Philosophy Discussion Forums

Socrateaze wrote: A question: if we search our whole life for the meaning of life, have we missed out on the meaning of life?

Living is the meaning of life.

Ranvier wrote:Science is good... mKay
Geek lives matter!

...meaning of life is to make babies, lots of babies.

Meditate on that.

Who ever sleeps with me will get Hades babies.

-- Updated August 27th, 2017, 2:59 pm to add the following --

-1- wrote:

Socrateaze wrote:A question: if we search our whole life for the meaning of life, have we missed out on the meaning of life?

Meaning what?

I couldn't be clearer. The meaning and answer is in the question.

Is the meaning of life to look for the meaning of life, I don't think so. If the meaning is something else like, as Ravier says, making babies, which I'm not sure I agree with, then we have spent all the time looking for the meaning of life, while we could find it just by living it. So is just living life not easier, we may find the meaning of life without knowing it. I can't see how sitting in front of books and writing on forums the whole day we will find it. While we look for the meaning of life we stop living and that is my problem.

-- Updated August 27th, 2017, 3:00 pm to add the following --

*Ranvier

-- Updated August 27th, 2017, 3:02 pm to add the following --

Synthesis wrote:

Socrateaze wrote: A question: if we search our whole life for the meaning of life, have we missed out on the meaning of life?

Living is the meaning of life.

I agree. Searching for meanings, will cause that life passes you by, which holds the meaning of life somewhere in anyway. What will we do when we find the meaning - I shudder to think.

Socrateaze/General
There is an entire thread on the meaning of life.

In another thread I proposed Absolute principles of our Universe that we can observe to deduce the "purpose" for life:
1. To become "better"
- If we observe the nature, we can distinguish two patterns:
A. Life chooses simplicity of structure and uniformity within species but benefits in survival due to numbers: bacteria, insects, algae
B. Life chooses another route, that of complexity of organism's structure in body systems and diversity in genetic material: animal kingdom
Humans are interesting species embracing both: numbers and complexity, taking the dominant place as the apex species.
2. This leads to second principle: that of complexity, which according to first principle (1B) is better.
3. Third principle is that of the balance, which we can observe everywhere: super-symmetry, plain symmetry, particle and wave, expansion and contraction, or human body systems of say: Calcitonin/PTH (high PTH > osteoporosis), or Dopamine/Acetyl choline (low dopamine > Parkinson's) Too much of any one thing is not good... goes directly to what Socrateaze said: experience and learn in balance.

We can extrapolate the conclusion of the purpose from all three principles. As for the meaning: as conscious sentient beings we determine the meaning. Without our consciousness this place would be boring, still beautiful but without anyone to notice. Presumably the meaning becomes > to make this place meaningful > this is exactly what we are doing.
Making the World a better place.

So cheer up

Ranvier wrote:Socrateaze/General
There is an entire thread on the meaning of life.

In another thread I proposed Absolute principles of our Universe that we can observe to deduce the "purpose" for life:
1. To become "better"
- If we observe the nature, we can distinguish two patterns:
A. Life chooses simplicity of structure and uniformity within species but benefits in survival due to numbers: bacteria, insects, algae
B. Life chooses another route, that of complexity of organism's structure in body systems and diversity in genetic material: animal kingdom
Humans are interesting species embracing both: numbers and complexity, taking the dominant place as the apex species.
2. This leads to second principle: that of complexity, which according to first principle (1B) is better.
3. Third principle is that of the balance, which we can observe everywhere: super-symmetry, plain symmetry, particle and wave, expansion and contraction, or human body systems of say: Calcitonin/PTH (high PTH > osteoporosis), or Dopamine/Acetyl choline (low dopamine > Parkinson's) Too much of any one thing is not good... goes directly to what Socrateaze said: experience and learn in balance.

We can extrapolate the conclusion of the purpose from all three principles. As for the meaning: as conscious sentient beings we determine the meaning. Without our consciousness this place would be boring, still beautiful but without anyone to notice. Presumably the meaning becomes > to make this place meaningful > this is exactly what we are doing.
Making the World a better place.

