tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post1140412366119881875..comments2023-09-18T05:40:20.483-04:00Comments on Who is the absurd man?: Lucid DreamingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-71212181493424775032010-06-14T07:06:31.794-04:002010-06-14T07:06:31.794-04:00In fact, it is the pernicious notion of the self t...<i>In fact, it is the pernicious notion of the self that instigates and perpetuates such acts; one who has no self sees his physical incarnation as akin to sand on the beach. If there is no self then one is part of everything, and even the concept of violence ceases to make sense. Think about it...</i><br /><br />This was the best part in this article. Absolutely and undoubtedly true it is. And of course, the lucid dream is an interesting phenomenon.Darshan Chandehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721030762177780619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-21838699394702999252010-06-14T01:04:24.449-04:002010-06-14T01:04:24.449-04:00RH,
I am very interested in hearing more about you...RH,<br />I am very interested in hearing more about your philosophy in future posts. Enjoyed the conversation. <br />ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-63997829207859200772010-06-13T12:40:55.990-04:002010-06-13T12:40:55.990-04:00Arthur,
The ironic thing is that no matter how Ri...Arthur,<br /><br />The ironic thing is that no matter how Rick answers your last question he will be demonstrating the exact thing that I have been presenting in this thread.<br /><br />Presumably Rick is human, this immediately implies two things, he is subject to the mindless whims of the selfish gene, and that he has a rational mind (assuming normal functionality). Either answer that Rick gives will be the product of his rational mind giving valuation to the mindless whims. <br /><br />His answer then, no matter which way he goes, is the mask of meaning that he chooses to wear. It is his interpretation of the emotions and feelings of the selfish gene, it is his rational valuation of them, and this is what meaning was, is, and always will be for humans, despite its illusory nature which implies it is something more than this.<br /><br />As to you last statement on the clarity of meaning, this is where I have to disagree with you. It is not clear to me. One can only make that proclamation by a leap of faith, by abandoning the defining characteristic of the being human. This is not something I am willing to do.<br /><br />It might also surprise you to learn that I believe that there is an objective source for the meaning that man perceives, and that man could not have developed any meaning but the meaning that has developed. Of course in saying this I realize I have opened up a 'can-o-worms' because explaining my belief may well take another 34 entries into this thread, and I am sure many are feeling topic fatigue, so maybe I should leave it for another discussion.<br /><br />However, having proclaimed my belief in an objective source of meaning I want to emphasis that even though I believe as such, this does not imply that I believe that it is a metaphysical source, and therefore proof of God. It may well be, but this too would require a leap of faith to believe, and as you undoubtedly noticed, I am somewhat averse to those. <br /><br />-RHRandom Havocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-57784041504808248652010-06-12T02:01:22.283-04:002010-06-12T02:01:22.283-04:00I've really enjoyed this conversation. RH'...I've really enjoyed this conversation. RH's meaning is the whole human process (mental/emotional) of assigning value and "meaning" to events, roles, people, dates, our accomplishments, our life story, etc. Value over and above any (readily apparent) implications for our survival or happiness. The whole process of deciding what we care about, beyond the obvious class of more basic animal desires. <br /><br />I suddenly remember reading about archaeologists piecing together that early European hominids dropped some special chiseled rocks into a pit burial chamber, and claiming that it was the first sign of complex symbolism (beyond communication methods) that anyone could identify. The chiseling efforts could not, in any obvious way, have helped the creatures to survive. There is nothing similar in the animal world. <br /><br />This whole class of thoughts and emotions that humans have is really something. Yes its are the result of natural selection; no its not a new ontological entity apart from the stuff that makes a person; but we get much use out of the concept of "thoughts" or "emotions", so, very carefully defined, we could possibly get use out of the concept of subjective meaning - as long as we don't mistakenly believe that we have created some new substance (subjective meaning) based on our arbitrary choices. <br /><br />With this definition, the human mind creates thoughts, creates emotions, and creates meaning. The organism's behavior is guided by all said mental creations. Perhaps meaning-creation can be adaptive (probably is since it exists in us). For example, people could get a lot of motivation out of it.