|
I haven't written in awhile. The past is explained and the present trudges along, so there's not much to write about. The most prominent thoughts are the same, ranging from the floaty happiness and clarity of love to the gut-wrenching, panic inducing invasions of my old buddy Death.
I do, however, have something I'd like to briefly touch on. Perspective.
About a week ago, I was out job hunting, stuck in the busy lanes of stop-go traffic. Nothing unusual in the least, nothing thought provoking. As I glanced around me, I saw many different vehicles; red F-150, a battered old gray Ram, a nice Lincoln town car. I was boxed in by these vehicles, and then I looked up a little to see shadows. Outlines of people I don't know. It was at that moment that the first strike of perspective hit me, because as I thought of these people who live in my town that I don't know, people I will likely never know, I began to wonder how many of them were interesting. How many could be my friend, how many I could enjoy a conversation with, a sport with, a video game with.
"People I will likely never know."
*Whoosh* The idea expands to encompass the world. Consider how far you have traveled, how many locales you have existed in as more than a passing observer. Consider the language barriers that might prevent you from speaking with the most interesting person you might ever walk by. Consider that there are over 6.6 billion people living on this planet, and that in your entire life you'll only truly know the most modest portion of them. Never to feel emotion with or for all the rest, never to interact on a personal level. Even the internet, the grand connector, does not reach out to everyone, and even still we habitually remain in relative solitude, revealing ourselves in spurts to select neighborhoods through the same habits we had before. It broadens horizons, but it brings us no closer to true personal contact with the entire whole.
It's easy to blot that kind of statement out, because it feels like dull fact. With cynical (some would say realistic, and I do partially agree) outlook, one might regard all or most humans as ultimately uninteresting beyond the basic interactions one is looking to fulfill. Thus, any random person can fill a spot, and you don't feel a compulsion to consider all of the what ifs. Another opposing outlook would simply be that what ifs are pointless; if you can't change a point of life, ignore it and enjoy experiencing what you do have rather than dwelling needlessly.
There is wisdom to both views, and both are probably more healthy than my "mourning addiction". It's just so sad that so many lives will be left untouched by practically everyone, who has, does, and will ever live. Even through celebrity and history, you only become factually known, never truly as friend, foe, lover or acquaintance.
The next bit of perspective landed on me as a result of TED, the website I found through one of the threads Physician made. If you haven't been there, I sincerely urge you to; intelligent speakers with an open forum is quite stimulating, and I've spent hours browsing through it, enjoying even those ideas with which I disagreed, merely because the majority of them are well represented and don't sound like cookie cutter points.
Back to perspective: This talk by Sir Martin Rees presented a particular note of interest to this topic at around the 12:30 mark. He says,
"The stupendous time spans of the (?) past are now part of common culture..Outside the American Bible Belt, anyway. But most people, even those who are familiar with evolution, aren't mindful that even more time lies ahead. The sun has been shining for four and a half billion years, but it'll be another six billion years before it's fuel runs out. On that schematic picture, a sort of time-lapse picture, we're halfway. And, it'll be another six billion before that happens and any remaining life on Earth is vaporized. There's an unthinking tendency to imagine us humans will be there, experiencing the sun's demise. But any life and intelligence that exists then, will be as different from us as we are from bacteria."
Humans won't exist as long as the sun, whether by cause of extinction or evolution. What we are now will not exist in any shape or form someday. Our history gone, our species lost to the numbing passage of time. It's what I've always felt, it's just his words exemplify my more vague expressions and help give a specific topic to that feeling that we are not forever.
In relative perspective, we humans miss out on the vast majority of potential experiences that go on just here, on our very own planet. On a grander scale, we will register as a blip in the universe and see naught but a fraction of that which is to be experienced, and that is as a collective species; not as individuals.
O, what I would do for a believable crutch.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 29 2007 21:25 MTF wrote:
O, what I would do for a believable crutch. Hope?
|
On November 29 2007 21:37 Jibba wrote:
Hope?
Hope for what cause? That I am wrong about any of the varied dogmas of the world? That I might wake up sixty years from now as an immortal being who was just dreaming?
The only true hope I have is that I'll one day learn acceptance. Any other hope would be false, and I cannot willfully lie to myself.
|
United States22883 Posts
Learn acceptance of what?
There is purpose in life but it's not divine, it's self made.
|
Acceptance of the end of my existence, though that's incorrect terminology, for I struggle because I have accepted it as my truth already. Better wording would be to find peace with knowledge that I will one day no longer exist.
