|
|
|
Hi WillVery good post, a great read on a gray Thursday morning as it is here. Your analysis is spot on as usual. Using my own words, I would say that to live a sane and healthy life I have to accept the reality of both my subjective world and the objective world. I have to be here, standing on my own two feet, and when I move I have to step out from where I am now, not where I would like to be or where I imagine myself to be. Perhaps some great upper case T Truth on the horizon over there may inspire me to step forward in a certain direction, but when I imagine I am already over there with it then my steps are false and I spin all over the place. And that is the exact situation with Maharaji, or any cult, or indeed any strong belief where your focus is on somewhere over there to the extent that you forget both where you are actually standing and the little t truths of the world immediately around you. The irony of the premie mindset is that you have to believe that the absolute upper case Truth is in fact with you, so you have to believe that you *are* already standing in the right place. In a sense, it is attempting to mash all views up into one perspective, so that there is no separation between here and there, and since Maharaji and the Truth he is supposed to embody is really over there, certainly not here with you, then you're screwed. Enough philosophizing. Actually, I have recently got back into metaphysics - the questions 'Why does anything exist?' or almost equivalently 'Why do I exist?' give me goose bumps. The trick is to be practical, and to avoid wading through the 95% of academic philosophy which tries to answer them in dry sterile terms, and also to avoid spinning off into Rawat-land or any of the many similar woo-woo belief systems. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
I liked your post too Will, but it's Mike I have a question for:How do you approach the question? Is metaphysics some sort of mathematical approach? The only answer I have is that I exist because my parents had sex.
|
|
|
|
Hi LesleyTaking your questions in reverse order: The only answer I have is that I exist because my parents had sex. Very good, I must remember that when I am next involved in some heavy philosophical discussion! Is metaphysics some sort of mathematical approach? 'Metaphysics' is the branch of philosophy concerned with existence, and philosophers have been hard it since before Socrates (although it was Aristotle who gave it the name by writing about it in a book 'after physics'). It is generally considered the most boring topic, and even among tedious academic philosophers metaphysics is considered tedious. How do you approach the question? First there is the question (like 'Who am I?' or 'Why do I exist?'), and then how to answer it. My take on it is that first the question has to fill you with awe - if it does not, then you pack up and go home, end of story. Of course I exist as a physical being because my parents had sex, and if that is a sufficient answer for you, then that is great. But for some people, that is not a sufficient answer, and I am one of them. If I gaze up at the stars, for instance, then I am filled with awe at the fact that I am alive, that I am conscious, that even the stars I am looking at are billions of years old (hey, I am only 57 years old!), that even anything exists at all, and that I am alive to witness it. Of course if my parents had not had sex then I would not exist, but although that is a necessary condition for my existence (they *must* have had sex for me to exist) it is not for me, as I say, sufficient. So if you are filled with awe at your own existence and consciousness etc, then what do you do about it, what questions do you ask about it, so what, in fact? That, for me, is where metaphysics starts. 98% of books on metaphysics are so incredibly boring and tedious, in my opinion, because the authors don't start with that feeling of awe. The second reason metaphysics is usually so stupifyingly boring is that philosophers try to answer this most exquisite of questions with dry logic. Logic of course has its place, and actually I love it as subject. But on its own I don't believe it is enough to deal with metaphysical issues - if metaphysics is 'beyond physics' then we need a metalogic 'beyond logic' to discuss it. Plus the fact that metaphysicians have been hard at it with logic for over 2,600 years and got nowhere, should be a hint. I don't mean we go off into fantasy, or fall down at the feet of an Indian guru or anything. I believe the metaphysical enquiry still has to be rational, and grounded in everyday common-sense logic. I guess metaphysics, for me, is the attempt to explore the awesome feeling I have at my own existence and consciousness, and go where it leads me (if it 'leads' anywhere). And to make that attempt so that my rationality, and also that feeling of awe which fuels it, are both satisfied. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 07:50:28
|
|
|
|
Lesley's parents had sex and produced him (her?), and Mike, it is clear that your parents had awesome sex.
