GENIUS FORUMS

G'day all: a first post. By introduction, Kev and I are real-life neighbours. We juggle coding and philosophy - we don't always find agreement but the dialogue is stimulating (so is debugging). Here's a perspective.

One of the pillars of faith is belief in the absolute truth of an uncaused, infinite totality: totalitarianism. Another is belief that reason of necessity explicates all: totalitarianism is necessary. The third pillar is belief that the feminine is unconsciousness: totalitarianism is necessary and should be practiced by men. The totality can be none other than that it is: totalitarianism is necessary and should be practiced by men who can imagine nothing else. Does absolute truth exist? Absolutely: truth is that every thing has boundaries but everything does not. Totalitarianism is necessary and should be practiced by men who can imagine nothing else, least of all paradox.

If that was a little harsh for the second paragraph of a first post then please forgive me. I'm not trying to vilify the preachers of totalitarianism: Dan and David are probably in many areas morally respectable, interesting men; that description certainly applies to Kev. Through contrast their position helps me to identify my own. What I am critical of though is the strength of the assertions that they make: assertions that, despite making an honest attempt, I have been unable to personally verify.

So much for satire and commentary - the truth is that I believe in absolute truth too. At some point though the totalitarianists and I diverge: they into proclamative certitude, I into curious and awed agnosticism; we are all religious. My absolute truths are simple and are implicated by the nature of intelligent and effective consciousness: I exist, I perceive, I feel, I express.

"I exist". Is that not the most unimaginably incredible, inscrutably incomprehensible, stupendously paradoxical and mind-bogglingly impossible statement that can be expressed? The theory of relativity has some awesome wow factor to it, but it's not even in the same league as this humble profundity. Who truly expects to be able to comprehend it? In my life I have not come close and totality knows (at least Kev does) that I'm open to the possibility. Do we sometimes forget how to marvel? Isn't part of the point of life to be wandering around with our figurative jaws wide open in awestruck joy at the whole how-in-the-heaven-ness of it all, even whilst we partake of practicality? The idea that Kev and Nat agreed upon in the second podcast - that the question can be "dissolved" - does not accord with my perspective: I find that "the question" is inescapable even though I sometimes choose to focus elsewhere. The mystery is God (God is omnipresent). By constantly keeping the mystery in mind we can draw purpose from curiosity and joy from marvel: God sustains us. Science is the search for God. Our interpretation of God evolves as we search deeper. Consciousness is evolution in action. To be intelligently conscious is to be a scientist.

Here is some further expression for those whose reaction is: "mysterious - I can go with that, but paradoxical - what do you mean?" This is a chain of associative reasoning that I (and probably you) developed as a child when I first started to marvel and to consider concepts such as cause-and-effect and infinity - it is the main reason that my response to the totalitarianists is satirical:
1. Every thing is caused by some other thing/s (a postulate based on observation)
2. Every effect is itself a cause (a second postulate based on observation)
3. Since no thing is causeless and because each effect is itself a cause, the chain/web of causes and effects must extend as both an infinite regression and an infinite progression that we know as the universe (ignoring the inconvenient current scientific model where time is bounded in its reverse direction and also ignoring my curiosity at the directionality and momentariness of time)
4. Since all causes are contained within the universe, the universe itself cannot be caused
5. (1) and (4) contradict each other (this is the paradox)

Sharing this perspective with Kev, his response was to dismiss the paradox by defining "thing" as "that which has boundaries" (the universe is not a thing). In turn I defined "thing" as "a coherent proportion of existence", where proportion could be one hundred percent (the universe is a thing). Whose definition should we use? It depends on what we want to express.

Kev's definition is part of an interpretation of reality whereby we proclaim that all meaningful questions have been answered. I proclaim on the contrary that totalitarianism does not meaningfully and to my satisfaction answer the question: "how is it that anything exists at all?" Kev always has an answer; I often do not. The comfort in atheism is in having all the answers: this is why the atheist settles for a restricted explanation (the atheist denies that s/he is a scientist). The comfort of belief in God - evolving paradoxical mystery - is the likelihood that no one else has all of the answers yet either.