<br /><br />That said, I personally am glad I have seen clearly that things don't Matter or MEAN something. <br /><br />Rick do you still disagree with RH now that we have whittled down the definitions?<br /><br />ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-38642636357969974712010-06-11T21:16:35.215-04:002010-06-11T21:16:35.215-04:00Oh my . . . I'm officially the 33rd poster on ...Oh my . . . I'm officially the 33rd poster on this thread! [NB symbolism of the number] And our absurdist hosts are thinking, "Geez . . . thanks be to whomever that we can just let this ol' thread go on and on and on and not post for a while!"<br /><br />Meanwhile, I continue my globetrotting . . . London was terrific, but Madrid, I know, will be something special . . . and then it's a quick saunter to Barcelona . . . before back to Hawaii.\<br /><br />It's all absurd!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-66582842504011312482010-06-11T17:03:30.004-04:002010-06-11T17:03:30.004-04:00Arthur,
I would whole heartedly agree with you th...Arthur,<br /><br />I would whole heartedly agree with you that this is not what most people mean when they say life has meaning, but the sad fact is that most people have the introspection of a herd animal, which is where the derisive term sheeple comes from. But perhaps I am being a little too harsh in my assessment, social myths that are taught from birth, combined with the illusory nature of meaning are potent combination, and these biases built into the system are hard to overcome. The fact is most people are not aware that meaning is merely a mask created by man, and for many it doesn’t even dawn on them to question their assumptions.<br /><br />As to your second point, considering all we know (or how little that we know, depending on your perspective) about the atom and its component parts, the fact that 99.9% of an atom is empty space and everything in the universe is composed of the handful of elemental particles that make up the atom, along with the four known forces interacting with these particles, then it could quite literal mean that everything is an illusion. Then the universe, stars, the planet earth, man, the selfish gene, firing neurons, the brain, thoughts, emotions, all of it could merely be a fiction of these particles and the standing waves of interacting forces, all started when two membranes bumped up against each other.<br /><br />However, this concept is so alien to my way of thinking that I prefer to simply wear the mask of meaning created by the reason man, modified by my own rational consideration of course, than to concern myself with a question that is as unanswerable as the question of whether God exists or not. Besides if this is true then none of it matters anyway, and I might as well enjoy the selfish gene supplied feelings and emotions that I imagining that I am experiencing, they are, after all, what makes life preferable to simply not being alive.<br /><br /><br />-RHRandom Havocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-17774777697332661792010-06-11T07:18:03.598-04:002010-06-11T07:18:03.598-04:00I'm comment #31, and there's only been ONE...I'm comment #31, and there's only been ONE post for June . . . now THAT'S absurd!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-57274501976598095772010-06-10T22:23:54.048-04:002010-06-10T22:23:54.048-04:00"Meaning is a very real existent phenomenon, ..."Meaning is a very real existent phenomenon, it is the process by which the rational mind differentiates value, it is a human process.<br /><br />Saying that meaning does not exist because it is a process underpinned by genes and the environment is exactly the same as saying that language does not exist because it is underpinned by expulsions of air and physiological contortions of muscles"<br /><br />This is why I brought up mereological nihilism. There are (at least) two questions here: <br /><br />1. When people claim that life has meaning, are they normally just referring to "the process by which the rational mind differentiates value"? I doubt it. But if that's your definition, then it exists - as much as people, the self, or emotions exist. <br /><br />But its an interesting definition: It would be wrong to say that we don't use archetypes or tell stories or assign value to our life story, because we obviously do.<br /><br />2. Even with that definition, it doesn't exist as some new entity over and above what comprises it. And hence, according to the mereological nihilist, doesn't really exist. And this type of super-existence as a new ontology is what people usually assign to meaning - this big universal thing that's more important than your actual life. <br /><br />But, unlike past defenders of meaning on this site, I don't think RH is totally off or logically inconsistent.<br /><br />ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-2605292430788056492010-06-10T00:21:06.480-04:002010-06-10T00:21:06.480-04:00(cont from above)