So cheer up

Indeed. Like I said in a thread about evil: if evil WERE to embody someone, why would they destroy the earth or harm the host? Would they not try to make this a paradise instead? Why would evil harm its own host, (presuming a human/animal loses the "evil" when it dies). I don't think science is nonsense. Since it is our device, it grows along with us. I think science, religion and life itself is trail and error and just because there is error, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater and call anything, for that matter, nonsense.

There is a difference between anarchy and evil. Can anyone see this? It might hold the answer to that nothing is nonsense, accept those with a lower consciousness that have no aspirations and seek to spite themselves and others by living like fools; evil does not inhabit fools or anarchists. Science is a step in the right direction, religion can be helpful, but if its going to be run and followed by "fools" it just feeds on itself and its illusions.

Sythethesis:

Is the knowledge of the bird and ant and cat intellectual or non-intellectual? Is their knowledge delusion? If the answer to the latter is yes and the answer to the former is non-intellectual then the intellect cannot be the source of delusion.

It just is.

Is this non-answer a zen thing? You are the one who has made distinctions between delusion and clarity, relative knowledge and real understanding, intellectual and non-intellectual and now you say "it just is"? Now you talk about the knowledge of a bird and an ant and a cat and human being and say they just are without regard to the distinctions you have made?

You have to accept the imperfection of knowledge like you do everything else.

What you understand is cause and effect. Beyond that there is no understanding.

But an understanding of cause and effect is non-sense? Delusion? Why even bother with cause and effect knowledge if it is non-sense. Why not just tap your fingers on your knee and imagine you are communicating with people around the world? (Don't forget to hit send.)

It makes sense if you choose to accept the current dogma.

Your dog is barking up the wrong tree.

Squirrels store-up food so they have something to eat in the winter.

If I were to say people store-up food so they have something to eat in the winter you would point out that they may not live until the winter or the food will spoil or be eaten by squirrels (whether or not the stored-up food) or …

Real understanding is impossible for everybody. Clarity is what is possible [seeing things as close to what they actually are].

If “real understanding” is impossible then drop the chatter about real understanding. It is not something you understand and there is no point talking about it. You cannot say that clarity is closer to seeing things as close to what they are because you have no standard, no measure, no real understanding of what they actually are. It is like swimming away from shore and thinking the more you swim the closer you get to shore.

In your example, it was delusion. In mine, it was realization. The former was an intellectual process, the later non-intellectual.

No, they are exactly the same until the moment it is discovered that she was not smiling at him. If he did not realize she was smiling at someone else that would still be a delusion you call realization. There is nothing in whatever it was he was experiencing that distinguishes delusion and realization.

Many people who see their first child being born are "speechless." Time and space disappear and only baby is present.

And now you are trying to describe what you claimed could not be described.

Job one is to believe in yourself 100%!!

Extremely stubborn and narrow minded people may believe in themselves 100% (!!) and this belief only fuels their belief that they are right. Even the slightest doubt is a failure to believe in themselves.

You are doing what most people do which is confusing the relative and the Absolute.

If the Absolute does not exist, if “real understanding” is impossible, then only those who think that there can be a confusion between relative and Absolute are confused.

Don't listen to what I am saying, instead, listen to your own heart. You will know if you are on the correct path if you are open enough to be aware of the constant feedback you are receiving from your own actions.

Well thanks for the platitudes. What my heart tells me is that all this talk about delusion is itself an insidious form of delusion and not a path to clarity. But I do not separate the heart and the mind. Believing in myself means believing that my ability to think is not an impediment to my well-being, that the intellects ability to deceive does not mean that it should be jettisoned but rather mastered. The examined life requires critical, rational thought because the heart can deceive as well.

Fooloso4 wrote:If “real understanding” is impossible then drop the chatter about real understanding. It is not something you understand and there is no point talking about it. You cannot say that clarity is closer to seeing things as close to what they are because you have no standard, no measure, no real understanding of what they actually are. It is like swimming away from shore and thinking the more you swim the closer you get to shore.

Isn't this simply just another variant of noumena v phenomena?

I think it's well documented that science does not have unlimited reach. Further, its reach is greater than its relevance, eg. one can measure how much oxytocin is released in a person whose loved one has survived a near-fatal accident, but it doesn't matter.