Through my recent exchanges with Kev I have become aware that reason is inextricable from belief and is congruent with insight. Reason is part of an evolving feedback loop limited only by our imaginations (and perhaps our genetics). If we want our imaginative interpretation to be useful though then we limit it to that which produces practically effective results (perhaps this is a point that Victor was trying to make in his podcast). Neither of these definitions of "thing" prove absolute truth: they help to communicate about life two different perspectives that might or might not trigger insight. I believe that there are absolute truths beyond those that are obvious but in my agnosticism I am loath to declare any.

I also believe that we all marvel at life at some point/s, particularly as children and adolescents, but that most of us simply file the mystery away in the back of our minds (God is with me always) as "fascinating but unsolvable" and engage with reality more practically.

So then to get to the point of this post and to how I hope that this thread will progress (not that I dissuade engagement with my earlier points, just that I hope that such responses will be incidental): what I am interested in beyond the profound inexplicability of life is consideration of the most plausible interpretations of existence and of the consequences of those interpretation/s: why and how should I act and express myself? I am interested to know how many of you consider this issue and where your thoughts have led you (I am willing to share my own position). To be clear about exactly what I mean: I am asking what the likely implications of life's absolute truths - whatever you hold them to be - are for your behaviour.

--
I'd rather be cheeky than arrogant (but I'm not perfect yet)

Laird wrote:1. Every thing is caused by some other thing/s (a postulate based on observation)
...
4. Since all causes are contained within the universe, the universe itself cannot be caused
5. (1) and (4) contradict each other (this is the paradox)

The Universe is not a thing, and the Whole can not wholly be observed, although the nature of It can be reasoned. The Universe is cause, and effect, at base. There isn't really a contradiction.

Laird wrote:Sharing this perspective with Kev, his response was to dismiss the paradox by defining "thing" as "that which has boundaries" (the universe is not a thing). In turn I defined "thing" as "a coherent proportion of existence", where proportion could be one hundred percent (the universe is a thing). Whose definition should we use? It depends on what we want to express.

That is not an invalid way of looking at it; you have merely defined "thing" differently (although "thingness" would hint at a concept of duality, which would ignore its nothingness). 100% of the Infinite would include its nothingness - here - pick up that thread from there a moment please. I just typed out something similar enough to Sapius that conveys the same basic idea.

Laird wrote:why and how should I act and express myself?

Why is because you can not help it. Whether you act or express inaction, you are being, which necessitates a state of beingness.

How would be genuinely. You are who you are as a result of all the causes that made you who you are, and the path you take is essentially who you become. Keep in mind that who you want to be is part of the cause of who you become, whether you make or miss that accomplishment (this recognition relieves the inertia that often develops when one accepts that causality applies to the self as well).
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Laird wrote:why and how should I act and express myself?

[...]
How would be genuinely.

What if my genuine nature were sadistic? - it so happens to not be, but if it were should I not temper it in recognition of the negative effects that I would be imposing on other people?

Laird,

That would be part of causality to determine what the genuine state is. A truly sadistic person would be unlikely to temper sadism due to the effects sadistic behavior has on others, but would temper sadism due to punitive measures that others may take on that individual. The genuine result would be a tempered sadist. If being a tempered sadist were unsatisfactory, the person might either learn compassion or cause conditions to become an externally restrained sadist.
.

Laird wrote:What if my genuine nature were sadistic? - it so happens to not be, but if it were should I not temper it in recognition of the negative effects that I would be imposing on other people?

Yes. If you recognize some major flaw in yourself, your priority should be on fixing that, rather than expressing your "true" self.

DHodges wrote:

Laird wrote:What if my genuine nature were sadistic? - it so happens to not be, but if it were should I not temper it in recognition of the negative effects that I would be imposing on other people?

Yes. If you recognize some major flaw in yourself, your priority should be on fixing that, rather than expressing your "true" self.

Elizabeth seems to suggest the possibility of a sadist who is incapable of recognising the enjoyment of imposing suffering upon others as a flaw. Do you also believe in this possibility? If so, do you believe that such people exist/have existed/will exist?

Laird wrote:Elizabeth seems to suggest the possibility of a sadist who is incapable of recognising the enjoyment of imposing suffering upon others as a flaw.

As Elizabeth points out, there are all kinds of psychopaths and sociopaths out there. If you are not aware of that, then you are very lucky indeed.

Do you also believe in this possibility? If so, do you believe that such people exist/have existed/will exist?

Yes, but more likely, I would say, is someone unable to recognize that this is a flaw in himself. He might recognize it as a flaw in someone else.

There are also many who would deny (to themselves and to others) that they enjoy the suffering of others, but it is obvious in their behavior.