You also seem to have some bias...(cont from above)<br /><br />You also seem to have some bias against meaning because we are merely a biological process affected by the environment. I do not understand this either. You seem to be saying that meaning can only exist if there is some duality between our physical selves and our eternal ‘soul.’ But this is not true either. Again, if God showed up tomorrow and revealed that he created us for a specific purpose, that he created us weak and mortal, destined to live our short little span and be no more, and he did so for the express purpose of using us as examples to his immortal angels how not to live, then that would be our purpose, that would be our meaning (even though we might not be too thrilled about the situation). Despite the fact that we are mortal, biological and destine to die, existential meaning would exist, and it would not be dependant on our immortality, and it would not be dependant on any duality of our nature.<br /><br />So to sum up, meaning is not dependant on the fact that we are merely a mortal biological process subject to the whims of nature and the selfish gene, and meaning can be illusory and still be existent in the world. Meaning is simply a process of human reason. However, whether it has any existential meaning beyond this self-created mask remains, and likely forever will remain unanswerable, and therefore must be taken with more than a few mounds of salt.<br /><br /><br />-RHRandom Havocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-54149279780417822472010-06-10T00:18:40.412-04:002010-06-10T00:18:40.412-04:00Rick,
First I want to correct you, I never claime...Rick,<br /><br />First I want to correct you, I never claimed that the selfish gene ‘preferred’ anything, what I said was that logic would suggest that OUR preference, or our valuation, was likely not driven by the selfish gene. Genes merely reward characteristics and behaviors that advance replication, and deter characteristics and behaviors that do not, without preference, bias, or prejudice, through a mindless process. While caring undoubtedly has some group utility that recommend it selection, that does not suggest why we value it more then other things that have group utility, like the boldness of one who would undertake skydiving. I would suggest that it is simply another phrase in our meaning language, precisely because of the group utility (well, for that reason among a host of other entwined reasons, our meaning language is infinitely complex). <br /><br />As to the rest of your post, you seem to be under the impression that if something is illusory then it necessarily cannot be existent in the world, but this is simply not true. I will give an example to try to illustrate what I am saying. A rainbow is a good example, a rainbow really is not a huge multi colored arch in the sky, it has no substance, you can never get to a rainbow, you can’t touch it, taste it or smell it, it is by all accounts an illusion. Before we knew about the light spectrum there were all kinds of mystic stories, legends and myths to explain what a rainbow was, and its portent. <br /><br />But even though a rainbow is illusory it exists in the world, it is a real existent phenomenon, light really is being diffracted by water droplets, it really is being segregated into distinct frequencies, and this diffracted light really is entering your eyes and being received by your optic nerves, and you really are perceiving something existent in the world. It is just not the illusory thing it formerly purported to be. <br /><br />Meaning is the same way, we had (have) mystic stories, legends, and myths to explain man’s perception of meaning, to explain its portent, but in light of (relatively) recent discoveries about how the mind works, and how genes work, it easy to see that meaning is illusory, as we previously understood it. But that does not mean that meaning does not exist in the world. Meaning is a very real existent phenomenon, it is the process by which the rational mind differentiates value, it is a human process, no less so then the perception of diffracted light. It is just not the illusory thing it formerly purported to be<br /><br />Saying that meaning does not exist because it is a process underpinned by genes and the environment is exactly the same as saying that language does not exist because it is underpinned by expulsions of air and physiological contortions of muscles, but here we are communicating through language, because humans have a way to imbue the seemingly meaningless with meaning.<br /><br />It is simply human reason that makes meaning out of both of the sets of physiological/environmental preconditions. If God were to show up tomorrow, and in some irrefutable way prove beyond all doubt that he exist, that he created us, that he has a divine purpose for us, it would not change one iota of how we humans perceive, understand, and transmit meaning, we would simply have more data to work with. That is simply how the human mind works.<br /><br /><br />(cont below)Random Havocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-85188837597365896192010-06-08T20:00:12.475-04:002010-06-08T20:00:12.475-04:00"an arbitrary distinction between "meani..."an arbitrary distinction between "meaning" as defined by you...and the biological processes that underlie such decisions!"