Metal Warfare - Irish Metal Forum

You know you've been cooped up too long when you begin to ask these questions,  and that's true in my case.  The last two and a half months I've been doing a job that is utterly pointless and meaningless,  but it's easy and I'm being paid so I'm emotionally torn on its veracity to some degree.  Plus it's easy and relatively convenient,  giving me plenty of time to read, listen to music, have nice long walks in a beautiful location and listen to podcasts so I'm trying to at least use the time a bit wisely. 

Having all this time to myself has me questioning the meaning of the job,  naturally,  and that leads to the big question.  Is there a meaning to life? If so, is the meaning to be found in it or to be applied to it? Or is it a reciprocal relationship between those two states, ie do we define the meaning of our own lives and then spend our days feeding it through our actions,  through our pursuit of interests and so on?

Or perhaps the meaning of life is a single set thing,  a universal goal,  a holy grail that some will discover and other never will.  Maybe our lives,  no matter how fulfilling they seem to be to us as we live them,  have entirely missed the point and are in fact utterly meaningless in the end!

I have found myself in recent years becoming more and more fascinated by science- the one subject I failed in the Leaving Cert- and while I struggle with understanding much about it,  it feeds my imagination and feels somehow more concrete in its (admittedly often mind- shatteringly complex) quest for truth and understanding of reality than religion or spirituality. Ironically,  then,  it offers some sense of meaning while it often tells us that the universe is cold,  unfeeling and uncaring toward the human predicament.

What are your thoughts on this? Is life inherently meaningful,  meaningless,  a quest for one true meaning or a composite of accumulated,  diverse meanings tailored specifically to each individual?

Pssstt, wanna buy some DMT?

I mean, as someone who's genuinely kind of amazed to have succesfully made it to the age 42, I can't see any simpler or better answer than ye olde Bill & Ted adage of "Be Excellent  To One Another" at this point. There's little other meaning to it.

I think that's a fairly universal outlook on how to get through life relatively unscathed,  but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it meaning. Being sound to people and taking them as you meet them is a good attitude to have,  but it's not exactly inspiring in terms of giving your own existence some kind of momentum.

My outlook on the meaning of life is somewhat at odds to what Permanent TSB currently think  :laugh: So for the next 12 1/2 years I kinda have to coast along as they see fit.

I'm 15 years in the one job and through massive upheavals and challenges, especially  in the last 3 years, I'm itching for change and new challenges as a good new challenge is most rewarding. However I live in the Midlands and well paying jobs aren't too common so I just have to suck it up for now.  My definition of any meaning if life has been altered but I do take comfort that despite feeling a little painted into a corner that I'm at least succeeding in making sure my kids have a good life and that's not a bad thing.

Some people say that our existence is to steer life towards it's "Ultimate Complexity".

4.6 odd billion years ago there was no Earth and our solar system was pretty much just a cloud of Hydrogen and Helium. Fuck all else happening in the world.

Fast forward to now and I'm sitting on a couch tapping a screen, and in a few minutes this message will be readily visible to anybody on this planet, if they choose to seek it via their own screens.

The only thing I'm certain about is that the world is getting increasingly ever more complex. It doesn't go backwards, it goes forwards. This complexity constantly mutates and I don't think that it is possible to go back to being just a cloud of hydrogen/helium.

So based on this, some say that our meaning is to aid the evolution of this complexity. Not saying these are my own views, but it's what came to mind when I saw the thread.

We don't exist for a long, long time, then we exist for a very, very short time, then we cease to exist again for the rest of time. Find what it is which makes you happy and fill your limited time allocation doing it. There is no second go and no bonus level afterwards.

While I, personally, think it's unlikely given the vast infinity of the universe, there is a chance that this planet will be the only one to ever sustain intelligent life and, if that's the case, it's sad that so many of us spend so much time thinking of ways to be nasty and bring harm to each other. We, and this planet, are all we may ever have. With that in mind, "Be Excellent  To One Another" is as good a way of life as one can think of, surely? In the grand scheme of things, every one of us is utterly insignificant and any meaning we decide to apply to our existence doesn't really matter, no matter how much importance we perceive it to have. Our perception of that importance depends on the outlook of each individual. So, yeah, do the things you like and be nice.