The comfort in atheism is in having all the answers.

Thank you.

Atheism has nothing to with "having all the answers." It's just a lack of belief in a certain very specific proposition.

DHodges wrote:As Elizabeth points out, there are all kinds of psychopaths and sociopaths out there. If you are not aware of that, then you are very lucky indeed.

I have not yet met anyone whom I believe to be irredeemable. Perhaps I need to practice as a clinical criminal psychologist. I believe in the strong possibility of the existence of evil though.

DHodges wrote:

Laird wrote:Do you also believe in this possibility? If so, do you believe that such people exist/have existed/will exist?

Yes, but more likely, I would say, is someone unable to recognize that this is a flaw in himself. He might recognize it as a flaw in someone else.

So, like me, you find it hard to believe that any (wo)man is completely irredeemable (God is merciful; we can all be saved through his grace). Is that a fair statement?

DHodges wrote:There are also many who would deny (to themselves and to others) that they enjoy the suffering of others, but it is obvious in their behavior.

I was tempted to class sociopathy and psychopathy under the "dead ends" of evolution before reading in the link that Elizabeth posted that the afflicted often become heroes in war. They are of necessity aberrations because the consequences of their position if everyone were to simultaneous hold it is annihilation or at least widespread suffering including (very likely) to themselves.

This brings me to the point that I hoped that we would all be able to agree on in this thread: that the "absolute truth" that we can suffer or experience pleasure/joy/happiness/stimulation combined with the likelihood that the characters that we observe around us are beings with equal capacity and importance as ourselves restricts the sensible range of our behaviour (by "characters" I intend all conscious life which I hold to be similarly capable of both suffering and pleasure). That we can judge the spirituality of a human being by the extent to which s/he practices the principle of "minimise suffering in the world; maximise enjoyment". By this reckoning I can foster humility in myself, for there are many who live lives of service and I have not become one of them, despite having an inspirational example in my parents to draw from (I have my justifications, nevertheless the fact remains that my potential has not been fully realised).

brokenhead wrote:

The comfort in atheism is in having all the answers.

Thank you.

Likewise.

Unidian wrote:Atheism has nothing to with "having all the answers." It's just a lack of belief in a certain very specific proposition.

Nat, what you refer to, I term agnosticism. The atheist goes beyond lack of belief and into a position of certitude that denies the existence of mystery: that is, God as we are best able to conceive the concept. And who can deny the mystery of existence other than one who craves the comfort of certainty more than the comfort of the shared unknown?

Welcome along Laird,

Here's a tip! - some questions are dissolved/resolved by way of apprehending that the question itself is incoherent/meaningless from the start. It's not always about unsatisfactory answers; sometimes it's about unsatisfactory questions (which contain false assumptions or premises).

Dan Rowden wrote:some questions are dissolved/resolved by way of apprehending that the question itself is incoherent/meaningless from the start.

Dan, I have explored this path in my engagement with Kevin, as I explained in my original post. I cannot dissolve the question. I see in totalitarianism a limited system of belief with more plausibility than some other systems of belief but lacking in transcendent insight. I don't know whether such insight is possible - such is the nature of my agnosticism. Totalitarianism teaches that learning is superfluous. I find that the more that I learn, the more that I can imagine. In learning (engagement with reality and with other people) and imagination is hope of deeper insight. Perhaps the best that we can do with our current apparatus is acceptance (Tao, Zen). But, hey, the mystery is there to be explored, no?

I don't really understand what you mean when you say our philosophy teaches that learning is superfluous. It doesn't. It teaches that learning about things one comes to know is superfluous - but this is pretty obvious. As to the "mystery", you'll find that an examination of the premises underlying the idea that there is a "mystery" will help. For example, the question "Why something rather than nothing?" is a question built on incoherent thinking. There can be no "nothing" so the question falls apart immediately. Nothing only has meaning in relation to something. The premise that there could be an alternative to "something" doesn't have any meaning, therefore neither does the question.

Looking for deeper insight is what it's all about, certainly, but there does come a time when one recognises that insight - into the nature of existence at least - can go no deeper. Here the mystery evaporates and one can get on with other things...

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't really understand what you mean when you say our philosophy teaches that learning is superfluous.

I think that you answered this later:

Dan Rowden wrote:there does come a time when one recognises that insight - into the nature of existence at least - can go no deeper.

