GENIUS FORUMS

Greetings to all. I'm newly arrived here. How long I will stay remains to be seen.

I imagine that the title of the forum attracts people who are very clever, who like to consider difficult questions.

In a spirit of amiable enquiry, I would like to pose a question. It is actually two questions, but they appear to me to be intertwined.

The first question is " What is 'human nature' ? "

I am not asking here for the dictionary definition or the wikipaedia entry or the formulaic answers provided long ago by traditional or historical schools of thought and belief.
I'm trying to fathom in what terms humans might conceive of themselves within our contemporary setting.

Perhaps the question itself is not sensible, or impossible to answer sensibly. I'm open to the possibility that all that can be concluded is that 'we are'. Or maybe, 'we are whatever we think we are'. But perhaps someone can illuminate a way forward from that position ?

The second question is " What is Everything ? ".
By this I do not mean the scientific description of the known or knowable Universe in technical terms of what can be comprehended of structure and dynamics. I rather mean what is the totality of all that we know. Is it a ' thing ' ? If the totality of all can be considered as a thing, a something (as opposed to a nothing) how might it be approached, intellectually, appropriately, in a reasoned fashion ?

Again, perhaps this is a naive question, over simple. Or perhaps it is just too difficult to address comfortably. But I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts or opinions.

My personal view would be that we overlay raw reality with language and conceptual frameworks, cerebral intellectual models, to try and map raw reality so we can navigate our lives. What I am asking tries to go a little deeper. What is it that we map ?

I tend to believe that we find sense or meaning by way of metaphor, by comparisom, by differences. A dog is like a fox. Mars is like Mercury. But the totality is singular and evades comparisom, not 'like' anything else. Does this mean it is meaningless ?

Are we clever animals that have learned how to manipulate the ground of our existence, whilst being entirely ignorant of what we really are, unable to know if we are 'meant' to be anything or not ?
Are we clever animals who tell ourselves stories to provide comfort, in the face of inexplicable vastness and mystery ?

It is easy to see how a good story could enrich our human existence and make it more tolerable. But without humans, where would the stories be ? Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ? Presumably, the 'Everything' part of my question was operating, and went on to produce us, so if there is meaning now, how could there have been none then, because surely, any worthwhile profound sort of meaning must extend beyond human neurochemistry ? Or am I wrong in thinking of existence and evolution in linear time ?

I take a perspectivist stance. The astrophysicist will have one take; the biologist, another; the bishop a third, and so on.
All such views may be useful or helpful in particular instances according to one's purpose or requirement. But what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

No doubt, the fully enlightened zen master would tell me to chew my rice slowly, or some such. Perhaps to smile when the flower is held up is the only possible answer that can be given ? or perhaps it is possible to state an original thought that has never previously been conceived ?

I wished that I could reply with as clever as you are.

I will admit I often harbor suspicions for those who begin their postings here with a thread of their own. But for you, graciously smiling as you are, could I be cross? It would be uncouth, unwelcoming. You deserve the benefit of every doubt, all the leeway on the lee shore rather than any crabbings whatsoever of one who would even think of sticking to form, though that is my nature.

So gaily, please come in, make yourself welcome, have some warm milk, the others will be along shortly, some to roast your head in the fire, some to fawn like dogs in the light of your bold intelligence, and some to use your bright moon shadow to vent their insanity quietly. For you have entered Genius, and it now enters you, and ushers you into the realms of mathematical logic and the redemption of your uninherent mind in the library of inevitable reason.

Thank you, for your courtesy, Carl. Much appreciated.

I'm semi-retired from this sort of thing, but just for the exercise and to acknowledge your sincere and thoughtful introductory post, I'll have a crack at this. Stay tuned.

Greetings to all. I'm newly arrived here. How long I will stay remains to be seen.

Just offhand, I'd predict a potentially short stay. You seem pleasant, thoughtful, and reasonable. The general atmosphere here is not necessarily consistent with maintaining those admirable qualities, as you may discover.

I imagine that the title of the forum attracts people who are very clever, who like to consider difficult questions.

Yes, it attracts a certain number of such individuals. Unfortunately, it also attracts two other specific types who are probably less desirable - egotists and persons suffering from various clinical disorders. I realize such a description is both blunt and somewhat harsh, but if you stick around, I think you'll rapidly see the truth of it.

In a spirit of amiable enquiry, I would like to pose a question. It is actually two questions, but they appear to me to be intertwined.

The first question is " What is 'human nature' ? "

I am not asking here for the dictionary definition or the wikipaedia entry or the formulaic answers provided long ago by traditional or historical schools of thought and belief.
I'm trying to fathom in what terms humans might conceive of themselves within our contemporary setting.

Perhaps the question itself is not sensible, or impossible to answer sensibly. I'm open to the possibility that all that can be concluded is that 'we are'. Or maybe, 'we are whatever we think we are'. But perhaps someone can illuminate a way forward from that position ?

I'd say that your initial suspicion is the correct one. "What are we really" are is a sincere question that is wrongly asked - but the ironic catch is that we can't discover the truth of this firsthand without making every attempt to answer it. The Zen tradition offers the koan and the nonsensical answer such "Mu" to point to this - the idea being to encourage the intellect to frustrate itself searching for a rational answer to the riddle of existence until it fully realizes its own limitations and surrenders to the primacy of direct experience.

The second question is " What is Everything ? ".
By this I do not mean the scientific description of the known or knowable Universe in technical terms of what can be comprehended of structure and dynamics. I rather mean what is the totality of all that we know. Is it a ' thing ' ? If the totality of all can be considered as a thing, a something (as opposed to a nothing) how might it be approached, intellectually, appropriately, in a reasoned fashion ?

