Man is blessed / cursed by a conscious awareness that he will die, unlike other species. Man cannot live with this awareness because it is too painful to know that one's life has no meaning. This is why man invented the concept of a Supreme Being and an afterlife.
Acceptance of the fact that one's life has no meaning allows a human being to live with the concept of death, without requiring a construct to keep his sanity. Religion is balm for children and those who acquire it need never travel the path to acceptance of death.
Originally posted by MissOleumNice. I like.
Man is blessed / cursed by a conscious awareness that he will die, unlike other species. Man cannot live with this awareness because it is too painful to know that one's life has no meaning. This is why man invented the concept of a Supreme Being and an afterlife.
Acceptance of the fact that one's life has no meaning allows a human being to live with ...[text shortened]... balm for children and those who acquire it need never travel the path to acceptance of death.
Originally posted by whodeyActually, I dispute that life may have meaning. I'm not even sure what meaning means. Nobody has yet offered a way of evaluating worth; theists say god is required, but offer no conditions on why or how, atheists say there is meaning inherent in life itself, but no mechanism of how. In retrospect I can say that something was worthwhile or not, but that seems to suggest that experience decides meaning. If meaning is just what we experience then it seems there is no requirement of either god or of a quality standard.
Prove that there is meaning to ones life? Why? No one hear disputes that their lives have meaning. As I see it there are two possibilities. Either the meaning to ones life is only confined to ones perspective, or there is meaning via a Supreme Beings perspective in addition to our own perspective. If there is no God, such meaning is fleeting and, as a re ...[text shortened]... die forevermore, however, doing so would, in my view, diminish our overall value to such a God.
On what grounds is meaning fulfilled? If we look at meaning as purpose from either side we require either some sort of 'Biological A Priori'© for the atheists, or an external being who has decided what our role is. Since I don't believe in magic I have to throw the latter out. Looking at the notion of a biological predeterminism in our functionality I actually have a lot of time for this idea, there is certainly evidence to show that language has some sort of biological coding for grammar. If language has the same basic structure from person to person, why not other functions? This sort of view has no place for free will, since it is in turn built upon the energy fluctuation mentioned previously, and down and down until the very smallest essence of the universe. I have no problem with that, as I have said before, the illusion of being agents of our own destiny is enough for me to conduct myself through life. And since we have yet to show that meaning has any essence above function or relative opinion why should we value the notion of our lives having meaning?
Theists seem to have this outstanding issue of the necessity of meaning in life, but I think this is born out of a need for comfort or justification in an otherwise predatory universe, which lets face it, would as soon munch you up and spit you out, than wrap you up and offer you cocoa. I have yet to see a necessary condition for meaning and am not so needy as to require one. I'm quite happy being me and whatever it is I am wherever I am in the universe, meaning or not. While I continue with the illusion of free will I am wrapped in the downy amnion of purpose and that's fine.
To address another point in your post, why should death nullify our meaning? What a bizarre notion. If there is meaning as you say, we are not single agents of our meaning, we are bound up in an unending web of it throughout both time and other agents and patients of it across the universe. Our death would not invalidate any meaning we had as long as there are things in time and space which have been affected and upon which we might continue to have an effect; be it legacy or any less substantive form of causation. If meaning exists, our value is eternal not by external reference, but by natural process.
I've strayed slightly from my original intention, so to sum up: In my opinion, meaning is either substantive in the physical aspect of a world without free will, or does not exist. It is not important whether or not we have meaning, since we would seem to exist either way and as long as we believe we have free will, our consciousness finds peace instead of inconsistency.*
---------------------------------------
*I just remembered I meant to integrate the mention of consciousness into our perception of meaning and the universe, but I have now gone to far to go back and rework the post, so I'll leave it for another time.
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThis is not what I am saying. I am not merely talking about life having meaning due to the existence of an afterlife. The love that God has shed in my heart for him and for my fellow man makes me feel like a brand new person and has made me feel alive for the first time. I would compare it to falling in love with a woman. Sure my life had meaning before I met her, however, after I met her I would say that my existence before I met her did not have as great a meaning. I suppose that in this sense we agree that such an existence whether it be in this current life or the life hereafter is a process. The only difference between our perspectives is that your process continues without vistesd, or at least your consciousness, as where my existence continues as whodey. I suppose it boils down to what value we place on our personhood. Is it worth preserving for an eternity, or is it better to let it die off.
[b]If there is no God, such meaning is fleeting and, as a result, it is at best illusionary because it vanishes into thin air once we are gone.
In a sense, yes. To see our ego-self (our constructed somebody-self), and all that goes with it—including our constructs and understandings of “meaning”— as non-transient is illusory. Life is fleeting.
Y ...[text shortened]... s story (one might almost say, as myth) is precisely how we imbue it with meaning.[/b]
I would also disagree that God is not necessary in order to give my life true meaning. After all, to have meaning is to place a value on something. Who then places value on the human race? What was our value before we arrived and what will be our value when we are all gone?
