24 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdI'm not sure the line between the scientific and the metaphysical is all that sharp and clear esp. when you are talking about something like the composition of the universe itself and the ramifications of that. And I find the answer to any question "well, that's just the way it is" unsatisfying.
Okay, you’re addressing Scott’s mention of the anthropic principle. I was just addressing the question of metaphysical questions. I’ve been hung up on this question of meaning and purpose lately, and I’m jumping too many threads. What I think the universe discloses are facts or phenomena, which we observe and interpret. I think when we ask metaphysical q ...[text shortened]... ,” which I think is irreducible (Zen)—and take up the challenge of composing meaning from there.
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm not sure the line between the scientific and the metaphysical is all that sharp and clear esp. when you are talking about something like the composition of the universe itself and the ramifications of that.
I'm not sure the line between the scientific and the metaphysical is all that sharp and clear esp. when you are talking about something like the composition of the universe itself and the ramifications of that. And I find the answer to any question "well, that's just the way it is" unsatisfying.
And you might be right; as I said, I might be defining metaphysics too narrowly. I’m really trying to take a hard stand to see what arguments come against it. For the first time, I think I might have some more or less systematic way of thinking about this stuff, and I’m testing pieces of it before I try to put it together—and see if it holds together.
And I find the answer to any question "well, that's just the way it is" unsatisfying.
I do too, which is why I keep hanging around here I suppose. You know that I like to color my Zen/Taoist view with Jewish mythology and midrash, and stuff like that. My hypothesis is that the religious attitude (theistic or not) may be justified aesthetically as we try to create meaning for our lives in the face of (Camusian) absurdity and mystery (mystery that does not necessarily imply the supernatural)—it seems to me that the aesthetic/creative urge in our consciousness is at least as valid as the urge to rationality. I just think that we need to own up to the fact (as I presently see it) that the natural order is no more self-interpreting than some folks claim the bible is. Interpretation is up to us, and it is always creative.
That’s where my thinking is anyway; and when I think I can put it into a point-by-point format, I will (working on it). In the meantime, I’m floating pieces of it.
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesddo you have a belief, or are you un-opinionated about it?
[b]I'm not sure the line between the scientific and the metaphysical is all that sharp and clear esp. when you are talking about something like the composition of the universe itself and the ramifications of that.
And you might be right; as I said, I might be defining metaphysics too narrowly. I’m really trying to take a hard stand to see what argum ...[text shortened]... point-by-point format, I will (working on it). In the meantime, I’m floating pieces of it.[/b]
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomNot me, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile. My thinking has actually changed considerably in the last couple of years as a result of arguing on here. And discussions like this always trigger new ideas and thoughts to examine and explore—even, and maybe especially, when the argument gets pretty sharp. Sometimes we come away more convinced of our position, sometimes we don’t.
has this changed what anyone believes?
You’re arguing with some really, really bright people on here—who often disagree about most everything! Enjoy, man, enjoy. Argue hard; when you get your wings clipped, regroup and go back at it.
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdim not trying to convert anyone or anything lol just idk what im doing actually just discussing i guess lol
Not me, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile. My thinking has actually changed considerably in the last couple of years as a result of arguing on here. And discussions like this always trigger new ideas and thoughts to examine and explore—even, and maybe especially, when the argument gets pretty sharp. Sometimes we come away more convinced of our pos ...[text shortened]... g! Enjoy, man, enjoy. Argue hard; when you get your wings clipped, regroup and go back at it.
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomI don’t like being un-opinionated about much. 😉
do you have a belief, or are you un-opinionated about it?
Right now, having dropped a lot of my former beliefs (including belief in a supernatural God), I’m reformulating. Basically, I’m a Zennist (as in Zen Buddhism), but there are what I think are some core truths there that are found in the other religions as well, and I spend a lot of time exploring that. That’s why you’ll see me doing things like working with Hebrew (and less often Greek) in the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, and arguing from within different paradigms.
What I stated as my “hypothesis” you can take as my opinion right now, though one in development, and one that, as I say, I’m testing by seeing how some of these guys attack it.
I’m 55 years old, ecstreme, and I’m still learning.
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdill be back tomorrow i g2g to bed for school. i dont think un-opinionated (the word probably made up by me) is a real word and if it is probably spelled wrong lol
I don’t like being un-opinionated about much. 😉
Right now, having dropped a lot of my former beliefs (including belief in a supernatural God), I’m reformulating. Basically, I’m a Zennist (as in Zen Buddhism), but there are what I think are some core truths there that are found in the other religions as well, and I spend a lot of time exploring that. T ...[text shortened]... seeing how some of these guys attack it.
I’m 55 years old, ecstreme, and I’m still learning.
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdIt is, of course, an attribute of humanity to try to find order out of the seemingly chaotic mass of information we receive. Our entire sensory apparatus is designed to do so. That being said, the fact that we are "hotwired" to try to make sense out of the natural order doesn't imply to me that in reality it makes no sense; in fact , I suspect the opposite is true. Thus, there might be some "ultimate truth" out there though it need not involve anthropomorphic creations of semisavages.
[b]I'm not sure the line between the scientific and the metaphysical is all that sharp and clear esp. when you are talking about something like the composition of the universe itself and the ramifications of that.
And you might be right; as I said, I might be defining metaphysics too narrowly. I’m really trying to take a hard stand to see what argum ...[text shortened]... point-by-point format, I will (working on it). In the meantime, I’m floating pieces of it.[/b]
24 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderUltimate truth certainly doesnt involve that anachronistic god in the bible whose prophets have caused so many problems for mankind.
It is, of course, an attribute of humanity to try to find order out of the seemingly chaotic mass of information we receive. Our entire sensory apparatus is designed to do so. That being said, the fact that we are "hotwired" to try to make sense out of the natural order doesn't imply to me that in reality it makes no sense; in fact , I suspect the opposi imate truth" out there though it need not involve anthropomorphic creations of semisavages.
24 Oct 06
Originally posted by frogstompBruno might have approved of Spinoza; at least, his views are also said to be pantheistic.
ah, yes,,,the field is the thing. but I've never read Spinoza
Spinoza's god "is not the Great Daddy in the Sky of conventional religion. He is the whole of reality or being in all its aspects, and must not be conceptualised in anthropomorphic terms. This is why Spinoza often referred to him as ‘God or Nature’ (note that in Latin there is no problem of whether to refer to God as ‘he’, ‘she’, or ‘it’, since the distinction is grammatical rather than sexual). He (or she, or it) does not understand, or will, or perceive, or feel. Whatever happens just emanates inexorably from his nature."
(from an introduction: http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/hmp/resources/summaries/spinoza/spinsum.html )
Here's a translation of Spinoza's stuff.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/index3.htm
I am finding it weirdly fascinating in small doses.