<br /><br />OK, I see the problem. Ultimately, RH is NOT trying to draw such a distinction. He is saying that meaning is the mental and emotional language (process) by which humans decide what is important and what to pay attention to and what to do. So, it is not some separate thing over and above. He is also throwing in some confusing stuff about the selfish gene and how decisions can be based on a palpable get-what-I-want ego feeling vs. other instincts arbitrarily driven by rationality (meaning). <br /><br />And earlier I tried to emphasize that even the latter basis of decisions and placing importance on things other than advancement of the self could be in us via natural selection pressures acting at the group level rather than just the individual level. (i.e. groups that had the right kind of selfless empathy in their members beat out groups that didn't, selecting the groups with certain behaviors).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-1274564321416702962010-06-08T19:41:49.221-04:002010-06-08T19:41:49.221-04:00RH,
Very interesting comment. This has been the ...RH,<br /><br />Very interesting comment. This has been the clearest (to me) yet.<br /><br />I, for one, am a mereological nihilist, so I really don't believe that any composite entities exist. I think composite entities are just our way of seeing the complicated universe. So, I don't believe that emotions for instance, as some new ontological entity, really exist. Unlike most people (and even most philosophers) I don't think emotions, people, cities exist as things over and above the molecules that comprise them. i.e. Emotions are not some new thing over and above brain cells firing. Calling certain series of firings "emotions" is just a mental method to help us make predictions and communicate.<br /><br />Or as Rick said, "an arbitrary distinction between "meaning" as defined by you...and the biological processes that underlie such decisions!" <br /><br />But, having said that, I must admit that you are moving a long way toward convincing me (with even a somewhat reasonable definition of meaning) that a type of personal meaning exists - well, as much as people or emotions exist anyway. But I'm not there yet, and I haven't moved a bit on believing in universal meaning.<br /><br />But I am still a little confused about it. Think I will re-read later.<br /><br />Arthur<br /><br />PS: I really enjoy this blog, and this particular discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-62398277751481947062010-06-08T14:24:06.021-04:002010-06-08T14:24:06.021-04:00RH-
We are a bit confused about the distinction y...RH-<br /><br />We are a bit confused about the distinction you are drawing here. Why, in your example, would the selfish gene "prefer" skydiving over sitting with one's dying friend? The selfish gene is concerned purely with gene replication - surely one could argue that caring people have been seen as appealing mates, and thus those who sit with the dying friend (as it were...) have passed on more genes than those who skydive.<br /><br />The larger issue is that no matter how you couch it, you are trying to draw an arbitrary distinction between "meaning" as defined by you...and the biological processes that underlie such decisions! Surely you can see the problem here - if we are purely physical beings, then everything we do is underpinned by our genes and environment. The notion of a rational mind making decisions based on some ephemeral concept of meaningfulness, then, is no less an illusion than that of Saint Peter welcoming us at the pearly gates. We've said it before - either everything is meaningful...or nothing is. You can't have it both ways....https://www.blogger.com/profile/00776266692926125490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-39255403221360624752010-06-07T23:14:12.623-04:002010-06-07T23:14:12.623-04:00Arthur,
I think you are making an error when you ...Arthur,<br /><br />I think you are making an error when you say 'simply meaning making’ that does not ‘matter’, when talking about my first example. This is exactly the same thing we have been talking about in this thread. It is man using his reason to imbue meaning into something (squiggly lines) that would not otherwise have meaning. Language uses the alphabet to denote sounds, and grammar and syntax to arrange these representations into ideation of meaningful structures. It is the only type of meaning that can be found in a seeming meaningless existence, without resorting to a leap of faith.<br /><br />Likewise, meaning can be viewed as just another form of language, one that serves a similar purpose as any other language, the transmission of information (mostly to yourself). The information is significance, and this significance makes it meaningful beyond the circumstance. The language of meaning uses the selfish gene supplied feelings as its alphabet, and rational valuation as its syntax and grammar. Man uses his reason to mold this alphabet, grammar and syntax, arranging them into structures that transmit the information of meaning.