Post #290,137
8/1/07 9:53:20 AM
8/1/07 1:54:22 PM
|
Nonsense.
The point is there is no point.
So-called "faith" is nothing more than an expression of egotism. "This human life can't be all there is. I'm much more important than that." Not true uniformly, I'll grant, but true 99.99999% of the time or higher.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
Edited by mmoffitt
Aug. 1, 2007, 01:54:22 PM EDT
Nonsense.
The point is there is no point.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,154
8/1/07 7:22:26 PM
|
ehhh, bite me
It's exactly the opposite of egotism. It is the quest for something greater than ourselves. We are a nothing more than a speck on a speck on a speck.
|
Post #290,198
8/2/07 4:04:28 PM
|
And why would "something greater" be interested in humans?
Even the paltry amount of interest required to expose anything to them? Only in the mind of a human would that be possible.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,199
8/2/07 4:16:08 PM
|
Because humans are part of it.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,200
8/2/07 4:51:32 PM
|
See: arrogance.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,202
8/2/07 5:39:41 PM
|
The arrogance is entirely yours.
Denying there could possibly be anything beyond your own self - that your knowledge is definitive and all encompassing. That is arrogance.
Expect in times to come your knowledge to be as laughable as you hold the knowledge of a 10th century alchemist to be. Things that are in the realm of "magic" today will have been found to be "science" after all.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,240
8/3/07 9:43:27 AM
|
Um, Point == Missed.
Denying there could possibly be anything beyond your own self - that your knowledge is definitive and all encompassing.
Um, no, that's not it at all. I do not deny such is possible, only that I lack the intellectual prowess to understand any such thing - should it exist, which I believe it does. Arrogance is the claim that (1) I am part of that something and (2) I can, through some mystic enlightenment, grasp what that larger thing is.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,245
8/3/07 1:16:30 PM
|
So since strict science can't do this job . . .
. . we should just throw up our hands and give up.
"This isn't in the Bible so it's beyond our knowing, so we shouldn't bother with this weird science stuff."
As far as "being part of it", big things are built from little things. Our bodies are built of zillions of tiny plants and animals, and they in turn are composed of various entities which are built from other stuff and so on down the line.
Why should this stop with us? How can you say we aren't in some way components of some greater entity? Why should we not try to find out and understand as best we can what it is using whatever tools we can find?
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,248
8/3/07 2:33:09 PM
8/3/07 2:35:11 PM
|
Science isn't interested.
And the human mind isn't capable. But, you're advocating trying anyway? I ask you, why waste the piddling little time we have trying to identify and then understand something that we cannot, by definition, even begin to grasp?
With apologies to Taoists worldwide, Life is a corridor and something larger lies on the other side of the door at the end of the corridor. Focus upon the door and speculate on why lies beyond it and you'll miss everything in the corridor. And that would be a wasted life indeed.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
Edited by mmoffitt
Aug. 3, 2007, 02:35:11 PM EDT
|
Post #290,251
8/3/07 3:18:01 PM
|
Yes.
I'm not so quick to place hard limits on the human mind as you are.
Whatever the human mind may be.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,252
8/3/07 3:35:02 PM
|
Okay.
Personally, I have difficulty trying to figure out what 4 dimensional space looks like. And since I can't do that, well, omniscience and omnipotence are pretty much outside my comprehension. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,253
8/3/07 3:48:01 PM
|
Practice, and learn to transcend your limitations :)
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,257
8/3/07 6:16:03 PM
|
Look up 'tesseract', for a start
4-D ain't all That hard.
And contrary to popular movie lore -
in addition to Do, always there is occasion for Try - why, behind that lies the entire case! for ummm meta?
What you are (re-)saying is, simply, "The Lower cannot see the Higher."
And yet, and Yet -- somehow quite-beyond ez-downloadable pdf-manual -- some 'Do' achieve that overview with which meta Tantalizes all. Generally we call such Achievers, 'Wise'.