I spent the last year resseading Nietzsche. I read 8 of his books and it completely reinvented or refreshed my way of seeing the world and witg much help from Black Shepherd. Since then I'm working through Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy which is just a fantastic book for understanding WHY we think the way we do. Both those philosopher's have allowed me to really deep dive into many notions or modes of thinking that I hadn't realised I posessed.

Currently I'm becoming obsessed with Carl Jung who was a student of Freud and who had a great love of Nietzsche. He talks about many things from our collective subconscious, how we are far more than just blank slates when we come to this world and despite him being one of the founding fathers I suppose of psychology, he delved into spirituality and mysticism to levels that are at times frightening.

Victor Frankl's 'Man's search for meaning' is worth a read if you want to get a sense of WHY it is worth living alongside Nietzsche whose life's work was dedicated to answering the universal question of nihilism...why life is worth living and how it can be done.

Jung, Nietzsche, especially talk about the ultimately futile nature of looking for meaning in the materialism of science. Jung was a believer in a higher or higher entities, archetypes, many influences that we cannpt beging to comprehend and he influenced all sorts of people like Alan Watts, Terence McKenna, Jordan Peterson etc etc etc.

The modern arrogance is that we have it all figured out. We are facing deep existential questions due to a lack of possible a guiding philosophy or belief/faith, whatever in our culture. I'm only scratching the surface of philosophy, but I believe it is something truly powerful. Psychology, sociology, theology even, there's so much out there taht's not just the regular 'ah there's no such thing as God, life is meaningless' trope that is being pushed massively these days on a subconscious or subliminal level.

Now I'm riffing here, and some of the above might be my jnterpretation. Chris Shepherd is the man for philosophy..I can't recommend it enough, like a change of chip.

I think reading is massively important as it has the potential to open new worlds and avenues of thought up to people.  I find my own reading has broadened over the years and I think that has been beneficial to my own growth,  among other experiences too.

Imagine tomorrow they,  whoever they are,  announced that they had discovered the meaning of life and that it was knitting. Knitting is the meaning of life and everything else is merely distraction or masturbation.  Would it be nobler, or more meaningful, to follow your own interests regardless of their inherent meaninglessness or to ditch everything,  dive into knitting with full force,  learn everything about it,  its complexities,  its technicalities,  its artistic value etc. accepting it as your new religion for the rest of your life,  while living with that emptiness it would give you, as a non-passion? I'm sure this is philosophy 101 sort of a conundrum,  but it's worth a thought.

Quote from: Pedrito on November 07, 2019, 03:42:02 PM
I spent the last year resseading Nietzsche....

Currently I'm becoming obsessed with Carl Jung...

Victor Frankl's 'Man's search for meaning' is worth a read...

I think that you might enjoy "The Denial Of Death" by Ernest Becker, Pedrito - based on your mentions there anyway.

(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1387700879l/1586830.jpg)

Quote from: Giggles on November 07, 2019, 02:53:27 PM
Some people say that our existence is to steer life towards it's "Ultimate Complexity".

4.6 odd billion years ago there was no Earth and our solar system was pretty much just a cloud of Hydrogen and Helium. Fuck all else happening in the world.

Fast forward to now and I'm sitting on a couch tapping a screen, and in a few minutes this message will be readily visible to anybody on this planet, if they choose to seek it via their own screens.

The only thing I'm certain about is that the world is getting increasingly ever more complex. It doesn't go backwards, it goes forwards. This complexity constantly mutates and I don't think that it is possible to go back to being just a cloud of hydrogen/helium.

So based on this, some say that our meaning is to aid the evolution of this complexity. Not saying these are my own views, but it's what came to mind when I saw the thread.