Again, perhaps this is a naive question, over simple. Or perhaps it is just too difficult to address comfortably. But I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts or opinions.

Human nature is of the same source as all nature, and so the answer I gave above would apply to this as well.

But you also specified that you are looking for "a way forward" from this point. To me, that is the more interesting and relevant question, since there isn't much pragmatic meaning in "Mu." How do we go forward from the point at which we realize that "real reality" is beyond the grasp of language and conceptualization?

Zen would suggest that we are simply to "chop wood and carry water," meaning that we get on with life, letting go of these questions and leaving the need for conceptual "closure" behind entirely. After all, how can we prescribe a conceptual formula for "how to live" if we accept that life itself is trans-conceptual? One what basis can we use words to chart our course when the very waters through which we travel are profoundly wordless?

From this perspective, the way forward is the way forward. Not the sentence "the way forward" or the concept it represents, but the way itself, as it unfolds with perfect immediacy in our own direct experience. This is what is meant by Zen and Taoist sayings such as "wu-wei" (actionless action), "gateless gate," and "pathless path." The path is simply the path, without attachment to the concept of a path or to any words which might describe one.

My personal view would be that we overlay raw reality with language and conceptual frameworks, cerebral intellectual models, to try and map raw reality so we can navigate our lives.

Yes, we would agree there.

What I am asking tries to go a little deeper. What is it that we map ?

I don't blame you for trying to go deeper. It's natural to do so, and in fact I think it's necessary in order to pave the way for the eventual realization that when we seek to know reality at this most fundamental level, we are going where the mind cannot follow. But that's okay, because that is where we already are. There is no other place to be.

I tend to believe that we find sense or meaning by way of metaphor, by comparisom, by differences. A dog is like a fox. Mars is like Mercury. But the totality is singular and evades comparisom, not 'like' anything else. Does this mean it is meaningless ?

That would depend on how we define meaning. My view is that reality is inherently meaningful in an immediate experiential sense, and that the meaning of it is contained in its own direct expression. The meaning of an ocean wave crashing against the shore is an ocean wave crashing against the shore. There is no need for it to be any more, or any less. But because this sort of meaning is not context-dependent, those who maintain the belief that dualistic logic can describe reality at a fundamental level may judge it incoherent. I'm fine with that.

Are we clever animals that have learned how to manipulate the ground of our existence, whilst being entirely ignorant of what we really are, unable to know if we are 'meant' to be anything or not ?

Essentially, yes. This realization can be very challenging to deal with psychologically at first, but over time, you do learn to live with it. Living is an art, not a science. Uncertainty is part of the beauty of it.

Are we clever animals who tell ourselves stories to provide comfort, in the face of inexplicable vastness and mystery ?

Yes. However, it should be noted that "inexplicable vastness and mystery" is only one side of an inherently dialectical perspective. The Infinity within which we are integrally embedded is also profoundly ordinary. It isn't just the countless galaxies scattered in space or the unthinkable aeons of time receding into the past and future. It is also dandruff, tasteless TV, yesterday's breakfast, and this discussion. To think of reality in terms of mystery is not necessarily more valid than to think of it in terms of the known and familiar. Ultimately, it is both.

It is easy to see how a good story could enrich our human existence and make it more tolerable. But without humans, where would the stories be ? Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ? Presumably, the 'Everything' part of my question was operating, and went on to produce us, so if there is meaning now, how could there have been none then, because surely, any worthwhile profound sort of meaning must extend beyond human neurochemistry ?

The kind of meaning you are seeking can't be conceptualized or expressed in thought and language. For that reason, it isn't "meaning" in the traditional sense. Where it concerns having some purpose or reason comprehensible to human thought, the universe comes up short. But this does not mean there is not another sort of "meaningfulness" directly apparent to pre-conceptual (or trans-conceptual) awareness. Here, however, the same limits of language which lead to this conclusion prohibit its elaboration without engaging in what can only appear to be nonsense.

"Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence." - Wittgenstein

Or am I wrong in thinking of existence and evolution in linear time ?

No, because there's no other way to think about it. No other concept of time is actually thinkable, at least in coherent terms. It isn't wrong to think of things in the only way they can be thought about. It's all the mind can do.

I take a perspectivist stance. The astrophysicist will have one take; the biologist, another; the bishop a third, and so on.
All such views may be useful or helpful in particular instances according to one's purpose or requirement. But what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

Very little, I think. The best we can do is attempt to use language to point beyond language, and that's what I've tried to do here. Whether or not it will be meaningful to you will depend largely on how close you are to letting go of the ontological attachment to "discovering ultimate reality," which in turn will depend on how fully you've banged your mind against its own walls. My sense is that you're already pretty far down that road.

No doubt, the fully enlightened zen master would tell me to chew my rice slowly, or some such. Perhaps to smile when the flower is held up is the only possible answer that can be given ? or perhaps it is possible to state an original thought that has never previously been conceived ?

It's quite possible that such a thought might be stated. But I'm skeptical that it could ever fully succeed in trapping nature in a conceptual box. We are, after all, only human. It is only our biologically-evolved survival based tendency to want to "make sense of everything" that gives us the strange idea that we could do such a thing to begin with.

Just offhand, I'd predict a potentially short stay. You seem pleasant, thoughtful, and reasonable. The general atmosphere here is not necessarily consistent with maintaining those admirable qualities, as you may discover.

