|
Post by qjumper on Jul 28, 2018 8:54:47 GMT 10
a) If I pick up a stone and ask has this stone got a meaning.
b) If I pluck a living flower and ask has this flower got a meaning.
c) If I swat a mossie and ask has this mossie got a meaning.
d) If a child dies in a far off land did that child have a meaning.
e) If a species becomes extinct does it have a meaning
MY ANSWER is:
(a) has the most meaning, because all the others are much more transient and without (a) none of the others would have a planet to exist on.
So on a meaning scale of 1 - 10 the stone could rate a "1 " (at best) and everything else is insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Jul 28, 2018 10:49:11 GMT 10
Dear Col, I'm simply AMAZED and ASTOUNDED at how much you have come on over the recent years. From the old days where you propounded 'Gravity is a sticky stuff' from your pulpit ... to the insightful and perceptive posts you are making now. Well done. If Inflation Theory is correct, then the Universe has no pre-vision. That means, though we in our own minds and own opinions have conceived 'time' and use it as a yardstick to determine cause and effect, things do not occur that way. No prevision means no purpose. When Einstein said, 'God does not play dice with the Universe' he was saying the same thing. He was appalled when he realized that the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics (and he was being forced to accept it) meant that even God had to wait for the roll of the die for the next random outcome .. and God no more knew what that would be, any more than we. Good post Col.
|
|
|
Post by qjumper on Jul 29, 2018 15:18:32 GMT 10
Dear Col, I'm simply AMAZED and ASTOUNDED at how much you have come on over the recent years. From the old days where you propounded 'Gravity is a sticky stuff' from your pulpit ... to the insightful and perceptive posts you are making now. Well done. If Inflation Theory is correct, then the Universe has no pre-vision. That means, though we in our own minds and own opinions have conceived 'time' and use it as a yardstick to determine cause and effect, things do not occur that way. No prevision means no purpose. When Einstein said, 'God does not play dice with the Universe' he was saying the same thing. He was appalled when he realized that the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics (and he was being forced to accept it) meant that even God had to wait for the roll of the die for the next random outcome .. and God no more knew what that would be, any more than we. Good post Col. Thanks Greg, 'cept no one wants to be insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Nov 19, 2018 14:53:23 GMT 10
Phenomena don't "have meaning". We ascribe meaning to them. "Meaning" is a mental projection.
The only thing that might have meaning is the ultimate source of whatever it is that ascribes meaning: "Consciousness", "Brahman", etc., if there is such a thing.
Or, like the Buddhists say, there is no ultimate source of meaning-making mental states: everything is contingent on everything else, "dependent origination". Nothing is ultimately grounded.
But then the Buddhists (or the traditional ones) then go and cruel their own pitch by talking about Nirvana and Karma, both of which imply a transcendent law and ultimate state of being, be it non-existing ("beyond existence and non-existence").
"Meaning" is entirely subjective. It has no objective reality. But things can still be "meaningful" to us as subjects, and there may be widespread agreement on what is "meaningful". Hence, most people would say that a child who dies from disease in an Ethiopian refugee camp has meaning in the minds of those for whom he had meaning, be it his mother or people in distant lands who read of his plight and feel sad.
|
|
|
Post by tute on Nov 20, 2018 2:51:21 GMT 10
The meaning of life…..? Is it a mental projection...?
Hmmmm.... no shortage of discussion about this one...
....I am unsure about the following, but I have heard tell….the answer to the 'meaning of life' was put to a giant supercomputer and after 5 million odd years the answer when finally delivered was met with some confusion because the computer had explained that the problem, such as it was, was too broadly based and that it had never been clearly stated what the question was.
Tute also believes the term, 'garbage in garbage out' coincided with that experiment.... obviously with far reaching implications.
Though I would say the ultimate conclusion to the original question… if one may quote a well known adage… would have to be…..