This is essentially what I understand is the scientific/materialistic approach to life that leads to a cold, meaningless, nihilistic end. The philosophers talk about this. We don't wake up in the morning and say to ourselves 'oh I'm here to serve an ever evolving complexity in technology and science' but literally nobody thinks that way. We don't think in terms of these grand objectives. We each have inctedibly complex and often nonsensical, paradoxical and condlicting drives. Nietsche talked about the Will to power, Jung goes internal, Goethe's Faust had huge influences on these men, Christ, Buddhism, the Greeks, we have thousands of years of incredible geniuses who dedicated themselves to answering the great questions. It's all there for us, we just have to uncover it. On a societal level even having an understanding of the likes of Max Weber's Protestant working ethic, Marx and Durkheim, will help.you look at the world in such a different way.

And even if you have no interest in any of that, if all.you believe in is fuck, work, die, at the very least you might contemplate the wonder that is your own body, your eye..imagine having to replace an eye. To reduce it all down and see no beauty in any of that...well it's a dark place that I've spent plenty of time in, but it's a total waste of time and one needs to take steps to regulate it.

I think philosophy should be taken with a pinch of salt, from the limited amount I've read.  It certainly seems to offer some answers,  or provide new ways (techniques?) of thinking,  but I think that in the wrong hands it's often as likely to lead to despair. I'm sure that depends both on the specific author,  or book and the ability of the reader to differentiate between metaphor and reality.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 07, 2019, 01:35:34 PMThe last two and a half months I've been doing a job that is utterly pointless and meaningless,  but it's easy and I'm being paid so I'm emotionally torn on its veracity to some degree.

"Zen does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." Alan Watts.

"The universe has no meaning except that which we give it." Jean-Paul Sartre.

These two ideas go quite well hand in hand and the second, particularly, implies (if true) that science will never be able to reveal the meaning of life, only add new meanings to it, in the sense that all of our meanings, at bottom, are interpretations. But science is interesting in and of itself, like peeling potatoes; just need to adopt the right frame of mind.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 07, 2019, 04:35:21 PM
I think philosophy should be taken with a pinch of salt, from the limited amount I've read.  It certainly seems to offer some answers,  or provide new ways (techniques?) of thinking,  but I think that in the wrong hands it's often as likely to lead to despair. I'm sure that depends both on the specific author,  or book and the ability of the reader to differentiate between metaphor and reality.

Pinch of salt in what way exactly? I'm not talking about self help, I'm talking about understanding the very foundations of how and why we think. I think it's fundamental to understanding who we are and why we're here, what moves our society, why we desire certain things, why we think the way we do. We look for quick answers to things but it takes a lot of reading and reflection and actual living to make any sense of life once the college days start to fade off and life gets serious.

I think it can get very abstract and become, just that,  an exercise in thinking.  Thinking is indeed a massively important part of existence and what sets us apart from the animals, no denying that,  and we need to exercise our brains to deal with reality on a basic level and to dig for meaning on a deeper level.  There are examples though where the mental exercise seems to detach from reality (it is also possible that I simply can't get my head around it) and become thinking for thinking's sake (what is chairness? - an interesting exercise but one that could start to drive you mad if you ponder too much on it as it becomes a circular,  unanswerable question).

I don't think that philosophy negates science/ psychology or vice versa.  I think both are helpful and provide complimentary roles in helping us to build a better picture of ourselves and our consciousness.  I might be veering from the point here.

Again,  though,  while these are fascinating questions in and of themselves,  are they attempts to describe meaning rather than to provide it? They are probably both, and each to varying degrees.  And again,  only to those who are interested in these areas.

Is someone who doesn't think about these things but who has other interests or passions that light up their existence (football,  making marzipan figurines to put on top of wedding cakes, ballet) in some way any poorer?