..not ever to be confused with wise-ass, that so-apt sobriquet for a plurality of our vast uncivilization (unless one knows a Remarkable donkey-like critter.)
|
Post #290,377
8/6/07 1:20:19 PM
|
Lower cannot comprehend higher.
Chapter 1, Tao Te Ching
"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The Name that can be named is not the eternal Name."
If I grant that "enlightenment is possible" then I must surely deny that such enlightenment can be expressed through human means of communication. Anyone who believes such is possible is most surely arrogant and most likely unenlightened.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,382
8/6/07 2:49:31 PM
|
It says: 'enlightenment' is possible . . .
. . thus at least some comprehension is possible - just communicating that comprehension to others isn't possible.
So we need to develop new and better communication techniques suitable to the task.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,385
8/6/07 4:01:01 PM
|
Communication on the topic is impossible.
Assuming for the moment that enlightenment exists and can be achieved, you either "get it" or you don't. No one can tell you what it is. No one can teach you how to get it. It cannot be described because in its description would lie a constraint - and it cannot be constrained, defined nor described. My point here is somewhat like the sentiment of a quote from Bertrand Russell:
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
That's the trouble you run into trying to communicate about it. By definition, you cannot make a meaningful statement about it because if you can say anything about it, you're not describing it.
Another Taoist quote sums it up rather nicely: "Those who know do not speak. Those who do not know speak freely."
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,387
8/6/07 4:20:33 PM
|
Many things have been 'impossible' . . .
. . that are now done rather routinely. This one does indeed present special challenges, but I do not accept "impossible" in this respect, only "impossible now".
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,388
8/6/07 4:30:52 PM
|
A definition will never be possible.
Anymore than the phrase "infinity + 1" makes any sense. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,398
8/6/07 6:50:50 PM
|
Re: A definition will never be possible.
No quarrel with the 'logic' of your dissatisfaction, but your final quip is as good as most any illustration of the Root problem of this 'communication' thing:
Language depends upon {{ One. More. TIME. }} its Referents.
*This* >pen< == la plume de ma tante == the Very 'Pen' I am dangling before your peepers, as we speak.
There can be no [Referent] dangled! in concept-space/time (with or without the 'space' or the 'time'.) Just as you cannot 'teach Love', save by the demonstration, in life, of what it might be about and what it certainly is not. cf. Sonnett CXVI.
Why would you imagine that one could reduce all of Shakespeare to some logical syllogism? or all metaphysics to some didactic 'bible' Authority-figure-manual which tells you exactly what to do/not-do in every conceivable circumstance? (Never mind that millions think otherwise; the French always have a saying, and you know this one)
(Leave aside the impossible, while at it: pearls before swine?) ie.
Not only is mental work comprised of logic and 'Reason'able inference or extrapolation, but it needs developed-First: discipline for separating chemical, emotional processes in one's jelloware: processes observed, Noticed, corrected-for -- whenever evaluating ,er "The New" ??
Of Course! ordinary language Fails; see above.
But that digression re 'communication' begs the original question:
Can ..?.. the 'lower' ever glimpse the 'Higher' - and "work with that glimpse" ~~ the way that science is done: you posit a guess; you collect data and see if it's correct? close?
Reformulate. Try again. Convergence? Try again. (That is also called, Work.)
One can survive in a modrin techno culture, employing just the reptile-brain - check your axe murderers and various Pols. Nobody can tell you that there are 'better brains' available inside, [what a Silly idea!] nor tell you how you might come to access such, were there any such.
Are we clear on the limitations of language? Now, as to the limitations of Consciousness..
Don't say a word!
er, D.C. (Da Capo) is the musical term ;^>
|
Post #290,403
8/6/07 7:54:12 PM
|
But that glimpse is not possible in this case.
If we are seeking "knowledge" that is beyond our inductive and deductive capabilities, beyond our ability to construct and test models as we do in science, how do we proceed? Do we rely purely on metaphysical experience? That would seem the only hope. But even that is flawed. Even if we grant that we may learn things through the utilization of those as yet unmapped parts of our brains that we, for lack of a better descriptor, call "consciousness" or "soul", how could we ever be certain that our consciousness had not tricked us? And even if it hadn't, would not the ultimate knowledge gleaned from consciousness be constrained by whatever that is we call human consciousness? And if so constrained, would that not be a deficient description of what truly is?