The implication that I take from this is that once your insight reaches the level of complete, absolute truth that you no longer have need to learn.

Dan Rowden wrote:For example, the question "Why something rather than nothing?" is a question built on incoherent thinking.

I will try to rephrase it in a way that you find coherent then. Here's a possibility: "How is it that I exist?"

Dan Rowden wrote:There can be no "nothing" so the question falls apart immediately. Nothing only has meaning in relation to something.

I would phrase that as "the definition of nothing is contextual and implies the definition of something". But that is not to say that the reality that the concept "nothing" points to cannot exist independently of the reality of "something".

Dan Rowden wrote:The premise that there could be an alternative to "something" doesn't have any meaning, therefore neither does the question.

Is that a belief or an absolute truth?

Dan Rowden wrote:[Upon reaching absolute insight] the mystery evaporates and one can get on with other things...

"I have gone as far as I can and have settled for my current limitations which I refuse to recognise as such." To me it is a message of lost hope. The message that I take from totalitarianism is "it just is, so stop asking". This is the nature of fundamentalist religion. But I heartily agree that we should get on with other things, which things and why I was hoping would be the topic of this thread.

Laird wrote:I will try to rephrase it in a way that you find coherent then. Here's a possibility: "How is it that I exist?"

Basically, your Dad did it with your Mom.
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Laird wrote:I will try to rephrase it in a way that you find coherent then. Here's a possibility: "How is it that I exist?"

Basically, your Dad did it with your Mom.

I find it hard to believe that we are such fundamentally different human beings that you are honestly satisfied with such an answer to what I intended as a fundamental question. So please tell me, are you honestly satisfied with it or are you simply trying to be cute? I would like to imagine that you are intrinsically cute without having to try. Does this imagination have any hope?

Ok, I think we need to establish your criteria for "satisfactory" here, Laird. What constitutes a satisfactory answer for you?

Oh, and I'm sure Elizabeth was joking.

I was making a joke, but I was also pointing at causality. The joke was prompted by the nebulous nature of your question (meaning I agree with Dan that you need to define the parameters of what you are looking for a lot more specifically). I was not trying to be "cute." A sense of humor has many purposes, and one purpose I use it for is getting to know a person.
.

Dan Rowden wrote:Ok, I think we need to establish your criteria for "satisfactory" here, Laird. What constitutes a satisfactory answer for you?

Something that gives me an aha moment of the type that in itself explains why further aha moments are neither necessary nor possible.

Dan Rowden wrote:Oh, and I'm sure Elizabeth was joking.

Yes, that seems obvious now. Very cute Elizabeth.

Laird wrote:Very cute Elizabeth.

Look at my avatar. Does that say "tries to be cute" in any way to you?
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Laird wrote:Very cute Elizabeth.

Look at my avatar. Does that say "tries to be cute" in any way to you?

It says to me "perceives profundity in the wonder of natural existence".

How is it that I exist?

You are just a dynamic pattern within the current configuration of the universe. You exist because of evolution of matter and then life has given the human pattern the tools to take in other patterns of the universe and use them to temporarily expand the patterns of existence within the universe that are directly alterable by you - ie you eat food, drink and breath, these things are all external patterns commensurate with the cuasal patterns your body has evolved to replenish its physical structure and electrical magnetic flows. Complex structurally coordinated electro-magnetic flows is why life differs from other things.

I might ask you a question. Do you think the general theory of evolution, including natural selection, applies to matter. I do. It all just depends on the cuasal relativity between more synergistic causal patterns of existence and less synergistic patterns. Synergies are a form of bounding and bounding produces increases in pattern strength.

Jamesh wrote:I might ask you a question. Do you think the general theory of evolution, including natural selection, applies to matter.

Jamesh, in one of the possibilities that I imagine this is the case. In that possibility one of the fundamental properties of existence is will. Evolution is the expression of will in realising itself. Before life there was will: matter and the laws of the universe evolved that will might express itself in greater and greater levels of complexity. The ultimate purpose of existence would then be nothing more than self-expression. The purpose of language would be simply to share expression for the purpose of evolving the inherent will of existence into yet higher levels of expressivity. Another way of looking at it would be to say that we are evolving towards God, where God is the answer to the question that is asked in the void: "what would I be if I could be anything that I wanted to be?"

This is nothing that I would put my faith in but it is a definite possibility in my mind.