<br /><br />So when a man deems something important or valuable he is using his ability to reason to weight the sensations he feels. He’s applying a gradation, or scale, assigning some as more important than others, some more valuable than others. In a very real sense he is using his alphabet of feelings, coupled with reason, to craft the grammar and syntax of his meaning language. So, this is similar to what you are saying about him simply deciding to pay attention to it, or care about it, but it is not arbitrary, it is not done by whim, and it is not merely forced by the dictates of the selfish gene, it is forged by reason. <br /><br />Now some (MM ;) are going to say ‘Isn’t your decision to assign this importance or that value simply the product of the selfish gene?’ But I don’t think it is, and I believe I can give a scenario that illustrates why I have this opinion.<br /><br />Imagine a situation where a man’s good friend is on his deathbed, he has an opportunity to see his friend for the last time, so he does. A day later he also has an opportunity to do a thrilling and daring feat, skydiving, and he has always wanted to have that experience, so he does that the day after his friend dies. Imagine the man reflecting back on both events a few days later, which do you suppose had more meaning for him? <br /><br />When he saw his friend for the last time he was sad, it depressed him, he was flooded by chemicals that produced negative thoughts and feelings, when he went sky diving he was elated, he felt alive, invigorated, and he was inundated with chemicals that produced positive feelings. If it were simply the selfish gene dictating importance or the value of the events, than logic would suggest that the positive experience would get the nod. The selfish gene uses chemicals that produce positive feelings to reward and reinforce, and it uses chemicals that produce negative feelings to punish and deter. But one event was frivolous and one was deep and meaningful. It is the rational brain that weights the negative more important, or more valuable then the positive.<br /><br />Now this example was so egregiously obvious that it borders on ridiculousness, but I believe that this happens all the time, and with shades of gradation infinitely more narrow than this silly example, but it gradually builds up into our language of meaning, crafted over the course of a lifetime, more so over the course of human history of reason, that has fashioned the syntax and grammar of our meaning, and informs us what we find meaningful. <br /><br />However, it is still the creation of man in ignorance, it is the mask of meaning, a self-creation that must be always viewed with a sense of irony.<br /><br />As to your other question, I imagine this meaning persists to the moment of the end of human reason of the individual, be that by death or dysfunction. <br /><br />Now whether it has any inherent meaning is another question entirely. <br /><br /><br />-RHRandom Havocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-35923661204074655852010-06-06T19:20:48.292-04:002010-06-06T19:20:48.292-04:00RH,
Sorry for the confusion, but I am the anon al...RH,<br /><br />Sorry for the confusion, but I am the anon also, and the two comments are related.<br /><br />Your definition of meaning would be the key issue as things relate to this site. So I would like to question it if you can tolerate a little more in this long thread :). <br /><br />The definition seems to be moving too much. Taking them in order, the first is simply meaning-in-the-world and relates to information theory about transmission. I think we all agree that this type of meaning exists. Regardless of a sentence's significance, it "means" whatever. Not related to whether the topic matters.<br /><br />In your second example, it is sublime feelings. I don't think we can define meaning as simply sublime feelings, can we?<br /><br />In the third example, it is "value I place through rational thought on the feelings", apparently different than the second one. What exactly is a person doing when he deems something (feelings or whatever) important or valuable? I claim it simply means that he decided to pay extra attention to it and care about it.<br /><br />The last definition is the most interesting. "a significance that transcends the human circumstance of being bounded by ignorance and certain death." Even in the moment of our death, we can care about some things, but only certain types of things. We probably cannot care about what time our dinner will arrive or whether there is a stain on our shirt or probably even if our house burns down (if we live alone). But there is a certain class of things that we might care about, even in our last moment. (Of course, after our last moment we won't care about anything). What is this class of things that we might care about even in our last moment? This type of desire or intention feels different and in some ways special. That is why I say that meaning is just a certain type of desire. A desire which (on appearance at least) truly goes beyond preservation or advancement of the self. (We don't have to be in our last moment to have this type of desire but it focuses our thinking here.)<br /><br />The question I still wonder (and keep asking Rick and Inigo, et al) is this: are these desires always a secret play for immortality or can they be pure? For example, at the moment of your death, you may care about what reputation you will leave, or your name - probably because you fail to appreciate how utterly gone you will be. But what about your desire for your children to be okay? Or your desire for your country to be okay? Probably the same?<br /><br />So, leaving that question unanswered, here again is my latest definition of what people mean when the say "meaningful": relates to a desire which goes beyond preservation or advancement of the self.<br /><br />Such desires certainly feel different, more noble. But I would argue that they are still in us due to evolution, allowing some groups with such desires in it's individuals to survive while other groups without this didn't.<br /><br />ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-6740531472145500872010-06-05T13:29:53.234-04:002010-06-05T13:29:53.234-04:00RH,