And of course there is self-made purpose in life. I'm not arguing that there isn't a reason to want to live, merely that existence will ultimately cease.
|
United States22883 Posts
Ok, well you were sounding a bit vague and languid.
Better wording would be to find peace with knowledge that I will one day no longer exist.
So what? Do you think you're likely to find peace with that knowledge by thinking about it further? Just move on and don't dwell over it. Either that or try and become a Buddha, then you can do all the thinking (well, non-thinking) that you want.
|
On November 29 2007 22:34 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +Better wording would be to find peace with knowledge that I will one day no longer exist. So what? Do you think you're likely to find peace with that knowledge by thinking about it further? Just move on and don't dwell over it. Either that or try and become a Buddha, then you can do all the thinking (well, non-thinking) that you want.
I don't think it's likely that I'll come to find peace, no. However, ignoring the knowledge isn't an option for two core reasons. First and foremost, through constant experiences of trying, it is an uninvited guest into my mind. I can't keep it completely out forever, as the knowledge is always there, even when I do my best to ignore it. I can resist it and make it go away sometimes, other times it sticks and by trying to deny it access into my thoughts it becomes worse simply because the strength of the issue is all the more prevalent.
The second is that it is in my nature to dwell. I know it is incredibly illogical and as such I hope for no pity or even true empathy regarding my constant focus. However, I have never been able to simply ignore what I feel is fact just because it would be more convenient to do so; the only way for me to find peace is through further knowledge or complete emotional acceptance, else the problem never truly goes away.
|
United States22883 Posts
I agree that it's extremely difficult to do but it really is as simple as not thinking about it. That's why there's so few Buddhas.  I'm not buddhist btw, I just agree with many of the principles that deal with this stuff.
Just remember that repetition of thought does change your perception, (this is what advertising is based off of) so it is possible to find peace even if it's against your "nature."
|
Jeez guys, get a room
|
Every thinking person comes up against this sort of existential crisis at some point, I think. I battled it for a couple years and now have reached a point where I think I'm quite comfortable with my infinitesimal self (because even as I am infinitely small, I know I am also infinite). I think many spiritual disciplines hold important keys to this issue.
I would read Alan Watts, if I were you. You can get a good grip on some of his thinking on the web.
Essentially, I think you have to learn to not identify completely with your "self." You begin to see that you are a pattern, and that your pattern is not separate from other patterns. There is no meaningful way to separate who you are from the food you eat, the land that produces your food, or the people who taught you to think as you do (even if not directly, but through example.) You are part of the biosphere, part of the Earth, part of the solar system, and so on. You are not distinct, you are not separate. The feeling of separateness... the ego... the identification with your "self," is an illusion - a trick of thought. Your conscious mind is just a piece of a larger body, with it's unique quality... no different than your knee-cap, and quite similar to your eyeball.
Alan Watts puts it like this: who you are, MTF, is not just comprised of your mind. You are a body made of bone and skin and muscle and organs. You are your feet, your hands, your hair, your heart, your legs, and so on. We identify with the mind, and we speak of "our hands, our feet" and so on, as if we are a ghost in the machine - the body, the stinky, smelly, fragile body is not who we are, it is a vehicle for the mind. No! You ARE your body. So think of this... you do not consciously control your heart or your bowels. Truly, if you have tried meditating, you don't even control your thoughts. So this ego.. this conscious self that you identify with, is not the whole you. You are your body, and your body does all these things without your thought... without your control. You grow your hair without a thought. Something as complex as growing your hair is something you do, effortlessly. And so you begin to think this way and you see that you aren't just your body, you are also the Earth, the birds, the sky, the stars. You are doing all those things without thought, but you are fooled into identifying only with your conscious thoughts.
You are an eye of the Universe. You are the universe looking at itself, seeing itself subjectively.
This universe is infinite, and not only that, it is ALIVE. It is consciousness. It is mind. And it chooses to manifest as MTF, as nA.Inky, as Jibba, as GW Bush, as a bird, as a tree, as a rock. There are so many modes of thought that we, as separate selves, will never know.
But we are immortal. Our patterns change... we die, we go into the Earth, we are reborn as insects and other animals and other people and dirt and trees, just as we are reincarnated suns from billions of years ago.
Nothing to be sad about, my friends... the Universe (our true self) will refocus us at new points and new times and we will always live, because the Universe's most fundamental property is awareness. The mistake of our culture is to see it as a hollow space full of dead matter and energy bouncing around according to "universal laws." Horseshit! This emptyness reflects the emptyness of modern consumer/science culture. We project our cultural emptyness onto the universe. The universe is beauty and goodness and joy, and our true selves chose to manifest this way. It is an experiment, and a game.