Thank you for your gentle introduction, Unidian. Let's hope you are overly pessimistic, because I chose to place my questions on this site (there are so many others! ) because I would prefer to discuss in a relatively tranquil ambience where people can think without the distraction of bruised egos and acrimony. So far, so good !

Perhaps the question itself is not sensible, or impossible to answer sensibly. I'm open to the possibility that all that can be concluded is that 'we are'. Or maybe, 'we are whatever we think we are'. But perhaps someone can illuminate a way forward from that position

I'd say that your initial suspicion is the correct one. "What are we really" are is a sincere question that is wrongly asked - but the ironic catch is that we can't discover the truth of this firsthand without making every attempt to answer it. The Zen tradition offers the koan and the nonsensical answer such "Mu" to point to this - the idea being to encourage the intellect to frustrate itself searching for a rational answer to the riddle of existence until it fully realizes its own limitations and surrenders to the primacy of direct experience.

Yes. I also think the question "What are we really" needs to be dis-assembled. I made it as simple as I could, for brevity, but it already contains several assumptions which need interogation.
I am familiar with the "Mu" koan.

The second question is " What is Everything ? ".
By this I do not mean the scientific description of the known or knowable Universe in technical terms of what can be comprehended of structure and dynamics. I rather mean what is the totality of all that we know. Is it a ' thing ' ? If the totality of all can be considered as a thing, a something (as opposed to a nothing) how might it be approached, intellectually, appropriately, in a reasoned fashion ?

Again, perhaps this is a naive question, over simple. Or perhaps it is just too difficult to address comfortably. But I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts or opinions.

Human nature is of the same source as all nature, and so the answer I gave above would apply to this as well.

Many people do not appear to see the connection to nature, and think of humans as 'different', even superior. There is evidence that we have evolved genetically over the last ten thousand years and, as a species, are biochemically not what we were. This might suggest that some kind of metamorphosis is taking place. I don't know. Personally, I think of myself as just another animal and live as close to nature (whatever that is ?) as I can.

But you also specified that you are looking for "a way forward" from this point. To me, that is the more interesting and relevant question, since there isn't much pragmatic meaning in "Mu." How do we go forward from the point at which we realize that "real reality" is beyond the grasp of language and conceptualization?

Zen would suggest that we are simply to "chop wood and carry water," meaning that we get on with life, letting go of these questions and leaving the need for conceptual "closure" behind entirely. After all, how can we prescribe a conceptual formula for "how to live" if we accept that life itself is trans-conceptual? One what basis can we use words to chart our course when the very waters through which we travel are profoundly wordless?

Thank you for addressing the more interesting aspect, Unidian. My daily life is the chopping wood and carrying water. But is that all, just because zen masters have said so for a thousand years ? My mind says it wants more. It can be serene and blissful (mushin) but it seems to demand that there be a crack in the wall somewhere. Perhaps there is. Perhaps nobody has looked with sufficient care.

From this perspective, the way forward is the way forward. Not the sentence "the way forward" or the concept it represents, but the way itself, as it unfolds with perfect immediacy in our own direct experience. This is what is meant by Zen and Taoist sayings such as "wu-wei" (actionless action), "gateless gate," and "pathless path." The path is simply the path, without attachment to the concept of a a path or to any words which might describe one.

Yes. This is the classic answer, clearly and concisely stated. Life is what it is. I am deeply grateful that someone managed to formulate the problem and the answer and to pass it down amidst all the confusion and insanity.

I seem to recall something that I read, " Painted cakes don't satisfy hunger". If I remember correctly, Dogen took the opposite view. Although unnutritious, we have an appetite for them which can be satisfied.

That would depend on how we define meaning. My view is that reality is inherently meaningful in an immediate experiential sense, and that the meaning of it is contained in its own integral expression. The meaning of an ocean wave crashing against the shore is an ocean wave crashing against the shore. There is no need for it to be any more, or any less. But because this sort of meaning is not context-dependent, those who maintain the belief that dualistic logic can describe reality at a fundamental level may judge it incoherent. I'm fine with that.

Well, the definition of terms is a prerequisite, as philosophers have noted for a couple of millennia and more, and 'meaning' seems especially tricky. I'm using the word in a sloppy, vernacular sense. Your comment is helpful. I will ponder it.

Are we clever animals that have learned how to manipulate the ground of our existence, whilst being entirely ignorant of what we really are, unable to know if we are 'meant' to be anything or not ?

Essentially, yes. This realization can be very challenging to deal with psychologically at first, but over time, you do learn to live with it. Living is an art, not a science. Uncertainty is part of the beauty of it.

Are we clever animals who tell ourselves stories to provide comfort, in the face of inexplicable vastness and mystery ?

Yes. However, it should be noted that "inexplicable vastness and mystery" is only one side of an inherently dialectical perspective. The Infinity within which we are integrally embedded is also profoundly ordinary. It isn't just the countless galaxies scattered in space or the unthinkable aeons of time receding into the past and future. It is also dandruff, tasteless TV, yesterday's breakfast, and this discussion. To think of reality in terms of mystery is not necessarily more valid than to think of it in terms of the known and familiar. Ultimately, it is both.

Aha!

It is easy to see how a good story could enrich our human existence and make it more tolerable. But without humans, where would the stories be ? Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ? Presumably, the 'Everything' part of my question was operating, and went on to produce us, so if there is meaning now, how could there have been none then, because surely, any worthwhile profound sort of meaning must extend beyond human neurochemistry ?