You wrote: "it was MM that was downgradi...RH,<br /><br />You wrote: "it was MM that was downgrading love while elevating contentedness..."<br /><br />Just to clarify, I never intended to elevate contentedness (that's Inigo's and Rick's job). In truth, I attempt to downgrade everything without prejudice (and fail miserably everyday).<br /><br />-MMS. Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112749045283372233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-25930163457750345902010-06-05T12:03:49.943-04:002010-06-05T12:03:49.943-04:00Arthur,
One more thing, I think you were echoing ...Arthur,<br /><br />One more thing, I think you were echoing me and not MM, it was MM that was downgrading love while elevating contentedness, I was the one that pointed out they are both stratagems of the selfish gene, and both ripe for the experiencing, regardless of why you choose to be alive. Just wanted to clarify that.<br /><br />-RHRandom Havocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-73720377940225812502010-06-05T11:36:04.333-04:002010-06-05T11:36:04.333-04:00Anon,
The most succinct explanation of meaning fo...Anon,<br /><br />The most succinct explanation of meaning for me would be a significance that goes beyond (transcends) the circumstance.<br /><br />A couple of examples, the words I am typing on this page transcends the mere grouping of squiggly lines (the circumstance) and gives significance that you can interpret. Meaning.<br /><br />In the example of the father gathering up his little girl in his arms, the minute mechanical description is the circumstance, the sublime feelings is the significance that transcends the simple act. Meaning.<br /><br />Likewise, the release of chemicals by the selfish gene is the circumstance, the value I place through rational thought on the feelings this engenders is the significance that transcends that circumstance. Meaning<br /><br />And ultimately, of course, when I was using the phrase 'inherent meaning' I meant a significance that transcends the human circumstance of being bounded by ignorance and certain death. Meaning?<br /><br />So when I say meaning I am implying a significance that goes beyond sectioning off a certain class of human (gene-replicating)desire, which would simply be the circumstance.<br /><br /><br /><br />Arthur,<br /><br />The CONTEMPLATION of the future state of our children could have some present utility, as do a good food or fine wine. We could also, by rational thought, attach some significance to the contemplated likely future circumstance that transcends the mere biological instinct and add that to our mask of meaning that we wear with irony. But I don't see how the likely future state of our children, in itself, would have a present significance, if that is what you are asking.<br /><br /><br />-RHRandom Havocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-7853963409685560182010-06-05T01:36:27.616-04:002010-06-05T01:36:27.616-04:00"the value of these feelings creates a sense ..."the value of these feelings creates a sense of meaning"<br /><br />I do think that when most people say "it has meaning" they are simply sectioning off a certain class of human (gene-replicating) desire. This definition for meaning, nostalgic feeling, would make meaning compatible with absurdism.<br /><br />RH, could you please define meaning? (this meaning that you think exists).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-14337378982268880732010-06-05T00:48:40.245-04:002010-06-05T00:48:40.245-04:00Very interesting conversations. I agree that it i...Very interesting conversations. I agree that it is important to separate contentment, enjoyment and satisfaction (and possibly even fulfillment) from meaning and whether something matters or should be a certain way. <br /><br />I will echo MM about the common tendency to apply differential treatment to various instincts, downgrading some (in this case falling in love, at other times loving family more than anything else) and elevating others (raw experience or getting drunk) without a clear indication about why a lack of meaning implies that we would have such preferences.<br /><br />In fact, in a past comment, I asked whether we could even have current utility regarding the likely future state of our children after we die. I mean without it being a secret play for immortality or thinking it means something or believing that we will care when we're dead (which is impossible). I mean naturally and genuinely with eyes wide open - enjoying now the probability that our kids will likely thrive even after we are gone, simply because this is a normal human instinct, just like enjoying now some good food is.<br /><br />I'd love to get some of you wise souls to comment about that one.<br /><br />ArthurAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-20136375591074069692010-06-04T21:38:44.106-04:002010-06-04T21:38:44.106-04:00RH,