Lucky you!
My parents never had sex. They found me under a gooseberry bush, so that makes my genesis less disconcerting.
|
|
|
|
"It's a girl".My parents had their eyes closed, if that makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
I suspect it's because people who aren't so good at being rational want to belittle logic so they call it 'dry' or 'cold'. It is of course unsupportable prejudice and should be countered at every opportunity! Logic is warm, moist and cuddly! Metalogic is of course beyond these things and beyond me. 
Seriously, I think the problem with metaphysics is the people who write books about it, Robert Pirsig being a notable exception. Have you read 'Lila'?
John.
|
|
|
|
Anyone familiar with Buddhism, as Mike is, knows the Buddha taught that not only was metaphysical speculation and philosophical debate futile, it was actually harmful. Those who engaged in it would be much better off cultivating the means to attain direct knowledge for themselves. The most famous example of the Buddha's teaching in regard to philosophical speculation is the parable of the Poisoned Arrow. In this parable, a monk decides that he will leave the Buddhist community if the Buddha does not give his opinion on the following speculative views: whether the world is eternal or not, whether it is infinite or not, whether the soul and the body are the same or different, whether a Buddhist exists or does not exist after death, or perhaps both exists and does not exist or neither exists nor does not exist.
The Buddha, however, replies: Suppose, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: “I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.” And he would say: “I will not let the surgeon pull out this arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me;...until I know whether the man who wounded me was tall or short or of middle height;...until I know whether the man who wounded me was dark or brown or golden-skinned;...until I know whether the man who wounded me lives in such a village or town or city;...until I know whether the bow that wounded me was a long bow or a crossbow;...until I know whether the bowstring that wounded me was fiber or reed or sinew or hemp or bark;...until I know whether the shaft that wounded me was wild or cultivated;...until I know with what kind of sinew the shaft that wounded me was bound - whether of an ox or a buffalo or a lion or a monkey;...until I know what kind of arrow it was that wounded me - whether it was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed or calf-toothed or oleander.” All this would still not be known to that man and in the interim he would die. The Buddha then drives home the point by stating that what really matters is the question of suffering, its origin, its cessation and the path to its cessation are of primary importance. Jeez that felt good. Thanks for tolerating my preaching.
Modified by Steve at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 10:29:35
|
|
|
|
Oops, sorry,I meant Buddha. That guy sure as heck talked and taught a lot for someone not interested in talking and theorising didn't he? If he was so dismissive of thinking and philosophising I wonder why that's all he ever did? Or did he have some special, Divine joojoo to transmit?  Sorry, couldn't resist it and I'm only jesting.( or am I being fiendishly, inscrutably Zen? Haha! Who knows?) Anyway, Carry on with the serious stuff, it's all very interesting.
Modified by Dermot at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 10:30:50
|
|
|
|
The Buddha was offering a means to end suffering, not to reveal the secrets of existence. The guy who "threatened" to leave the Buddhist community unless the Buddha ansered his metaphysical questions was an idiot. At the very least, he didn't understand what it was the Buddha was offering.
|
|
|
|
Just another religion that stifles thought. What a crock!
|
|
|
|
Hi Jim and SteveJim: Just another religion that stifles thought. Yes, I agree Jim. There are other dimensions to it of course, but it certainly does stifle thought. Steve: Thanks for generously crediting me as being familiar with Buddhism. However, I have to say that I am not a Buddhist in any sense of the word, as being someone who follows one of the very many flavors of Buddhism. Certainly the Buddhist scriptures say lots of things that appear to me wise, that may or may not have been said by the historical Buddha. They also say many things that seem to me foolish. However, my own metaphysical enterprise (bit of a fancy phrase that, but it is in this thread) is to stand on my own two feet, as it were, and as far as is possible to make my own decisions as to what to believe, independent of any so-called spiritual master, past or present. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Don't mean to be rude Jim, but I don't think we will ever be able to answer metaphysical questions such as, "Why do I exist?" or "What is the meaning of life?" You might as well ask, "What is the purpose of skiing?" Will logic give you an appropriate answer? I think not, so why bother asking these types of questions in the first place? Better to just go skiing.