The kind of meaning you are seeking can't be conceptualized or expressed in thought and language. For that reason, it isn't "meaning" in the traditional sense. Where it concerns having some purpose or reason comprehensible to human thought, the universe comes up short. But this does not mean there is not another sort of "meaningfulness" directly apparent to pre-conceptual (or trans-conceptual) awareness. Here, however, the same limits of language which lead to this conclusion prohibit its elaboration without engaging in what can only appear to be nonsense.

"Of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence." - Wittgenstein

I don't disagree, but it is a somewhat dismal conclusion, no ? I mean, it seems we can talk about everything that's trivial, but when it comes to the important stuff that can't be measured, we're stuck.

Or am I wrong in thinking of existence and evolution in linear time ?

No, because there's no other way to think about it. No other concept of time is actually thinkable, at least in coherent terms. It isn't wrong to think of things in the only way they can be thought about. It's all the mind can do.

I take a perspectivist stance. The astrophysicist will have one take; the biologist, another; the bishop a third, and so on.
All such views may be useful or helpful in particular instances according to one's purpose or requirement. But what if we stand back, and take the broadest possible overview ? Is there anything useful or coherent that can be said in answer to my questions ?

Very little, I think. The best we can do is attempt to use language to point beyond language, and that's what I've tried to do here. Whether or not it will be meaningful to you will depend largely on how close you are to letting go of the ontological attachment to "discovering ultimate reality," which in turn will depend on how fully you've banged your mind against its own walls. My sense is that you're already pretty far down that road.

Hmm. I'm not sure that I am expecting to discover anything. I'm interested to know how others think about these rather obscure areas of discourse.

If I wished to appear 'clever', I'd present you with a slick reply to indicate my degree of enlightenment, e.g. "No road, no traveller", but zennish websites are teeming with that sort of enigmatic repartee, which I personally find ridiculous and irritating. I'm not here to show off my credentials in a competition to display wisdom. I'm here because I am 59 years old, might die anytime, and would like to clarify issues that intrigue me while I have the opportunity.

I don't think that I need endorsement from anyone as to my spiritual insight, because I receive endorsement on a daily basis from creatures which, in the main, are far more reliable indicators than most humans. Like the ancient Chinese and Tibetan illustrations of hermits in mountain retreats, that show deer and birds in close proximity, or like St. Francis in the Christian tradition, the wild creatures that surround my dwelling are not afraid of me. That has taken me many years to cultivate, and I am proud of the achievement.

No doubt, the fully enlightened zen master would tell me to chew my rice slowly, or some such. Perhaps to smile when the flower is held up is the only possible answer that can be given ? or perhaps it is possible to state an original thought that has never previously been conceived ?

It's quite possible that such a thought might be stated. But I'm skeptical that it could ever fully succeed in trapping nature in a conceptual box. We are, after all, only human. It is only our biologically-evolved survival based tendency to want to "make sense of everything" that gives us the strange idea that we could do such a thing to begin with.

Okay. I'm not unhappy with any of what you say here, which you explain so clearly and concisely. Thankyou. Perhaps we are indeed at the extreme point where language and reasoning are no longer of any assistance. Perhaps we are at the boundary of what is knowable and expressable in words.

My personal view would be that we overlay raw reality with language and conceptual frameworks, cerebral intellectual models, to try and map raw reality so we can navigate our lives. What I am asking tries to go a little deeper. What is it that we map ?

Dualistic differentiation.

Dualistic differentiation ?

Wouldn't that apply to the mapping, rather than the mapped territory ?

If you look at a mountain, the mind is overlaying the concept 'mountain' upon the tangible rocky phenomenon. It's named such and such a mountain, and has a distinctive shape and identity, this mountain, not that mountain. It has colours with names. The culture I grew up in taught me to think and speak in these terms. I had no choice.

Looking through the eyes of meditation, the map is peeled away, the mountain just is whatever it is. Joined geologically to all other mountains, it vibrates in the sunshine. The dualistic differentiation has dropped away, hasn't it ? There is consciousness, seeing, but distinction between self and other is suspended.

I know I am looking. I know I am seeing something. If I say that nobody knows what that 'something' is, am I correct ?

I have called it 'raw reality' and 'territory' because I need to communicate the idea.

But WHAT IS IT ?

Is it true that we don't know, will never know, can never know ?

I guess the stereotypical zen master would hit me with an oar and knock me out of the boat into the icy lake...

Wolfbird,

The first question is " What is 'human nature' ? "

Generally speaking, human nature closely resembles animal behavior, but more advanced intellectuals receive the gift of reason.

The second question is " What is Everything ? ".

The ‘Everything’ is so vast that reason cannot capture it all, but it is able to analyze tiny fragments as a means to reach greater forms of understanding within a specific context, and those fragments exist as mirrors of understanding reflected from reality into the mind.

What is it that we map ?

I say for the most part, I value mapping the way things are through a moral framework. The most interesting scientific problems are moral problems, so we navigate through reality as a means to make things better, to reduce the plight of humanity. Without relative plight/problems, there wouldn’t be much to do or think about. Disorder gives rise to greater forms of understanding. The Solution is understood by analyzing the extent of the disorder.

Was there 'meaning', say, twenty million years ago, before Homo Sapiens ?

There cannot be meaning without a semi-rational observer creating meaning with the mind. The mind is the tool of meaning, without it, there lacks an awareness of anything.

Hello Ryan, and thank you for your reply.

Generally speaking, human nature closely resembles animal behavior, but more advanced intellectuals receive the gift of reason.