.... ‘Treat others as you would have them treat you’
anything arising thereafter would be just commentary
|
|
|
Post by Villar on Nov 20, 2018 4:39:00 GMT 10
++Is it a mental projection...?++ Even the most modern Projectors DO need to have LED lamps (or other producers of light) replaced or, at least...cleaned from the gathering dust!
|
|
|
Post by cster on Nov 20, 2018 10:57:56 GMT 10
I for one cant see anything wrong with the answer given by that computer. 42 I believe it was. I understand everything must have meaning to us for it to fit our state of mind.
Duplication seems to have gotten out of control, trade has gotten out of control. What rent we seek we should also be prepared to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Nov 21, 2018 5:06:52 GMT 10
++to us for it to fit our state of mind.++ THAT is/could be a scary situation!! HOW are we going to Exit from IT?? Is there an exit? Was THERE an Entry? There can NOT be an EXIT...unless there was an ENTRY! Was that the Exit from computer 42...or 37? Difficult morning, THIS morning!!
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Mar 20, 2019 9:36:55 GMT 10
If life has to have a meaning, then it follows that death has to have a meaning.
If there is a God dishing out life, it includes life with birth deformities and death in child birth.
As for other forms of death, why should it be lingering and painful (cancer etc) why cannot death always be a die during our sleep.
The only meaning I can draw from that is the perpetrator is a non-caring piece of shit, there can only be this one conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Mar 21, 2019 20:53:35 GMT 10
If life has to have a meaning, then it follows that death has to have a meaning. If there is a God dishing out life, it includes life with birth deformities and death in child birth. As for other forms of death, why should it be lingering and painful (cancer etc) why cannot death always be a die during our sleep. The only meaning I can draw from that is the perpetrator is a non-caring piece of shit, there can only be this one conclusion. “A man finds himself, to his great astonishment, suddenly existing, after thousands and thousands of years of non-existence: he lives for a little while; and then, again, comes an equally long period when he must exist no more. The heart rebels against this, and feels that it cannot be true.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|
|
Post by cster on Mar 23, 2019 18:03:23 GMT 10
A man finds himself, to his great astonishment! Part of a program. A virus running without his control. Yet it is he who wants control and it is he who cannot control. Urges must therefore be part of the program. A man finds himself apart from the programme he is a part of. The program itself animalistic and he egotistic.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Mar 24, 2019 4:57:45 GMT 10
The Depth of YOUR DEEP & Meaningful POSTS is getting DEEPER & DEEPER!! EASY to dig and get INTO IT/THEM...very difficult to get OUT of IT/THEM!! Epic Latest post was very deep...YOUR post, Cster was even DEEPER!! I would say/write that the ONLY post that could help you (Cster) OUT of the hole that YOU have dug is...MadTar!! PS. The content of this post should keep the Morning Croissant Munchers of Thirroul…BUSY!
|
|
|
Post by tute on Mar 24, 2019 7:18:35 GMT 10
Meaning of life ...
Those who don't wonder favorably about the contingency of the world's existence are mentally deficient.
Epic sez: “A man finds himself, to his great astonishment, suddenly existing, after thousands and thousands of years of non-existence: he lives for a little while; and then, again, comes an equally long period when he must exist no more. The heart rebels against this, and feels that it cannot be true.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer
Cster sez: A man finds himself, to his great astonishment! Part of a program. A virus running without his control. Yet it is he who wants control and it is he who cannot control. Urges must therefore be part of the program. A man finds himself apart from the programme he is a part of. The program itself animalistic and he egotistic.
Tute sez: and I feel sure Schopenhauer would have been more than satisfied with your analogy Cster.
Schopenhauer also said: 'All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident' Though I think it is like you say Cster.. the ego has to make up its own mind as to its own relevancy. On further points to ponder;
Kant sez: Of every event in our life we can say only for one moment that it is; for ever after, that it was. Every evening we are poorer by a day. Not only but also sez .... We should not take that moment for granted, since it holds all the secrets. In a way, the moment has to keep recreating itself.