Fooloso4 wrote:Synthesis:

(Nested quote removed.)


It just is.

Is this non-answer a zen thing? You are the one who has made distinctions between delusion and clarity, relative knowledge and real understanding, intellectual and non-intellectual and now you say "it just is"? Now you talk about the knowledge of a bird and an ant and a cat and human being and say they just are without regard to the distinctions you have made?

.........................

Well thanks for the platitudes. What my heart tells me is that all this talk about delusion is itself an insidious form of delusion and not a path to clarity. But I do not separate the heart and the mind. Believing in myself means believing that my ability to think is not an impediment to my well-being, that the intellects ability to deceive does not mean that it should be jettisoned but rather mastered. The examined life requires critical, rational thought because the heart can deceive as well.

Fooloso4, consider the following...

Many years ago, I decided to take a couple of years off and dedicated myself to full-time Zen practice. I spent the first year as a resident at a Zen center in Northern California and had an incredible experience. Every now and again, we would have sesshins [j. for intensive meditation period] where we would have anywhere between 10 and 17 sitting [meditation] periods that would last from 30-45 minutes each. The sesshins could be 1,3,5, or 7 days long.

During the heart of the sesshin, roshi [j. for teacher] would call you in for dokusan [j.for interview] to assess your progress [best assessed when you were deep into the practice]. Dokusan was a formal routine where you ended up in a kneeling meditation posture about 18 inches in front of roshi. If you have never come in contact with a Zen master, then allow me to tell you that they have incredible powers of concentration and sitting that close was extremely intense [his eyes were like laser beams. Allow me to digress for a moment.

Once a week, there would be book reading where interested members of the sangha [the congregation, about 120 lay practitioners] would come to hear roshi talk about one subject or another. Many of these people had been Zen students for 5, 10, 15, 20 years or more. Roshi would speak and then he would take questions from the sangha members [about 30 would attend along with the residents]. Week after week this would go on and these folks would ask essentially the same questions over and over and over... . In Zen, there is only one teaching, meditation only. EVERYTHING is pointing to this one truth. And although are a million ways to say it, this is THE message.

Back to dokusan. When roshi would call me into dokusan, I would listen to his comments on my practice and then he would ask if I had any questions. I never did because if the practice is mediation only, what is there to ask, right? So, about eight or nine months into my residency, and in the middle of a very intensive 7 day sesshin, I decided to ask roshi a question. Another digression.

In Zen practice, you NEVER EVER concern yourself with another's practice. Another's practice is between them and roshi...period!

So here I am a foot and a half from roshi and he is drilling holes right to the back of my skull. He asks me if I have any questions and I asked him the following...how it was possible that all these people who came to the weekly book readings [some who had been Zen students for decades] asked the same inane questions over and over and over when the only lesson in Zen is...meditation only, that there can be no intellectual understanding? I told him it was driving me crazy listening to these people!

Well, roshi got this stern look on his face and I thought that I had just made a horrendous error [traditionally in Zen, the master would smack you or find some such way to snap you out of your delusional behavior (especially if you were talking about others' practice)]. A minute went by, then two and only this stone look on this completely focused man. After four or five minutes and when I thought I was about to either explode or pass out, roshi got this big grin on his face and said, "You think it bad for you, I've been listening to these people for over 30 years now!"

What I came to learn subsequently is that most people never learn to give up the subjective mind, even those in Zen practice for many years. They never accept that Reality can not be accessed by the thinking mind nor can reality be appreciated in any real way. The best we can do is keep as clear as possible [this is where the wisdom is gained], and live life moment by moment.

Fooloso4, you must be willing to allow the delusions of mind to calm themselves in the wisdom of the heart.

It's difficult to know what might be best for others. Some prefer to emphasise emotions more, others function better by putting their emotions aside and thinking.

I'd said this before on the forum but I think the lesson in this prosaic instance has a deep lesson. The show: Michael Moseley's Trust Me, I'm a Doctor. The question at hand: comparing various foods for weight gain. What surprised everyone was that one participant gained weight eating chocolate but not bread, and another subject gained eating bread but not with chocolate.

