Sonhouse

Originally posted by divegeester
This is a good question but a closed one; perhaps re-worded as "how would you describe the meaning of life?".

Although this implies life 'has a meaning' I don't think anyone here really believes there is no meaning to their life - just that their meaning is different from another persons meaning.

I disagree. I do not believe thee is any meaning to life.
What you see is what you get.
Sad but true
(I think).

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I disagree. I do not believe thee is any meaning to life.
What you see is what you get.
Sad but true
(I think).

Therefore your life has no meaning. Sad indeed.

Originally posted by divegeester
Therefore your life has no meaning. Sad indeed.

Yep.
And wishful thinking won't change that.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yep.
And wishful thinking won't change that.

At least you have a good avatar.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But all your answers and RJHinds answers are just words words and more words. Show me the spirit sometime. Show me your god, let it speak for itself. To me. Directly. Forget the middlemen, I don't need them. I want your god to talk to me. Directly.

Please stop looking outside, start looking inwards. Ask yourself "Who is this asking this question?".You will have to strip the layers of"Avidya" or nescience or delusion coated on your "Self".By so meditating, you will realize that you are not the"Body" nor are you the "Intellect" nor are you the "Senses including the Mind" but an observer the simple pure "I" stripped of all predicates. This is the"Self" or "Atman". This is God.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What you see is what you get.

Yes! What you see is what you get. And what I see and what I get is amazing: multiple layers of interlocking and inspiring meaning. I think if one were to come to terms with the fact that "What you see is what you get" is the meaning of life, then there would be no need for all the religionist "There must be more to life than this" escapism and life-wasting speculation! 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
Yes! What you see is what you get. And what I see and what I get is amazing: multiple layers of interlocking and inspiring meaning. I think if one were to come to terms with the fact that [b]"What you see is what you get" is the meaning of life, then there would be no need for all the religionist "There must be more to life than this" escapism and life-wasting speculation! 🙂[/b]

"What you see is what you get"

To accept that there is nothing more than what you can see precludes imagination. Einstein famously said that "imagination is more important than knowledge".

To accept that what you get is what you see is far too passive and defeatist for me.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes! What you see is what you get. And what I see and what I get is amazing: multiple layers of interlocking and inspiring meaning. I think if one were to come to terms with the fact that [b]"What you see is what you get" is the meaning of life, then there would be no need for all the religionist "There must be more to life than this" escapism and life-wasting speculation! 🙂[/b]

You are absolutely right because your view of things is much bigger than wolfgang59's view.

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]"What you see is what you get"

To accept that there is nothing more than what you can see precludes imagination. Einstein famously said that "imagination is more important than knowledge".

To accept that what you get is what you see is far too passive and defeatist for me.[/b]

Defeatism and passivity is, for all intents and purposes, exactly what religionist package deals serve people up with - or at least that's what I would feel about myself if I were to 're-succumb' (I am a post-Christian).

You speak for own "imagination" by all means, and if you think my imagination has been "precluded", then that's fine by me. I know otherwise. The capacity to "imagine" is front and central in "What you see is what you get"; it embraces "imagination" fully and sets it in the context of this wonderful life, other people, humanity, the Earth.

I reckon imagining that there is a 'life after death' serves no purpose, squanders and narrows "imagination", distracts from the wonder of life and the what you see and the what you get, replaces it with sterile utterly nonplussing grumbling along the lines of there must be more to life than this!

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You are absolutely right because your view of things is much bigger than wolfgang59's view.

This is an interesting comment in as much as I strenuously believe it not to be so! 🙂

edit: well, wait a minute - I think you're absolutely right about me being "absolutely right", but wrong about wolfgang59's view being much different from mine in terms of "size" or application to everyday life.

Originally posted by FMF
Defeatism and passivity is, for all intents and purposes, exactly what religionist package deals serve people up with - or at least that's what I would feel about myself if I were to 're-succumb' (I am a post-Christian).

You speak for own "imagination" by all means, and if you think my imagination has been "precluded", then that's fine by me. I know otherwis sing grumbling along the lines of there must be more to life than this!

I'm trying not to make it personal FMF; I'm neither judging your ability to imagine, nor by contrast claiming that religion is mere imagination.

However at the risk of being contentious, I find your choice of language interesting: "wonderful" for example denotes "wonder", and whilst I accept that a person can "wonder" about what they see - "wonder" itself (definition) is not really compatible with "what you see is what you get".

I feel you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Originally posted by FMF
This is an interesting comment in as much as I strenuously believe it not to be so! 🙂

edit: well, wait a minute - I think you're absolutely right about me being "absolutely right", but wrong about wolfgang59's view being much different from mine in terms of "size" or application to everyday life.

You are looking at the world with mind's eye taking in not only the expressed but also the unexpressed reality.You are connecting rather than dissecting.Your vision is therefore a broader vision than wolfgang59's vision.
Am I then right or wrong ?

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm trying not to make it personal FMF[/b]

Neither am I. Your spiritual beliefs have no impact on me whatsoever, and the same goes for mine on you. Nothing 'personal' is sensed or intended.

I'm neither judging your ability to imagine, nor by contrast claiming that religion is mere imagination.

"What you see" obviously does not literally to that which can be seen with the eyes. Is that what you thought I meant? Perhaps you have misunderstood or my hasty post was a bit unclear.

However at the risk of being contentious, I find your choice of language interesting: "wonderful" for example denotes "wonder", and whilst I accept that a person can "wonder" about what they see - "wonder" itself (definition) is not really compatible with "what you see is what you get".

"What you see is what you get", to me, means "This is life. It's wonderful. Who needs more, especially when that [religionist] "more" is pure speculation and hope/fear." So this is life - our faculties are amazing. "Imagination" and "wonder" are among those faculties that fill life with meaning. "Love", "empathy", and others too. They all come under the heading of "what you see is what you get". I am not interested in trying to create meaning for life by telling myself that it doesn't end. You can if you want or need to. Nothing personal.

I feel you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

This means nothing to me. Sorry. I perceive no cake and therefore perceive no eating of it.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You are looking at the world with mind's eye taking in not only the expressed but also the unexpressed reality.You are connecting rather than dissecting.Your vision is therefore a broader vision than wolfgang59's vision.
Am I then right or wrong ?

I still think you're wrong. Maybe wolfgang59 will be along to shed some light on whether your religionist comments make him [and his outlook] feel small or smaller than something else or bigger or whatever. I doubt it. If he doesn't buy into your creed, I doubt he'll buy into your [perhaps unintended] condescension.

Originally posted by FMF
I still think you're wrong. Maybe wolfgang59 will be along to shed some light on whether your religionist comments make him [and his outlook] feel small or smaller than something else or bigger or whatever. I doubt it. If he doesn't buy into your creed, I doubt he'll buy into your [perhaps unintended] condescension.

You are optimistic and wolfgang59 is pessimistic,as is quite obvious from your and his posts.He is saying life has no meaning and you are saying this is not so.In my view (and it is not a"religionist" view as you have condescendingly called it but a common sense view) your vision is broader.But you say I am wrong !!
Don't you accept a compliment from a theist ( that too a Hindu theist)?