I think it's great that you think of perspective. How mangificent this universe is. Don't ever despair - the Universe always gives us what we need.
Nick
|
While perspective is important, it is also important to focus on your world. Be here right now. While the universe is infinite, even the smallest details are full of meaning and profound importance. This is why, even though humans will not exist far into the future, I concern myself with politics and the environment. I want to be part of the healing of the world right here, right now. I focus on my health, my friends, my fun. I focus on being a responsible world citizen. I focus on driving my bicycle in a straight line. Be here, right now. Learn from this life, right here, right now. Live with love and compassion and treat this life as if it matters, because it does. You are here for a reason, even if you never realize that reason. Your choices here and now matter. Appreciate the vastness of the universe, but don't let the vastness convince you that your own life is meaningless and unimportant - that would be a tragedy.
I also suggest cultivating faith. Oh I know I'm spouting all kinds of weird spiritual mumbo jumbo, but I am an atheist, you know? But being an atheist doesn't mean you live without faith. You may live without faith, but you don't have to. Have faith that this universe will take care of you and give you what you need (even if what you need is pain and suffering - struggle makes us stronger, wiser, and better able to help others.) Cultivate faith in life. 
|
United States22883 Posts
Wow... I don't want to get into a philosophy battle but having faith that the universe will take care of you is just as illogical as having faith that God will take care of you.
Just curious, do you follow astrology? Everyone I know that spouts that spiritual, interconnectedness stuff also does astrology and I want to choke them every time they mention it.
|
Jibba, I assure you there is no need for hostility. I am only interested in friendly conversation, and I lose nothing if my ideas do not convince anyone else.
Whether I am into astrology is well beyond the scope of this discussion, but no, I don't take it seriously.
What I am getting at with my posts is that it is helpful to adopt something of a different frame of reference. Faith that the universe will take care of you is not the same as faith that the universe will give you what you want. I grappled with the above sort of existential crisis and ended up enduring an extreme clinical depression. I never would have asked for that, nor did I think it was the universe taking care of me. Having come through it, though, and finding joy in life, I think I'm better for the struggle against depression and better for wrestling with profound existential issues.
I would also like to stress that every culture has modes of thinking that are considered proper and useful for obtaining insight and information. In our particular culture, we embrace science. Science is powerful and it does produce results (whether this is for better or worse can be debated - elsewhere.) However, it is only one mode of thinking and seeing. Like other cultures and their modes of thinking and knowing, our culture believes in science and logic. Are those fool-proof methods for knowing the universe? I doubt it. What people over-look is that, even with science, the observation and prediction are taking place in the mind. How do your preconceptions and culture shape what you see? How do you read what you observe? Can we know the universe objectively through science? I don't think so... an eye cannot see itself directly. We can only know the universe as we experience it, and how we experience it is shaped by culture and preconception. You insist from the start on certain experiences being valid and others being invalid. Is it any wonder that you come up with your results?
I open myself to more, and I see more. You choose to see less, and you will. This is not a judgment. You aren't any worse for how you view things, nor am I any better. But the fact is, scientists, logicians, mathematicians, spiritual whacko's, and Christians all share in subjectivity and bias. This we cannot escape. So rather than being hung up on absolute truth, I am happy to rejoice in play and contradiction and multitude of meaning and experience. No need for uniformity.
Sorry if I offend you with my approach - that is not my intent. Peace.
Nick
|
I'll say that much of what I'm talking about is interpretation. Human beings are subjective creatures, and they go through life interpreting what they see in different ways. Some are concerned with absolute truth. I think this is an impossible search, because we can never come outside of ourselves to see the universe "purely." There is only subjective experience. So rather than searching for absolute truth - which to me is meaningless since I can never touch it, I am interested in *functional and meaningful interpretation.*
I can say that the universe is cold, dead, and empty, and perhaps that is true. Or I can say that human consciousness is one mode of consciousness out of infinite modes, and that the entire universe, down to the atom and beyond, to the size of galaxies and super clusters and beyond, is alive and aware - an endless orgasmic vibration. That is how I choose to see things. Why are we here? That's a question you and I both ask. I have a different approach to it, and it works for me. I put my words here because maybe it will work for others. No need for a pissing contest to see who's right. I'm interested in what works. This is my interpretation here: I don't think cold hard scientific management of human affairs, or the scientific outlook in general, is working for humanity. This world is going down the crapper, and I think it's because a scientific outlook is not whole.