The answer cannot be known. Or, more pragmatically, there is no point in contemplating the question. What we are left with is our own impressions. I believe in an intelligence that pre-existed this Universe. I can provide no proof or even decent hand-waving arguments for this belief. I can cite absolutely no justification for it. Moreover, when I came to this belief I told my wife, "I'm either having a profoundly religious experience or I am having a psychotic break similar to the one my younger brother had." I will never know which it was. No one can. And no one's image of what that intelligence is/was is in any way similar to another's. For it is an image formulated in a not well understood part of the brain and each brain, so far as is known, is unique. It follows that any manifestations of that brain would also be unique.
Aside: The irony of my continuing to write on this subject despite my saying, rightly, that this subject cannot be discussed is not lost on me. :0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,412
8/6/07 9:56:10 PM
|
Irony is reserved to the Jaded.
I mean, one can do toilet jokes indefinitely, or wonder all day (all week?) whether Barry Bonds will Already you conflate 'Consciousness' with man-religio symbols like 'soul' - YAN casualty of all topics which cannot provide, thus exchange any sensual/sense-able? Referents. 'Certainty' - has no validity (which I can identify) beyond the proofs of certain mathematical axia == by definition, within that closed-continuum. Even protons decay - only various named-forms of Energy packets exist, but these are always in motion too. "Believers" speak of their Certainty, of course. All undefinable, untransferrable and in the end: unSpeakable. (Not that that stops late-night preachers, such as they are / such as 'we' are. Brownian noise?) We are accustomed to Belief-in the immutability of concepts like causality and ... we think that, with all that 'daily' experience - we grok time 'adequately'; yet still ID 'Eternity' as merely, "a very long time!" Little wonder that 11-dimensional space transmits few useful hand-holds to the non-mathematician. Yet Einstein clearly grokked metaphysical scales when he uttered, [from mem, so ~] "Problems created at one level of thinking cannot be solved at the same level (from which) they were created." Ditto his relativistic Uncertainty Principle for math, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Then there's an item saved, all unlinked: Einstein on the Mysterious
The following paragraph is the conclusion to the essay "The World as I See It," which is taken from the abridged edition of
Einstein's book bearing the same title. In the abridged edition (Philosophical Library, New York, 1949), the essay appears on
pp. 1-5.
The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only
accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious
attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his
creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. I deem Einstein's expressions among the most incisive I've ever encountered, within ordinary language, and accessible to Westerners and their ~logical positivism. These seem prose-poems if not even, Western koans. In the End (or in some class of shared-Ends amidst those who have Noticed this peculiarity of our 'Existence') is not the Largest Mystery\ufffd ... the simplest? "The Fact that there is 'anything' at all" (also: "noticeable by 'anything at all'" - for those demanding regression exercises.) ((but then, Leibnitz comes along for ~nothingness: a mind sitting in a dark room and seeing things happen on a screen? -- rendering the physical world evanescent if not nonexistent. Ah but - where'd that 'mind' come from?)) On my tee shirt resides AE's, "Imagination is More Important than Knowledge." I note that many gurus, with reverence for their Teachers - describe a certain similarity of Experience, at some stage of their growth. Phrased (close-enough to) "I am abandoning The System..." [Whatever was The System, prior to dispensing with same.] Oh and - the main reason they 'Teach' the various ways that they do -- is because all Students are so 'formatory' in mindset that -- they need to hear The Same Stuff! over and over and So then - we go on Wondering, aware -even-as-fledglings- that Certainty can never be attained, nor Knowledge ever made 'complete'. As AE observes: when you cease active Wondering [/AE] you might as well become a full-Repo, take up golf, watch Tee Vee and go to seed. Right? And if we are a part of some gigundo, ongoing ever-altering Organism, of which Gaia represents Terra? (and for which/Whom? we have created planet-suicidal Bizness / its infinite-Consumption mantra <-> as Opposing Force to Truth of any ilk) why, then and In Fact - We Are Parts-of-God and need no longer play, Mine's Bigger. We are such Narcissistic babies, here.(Should I somehow manage to become a Fully Conscious Being (via whatever Rose as smells as sweet) I promise not to Tell You All About It and How to Get There.) For all Reasons extant, eh? :-) Happy, but none-too-Certain.. Ponderings, I Who Be, sorta
OT
Sousa's one corporate-sponsored March:
The Plunderer
(in 5/4 time, natch - which MBA wouldn't like an extra quarter?)