Now imagine, before the show, the two women comparing dietary advice. If they based advice on their subjective experiences then each would be giving the other unhelpful information.

Syn, I've not sat at the feet of masters but did meditation and yoga classes, attending certain talks by spiritualists, attended meetings etc, and was generally interested in eastern spirituality. I wonder about what is really meant by Zen masters when they speak of the mind's delusion?

I suspect that the delusion is not concerned with the work of genius scientific pioneers but the anthropocentric bias - the notion that there's nothing important in reality aside from the goings on of one species on the surface of one planet. Thus there is a delusion that we humans are apart from nature rather than sophisticated expressions of it. On a related note, you will note that meditation masters try to stop their students from trying to impress. The idea is surely just to quietly seek authenticity, a point not lost on many secular philosophers and others down the ages.

Such simple advice - be authentic - but not in the face of powerful social and legal pressures.

Ranvier wrote: In another thread I proposed Absolute principles of our Universe that we can observe to deduce the "purpose" for life:
1. To become "better"
- If we observe the nature, we can distinguish two patterns:
A. Life chooses simplicity of structure and uniformity within species but benefits in survival due to numbers: bacteria, insects, algae
B. Life chooses another route, that of complexity of organism's structure in body systems and diversity in genetic material: animal kingdom
Humans are interesting species embracing both: numbers and complexity, taking the dominant place as the apex species.
2. This leads to second principle: that of complexity, which according to first principle (1B) is better.
3. Third principle is that of the balance, which we can observe everywhere: super-symmetry, plain symmetry, particle and wave, expansion and contraction, or human body systems of say: Calcitonin/PTH (high PTH > osteoporosis), or Dopamine/Acetyl choline (low dopamine > Parkinson's) Too much of any one thing is not good... goes directly to what Socrateaze said: experience and learn in balance.

We can extrapolate the conclusion of the purpose from all three principles. As for the meaning: as conscious sentient beings we determine the meaning. Without our consciousness this place would be boring, still beautiful but without anyone to notice. Presumably the meaning becomes > to make this place meaningful > this is exactly what we are doing.
Making the World a better place.

So cheer up

It's good to have someone write down the rules of Absolute Principles for everyone to follow in this universe. It's been long overdue. Until now, due to randomness of mutations, things just formed any way and in any direction as they happened. Now we have some guidelines, finally.

-- Updated 2017 August 28th, 5:45 am to add the following --

Synthesis wrote: Fooloso4, you must be willing to allow the delusions of mind to calm themselves in the wisdom of the heart.

I don't know if your advice will stick with Fooloso4. For me, delusion, in me or in others, will not let me rest, and makes me anxious, and/or angry, and/or wishing to get out of the map, and/or annihilate the delusional one (that includes myself, and absolutely ALL delusional people.) It is the farthest from having a calming effect on me. I would rather have two hundred loud protesters who are rattling my cage and scream at me reasonable things, than one delusional person to speak kindly to me and make absolutely no solid sense with his or her babble.

Fooloso4,

Is this non-answer a zen thing?

I don't think NOT giving an answer is always a bad thing, it depends on the question and if we have an answer. Zen people are known for their wisdom and sometimes do give good answers, but the audience may not always be receptive to it. Sometimes the question is more important than the answer. We may provide questions on the forum, to which we don't have the answers to ourselves and so a debate is born. Therapy also often works with questions to help the clients; questions have a remedial affect on a person, despite the fact that he/she may not have the answer.

-- Updated August 28th, 2017, 8:22 am to add the following --

-1-

I don't know if your advice will stick with Fooloso4. For me, delusion, in me or in others, will not let me rest, and makes me anxious, and/or angry, and/or wishing to get out of the map, and/or annihilate the delusional one (that includes myself, and absolutely ALL delusional people.) It is the farthest from having a calming effect on me. I would rather have two hundred loud protesters who are rattling my cage and scream at me reasonable things, than one delusional person to speak kindly to me and make absolutely no solid sense with his or her babble.

Are you going to decide if he/she is delusional? A person may be delusional in conventional reason, but a genius in abstract reason.