Modified by Steve at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 13:22:58
|
|
|
|
Steve, We both seem to think it's a waste of time asking why we exist or what is life's meaning. The difference between us, though, appears to be that you assume those are valid questions which have answers out there somewhere, somehow. You then fault logic for not being able to find those answers. On the other hand, I don't assume those are valid questions and think it's hardly fair to fault logic for not being able to find something which doesn't exist. And I sure don't have any time for Buddhist stuff which seems designed to just make people feel uncomfortable with their minds. Hardly.
|
|
|
|
The difference between us, though, appears to be that you assume those are valid questions which have answers out there somewhere, somehow. You then fault logic for not being able to find those answers. On the other hand, I don't assume those are valid questions and think it's hardly fair to fault logic for not being able to find something which doesn't exist. I agree with you. I don't think that, “What is the meaning of life?” or “What is the purpose of my life?’ are valid questions. The man hit with the poison arrow wants to know if the man who shot him was a noble, a priest, a merchant, or a worker and if he was tall, short, or of middle height etc. The answers are out there somewhere but will they do the guy hit with the arrow any good? Logic tells me that these are not valid questions and they will get stupid answers. First, even if he does get his questions answered (the guy who shot you was 5’10”, weighs 178 lbs and lives in . . . .) the answers are not going to do him any good, and second, while he is wasting his time asking these questions he is slowly dying from the poison. The Buddha’s point was that it is better to not ask these useless questions and simply let the surgeon pull the arrow out. Not all questions are valid. For example, what good would it be for a fat guy to ask, “Why am I so fat?” Wouldn’t he be better off asking, “How can I achieve my ideal and healthy body weight and have fun doing it?” What would be better to ask? “Why do all the women I have ever known leave me?” or “What can I do to have a rich meaningful relationship with a woman?” My point is, we might as well ask valid questions that are going to give us useful answers.
Modified by Steve at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 15:13:41
|
|
|
|
Steve,
The guy starts off asking the big, possibly unanswerable, questions of life. Buddha then turns it around with an analogy wherein a guy wastes time asking stupid questions about a practical matter that needs immediate attention. As always happens with these stupid -- did I say stupid? -- spiritual parables, the guy's set up as a real dolt only to make the "master" look all that much smarter.
It's a shell game to extrapolate one situation to the other.
As for your own examples, I disagree with the false dichotomy inherent in both. The fat guy should ask both questions. The lonely guy should ask both as well.
There you go, Grasshopper. That'll be $300.
|
|
|
|
The guy starts off asking the big, possibly unanswerable, questions of life. Okay, nuf said. I won that one. Two questions: - Why am I so fat?
- What can I do to lose weight?
Which answer would you prefer?
|
|
|
|
The guy starts off asking the big, possibly unanswerable, questions of life. Okay, nuf said. I won that one. What do you mean, you won that one? Two questions: - Why am I so fat?
- What can I do to lose weight?
Which answer would you prefer? Why do I have to choose? Why not both?
|
|
|
|
Two questions: - Why am I so fat?
- What can I do to lose weight?
Which answer would you prefer? Why do I have to choose? Why not both? Why am I so fat? - Because you are a greedy pig who has no self control.
- Because you are bad.
- Because of your metabolism.
- Because it runs in your family.
- Because your life is stressful.
What can I do to lose weight? - Eat more healthy food.
- Go to the gym.
- Fight stress by doing yoga and praying.
- Stop eating after supper.
- Drink more water.