And yeah, maybe because I am such a whackjob, I find myself, despite my atheism, getting along perfectly well with Christian whacko's (so long as they respect me) and astrology whacko's, pagan whacko's, and even scientific whacko's. I don't need to force anyone's perceptions to fit my personal viewpoint - it just doesn't matter to me. You wanna be a christian? Hey! Awesome! This attitude of multiplicity of truth fosters tolerance and peace. This is one example of how my way of thinking is functional. And so a dude expresses some sense of anomie (OP), I'll talk about my views because maybe it will help. That's all I care about.
Peace.
Nick
|
Thank you for the take on the perception of the universe, Nick. Though it holds no weight with me in my current frame of mind, an expanded viewpoint that is not completely gibberish and approaches the subject intellectually is always appreciated.
On November 29 2007 23:03 Jibba wrote:
Just remember that repetition of thought does change your perception, (this is what advertising is based off of) so it is possible to find peace even if it's against your "nature."
I know this very well, as I've used it to change a number of ways I feel about certain things. It's what I am trying (obviously failing thus far) to do with the subject of death.
Peace, by the way, is not against my nature. Only avoidance is. :p
|
Glad to contribute, MTF. I've really struggled with the same issues before, and sometimes I'll get a wave of it here and there, but I think I've found an acceptance and peace, and even joy, that I never had before. I think you can too, and I don't think doing so requires you to follow my steps. I do, however, think Buddhism and other spiritual/philosophical practices hold clues. I just borrow from anything - science, philosophy, religion - to find a way that works for me.
As a thinking person, you are quite right: you cannot avoid this issue. It will sneak up on you, or you will willingly go to it, even if it gnaws at your soul and makes you feel panic and horror. Sooner or later, you will have struggled enough, and you'll find a way, and you'll be stronger and wiser, and in a position to help others who struggle as you struggle now.
I do know how it can feel - the feeling for me was one of panic. Wherever I am, I'm not where I should be. Why is there something rather than nothing! Why are we here!? I didn't feel at home inside my body, and my body did not feel at home inside this world. Scattered, shattered, shaken, and ungrounded.
The way for me was as I lightly laid out above (as far as the philosophy goes.) It was also in learning to focus on being compassionate towards others (so I try to promote peace and environmental awareness and love and so on.) It was also in learning to take care of myself and love myself - exercising regularly (my exercise doubles as transportation - bicycle!), eating a healthy vegetarian diet, forming relationships with people and nurturing my existing relationships, and finding interests (meaningful work - not a job of course) to pour myself into, like guitar and art and so on.
All of these give meaning and structure to life.
Do open yourself to beauty, though.... try to see the beauty in life, don't dwell on pain. Remember, the sun always rises again. It does.
|
Jibba: I'd like to say here that while my thinking can come off very new-agey to a very logic/science oriented person, there are serious scholars who point to similar ways of thinking. Science itself gets at "interconnectedness stuff." Look at any study of the biosphere. Look at physics. Look at chemistry. All these things get at interconnectedness. Reincarnation itself is a scientific fact. We die, we get recycled. Does that mean that I am the consciousness of a toad that lived 500 years ago? No. That toad got scrambled into new patterns and the new patterns probably have no memory of being a toad. But the fact is, the Earth, our sun, and so on, are stars reincarnated. That's just how it is. Lamb eats grass, lion eats lamb, lion dies, grass and insects eat lion, lamb eats grass - pretty basic stuff, no mystical mumbo jumbo there (unless you enjoy seeing it as mystical mumbo jumbo - I like magic.)
Postmodern philosophers have a lot to say about absolute truth (they like to undermine it), so a study of postmodernism might shine light on some things (or obfuscate much...)
Philosophy of science and technology has much to say about the bias of scientists, and the social construction of knowledge.
I've pointed at some things here that may lead you down a path similar to the one I've taken. I don't care if you agree with me or not or arrive at the same conclusions - my outlook has it that there are many truths, some standing in direct opposition to each other. Learning to accept contradiction can be a big help in life, I think. Who says two separate things can't be true at the same time? Look at particle/wave physics (I don't understand that shit, but it sounds like it supports what I'm saying.
|
United States24628 Posts
On November 30 2007 07:25 nA.Inky wrote:Look at particle/wave physics (I don't understand that shit, but it sounds like it supports what I'm saying . The duality is actually understood pretty well by physicists. They aren't really competing anymore in that neither is 'wrong.'
|
United States22883 Posts
I've read postmodern philosophy from Aristotle (old, postmodern ) to Leibniz and agree that it is impossible to 100% KNOW that you are objectively describing physical reality however I still find it most useful in my life to attempt to, plus I think postmodernism discounts logic to a fault, whereby your theories as well as mine are equally unprovable and thus likely incorrect. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the base of the belief is that everything is uncertain. Why not fall into nihilism instead of postmodernism if that's the case?