Greta:

Isn't this simply just another variant of noumena v phenomena?

That is what it reminds me of except Kant did not call the phenomenal world delusion and many Buddhist (although apparently not Synthesis) believe in enlightenment and that in enlightenment one is able to experience the “suchness” of things, that is, as they are in themselves.


Synthesis:

"You think it bad for you, I've been listening to these people for over 30 years now!"

I’ve heard the same punchline except it was a psychiatrist not a Zen Master. Good one though.


Socrateaze:

I don't think NOT giving an answer is always a bad thing, it depends on the question and if we have an answer.

Agreed. As you said, it depends. That is why I framed my response as I did, but I was not being serious. The answer was simply evasive.

Therapy also often works with questions to help the clients; questions have a remedial affect on a person, despite the fact that he/she may not have the answer.

Wittgenstein talks about philosophical therapy, which is largely about confusion engendered by the question.

Fooloso4

Socrateaze:

I don't think NOT giving an answer is always a bad thing, it depends on the question and if we have an answer.

Agreed. As you said, it depends. That is why I framed my response as I did, but I was not being serious. The answer was simply evasive.

Therapy also often works with questions to help the clients; questions have a remedial affect on a person, despite the fact that he/she may not have the answer.

Wittgenstein talks about philosophical therapy, which is largely about confusion engendered by the question.

We have many reasons for being evasive, sometimes it's because we don't want to answer the question, sometimes it's because we can't. Sometimes it is not wise to give out answers, as I have discovered many times with people who argue from a general knowledge base and think they have all the answers in opposition to someone who has experience and or knowledge on a matter. I find it very hard to be quiet about my knowledge, but have learned the painful way that sharing it with people who argue from such a point will only leave you looking like the fool.

I don't think science is nonsense, like I said before in a previous post; since grows with us and of course there will be mistakes. I think what the OP means is that he is tired of people who claim to know and pass it as law.

I like the idea of philosophical therapy - in a sense Scott is running a shrink's office here? I find that comforting, since a challenge to one's own ideas can be very refreshing and helps expand knowledge.

- I think it would be more accurate to say that *some* science is underdeveloped and the way people preach it as gospel is nonsense.





- ...... Perhaps it would be accurate to say some scientists are arrogant - instead of saying science is nonsense?

Socrateaze:

- ...... Perhaps it would be accurate to say some scientists are arrogant - instead of saying science is nonsense?

And some philosophers are arrogant, and some students of Zen are arrogant,and some physicians are arrogant, and some plumbers are arrogant. Some people are arrogant.

Fooloso4 wrote:Socrateaze:

- ...... Perhaps it would be accurate to say some scientists are arrogant - instead of saying science is nonsense?

And some philosophers are arrogant, and some students of Zen are arrogant,and some physicians are arrogant, and some plumbers are arrogant. Some people are arrogant.

Yes, of course, not to mention the religious folk who are delusional on top of it all.

Socrateaze wrote: A question: if we search our whole life for the meaning of life, have we missed out on the meaning of life?

If the meaning of life is NOT to search for the meaning of life, then once someone finds the meaning of life, the meaning of life is forever lost on him.

----------

About delusionality: Yes, Socrateaze, you're right, one and the same person can be seen as delusional and as not delusional. Allow me the indulgence to decide for myself who is and who is not. If someone is not delusional in a different aspect from how I see him, then that's a subjective judgment, just like mine is subjective judgment.

However, if someone can show that the delusionality or the non-delusionality can be found with objective means, then I still can decide who is and who is not delusional, by applying the objective test. After all, the objective test is available to anyone and everyone.

-- Updated 2017 August 28th, 6:36 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote:
And some philosophers are arrogant, and some students of Zen are arrogant,and some physicians are arrogant, and some plumbers are arrogant. Some people are arrogant.

Heck, I am arrogant, and I'm none of that. Although someone in my past called my style "Provocative". He was a very fine gentleman, a mathematician, and a philosopher, every inch a gentle gentleman.

-- Updated 2017 August 28th, 6:37 pm to add the following --

And let's face it: some people are just plain stupid.