I accept you generalize, but human culture varies far more than any animal behaviour and seems to be almost infinitely flexible, so that it is confusing if one wishes to isolate some kernel of what human nature is really like.
You divide humans into advanced and, presumably, less-advanced (retarded?) on the grounds of ability to reason ? Let's not go there, it's a side issue.

The ‘Everything’ is so vast that reason cannot capture it all, but it is able to analyze tiny fragments as a means to reach greater forms of understanding within a specific context, and those fragments exist as mirrors of understanding reflected from reality into the mind.

Yes. That's what we do. That's what everybody seems to do. That's why I go the other direction, putting all the bits back into the whole, and ask 'what is it?' Certainly, vast, too big for the mind to grasp effectively, except by way of a proxy, label as 'Everything'.

All I'm really doing is saying 'Let X = the totality. What is X ? Can anything be said about X ?'

I say for the most part, I value mapping the way things are through a moral framework. The most interesting scientific problems are moral problems, so we navigate through reality as a means to make things better, to reduce the plight of humanity. Without relative plight/problems, there wouldn’t be much to do or think about. Disorder gives rise to greater forms of understanding. The Solution is understood by analyzing the extent of the disorder.

Fair enough, I have nothing against morality or attempting to do good, except perhaps that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions', as the saying goes. But I'm trying to consider the questions in a more abstract way, isolated, at least for the sake of argument, from human notions of good and bad.

There cannot be meaning without a semi-rational observer creating meaning with the mind. The mind is the tool of meaning, without it, there lacks an awareness of anything.

Does that stand up ? So when I die, everything vanishes and ceases to exist ? Was that Wittgenstein's final position ? Meaning is entirely contingent on a semi-rational observer ? By which I assume you mean a human. So, if we all become extinct, the planet will continue on it's trajectory, but that would mean nothing whatsoever ? Maybe I'm out of my depth here, but I feel there's something wrong. Maybe it's the logic, or maybe it seems to attach too much weight to human reasoning. I'm not sure. Perhaps someone can bring clarity.

Wolfbird,

What is X ? Can anything be said about X ?

X is the sum of all minds, some inferior, some superior. Some deluded, some clear-minded. The clear-minded ones have the most advanced mirror of reality.

But I'm trying to consider the questions in a more abstract way, isolated, at least for the sake of argument, from human notions of good and bad.

isn't that a contradiction? You are using the notion of bad to assert that is bad to use notions of good and bad. Why do you judge me as bad for judging what is bad? Do you follow your inconsistency here?

Does that stand up ? So when I die, everything vanishes and ceases to exist ? Was that Wittgenstein's final position ? Meaning is entirely contingent on a semi-rational observer ? By which I assume you mean a human. So, if we all become extinct, the planet will continue on it's trajectory, but that would mean nothing whatsoever ? Maybe I'm out of my depth here, but I feel there's something wrong. Maybe it's the logic, or maybe it seems to attach too much weight to human reasoning. I'm not sure. Perhaps someone can bring clarity.

If all humans died on this planet, then this planet would cease to exist in the sense that there would lack any rational awareness of it. The mind creates reality, as things can only be conceived of through the mind. Other organisms experience the totality in some primitive sense, but it is at such a pre-rational level that it doesn’t actually count as anything concrete.

The existence of sentient rational beings give existence and life meaning.

X is the sum of all minds, some inferior, some superior. Some deluded, some clear-minded. The clear-minded ones have the most advanced mirror of reality.

Sorry, Ryan. I cannot agree. Perhaps you have misunderstood what I meant when I spoke of Everything.

isn't that a contradiction? You are using the notion of bad to assert that is bad to use notions of good and bad. Why do you judge me as bad for judging what is bad? Do you follow your inconsistency here?

I did not say anything about 'good' or 'bad'. I said I don't see morality as connected to the topic of enquiry.
(because you introduced morality).
I'm certainly not judging you as good or bad. Your moral character is irrelevant, as is mine.

If all humans died on this planet, then this planet would cease to exist in the sense that there would lack any rational awareness of it. The mind creates reality, as things can only be conceived of through the mind. Other organisms experience the totality in some primitive sense, but it is at such a pre-rational level that it doesn’t actually count as anything concrete.

The existence of sentient rational beings give existence and life meaning.

So, in your opinion, for this world, this planet, this Universe to exist, you (and/or other humans) must exist ?

So, if all humans died, what happens to the all those galaxies, all that vastness ?

Unidian wrote:For that reason, it isn't "meaning" in the traditional sense. Where it concerns having some purpose or reason comprehensible to human thought, the universe comes up short. But this does not mean there is not another sort of "meaningfulness" directly apparent to pre-conceptual (or trans-conceptual) awareness. Here, however, the same limits of language which lead to this conclusion prohibit its elaboration without engaging in what can only appear to be nonsense.

The Universe comes up short because it's the Universe. At the risk of demonstrating just the kind of nonsense Unidian mentions, "meaning" is something that is derived subsequent to the arrival of information, which must get there somehow, whether it is light bouncing of the sight of waves on a shore and entering our eyes or memories arising in reaction. The meaning is thus formed in the process of understanding. But the "Universe" is the totality of all the incoming waves, which by the superposition principle and the law of large numbers, cancel each other out. You are therefore left to impart the meaning, and the only way to do this is by living.Your life can be the process of creating your own meaning. You first have to want meaning.

Yeah, that's pretty close to the sort of thing I'm getting at, although you're approaching it from another angle.