At least we can rest assured that the philoso...RH,<br /><br />At least we can rest assured that the philosophical naval-gazing will never die as long as we frequent this blog (and Rick and Inigo don't start censoring the comments)!<br /><br />It's been a pleasure. Until next time!<br /><br />-MMS. Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112749045283372233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-61284848381309314452010-06-04T19:41:07.293-04:002010-06-04T19:41:07.293-04:00MM,
Ha! That is succinct and hits right at the cr...MM,<br /><br />Ha! That is succinct and hits right at the crux, I like it.<br /><br />Although I am sure Rick and Inigo both would consider our lengthy exchange pointless philosophical naval-gazing, after all we all have our contradiction and irrationalities that we live with, nevertheless I have enjoyed our conversation.<br /><br />One last thing on this subject, a confession of sorts from me. While I sincerely believe every iota of what I have expressed, and my views are intellectually honest, at least to the best of my ability, I often irrationally think and act as if everything is, in fact, absolutely meaningless, and I am often content and happy in doing so.<br /><br />-RHRandom Havocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-41981996439794024022010-06-04T18:56:18.968-04:002010-06-04T18:56:18.968-04:00RH,
A thought just occured to me: is the fundamen...RH,<br /><br />A thought just occured to me: is the fundamental difference between our approach to life the fact that you see the irony in living with your meaning, and I see the irony in existing with my meaninglessness?<br /><br />-MMS. Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112749045283372233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-81683130560352078582010-06-04T17:54:08.839-04:002010-06-04T17:54:08.839-04:00RH,
You wrote: "Because of its inherent irra...RH,<br /><br />You wrote: "Because of its inherent irrational contradiction nihilism can tell us nothing, it is intellectually bankrupt."<br /><br />The position you advocate, on the other hand, only tells us that through some perverse rationality we can create an excuse for existing. At least the nihilist casts a doubt on every breath he takes (and accepts his contradiction), rather than justify it through some solipsistic (because it's meaningful to ME) reasoning.<br /><br />-MM<br /><br />P.S. I will say that you're an excellent sparring partner, RH.S. Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07112749045283372233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26036650874725191.post-18541066192384400432010-06-04T16:31:45.392-04:002010-06-04T16:31:45.392-04:00MM,
Well, if you are saying that even the pleasur...MM,<br /><br />Well, if you are saying that even the pleasure we derive from our human condition, our wants, are illusions, because they too are the result of the selfish gene, then there really is nothing left in the end. They have a word for that, nihilism. If that is the case, then the mask of the ‘man cursed/blessed with an advanced awareness’ of the absurd that you prominently wear is simply another conceit, one that allows you to appreciate the contentedness of simply being regardless of circumstances, while ignoring the fact that contentedness is also a stratagem of the selfish gene.<br /><br />If you consider our basic human condition of seeking pleasure, our wants, as tyrannical, then there is really only one option available, suicide, not that I am advocating that solution for you, but anything else is simply a conceit. You would be correct that our two views are un-reconcilable, I have long ago rejected nihilism because of its inherent contradiction of ‘there is only one truth, there is no truth’. Because of its inherent irrational contradiction nihilism can tell us nothing, it is intellectually bankrupt.<br /><br />As for your argument of rebellion <i>ad infinitum</i>, it ignores the fact that my sense of irony about my fiction keeps It from being tyrannical, as I said in my last post, if there is no tyranny the is no need to rebel. My wants are not tyrannical because they are mine, I have used my reason to conclude that the pleasure derived from the conditions imposed by the selfish gene has some value to me and this evaluation of pleasure is my wants, they are not tyrannically imposed on me, I came to them by rational evaluation.<br /><br /><br /><br />Alex,<br /><br />First, thanks for the shout out!<br /><br />Next, I do not think my belief in the unanswerable is a leap of faith, I believe that I came to it by reason and unlike a leap of faith, which abandons reason, it is still open to consideration if new data comes to light.<br /><br />Finally, I like sparring, it is fun and allows me to understand my position on a deeper level.<br /><br />-RHRandom Havocnoreply@blogger.com