Also,  yesterday while I was trying to click over to watch the Six One News I almost accidentally set my Eir box to season record the Angelus. Imagine an entire year's worth of the Angelus. I'm not sure if that would come under religion, philosophy or downright mental torture  :o

I guess for me anyhow the meaning of life is finding something your happy with and just doing that to your hearts content. Be it music, sports, art.
Im lucky in that i have a job i absolutely love and wouldnt change it for the world and then ive got my music on the side as well.
So im fairly convinced thats the meaning of life for me.

I feel that that is probably it alright.  You inject meaning into your life through interests, family and friends.  Probably most of us here could agree,  our religious experiences are the feeling of hearing music that blows the mind or those moments in jamming or writing when one enters a flow state, time stops and surroundings disappear. No doubt drugs can give that experience to people as well,  but it's it really the same of it's artificial and not earned through activity? Maybe,  maybe not...

Being content and happy is the meaning of life imo,you need a few things to go your way to help.Like being healthy in body and mind,have the correct work/life balance,have a good social life.I work with some utter miserable pricks,moaning 24/7,like the whole world is against them.An utterly miserable outlook on life.Im working with fellas donkeys years ,fellas in their 30s,and all they are pining for is retirement.I mean whats the fuckin point of wishing your life away?.Ive a busy life with kids etc etc,but im lucky that ive family close by to help out whenever we want,so i  can get out for a few scoops,dinner,go for a cycle etc regularly.Do what you enjoy.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 07, 2019, 01:35:34 PM
You know you've been cooped up too long when you begin to ask these questions,  and that's true in my case.  The last two and a half months I've been doing a job that is utterly pointless and meaningless, 

I don't see it as being cooped up too long it's the most important question anyone can ever ask and one I have been asking myself since I was a child. As for the job being pointless so are 99.9% of all other jobs in existence. Working in itself is pointless for most people as the vast majority are stuck in dead end jobs that they both despise and are detrimental to their health all so the elite few can get richer. But we are enslaved into doing it because it's very difficult to survive without money.

Quote from: Pedrito on November 07, 2019, 03:42:02 PM


Currently I'm becoming obsessed with Carl Jung who was a student of Freud and who had a great love of Nietzsche. He talks about many things from our collective subconscious, how we are far more than just blank slates when we come to this world and despite him being one of the founding fathers I suppose of psychology, he delved into spirituality and mysticism to levels that are at times frightening.

This for me is where this conversation would go but you can't talk about topics like this on these forums going by the way the conversations went anytime it was brought up on the old forum. If you are only getting into Jung keep going as he will lead you into other stuff that will just blow your mind as long as you have an open mind. The red book is his best work.  Jung of course is 1000 times > than Freud ever was. Some footage on youtube of him talking about Freud not sure if it's still up there though.


Then as well as that the meaning of life will be different for almost every person and depending on current life situations and past experience which also means it can change from time to time so you won't really get a right or a wrong answer. Most people in my experience seem to be happy with a simple life and don't feel the need to look any deeper.

It is easy to be content and tip along,  living for the weekend or the next holiday and that is something everyone does, and I think it's fair enough. We all work and like to kick back in our spare time.  I do, however, think that exploring new ideas in some form,  and not necessarily just in terms of science or philosophy,  or maybe even art in its broadest sense,  rather just exposing yourself to new experiences and possibilities can only add meaning to your life.  Easier said than done,  but putting yourself in new situations is generally rewarding in some way.

42...

Indeed.  But what's the question? ;)

Well, the question is what is the meaning. And, according to the same source, we're cogs in the machine designed to figure that out. Look at us go!

This is where philosophy becomes impractical as a way to discover the meaning of life.  Unanswerable questions are useful as a technique for stretching your mind,  making it more elastic and dynamic maybe,  but are inherently pointless.  That was what I was getting at earlier. I'm sure,  a with everything,  there are all sorts of strands of philosophy and that belongs to one,  where other strands are designed to offer more concrete explanations.  Maybe they work together in some way.  I don't know enough about the subject.