And Tute can also roll with the following OK.... Sediba may also find an affiliation: 'Without causality and time, there would be no logic and no universe. The universe is causal and therefore logical, but before the creation of time (a human condition) it was not causal nor logical. It could not have been. Logic needs a sequential process.' Hmmmm...yeah I know, you need to be Spiritual to cotton on with total acceptance.
Ah well... if all else fails perhaps one could always consult with Madame Tonto, its all been figured out over in that department it seems. He's been farting about apportioning and allocating causality for yonks+
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Mar 24, 2019 9:38:13 GMT 10
Following the paragraph I quoted Schopenhauer also said:
Every moment of our life belongs to the present only for a moment; then it belongs for ever to the past. Every evening we are poorer by a day. We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can for ever draw new life and renewed time.
Unified field of Consciousness? Schopenhauer was deeply moved by the Upanishads.
With reference to Tute's Kant quote, Schopenhauer said:
To our amazement we suddenly exist, after having for countless millennia not existed; in a short while we will again not exist, also for countless millennia. That cannot be right, says the heart: and even upon the crudest intelligence there must, when it considers such an idea, dawn a presentiment of the ideality of time. This however, together with that of space, is the key to all true metaphysics, because it makes room for a quite different order of things than that of nature. That is why Kant is so great.
I'm not quite sure what he means in the penultimate sentence. That seems more like the kind of thing Tute and Sediba argue about.
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Mar 24, 2019 9:43:41 GMT 10
The Schopenhauer quotes are from Schopenhauer, "On the Vanity of Existence", in Essays and Aphorisms, Penguin Classics, 2004, pp. 51-52.
|
|
|
Post by tute on Mar 25, 2019 2:08:47 GMT 10
Epic has said in his last post when quoting Schopenhauer and metaphysics that he was not quite sure what Schopenhauer meant in his penultimate sentence and it seems more like the kind of thing Tute and Sediba argue about’
Hmmmm.... I dunno about that Epic, Sediba and I don't quite see eye to eye on Metaphysics... though I confess he does try hard. Sed tends to lean more towards the scientific approach to science/physics. A situation whereby a requirement for proof is tantamount to any acceptability. Even though scientific proof contains the same identical hallucinatory factors as does metaphysics.
However....
The penultimate Schopenhauer sentence that Epic mentioned was… 'This however, together with that of space, is the key to all true metaphysics, because it makes room for a quite different order of things than that of nature' ‘That is why Kant is so great’
Like it was for Sediba so it is for Kant, I certainly could not speak for either, but in my field of reckoning when one speaks about nature in a readily acceptable sense, one is also referring to the world of reality. A reality of which the familiar cry of, cut me and I bleed readily finds homage. Much as one will find in the consistently concreted over with gold gongs world of Madame Tonto. However, as Kant also makes reference to a world of metaphysics whereby ‘therein is a different order of things’ Then that is more my cup of tea because the different order of physics (quantum inclusive) can be readily found in the likes of ZEN, the Vedanta, Buddhism, etc.
Metaphysics as an entity, cannot help but embrace quantum physics and vice versa. And Science per Se` does not solely own physics and/or nature. The latter fact seeming to befuddle a multitude of folk these days.
Perhaps its why the old sage just sits to the side … smiling. Secure in the knowledge that we are all secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can for ever draw new life and renewed time.....
Not only but also: A scientific note.. specifically for Pedro …..The temperature controls of an oven being held in a relative equilibrium will greatly assist in keeping the croissants from maximum entropy.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Mar 25, 2019 5:06:51 GMT 10
YES, Tute, Pedro does agree on the difficulty of keeping the Croissants equilibrated. Difficult (but NOT impossible) to indoctrinate stale croissant INSIDE the easterly facing East Kiama diesel driven/fired oven!! Obviously Tute could NOT write a realistic comment on: the usefulness of the Post posted on Spiritual, Islamic el Salami, Philosophical dissertations dumped on/inside/near & By the Higher Dissertation Seniors Forums. As long as the Golden Rule of Posts Production is adhered to AND actively respected...the posts will keep rolling in & and out: Do not EVER say/comment that the POSTS emanating from your interlocutor are a lot of Argentinian El Crapo. Your Interlocutor MUST compliment your deep knowledge on the Spiritual Subjects “discussed”!! EASY!! The shorter version of the Golden Rule is: Be nice to ME/MY posts and I will be nice to YOU/YOUR posts!!