|
Post #290,444
8/7/07 11:19:36 AM
|
Well said and quoted. And ...
little annoyances like the Incompleteness Theorems and the Choice Axiom pretty much slay any certainty in mathematics. ;0)
The longer I live, the less I am convinced of anything.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,452
8/7/07 3:39:02 PM
|
\ufffdPrec\ufffdsamente! grasshoppers auf die welt
|
Post #291,086
8/18/07 12:16:07 PM
|
I seem to recall an LRPD like that...
"The Box that can be named is not the True Box" or something like that...
;-)
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
|
Post #291,095
8/18/07 3:12:24 PM
|
Close
"The Box that can be understood is not the True Box"
|
Post #290,201
8/2/07 5:12:18 PM
|
why do dogs worship humans? and some humans return the favor
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #290,249
8/3/07 2:37:59 PM
|
I'm not a "God in my image" fan. ;0)
God is not a nice old fart in the clouds taking care of me.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
Post #290,213
8/2/07 8:19:25 PM
|
Indeed.
We know from experience with humans that entities of relatively higher intelligence are never interested in entities of apparently relatively lower intelligence; that's why no-one's ever tried to carry out any sort of studies of animals or plants or bacteria or... --\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
|
Post #290,218
8/2/07 8:46:33 PM
|
Reddish herring, I wot -
It's not about curiosity (the lowest form of Interest?)
OK OK, I suppose.. look far enough and there IS a person who cares about the little dragon-looking denizens who inhabit eyebrow hairs (Book: "Life on Man")
We (say we) 'Love' our pets. And there are endless tales from antiquity - suggesting not only that We Do - but, which document that there are occasional events of unarguable reciprocity, eg The (UK) dog who spent rest of his life mourning, atop grave of master, fed by locals, etc.
So, when we invent our Gods - we naturally extrapolate from (the closest we ever get to?) authentic-Experience of the ineffable. We Hope that they Like their little iggerant buggers, too.
(Little 'Hope' required, actually: we design-in the feature set, in committees.)
Still no excuse for the warped Puritan self-flagellation mindset, of course - one sees that there are Microsoft-grade religions, too.. Lots of buggers will buy-in to about anything offered by a sufficiently set-jawed Authority, possessed of a nicely type-set manual - we see.
|
Post #290,222
8/2/07 9:12:00 PM
|
Further, we are composed entirely of . . .
. . tiny animals and plants, zillions of 'em, with a few minerals tossed in. Is it not possible that we are part of something larger in a manner that's difficult to comprehend - just as we are to they? Is it unreasonable to be open to this possibility and try to explore this?
Might not such an entity be somewhat concerned about us little buggers, just as we are (or ought to be) concerned about the welfare of the components (plants and animals) of which we are made? Might we better stay out of trouble if we understood a little of what was going on? These are open questions.
On the other hand, I consider the simplistic God concepts of the organized religions, particularly of the "Three Revealed Religions", to be naught but tools of authoritarianism - counterproductive to determining our actual place in reality.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,226
8/2/07 10:36:21 PM
|
Awomen to that last..
|
Post #290,241
8/3/07 10:00:35 AM
|
Ibid.
bcnu,
Mikem
Microsoft Vista. The best reason ever to buy a Mac.
|