1 edit
Originally posted by MissOleumSo if life has no meanig, how did we arrive at such a notion that life has meaning or that it does not have meaning? From an atheistic perspective an existence without meaning evolved into an existence with percieved meaning. Why?
Man is blessed / cursed by a conscious awareness that he will die, unlike other species. Man cannot live with this awareness because it is too painful to know that one's life has no meaning. This is why man invented the concept of a Supreme Being and an afterlife.
Acceptance of the fact that one's life has no meaning allows a human being to live with ...[text shortened]... balm for children and those who acquire it need never travel the path to acceptance of death.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI think the point is "externally appropriated" meaning.
So if life has no meanig, how did we arrive at such a notion that life has meaning or that it does not have meaning? From an atheistic perspective an existence without meaning evolved into an existence with percieved meaning. Why?
Why do you shy away from Starrman's post on the, umm, meaning, of 'meaning'?
Originally posted by StarrmanBu this if free will is merely an "illusion" then why do we get so up in arms when we feel as though it is being violated?
Actually, I dispute that life may have meaning. I'm not even sure what meaning means. Nobody has yet offered a way of evaluating worth; theists say god is required, but offer no conditions on why or how, atheists say there is meaning inherent in life itself, but no mechanism of how. In retrospect I can say that something was worthwhile or not, but that s ...[text shortened]... have now gone to far to go back and rework the post, so I'll leave it for another time.
I find your embrace of an illusion in terms of meaning to life somewhat ironic. You see I am charged with embracing the notion of an illusionary God to cope with my existence and my demise as where you are saying you embrace the illusion of free will that helps give your life meaning even though you seem to be saying that you do not really believe you have free will.
I think that you should pursue the integration of our consciousness into the mix in terms of meaning to the universe. You see I reject the notion that anything can have meaning without it. How can something have meaning/value unless one places value upon it? It either exists or it does not exist whether it be living or dead. Where is the value of it other than its mere existence? What is the value of the "process" other than existing? Is the "process" not meaningless unless there is a higher consciousness such as ourselves who give it meaning?
I do take issue with your notion that we do not require meaning in our lives. Whether it exists or does not exist it is vital to our hapiness if not our sanity. For example, why did you get out of bed this morning? For what purpose?
Originally posted by whodeyIs it worth preserving for an eternity, or is it better to let it die off.
This is not what I am saying. I am not merely talking about life having meaning due to the existence of an afterlife. The love that God has shed in my heart for him and for my fellow man makes me feel like a brand new person and has made me feel alive for the first time. I would compare it to falling in love with a woman. Sure my life had meaning before I ...[text shortened]... man race? What was our value before we arrived and what will be our value when we are all gone?
I want my life to continue, so obviously this symphony of living has value to me. Other than that, I don’t know how to answer the question.
God or no God, our perspective is from and through and by our individual consciousness. We can pretend to have a view from elsewhere, but we really don’t—we can perhaps imagine what a view from elsewhere might be like, but that’s all (revelation or know revelation).
I like your analogy with falling in love. I just allowed myself to fall in love all over again with the morning, with my wife, with myself and the simple profound fact of breathing.
I would also disagree that God is not necessary in order to give my life true meaning. Who then places value on the human race?
I don’t know what you mean by “true” meaning.
Again, I claim that meaning is not given (note that in my prior post I spoke of meaning as understanding, and used the metaphor of story, to distinguish it from simple value). We ask, “What is the meaning of that story?” How do you understand it? Stories, especially our own, whether we realize it or not, have the power to move us deeply (emotionally); and we are as much beings of passion as we are of reason (I think it was Hume who said that reason should serve the passions, and not the other way ‘round).
It is all too easy to succumb to the “smoking gun” syndrome of trying to define the essential characteristic(s) of human beings, and I tend to think that “smoking-gun” approach is an error. With that said, if forced I would say that we are story-tellers... The nature of our consciousness urges us to live our lives as story, to make up stories, to tell stories—to others and to ourselves.
God appears as a valued (to you, perhaps necessary) character in your story. There are lots of such stories in which God serves as a/the major character (including the biblical ones—remember that I value story much more highly than a simple historical recounting of facts; weaving story from out of historical events is something else). Others not.
“Who then places value on the human race?” Well, I could tell a story, using metaphor and allegory and myth and character and narrative... It might be a good one, too. My story begins with the All-Mother (who is not a person, but a metaphor for the ground of being, the All without another) who gives birth to myriad phenomenal forms—some of them sentient, some of them with a weird looping consciousness that allows them to know their impending death—and to tell stories of themselves... Once upon a time, I became one of them. And I realized that I am a character in a story—how interesting and poignant to have a consciousness that allows me to experience myself that way! To realize that I am a story, that I am a character in that story, as well as the (as my consciousness develops) author of that story, and a witness as well. The All-mother is not writing my story, although the general conditions of my existence set the background (there is no unconditioned, “libertarian” free-will). When my time is done, my story ended, I return to the All-mother, like a wave dispersed into the sea, or a swirl of current into the ocean...