Which answers would you prefer? Why waste your time asking lousy questions that give lousy answers?
|
|
|
|
Steve, it's too bad you didn't answer me but instead chose to go off on this wild goose chase. If you want me to answer your questions, answer mine first. That's just Buddhism 101.
|
|
|
|
All I was trying to prove is that if you ask a lousy question you will get a lousy answer. I can see now that I am wasting my time. How could I have been so stupid?
|
|
|
|
All I was trying to prove is that if you ask a lousy question you will get a lousy answer. You don't even know what we were talking about, do you? That's what it sounds like. We were discussing Buddha ridiculing someone for asking dumb questions. At one point, you posited a couple of examples of two questions and asked me which one I'd ask and all I then asked was who said it had be one or the other. You then avoided my question, I then pointed out that you avoided my question and now you're flailing. I can see now that I am wasting my time. How could I have been so stupid? Don't blame me.
|
|
|
|
My question was obviously a joke - a joke on you.
|
|
|
|
How could I have been so stupid? What kind of answer will I get from that? 
Modified by Steve at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 23:52:00
|
|
|
|
'Anyone familiar with Buddhism, as Mike is, knows the Buddha taught that not only was metaphysical speculation and philosophical debate futile, it was actually harmful. Those who engaged in it would be much better off cultivating the means to attain direct knowledge for themselves.' This is the first time I've heard that the Buddha taught metaphysical speculation and philosophical debate were not only futile but actually harmful. When you look at it, the questions this guy is asking are not exactly advanced metaphysics - they are the sort of stuff which would occur to any reasonably intelligent monk or layman. The answer the Buddha allegedly gives - because these stories in any case must be apocryphal - is of such a condescendingly puerile level as would really besmirch his reputation of being a great humanist or someone of a ready wisdom who could provide some reasonale answer to a well-meaning questioning person. I think what you mean to propagate, however, is the basic premise of Maharajism - that being in the feeling or the experience or the Word, to use the old-fashioned term, is always enough in itself to render any type of worldly doubt or question irrelevant, that everything is unfolding with unparalleled ease for all. I wouldn't like to say totally categorically that no premie in my experience of 30 years attained such a level of absolute transcendence of the need for worldly nous, intelligence, absence of any rational questioning, achieved totally intuitively pure action in other words, but certainly no one in my direct vision did. How old are you, Steve? If you have had Knowledge 2 years, I might find this understandable. However, after a few more, the dichotomies are so dilated as to become quite trembling. The best thing to do is what most premies do, which is to practice K with some dedication, quietly accept all the basic notions as quite beyond the average capability, to get blissed here and there, and not to rock the boat. The alternative is to use some adult type reasoning. However, if you're generally as harmless as this post suggests, it seems to me you're doing no particular harm and pretty comfortable just as you are.
|
|
|
|
But I disagree. Even if going 'beyond' logic (whatever that means) gave us some sort of insight, then the only tool you have to be sure that you are not being fooled by a false insight, is logical thought, or, as we more usually call it, reason.
This comes back to the profound feeling experiences we had as premies in meditation or darshan. We now know that people report similar experiences following other live gurus, following other religions, or just going about their lives. For many of us, those experiences were 'proof' that Rawat was the One. If we simply abandon reason (as we did) then we continue to be vulnerable to being fooled again and again. I know Mike is not saying that we abandon reason, but I'm not sure what he is saying.
Regarding your parable, if all the Buddha was offering is a way to stop suffering, and the guy wanted answers to questions, then clearly he was in the wrong place. If someone offered me a pill that would remove my personal suffering for all time, but it meant I couldn't ask any more questions, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't take it.
John.