You might disavow the existence of everything the mind perceives, but I say science is slowly understanding what a mind actually is. And I didn't mean interconnectedness in the sense of string theory, golden ratio, etc. but rather the metaphysical belief that everything has a purpose. I reject that the death of a fetus ripped from its mother's womb in Sudan has a purpose, and I think that relativist logic has caused most of the problems in the world. That does not mean I expect a single train of thought, but I do think reason/logic is pure and universal. It comes to relative conclusions based on relative evidence, but it should operate the same on every occasion given the same evidence.
If you want to get more into it, we can make another post or something. I didn't mean to be hostile, but Bertrand Russel is my boy and I hads to throw down, ya know? If I run into trouble with my philosophy, I'll probably turn to buddhism first.
|
Micronesia, that is what I'm talkin about dude!
|
Jibba: glad there is no hostility. I also understand the need to throw down. It is fun. Pomo theories and other ideas are strongly double edged: you can take them as nihilistic - everything is meaningless and uncertain, and so on, or you can take them as allowing for intense meaning and multiplicity of truth. That is how I take it. See, it's not that nothing is real or true, or that I don't trust my mind, it's that whatever we say about something is incomplete. There is more to be said... there is something "beyond." That is something like God. So I do not worry about finishing the story or finding absolute truth - that's a dead end in my thinking. Instead, I focus on process - what is working? What gives life meaning? What is healthy and good? And we can have serious discussions about these questions and never come to a final answer, but this is the kind of thinking I am more interested in, and my "mystical" philosophy is based in that.
I still do not see how we can ever truly understand anything, as we cannot come outside of ourselves to say what a thing really is. I can describe an apple by my sense of it, by my associations with it, and so on, but the apple is something I am experiencing subjectively. Others will experience it differently, based on culture, and based on whether they are human or not. So, my position is that EXPERIENCE is what is real, and discussing what is real beyond experience is meaningless. There IS NO beyond experience (so no absolute truth), in my thinking.
Certainly appreciate your thoughts. Peace
Nick
|
Just to note: we get into that thing of "if you say nothing is true, you undermine your own statement - it's a paradox." Fair enough. So instead I reply "things can be true, but truth is contingent." (changing, varying person to person, etc...)
|
United States22883 Posts
I take the same approach that I do when Intelligent Design supporters claim that God created the scientific foundations and laws. It might be true that God is responsible for everything and not natural law, but if that's the case then the two are indistinguishable and it seems to be more practical and reliable to turn to science for answers instead of God. Like you said, I go with what is working.
As for my purpose and reason for living even if I do believe one day both my body and soul (whatever the hell a soul is) will die, I turn to my boy.
When, without the bitterness of impotent rebellion, we have learnt both to resign ourselves to the outward rules of Fate and to recognise that the non-human world is unworthy of our worship, it becomes possible at last so to transform and refashion the unconscious universe, so to transmute it in the crucible of imagination, that a new image of shining gold replaces the old idol of clay. In all the multiform facts of the world--in the visual shapes of trees and mountains and clouds, in the events of the life of man, even in the very omnipotence of Death--the insight of creative idealism can find the reflection of a beauty which its own thoughts first made. In this way mind asserts its subtle mastery over the thoughtless forces of Nature.
...
The life of Man, viewed outwardly, is but a small thing in comparison with the forces of Nature. The slave is doomed to worship Time and Fate and Death, because they are greater than anything he finds in himself, and because all his thoughts are of things which they devour. But, great as they are, to think of them greatly, to feel their passionless splendour, is greater still. And such thought makes us free men; we no longer bow before the inevitable in Oriental subjection, but we absorb it, and make it a part of ourselves. To abandon the struggle for private happiness, to expel all eagerness of temporary desire, to burn with passion for eternal things--this is emancipation, and this is the free man's worship.
|
I believe I will die too, Jibba. I'm not sure of our differences on these matters - they appear to be subtle. It's not like I'm saying there is a heaven and we will all go there and party down in the end. Instead I'm saying that you and I are a process that is happening, and the process itself will continue happening even as our specific forms change to what we call "dead." I think it's that I'm arguing for a different concept of "self," and a different concept of "death." I also see a magic in the ordinary, and I believe it's because I've opened myself to it. I like the words of your boy, as they seem to sort of express an appreciation of the magic I refer to.
Like I said, it's a difference in interpretation.
Again, nice quote. Nice to hear from you. PEace.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
