logical part. So if I told you I was going to kill you, but said I'd make sure it was painless. Imagine whatever weapons, tools, drugs that would make this convincing. Your only concern would be that perhaps there might be some pain, not that your life was about to be over? So you have allowed this 'truth' to affect you in this specific way. I think it is good to notice what 'truths' do. And not surprisingly you admit you are split. So one thing this truth does is split you. And I would guess you see one side as irrational and one side as rational. You have within you a believer and an 'atheist' - not in relation to God, but in relation to meaning. And I think that is partly why I wanted you to side with this other part. The one that you have failed to convince that life has no meaning. Because, in actual fact, that part is probably much bigger than the other one. It is the one all your friends know, despite whatever 'truths' you may utter on occasion. The little dictator in the head that thinks it knows the truth and yet cannot quite seem to control the rest of the body - here I am using head and body partially literally, partially metaphorically. In any case I think we can see that you have chosen unity over what you consider honesty, or at least a part of you has.
Oh, thank God. I thought I was going to have to play the rationalist for a while to bring you back to the table.
Perhaps. Well no, I don't want to die. The need to survive is programmed into me. But if I was sure there was no way out and you were going to kill me no matter what, my only concern would be the pain. I do not act on it, it's probably bad for my health to do so Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well yes, but this "atheist" is very small and the "believer" rules supreme Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Unless, I allow it to take over temporarily of course lol This is starting to sound creepy.. Edit: It is just an idea though. Maybe saying I am split is taking it a bit too far. In that sense, yes.
Very close, he is defining meaning as subjective importance. I think it really confuses the issue greatly when he uses the word 'meaning' instead of 'importance'.
I'm using 'meaning' as in: <> meaning: the end, purpose, or significance of something: What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of this intrusion? <> meaning: to intend for a particular purpose, destination, etc.: They were meant for each other. <> meaning: to have as its sense or signification; signify: The word “freedom” means many things to many people. <> meaning: to have the value of; assume the importance of: Money means everything to them. She means the world to him. Etc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meaning <> importance: the quality or state of being important; consequence; significance. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/importance <> significance: meaning; import: The familiar place had a new significance for her. <> significance: the quality of being significant or having a meaning: to give significance to dull chores. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Significance <> import: consequence or importance: matters of great import. <> import: meaning; implication; purport: He felt the import of her words. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/import --------- Also, per·cep·tion n. Psychology 1. Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory. 2. The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected. 3. Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving. 4. The capacity for such insight. --------- And, "Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). In the strict sense of philosophy, there are levels or gradation to the nature and conception of reality. These levels include, from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom." "On a much broader and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. This form of reality might be common to others as well, but at times could also be so unique to oneself as to be never experienced or agreed upon by any one else. Much of the kind of experience deemed spiritual occurs on this level of reality. From a phenomenological perspective, reality is that which is phenomenally real and unreality is nonexistent. Individual perception can be based upon an individual's personality, focus and style of attribution, causing him or her to see only what he or she wants to see or believes to be true." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality Buddhism actually comes close, "* Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma, part of the process of impermanence, similar to the Hindu concept of Maya. * Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]". In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations." "The view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc., is called realism. More specifically, philosophers are given to speaking about "realism about" this and that, such as realism about universals or realism about the external world. Generally, where one can identify any class of object the existence or essential characteristics of which is said not to depend on perceptions, beliefs, language, or any other human artifact, one can speak of "realism about" that object." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism "Some schools of Buddhism hold that reality is something void of description, the formless which forms all illusions or maya. Buddhists hold that we can only discuss objects which are not reality itself and that nothing can be said of reality which is true in any absolute sense. Discussions of a permanent self are necessarily about the reality of self which cannot be pointed to nor described in any way. Similar is the Taoist saying, that the Tao that can be named is not the true Tao, or way." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