|
|
|
|
Hi Johnlogical thought, or, as we more usually call it, reason I don't think logic and reason are equivalent, at least not how those words are normally used. By 'logic' is usually meant classical logic as formulated by Aristotle (and never really been bettered; law of noncontradiction, law of excluded middle, syllogisms etc). Logic is the art of deducing valid conclusions validly from assumptions, as in: 'All swans are white, this bird is a swan, therefore this bird is white' - that is logic. 'Reason' is notoriously hard to define, but surely it is much wider than logic. I would define 'reason' as the art of giving good reasons for what I believe. And what is a 'good' reason? One that works well in the objective world. Note I say 'objective', because I can believe all kind of stuff in my own head and give any reasons I like, but 'reason' as normally used applies to good reasons 'out there' in the objective world. Logic does not depend upon the truth or validity of the assumptions, so that if I find a black swan, I can no longer reasonably assert that this bird, being a swan, is white. However, the logical argument is still a watertight logical argument: IF all swans are white, and IF this bird is a swan, THEN this bird is white. Logic is often thought to be a subset of reason, meaning that if an argument is illogical, and has no other good reasons to support it, then it almost certainly is not reasonable either. But there is lots of room for debate about the other way round: does a 'reasonable' argument need to be logical? I don't think so. I think there are very good reasons why reason can, often does, and should in many cases, go beyond logic. And lots of other people think so too - in fact Kant, possibly the most well-known philosopher after Plato (although probably not one in a hundred could say what either actually thought!) agrees with me! So yah boo sucks to you. (Metaphysicians can be very mature). I know Mike is not saying that we abandon reason, but I'm not sure what he is saying. Well, some of what I am saying is the above. Correct, I am not saying to abandon reason, but I am saying you can have good reasoning beyond logic. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
Modified by Mike Finch at Sat, Feb 18, 2006, 00:44:02
|
|
|
|
Hi JohnLogic is warm, moist and cuddly! Of course logic is not dry, nor is is warm. moist and cuddly. It is the process of reasoning correctly, so that you arrive at valid conclusions from a set of valid starting points. (Yes it's OK, I know you were joking!) I suspect it's because people who aren't so good at being rational want to belittle logic so they call it 'dry' or 'cold'. I suspect you are right. For myself, I was not saying logic is dry; I was trying to say that attempting to use logic where it is inappropriate is a 'dry' enterprise, meaning it leads to sterile argument that goes nowhere. Where might the use of logic be inappropriate? Well, right there you have started into metaphysical enquiry! For starters, logic can only work with propositions that do not change over time - in other words, with unchanging units. Often of course you *are* dealing with unchanging units - the physical sciences fit that model well, and as a result logic and maths describes them well, which is the reason the physical sciences are so successful at predicting and modifying our world. But as soon as you introduce human consciousness into things, that might not be the case, the unit model breaks down and logic is inappropriate for much of human investigation. That is why the human sciences are much less successful with the 'scientific method' than the physical sciences. And metaphysics goes even further in that direction 'beyond' (Greek 'meta') physics. When you try to describe stuff that does not fit the unit logical model using logic only, then I think 'dry' is a good metaphor for the resulting barren outcome. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Thanks Mike, okay I think I get it now. It is a branch of philosophy which thinks about the nature of existence not as yet satisfactorily answered through physics.So could that essay Jonti provided a link for a little while ago fit in there.. I thought it very interesting. He was suggesting as I understood it that the experience one is having be considered as a fundamental principle in physics in the same way that something like gravity is. My metaphilosophically physical thoughts so far go something like this.. as I understand it the universe our planet inhabits is expanding, making the planetary environment colder and more distant from other objects in the universe. And isn’t there lots of heat inside our planet? Perhaps, she muses the starlight glinting on each tender leaf, this fragile frill of green, we living things, are like the gristle in a joint, a cushion between a rock and a universe.
|
|
|
|
Art and science is merging out there in the big, vast universe...is it poetry, is it physics or is it something else? metaphysics? Perhaps, she muses the starlight glinting on each tender leaf, this fragile frill of green, we living things, are like the gristle in a joint, a cushion between a rock and a universe. It's well put, whatever it is
Modified by Dermot at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 22:09:37
|
|
|
|
Hi, but who are you, is there a substance that is called Lesley or a a Lesley molekule. But this does not bother me really, what bothers me a little bit, is the fact that one day I'm not around anymore. ciao...wolfie......product of evolution, but not a machine only!!