Hmmmm I'm so locked after my wedding in Cancún, dancing with some of the most beautiful women I've ever laid eyes upon to respond to any of the previous stuff but Mickoo is on my wavelength. Cups of tae and all is good in the world is all good, you find happiness, do what makes you 'happy' but the 'happiness' thing was seen as semi-slow in the head by many of the philosophers. Do what you like and have a wank and a few pints..is that it or does it have any meaning? My point being that the thinking about what or how your thinking can actually unlock so many doors that you never even believed existed and I've only scratched the surface in the last year. I'm happy watching.porn, I'm happy doing nothing, I'm happy scratching my balls, I'm happy eating KFC..happiness is a strange thing to value your life by, and what IS happiness ad how is it measured.

The question was posed, what us the meaning of life and everyone quickly answered it. Do what you like, few pints, football, music is religious experience..sounds like ye have it all figured out??

Quote from: mickO))) on November 07, 2019, 09:33:04 PM

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 07, 2019, 01:35:34 PM
You know you've been cooped up too long when you begin to ask these questions,  and that's true in my case.  The last two and a half months I've been doing a job that is utterly pointless and meaningless, 

I don't see it as being cooped up too long it's the most important question anyone can ever ask and one I have been asking myself since I was a child. As for the job being pointless so are 99.9% of all other jobs in existence. Working in itself is pointless for most people as the vast majority are stuck in dead end jobs that they both despise and are detrimental to their health all so the elite few can get richer. But we are enslaved into doing it because it's very difficult to survive without money.

Quote from: Pedrito on November 07, 2019, 03:42:02 PM


Currently I'm becoming obsessed with Carl Jung who was a student of Freud and who had a great love of Nietzsche. He talks about many things from our collective subconscious, how we are far more than just blank slates when we come to this world and despite him being one of the founding fathers I suppose of psychology, he delved into spirituality and mysticism to levels that are at times frightening.

This for me is where this conversation would go but you can't talk about topics like this on these forums going by the way the conversations went anytime it was brought up on the old forum. If you are only getting into Jung keep going as he will lead you into other stuff that will just blow your mind as long as you have an open mind. The red book is his best work.  Jung of course is 1000 times > than Freud ever was. Some footage on youtube of him talking about Freud not sure if it's still up there though.


Then as well as that the meaning of life will be different for almost every person and depending on current life situations and past experience which also means it can change from time to time so you won't really get a right or a wrong answer. Most people in my experience seem to be happy with a simple life and don't feel the need to look any deeper.

I've been asking myself the same question since I was 8-9 years of age. I could sense things, I felt mant things intuitively about the world about me, and yet I was a child who had to cram himself into some idea of being young and having to conform to all that bollox kids have forced down their throats the minute they begin to express themselves as thinking creatures. We're complex, intelligent, and far more interesting than we give ourselves credit for but we can't see outside the cup of tae and don't be voicing too many opinions box. You're only a dying human, there's no god, there's no meaning, you only fuck and die and everything you were ever told is meaningless because it's not proven TRUE in a lab...fuck that.

I think the nothingness of death gives our lives a definite boundary that encourages us to fill our lives with some kind of meaning.  I understand people wanting their life to continue after death as it is such a unique gift to be given but I am fine with nothingness.  So far it has offered an endless source of lyrical inspiration which adds some meaning to my own existence.

My own belief is that meaning is cumulative,  maybe even exponential but I might have to think about what that means a bit more. The more we drink tea,  read,  exercise, have kids,  work, socialise,  think,  experience,  knit, wank, knitwank (it's something I'm working on) etc the more meaning gets added to the pot.  I don't think that that is the path towards some higher end reward,  I think the path is the reward or the meaning,  as corny or clinched as that sounds.  Or it's the opportunity of meaning, at least.  We can add as much or as little as we need to that pot as we go on, which is what I'm getting at with the exponential idea.  The reward grows exponentially the more you put in... maybe?