But my story-time is not ended, and so I go out to live my story, to see what happens next...
Originally posted by vistesdI like that story. I've been thinking of a variant: where the Tao/Brahman/Void is setting the rules for the universe than manifesting "himself" as the material of the universe. And this has been done a myriad of times. After this universe's time has finished, the BTV studies and meditates on the experiences of that universe. And when "he" makes the rules for the next universe, he tweaks them so that the next one is a little better. And on and on.
[b]Is it worth preserving for an eternity, or is it better to let it die off.
I want my life to continue, so obviously this symphony of living has value to me. Other than that, I don’t know how to answer the question.
God or no God, our perspective is from and through and by our individual consciousness. We can pretend to have a view from elsewhe ...[text shortened]...
But my story-time is not ended, and so I go out to live my story, to see what happens next...[/b]
Our existence in this view is part of the constant striving for perfection. What we seek in our own lives is just part of what the Eternal itself seeks. What could be more meaningful than that?
Originally posted by no1marauderWow, you have been digging into the various metaphysical possibilities of the BTV! Good stuff. I think you would love a book by Sri H.W.L. Poonja called This: Prose and Poetry of Dancing Emptiness. I am just now reading from it again.
I like that story. I've been thinking of a variant: where the Tao/Brahman/Void is setting the rules for the universe than manifesting "himself" as the material of the universe. And this has been done a myriad of times. After this universe's time has finished, the BTV studies and meditates on the experiences of that universe. And when "he" makes the rules ...[text shortened]... es is just part of what the Eternal itself seeks. What could be more meaningful than that?
“Under every wave is Ocean,
under every name is substratum,
under every appearance, this is You.
If you do not forget who you are,
this appearance is the Cosmic Dance.
The Unnamable has given you this shape
to play, to love, to know thy Self.
Don’t forget this!
...
Waves are not separate from the Ocean,
rays are not separate from the Sun, you are not separate from
Existence-Consciousness-Bliss.
This is a reflection of That.
The Ocean does not forget that it is a wave,
but the wave forgets that it is an Ocean.
This is ‘why’ there is manifestation;
for the sake of play this forgetfulness arises.
The world is only for celebration.
...
You are Shiva if you do not project ‘I,’
and your Shakti is the projection by which to play.
Consciousness is the source of this play,
of the mind, and That is all.”
What we seek in our own lives is just part of what the Eternal itself seeks.
Which must be so, I think, if the BTV is coherent with its manifestations—and how could it not be. I like that a lot.
My only question—and this goes to the Poonja quote as well—is whether in our forgetfulness we can attempt to act in ways that are incoherent with the One, and thus create a lot of havoc that we would not if we realized the relationship of our maya-nature to the Brahman. I am not quite as sanguine about this forgetfulness as Poonja seems to be here—of course, in your schema (which seems to be karmic, but not of the simplistic juridical kind) the havoc, which is itself maya, gets rectified in the whole: over and over again.
Maybe realization includes seeing the transient havoc caused by illusion, and acting even in maya to (imperfectly) rectify it. That’s one view, anyway. And I grabbed that Poonja quote out of context, so I might be being unfair to him here (though mostly I like it very much).
Originally posted by whodeyYou can't be serious by saying that a unicorn has no point of reference.
But a unicorn is nothing more than a horse with a big horn on its nose. You can't be serious by saying that a unicorn has no point of reference. I think God existing outside of time is a better example because you yourself are dumbfounded by such a notion.
Well, whodey, I didn't say that a unicorn has no "point of reference" because I frankly don't know what you mean by that phrase. I mean, why do you think I asked directly what is meant here by that phrase? What I did intend to say, however, is that we can form conceptual notions of 'unicorn' even though that term has no actual referent. We can talk about unicorns even though no unicorns exist. Now, back to the point, why do you think 'meaning' is different in this regard?
I think God existing outside of time is a better example because you yourself are dumbfounded by such a notion.
Yes, I am generally dumbfounded by the idiotic, incoherent notions that some hold dear.
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhen I say that meaning demands a point of reference I am saying that one cannot simply conjure up the notion that life has meaning out of thin air. Even the unicorn needs a point of reference such as being familiar with horses and animals with horns. Granted, the unicorn has no actual referent but the notion was not conjured up from things that do not exist. So I ask you, if meaning to our lives exists, then I think that we need points of reference or some other meaning outside ourselves to conjure up such a notion even though we may not have some direct referent as you would say.
[b]You can't be serious by saying that a unicorn has no point of reference.
Well, whodey, I didn't say that a unicorn has no "point of reference" because I frankly don't know what you mean by that phrase. I mean, why do you think I asked directly what is meant here by that phrase? What I did intend to say, however, is that we can form conceptual ...[text shortened]... Yes, I am generally dumbfounded by the idiotic, incoherent notions that some hold dear.[/b]
Does this make sense?