Modified by wolfie at Fri, Feb 17, 2006, 03:04:38
|
|
|
|
Hi Mike, Have you ever experienced anything in your life that made you feel that's why you were born, that your purpose had been fulfilled by it? The search for purpose in an innate one, I believe, although it's popular in this neo-darwinist age to just chalk it up to blind evolution. I don't see it as that. I can see the reasoning behind believing that, but my intuition tells me there's more to it. I think there is a creator who has a purpose for it all. The question is, have you discovered how you fit in with that plan? Do you think there is one?
|
|
|
|
Hi JerryDo you think there is one? [a life purpose] I don't know. What I was describing above, my sense of awe at the existing universe and my own consciousness, is true whether there is a purpose or not. Whether there is a creator who has a purpose for me, or there isn't and I am the result of 'blind evolution' (your phrase), I am still awestruck by this universe and my being in it. Have you ever experienced anything in your life that made you feel that's why you were born, that your purpose had been fulfilled by it? Well, for close to 30 years I thought my purpose was to find the Lord of the Universe, and that I had found him and been fulfilled accordingly. Since I was so spectacularly wrong, my track record is pretty poor and I am the last person to ask that to! I think life can be meaningful, and I am finding that true of myself more and more. However, I don't think that is the same as 'purposeful', certainly not in the sense of God saying 'OK Mike, you gotta do this before you die, and this is why I put you down there'. I don't mean to trivialize it, the fact is I just don't know. However, I am pretty sure of some things (being awestruck for a start), and they are enough to keep me busy. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean, Mike. Ordinarilly, I just take my existence for granted. I don't think about it. But occasionally, it dawns on me that I AM, and that is awe-inspiring. It reminds me of Heideger's question, "why is there something instead of nothing"? The 64,000 dollar question of philosopy, except for Camus, of course, who postulated that the only question worth asking is "should I commit suicide?" Cheerful bloke, wouldn't you say. I never felt I'd achieved any purpose as a premie. I always hoped that I would, and I believed I would eventually if I persevered, but it never materialized for me. I did once, however, have a very powerful experience of God's presense and that left me feeling I had fulfilled my life's purpose which was to simply know God. I never did associate that experience with Maharaji though. Now, I wonder if the experience wasn't just a phantasm of brain chemistry. It's impossible to know, definitely, but something tells me it was more than that.
|
|
|
|
Hi JerryYes, Heidegger's 'Why is there something instead of nothing' is what I was thinking about in one of my posts above. I never felt I'd achieved any purpose as a premie. Interesting, because in spite of what I wrote above, neither did I. I think that was the essence of the huge disconnect in my life as a premie that was so painful to contain, and such a relief to finally let go of. I am talking about the fact that the premie belief system was 'I am fulfilling my life-purpose being at Maharaji's Lotus Feet' and something deeper, bodily even, was saying 'You're wasting your life in a stupid cult'. Big disconnect. Lucky you (or wise you) not associating your experience of God's presence with Maharaji. Yes, saying my purpose is to know God ties it up neatly, except for me I would have to define 'God' in such a way as to be hardly recognisable as what most people mean by 'God'. I wonder if the experience wasn't just a phantasm of brain chemistry I know it is very common to dismiss brain chemistry and the physical world as somehow 'lower' or less meaningful than spritual things and God. I don't see it that way. The physical world - atoms and quarks and neurons and brains and bodies - are so intricate and marvellous, and we have only scratched the surface of understanding it. If we have experiences that are sublime, beautiful, meaningful and awe-inspiring, why do we feel the need to invent a spiritual world to explain them? That gives us two inexplicable things - the experience itself and spiritual stuff to explain the experience. Isn't the world I can see and touch and taste the place to hold my awe and my wonder? That is mystery enough, no need to populate it further! So I guess I am saying that (a) the experience was brain chemistry (what else could it be?); but (b) certainly not a phantasm, but something real for sure by the way you talk about it. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
If we have experiences that are sublime, beautiful, meaningful and awe-inspiring, why do we feel the need to invent a spiritual world to explain them? Very good question, Mike. I'm leaning in that direction, myself. Sort of. Why do we have to make a disconnect between the physical and spiritual when they're obviously intertwined. So I guess I am saying that (a) the experience was brain chemistry (what else could it be?); but (b) certainly not a phantasm, but something real for sure by the way you talk about it. What I mean is that I can't be sure that the experience was of something objective rather than something only in my mind. Of course, that leads to another train of thought just what is objective and what's purely subjective, and is reality determined by whether or not something is objective? But let's not go there. Unless of course you have something you want to say on it. I'm all ears if you do. I enjoy philosophical discussions.