Wolfbird,

I did not say anything about 'good' or 'bad'. I said I don't see morality as connected to the topic of enquiry.
(because you introduced morality).
I'm certainly not judging you as good or bad. Your moral character is irrelevant, as is mine.

You asked what do we map? And I asserted that any philosopher concerned with truth maps the way reality is through the context of morality.

As soon as you asked what we map, it implies morality because any philosopher worth their salt analyzes reality through the context of morality. Actually, it is the only manner in which sound reasoning can be done.

So, in your opinion, for this world, this planet, this Universe to exist, you (and/or other humans) must exist ?

So, if all humans died, what happens to the all those galaxies, all that vastness ?

The way you experience this vastness is totally dependent on your brain and your sensory system, if all that is whipped out, then so is the universe. Minds are needed for any sort of perception of the universe to exist, minds are needed to talk about the reality at all. The mind is like a light that shines on reality, turn it off, and reality shuts off with it.

If all sentient life was removed from the universe, then the universe would no longer be perceived, so it that sense, the universe would have no form in terms of the sort of form that you and I perceive in our waking consciousness.

The Universe comes up short because it's the Universe. At the risk of demonstrating just the kind of nonsense Unidian mentions, "meaning" is something that is derived subsequent to the arrival of information, which must get there somehow, whether it is light bouncing of the sight of waves on a shore and entering our eyes or memories arising in reaction. The meaning is thus formed in the process of understanding. But the "Universe" is the totality of all the incoming waves, which by the superposition principle and the law of large numbers, cancel each other out. You are therefore left to impart the meaning, and the only way to do this is by living.Your life can be the process of creating your own meaning. You first have to want meaning.

Thanks, broken head. I'm not going to argue with you over the superposition principle or the law of large numbers. My mathematical knowledge is far too limited. But the model you portray above strikes me as kinda mechanistic, a bit like a radio set receiving information from a transmitter.
The way I see it, the information (say, light reflected from wave breaking on the shore) enters the mind. It takes on meaning when it placed into the context of the individual persons world view (or cosmology, or belief system, or mind set).
So the image of the wave will mean one thing to a champion surfer, another to a fisherman, another to someone terrified of the ocean, and so on. I suppose I'm trying to see the information through the eyes of philosophy.

Thanks for the rapid reply Ryan.

You asked what do we map? And I asserted that any philosopher concerned with truth maps the way reality is through the context of morality.

As soon as you asked what we map, it implies morality because any philosopher worth their salt analyzes reality through the context of morality. Actually, it is the only manner in which sound reasoning can be done.

Sorry again, but I don't see it that way. I see morality as a branch of philosophy in its own right. And I don't believe a moral stance is a prerequisite for profound thought and reasoning. That does not mean that I don't think morality is a very important aspect of any action.

The way you experience this vastness is totally dependent on your brain and your sensory system, if all that is whipped out, then so is the universe. Minds are needed for any sort of perception of the universe to exist, minds are needed to talk about the reality at all. The mind is like a light that shines on reality, turn it off, and reality shuts off with it.

If all sentient life was removed from the universe, then the universe would no longer be perceived, so it that sense, the universe would have no form in terms of the sort of form that you and I perceive in our waking consciousness.

You remind me of Bishop Berkeley. I perceive very little of the universe by way of my waking consciousness. I have to take on trust second hand information from books and the minds of others. For all I know, the universe as outlined by today's astrophysicists might be just one zillionth of whatever we are part of. But I would include in my 'Everything' the Bible, the works of Shakespeare, all the music I have, the creatures in the oceans, Japanese haiku, everything that has come into my mind and formed the conceptualization I have of what 'existing' is.

Unidian,

I take it from your earlier contribution above, that you have a good deal of insight into taoism and zen buddhism.I checked out your Synthesis site, and read the articles. Tao of physicalism was impressive. But I wonder how you find (any ?) conciliation between Humanism and Taoist and Buddhist philosophy ? How do you bridge the gap ?

Although I regard philosophers such as David Hume and Bertrand Russell and many others with immense respect and enjoy reading their thoughts, my personal religio-philosophic position is decidedly in the Tao/Zen camp. The Western rationalist (logocentric) tradition seems to ignore the fact that we have bodies, insists we don't have spirits, or souls. The breath, which is a link between conscious and unconscious mind, never gets a mention in the Enlightenment tradition. Whereas in the many varieties of thought of Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Burmese, etc.,traditions, physical movement and breathing practices are seen as vital components of any quest for wisdom.

In my understanding, Humanism takes a very different fundamental starting point, in that it is anthropocentric, holding that human reason (alone) is sufficient. Whereas, Taoism and Zen would say that human reason is not sufficient to produce profound insight. It seems to me that most western thinkers are not just disconnected from nature, they are disconnected from their own physical bodies.

I take it from your earlier contribution above, that you have a good deal of insight into taoism and zen buddhism.I checked out your Synthesis site, and read the articles. Tao of physicalism was impressive. But I wonder how you find (any ?) conciliation between Humanism and Taoist and Buddhist philosophy ? How do you bridge the gap ?

That is an interesting question, which I've never been asked before. To answer briefly, I don't make any effort to reconcile them. Rather, I allow them to exist as complementary dialectical elements within my overall worldview, in order to gradually develop my own personal synthesis. For me, that has essentially amounted to a view that takes the Zen/Taoist conclusion that we can't express what "reality really is" conceptually or linguistically and uses it to suggest that our best bet is to embrace a sort of "integral agnosticism" and focus on real-world concerns such as how we can better the human experience in general (which is where I find value in Humanism).