++The latter fact seeming to befuddle a multitude of folk these days++ Tute, did YOU notice ANY "befuddled" posters? HERE?!?!
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Mar 25, 2019 10:41:47 GMT 10
, Schopenhauer said: To our amazement we suddenly exist, after having for countless millennia not existed; in a short while we will again not exist, also for countless millennia. That cannot be right, says the heart: and even upon the crudest intelligence there must, when it considers such an idea, dawn a presentiment of the ideality of time. This however, together with that of space, is the key to all true metaphysics, because it makes room for a quite different order of things than that of nature. That is why Kant is so great.
I'm not quite sure what he means in the penultimate sentence. That seems more like the kind of thing Tute and Sediba argue about. The kind of thing Tute and Sediba argue about? What kind of a remark is that, Dear Epic? If each person's understanding has limitations, then your remark implies that myself and Tute's understanding is limited to within Schopenhauer's quote. And that we argue because neither of us understand. It places us up some dead end side street while placing you, yourself, on the clear an correct path in the eye of the reader. It is a belittling remark ... and in some ways I'm jealous. There are times when I could use a good put down like that, short, sharp and deadly .. and now look ... you've gone and used it all up. I'm not quite sure how you're using the word 'penultimate'? Many use it to mean the last instead of the second last sentence. Second last sentence: I would have thought it meant we hold, and comfort ourselves with, the notion that Time exists eternally and goes forward with an immutable regularity. We idealise it. But when we consider it in any depth, even the crudest amongst us, we see, (how can we not?) the first faint glimmerings that there can be no such ideality, no such regularity, nor is it eternal. Although no philosopher ever says what he/she means, there is always an ambuigity, a slipperiness, about all philosophy However, even though this Schopy may be well known and loved in his own respectful circles, he's wrong, and so we can dismiss him as knowing no more than you or me. He goes on to claim, in his ultimate sentence, that time and space are two separate constants among the chaos, and they give structure and logic to all around. And he implies, probably believed it himself, that metaphysics is in some way important to our understanding of reality. It's no more important than astrology or alchemy. It is no closer to the actual reality than either of those two, so why shouldn't it be relegated. The fundamental foundations that all these philosophers built upon has changed, and changed in such a way that no amount of repairs or ambuiguity will bring philosophy into line with reality ever again. A paradigm shift has occurred and there is no going back. And his claim of time and space as foundational constants is proven wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Mar 25, 2019 11:05:44 GMT 10
And Tute can also roll with the following OK.... Sediba may also find an affiliation: 'Without causality and time, there would be no logic and no universe. The universe is causal and therefore logical, but before the creation of time (a human condition) it was not causal nor logical. It could not have been. Logic needs a sequential process.'] Without causality and time, there would be no logic and no universe? This is just an assumption. There is no reason whatsoever to think this. There is no connection between them. The universe is causal and therefore logical? This is just a claim. You have no proof of this. Here, click meExtract ....
|
|
|
Post by epictetus on Mar 25, 2019 17:00:35 GMT 10
, Schopenhauer said: To our amazement we suddenly exist, after having for countless millennia not existed; in a short while we will again not exist, also for countless millennia. That cannot be right, says the heart: and even upon the crudest intelligence there must, when it considers such an idea, dawn a presentiment of the ideality of time. This however, together with that of space, is the key to all true metaphysics, because it makes room for a quite different order of things than that of nature. That is why Kant is so great.