|
|
|
|
Hi JerryYou are right, this thread has already gone in a wildly different direction from Will's original post. Just a couple of comments about your: I can't be sure that the experience was of something objective rather than something only in my mind Clearly all experiences are subjective, but you are wondering whether your experience was OF something objective. My own take on these kinds of experiences, is to ask myself what are the practical consequences of the experience. In other words, rather than ask whether the experience was of the objective, ask instead whether it has any practical and beneficial consequences out there in the objective. If it has not, it was just me getting blissed out for half and hour, and after that just a memory and a hankering for a repeat fix, then for myself that is not worth much. On the hand, if it truly changes my life, even a little, so that I am more kind, loving, peaceful, secure, with more self-esteem or whatever, then that to me validates the experience and is the test of whether it was meaningful and worth having. Just my two cents. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Yeah, we have strayed a little. Originally, I was just struck at how you wonder at existence. I'm struck by that fact also, that something is rather than isn't. Naturally, the question "why" would arise in our minds. It's not even anything we have to force ourselves to do. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any answers forthcoming. Maybe Jim's right. It's an invalid question because asking what the purpose is when there is no purpose is foolish. But who's to say there is no purpose? If you ask me, that's an invalid conclusion.
|
|
|
|
The search for purpose in an innate one, I believe, although it's popular in this neo-darwinist age to just chalk it up to blind evolution I actually don't believe there is an innate need to search for "purpose." I think this is one of those truisms that is a kind of conventional wisdom that doesn't get questioned. I think humans are curious and I think we are social animals. I think much of what people see as searches for meaning or purpose through religion, for example, is a search for community and social support, which I think is comforting to people in an uncertain world.
|
|
|
|
I think humans are curious and I think we are social animals. I think humans are curious, too. One of the things I think we're curious about is why we're here. That's what I mean by having an innate need for purpose. I think that goes beyond the need for community. It's something individual.
|
|
|
|
And I do exist, a consequence of something my parents did which resulted in a Lesley Molekule forming. A life that will finally crumble against insuperable odds in the natural course of events.I don't really know quite what to make of that, Wolfie.
|
|
|
|
Hi LesleyAnd I do exist, a consequence of something my parents did which resulted in a Lesley Molekule forming. A life that will finally crumble against insuperable odds in the natural course of events. I don't really know quite what to make of that Yes, THAT is the beginning of metaphyisics, THAT feeling I don't really know quite what to make of that, my life finally crumbling... Personally, I don't know what it would be like to never question, or wonder, at feelings like that. You can say 'I never question my life' as a philosophical or intellectual exercise, but I cannot imagine what it would be like to actually live never questioning it. -- Mike
www.MikeFinch.com
|
|
|
|
Personally, I don't know what it would be like to never question, or
wonder, at feelings like that. You can say 'I never question my life'
as a philosophical or intellectual exercise, but I cannot imagine what
it would be like to actually live never questioning it.
But hey we didn't need to take it quite as far as we did either, by a long shot and then half, god we made our lives all about really, mad, we must be all as mad as hatters.
|
|
|
|
I can't imagine it either. In the aftermath of exiting I searched with all my heart through my memories of life as a premie through those hours of satsang for each thought that was my own. I wanted to reconnect with my own reasoning, unearth my own ant trail. And frankly it means the world to me.
|
|
|
|
Hi, me too ..............wolfie
|
|
|