I take it from your earlier contribution above, that you have a good deal of insight into taoism and zen buddhism.I checked out your Synthesis site, and read the articles. Tao of physicalism was impressive. But I wonder how you find (any ?) conciliation between Humanism and Taoist and Buddhist philosophy ? How do you bridge the gap ?


That is an interesting question, which I've never been asked before. To answer briefly, I don't make any effort to reconcile them. Rather, I allow them to exist as complementary dialectical elements within my overall worldview, in order to gradually develop my own personal synthesis. For me, that has essentially amounted to a view that takes the Zen/Taoist conclusion that we can't express what "reality really is" conceptually or linguistically and uses it to suggest that our best bet is to embrace a sort of "integral agnosticism" and focus on real-world concerns such as how we can better the human experience in general (which is where I find value in Humanism).

Hmmm.

From what I have learned from talking to people, there seems to be a selection that can be made between folks who have been raised in a particular belief system and stayed with it (e.g. Catholicism, Islam, Marxist atheism, etc.) and folks who have been raised in one belief system and then, at some point, consciously chosen another.

I am one of the latter. In making my choice, it seemed to me that the first step, or the corner stone, so to speak, was very important, because all else that follows inevitably harks back to the foundation.

So, at the core of much of Western Christianity, there's some sort of notion that Jesus was 'God' made human. Without getting too much bogged down in theology, there then comes the Holy Trinity, trying to reconcile various beliefs many centuries ago. There are, of course, myriad schools of Christianity which don't hold that belief. Some, such as Unitarians, think Jesus was just a man, like any of us, but an especially extraordinary individual.

By contrast, we have Gautama Buddha, a Hindu prince, whose project was to find an answer for the suffering he found.

And of course, there are thousands and thousands of other belief systems.

Now, according to the initial premise of the particular belief system, the route that you take towards enlightenment or salvation, or what ever, will be remarkably different, and likely, the destination you end up will be remarkably different. Hinduism is so broad and tolerant that it can accommodate many approaches. Some other belief systems are highly prescriptive and very strict. It's fairly simple to get an indication of the difference, if you ask the believers what their ideal person would be like. The perfected Protestant is not the same as the perfected Hindu.

Your syncretism (if that's an appropriate term) of two very different belief systems will probably work out fine, in that both inputs recommend 'doing good' as a virtue to be cultivated. But, as I understand it, there are also some (almost ?) irreconcileable fundamental differences. The basic premises of taoism and zen (being a blending of taoist and buddhist teachings) are so radically different from the basic premises of humanism, that I am surprised that you seem to be able to utilise both without, let's say, 'cognitive dissonance'.

A major attraction that taoism had for me is it's sympathetic relationship with wild nature. Taoism sees the character of the Tao most clearly illustrated in the flight of birds, in waterfalls, in ancient gnarled trees, and so on. The taoist project is to live harmoniously in accord with wild nature.

By contrast, humanism, it seems to me, is a 'religion' of cities and universities, of folks who find the standard view of a supernatural god unacceptable (understandably so, considering the many negative historical consequences) and replace 'God worship' with a similar sort of worship of the human species, elevating themselves above all else, including, perhaps particularly, wild nature, which is looked upon as a resource to be exploited for human benefit, with little if any intrinsic value other than recreation for humans to enjoy.( I actually find that deeply offensive, I might add.)

I guess it's easy to ride two horses at once, until you come to a parting of the ways, a fork in the road. I wonder how you would fare, Unidian, in the hypothetical situation (as is happening presently in parts of the world) where a soceity decides that they favour a particular orthodoxy and decide to expel it's competitors ? Say, there was a humanist revolution and all 'foreign religions' were banned ? Would you go to the guillotine for the sake of zen, or flee, or quietly claim you had always been a pure and dedicated humanist ? (I'm not being entirely serious, I hope you understand. Just teasing you a little, before I light my candle and stumble upstairs to my bed).

Your syncretism (if that's an appropriate term) of two very different belief systems will probably work out fine, in that both inputs recommend 'doing good' as a virtue to be cultivated. But, as I understand it, there are also some (almost ?) irreconcileable fundamental differences. The basic premises of taoism and zen (being a blending of taoist and buddhist teachings) are so radically different from the basic premises of humanism, that I am surprised that you seem to be able to utilise both without, let's say, 'cognitive dissonance'.

Well, dialectical thinking comes quite naturally to me. Then again, it probably also helps to be one of only a few living writers on this subject (for which I wrote that Wikipedia article). I agree that this would probably be an issue for a lot of people. For me, not so much. I seem to have an unusually well-developed ability to deal with simultaneous complementary opposites. Were I a person of nasty character, I might do quite well in something like propaganda-writing. At the risk of it being used against me, I'd say that Orwell's "double-speak" would be a cinch for me.

Also, it's important to realize that I'm neither a Taoist or a Buddhist. What I am most interested in taking from all things Zennish is the ultimate rejection of ontological statements. Beyond that, I'm not necessarily in agreement with other elements of the approach. Just yesterday, for example, I resigned from the Universal Pantheist Society board of directors after a long period of drifting away from a focus on nature-reverence.

By contrast, humanism, it seems to me, is a 'religion' of cities and universities, of folks who find the standard view of a supernatural god unacceptable (understandably so, considering the many negative historical consequences) and replace 'God worship' with a similar sort of worship of the human species, elevating themselves above all else, including, perhaps particularly, wild nature, which is looked upon as a resource to be exploited for human benefit, with little if any intrinsic value other than recreation for humans to enjoy.( I actually find that deeply offensive, I might add.)