I'm not quite sure what he means in the penultimate sentence. That seems more like the kind of thing Tute and Sediba argue about. The kind of thing Tute and Sediba argue about? What kind of a remark is that, Dear Epic? If each person's understanding has limitations, then your remark implies that myself and Tute's understanding is limited to within Schopenhauer's quote. And that we argue because neither of us understand. It places us up some dead end side street while placing you, yourself, on the clear an correct path in the eye of the reader. It is a belittling remark ... and in some ways I'm jealous. There are times when I could use a good put down like that, short, sharp and deadly .. and now look ... you've gone and used it all up. I'm not quite sure how you're using the word 'penultimate'? Many use it to mean the last instead of the second last sentence. Goodness me, Greg. That's the second time in as many days you've imputed to me intentions I didn't have. I'm not sure why in this case as I don't think my writing was all that ambiguous. Still, maybe it was and I'll have to lift my communication game, as Col has been suggesting for several years. All I said was I didn't know what Schopenhauer was on about in his second last sentence. Discussions of time bruise my brain, so I don't really try to understand any more. Space I can cope with I think, though infinite space is way beyond me. Greg, let's get this straight. (1) You are a very clever and creative guy. (2) Always give me the benefit of the date. (3) If you're not sure, ask first then do the mind-reading later. PS. It was pretentious of me to use the word penultimate. Mea culpa: another one to Col. The word does mean "second last", whatever people say, "ultimate" being the last. Cheers Epic
|
|
|
Post by tute on Mar 26, 2019 7:23:48 GMT 10
The tribe of scribes
For what its worth, Tute tends to take it as it comes and plays the match in accordance to the serve. There is no umpire for this campfire. No play herein can ever be heart stopping. Its no more than a means of transferring a personal itch to the rash circling the backsides of the dudes that have been squandering their time in here since their shed blew over. Though there is still the opportunity of mining the odd nugget of oomgala …. thats been missing from the big jig saw.
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Mar 26, 2019 8:42:39 GMT 10
Goodness me, Greg. That's the second time in as many days you've imputed to me intentions I didn't have. I'm not sure why in this case as I don't think my writing was all that ambiguous. I was only teasing. I do give you the benefit of the doubt mostly. Except when you claim ‘No way to know it all that the heart can find. Can knowledge ever accompany the blind?’
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Mar 26, 2019 16:13:09 GMT 10
Knowledge and hearsay can be two different things or they could be the same thing. Greg reads something about the Universe and all and calls it part of his knowledge and someone else reads the same thing and calls it supposition because the writer was not there to see it happen ten million pumpkin eaters back in quasi time.
So if life must have a meaning, then everyone in here must have been down the pub when "Noah's spaceship of knowledge" landed in their backyard.
|
|
|
Post by madametarot on Mar 26, 2019 16:15:26 GMT 10
Speaking of spaceship, UFOs and saucers and the like.
Old pics of saucers with rivets, would make an old welder cry.
|
|
|
Post by Pedro on Mar 27, 2019 5:05:52 GMT 10
Difficult to understand WHY intelligent people have spent over 3984 years discussing/arguing/fighting/insulting each other over the Meaning of Life...if there IS/WAS/COULD be one!! Pedro could NOT imagine if HIS life would/will/was/is different KNOWING/IGNORING IT...the MEANING of LIFE. After ALL, any harmless pastime is AS good AS...ANY other!!
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Mar 29, 2019 13:13:17 GMT 10
Knowledge and hearsay can be two different things or they could be the same thing. Greg reads something about the Universe and all and calls it part of his knowledge and someone else reads the same thing and calls it supposition because the writer was not there to see it happen ten million pumpkin eaters back in quasi time. So if life must have a meaning, then everyone in here must have been down the pub when "Noah's spaceship of knowledge" landed in their backyard. Everything I say regarding scientific findings can be backed by evidence. That's not hearsay. You don't have to see an electron with your eyes in order to prove it exists. So what are you waffling about? Take for example a poster who says he has, say, a good knowledge of quantum mechanics, it is more likely that he just has faith in the truth in what he has read or been told about QM O my goodness gracious me Who ever could that be For example
|
|
|
Post by Sediba on Mar 29, 2019 13:15:33 GMT 10
Difficult to understand WHY intelligent people have spent over 3984 years discussing ... the Meaning of Life Because it's difficult to understand.
|
|