Interesting. While I'd concede that some self-described Humanists might take this approach, it seems to me that it would be very inconsistent with the values outlined in the Humanist Manifesto. Here are some selections:

Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond.

We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

These statements seem rather clear to me. Humanism encourages concern for the ecosystem and sustainable development. Is this language acceptable, in your view?

I guess it's easy to ride two horses at once, until you come to a parting of the ways, a fork in the road. I wonder how you would fare, Unidian, in the hypothetical situation (as is happening presently in parts of the world) where a soceity decides that they favour a particular orthodoxy and decide to expel it's competitors ? Say, there was a humanist revolution and all 'foreign religions' were banned ?

I can't imagine that ever happening with Humanism. And given that, I'm not sure I understand the point of the question.

Would you go to the guillotine for the sake of zen, or flee, or quietly claim you had always been a pure and dedicated humanist ? (I'm not being entirely serious, I hope you understand. Just teasing you a little, before I light my candle and stumble upstairs to my bed).

Would a background of investigating Zen and Taoist ideas disqualify me from being "a pure and dedicated humanist?" I can't imagine how that could be so. I guess we do have a fairly fundamental disagreement as to the compatibility of the two views.

Interesting. While I'd concede that some self-described Humanists might take this approach, it seems to me that it would be very inconsistent with the values outlined in the Humanist Manifesto. Here are some selections:

Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond.

We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

These statements seem rather clear to me. Humanism encourages concern for the ecosystem and sustainable development. Is this language acceptable, in your view?

Hello Unidian, and thanks for answering my questions. I wonder how recently the Humanists became green ? Even the UK Conservatives are now appending similar green clauses to their literature. Better late than never. However, the Taoists were green, what ? two, three thousand years ago ? A recent bolted on addition is not quite as convincing as would be a statement giving the global ecosytem primacy, which it should have, IMO,because without the global ecosytem, no humanists, indeed, there'll be nobody at all. I don't like the term global ecosystem, myself. I think the term biosphere is more accurate, being that very thin layer covering the rocky planet, which sustains biological life, extending to the less thin, but equally vulnerable, oceans. The biosphere is then made up of myriad ecosystems, right down to the level of a single mossy rock providiing a microclimate for microscopic biota.

I'm not actually criticising your personal views, Unidian, nor the views of the Humanist organisation you quote above. I met a man about five years ago who had retired from UK Foreign Office work, who introduced himself as a humanist and declared that all his friends were likewise, and I had the opportunity to hear his opinions expounded at considerable length, so it was that individuals views which I had in mind last night, which may well be too small a sample to extend to all humanists. Although it is slightly unfair to use that individual as representative (he was Cambridge educated, and highly articulate) the result of casual conversation over those few years enabled me to discern rather clear demarcation lines between humanism and the views I hold to myself.

Would a background of investigating Zen and Taoist ideas disqualify me from being "a pure and dedicated humanist?" I can't imagine how that could be so. I guess we do have a fairly fundamental disagreement as to the compatibility of the two views.

Oh no, as I understand it, humanists are in the 'free thinker' tradition, and I certainly wouldn't wish to restrict their thinking. I was pointing to areas which I'd find it very difficult to see a compatibility, but as you have now explained, your humanism is primary. I see all of the world's belief systems as part of the common heritage of the human species.
There is a strong argument that anybody should be free to draw wisdom from wherever it may be found. Your understanding of taoism and zen is impressive, as illustrated near the start of this thread. Your paragraph concerning the vast mysterious expanses of spacetime and the everyday banalities of the kitchen table - to which I responded "Aha!" - was, indeed, an 'aha! moment' for me, for which I thank you.

Wolfbird,

Sorry again, but I don't see it that way. I see morality as a branch of philosophy in its own right. And I don't believe a moral stance is a prerequisite for profound thought and reasoning. That does not mean that I don't think morality is a very important aspect of any action

One cannot reason without having humanities best interest in mind, which implies that reasoning is a moral activity. Just try to reason about anything, and you will soon discover that you are discriminating between what is best or worst for humanity on what to believe.

Academics like to separate morality from philosophy or reasoning from morality, but it is all one movement.

Sorry again, but I don't see it that way. I see morality as a branch of philosophy in its own right. And I don't believe a moral stance is a prerequisite for profound thought and reasoning. That does not mean that I don't think morality is a very important aspect of any action

One cannot reason without having humanities best interest in mind, which implies that reasoning is a moral activity. Just try to reason about anything, and you will soon discover that you are discriminating between what is best or worst for humanity on what to believe.

Academics like to separate morality from philosophy or reasoning from morality, but it is all one movement.[/quote]

Ryan,

What is reasoning ? Logical deduction or inference ? So, if someone studying phenomena in deep space makes reasoned conclusions, where's the moral aspect ?

All moral framworks, are merely ego frameworks. All values within memory, are firstly determined relative to the ego, and secondly when called into present experience subservient to the ego.

The ego is merely the most dominant program of learnt behaviour in the mind, it is the top dog of all memories, the master program that calls up and dismisses the myriad of sub-routines.

While experience, the outer world, is master to all things "within" us, through experience the ego can be mastered by the use of the frontal lobes. The nature of one's ego forms firstly from what is genetically inherent, and then by experience, what is calculated through the frontal lobes, as being positive programs of mental action that are worth retaining to aid survival. For instance, the desire we all have for happiness is simply an ego-formed form of the genetically caused desire for survival.