Quote from: Pedrito on November 08, 2019, 08:04:30 AMYou're only a dying human, there's no god, there's no meaning, you only fuck and die and everything you were ever told is meaningless because it's not proven TRUE in a lab...fuck that.

Oh the consequences of going beyond our primal instincts, damn this complex emotional intelligence  :laugh:

I find looking for reward from things you like becomes at some point...insatiable. Being content on the other hand is more appropriate (for me anyway) as the grass always seems greener on the other side. To keep clutching for rewards brings us diminishing returns eventually and the negatives start to outweigh the positives. Oddly some show on RTE about lotto winners pops into my head and how the vast majority of them are now bankrupt, extremely unhappy
or have lost it all by trying to make more money. Not enough or enough for now?


Beyond our instincts we went on to develop communication systems, fast forward to today we are fed a daily deluge of information from a multitude of sources, telling us about something else, something more. We should be asking the OP question more, it usually leads to our likes/wants/desires in life. So if we dive into the thought processes behind those answers, we might be able to pinpoint the corrupt information we receive that might be some of the reason behind our want for more and our inability to satisfy that want which has become habit, interwoven into the fabric of daily life.

Good points.  Looking at it from another perspective you might argue that buying stuff you want is very satisfying and,  while maybe not exactly full of deep meaning in and of the objects themselves,  there's surely an argument in favour of the meaning behind the fleeing moments of happiness and satisfaction they bring?

Maybe beyond that you could say that they provide deep meaning to other people, a meaning that may seem meagre from the outside.  I've no doubt that the meaning I derive from listening to and writing extremely marginal music seems meagre to an outsider but is bursting with meaning for me personally. 

Little to add to this, mostly agree with a lot of the above, but just to reiterate:  Life is inherently meaningless.  That doesn't mean we can't find meaning in it.  The beauty of it is realising there is no end game, there is no overall goal or grand achievement - you just have to do what you do to be happy and decent to the people you know, and yeah as cheesy as it is the journey is the reward.

The problem here is not everyone in the world lives as straightforward and privileged a life as we do, their journeys are bleak, short, hopeless, and confusing.  What is their reward?  What meaning is found in a life that is suffering and struggling from the day you're born?  I'll never know.  So I suppose it's easy for me to say it means nothing when I have the luxury of creating my own meaning and purpose.  It's something I have no answer for but it has helped me be less miserable about things.  I'm stopping myself short here before I ramble.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 08, 2019, 07:29:04 AM
This is where philosophy becomes impractical as a way to discover the meaning of life.  Unanswerable questions are useful as a technique for stretching your mind,  making it more elastic and dynamic maybe,  but are inherently pointless.

I just meant that in the Hitchhiker's Guide, earth is created as a kind of bio-computer to provide "the question to life, the universe, and everything."

"Being happy" isn't a meaning, it's just something to do. "Getting the most out of life" isn't a meaning, it's just something else to do (and won't necessarily be compatible with "being happy"). I also agree that "philosophy" is just something to do and won't ever lead to any "meaning", but when used properly it can be a powerful tool for breaking through layers of meaning others have imposed upon your life, upon our life. The biggest problem with philosophy, though, isn't at all that it's impractical, it's that almost nobody uses it to liberate themselves, they use it to exchange one (illusory) meaning of life for another. If life, the universe, and everything has no ultimate meaning, then whenever you sense yourself grasping too tightly onto a specific meaning, you're just tightening yourself into some kind of captivity. But it would also be a mistake to think that this is of itself a bad thing. In a meaningless universe, there are no bad things. Punching down at people you think are wasting their lives by not questioning it is horseshit. If you want to lash out at someone, lash out at people who are punching down, people who pretend to be superior to others simply because they've cast off the meaning they received at birth and exchanged it for a meaning they licked out of a book by whatever latest guru has come along (take your pick from the left and the right, Zizek, Peterson, Pinker, who-the-fuck-ever).

Why is Nietzsche one of the ultimate philosophers if you want to understand the meaning of life? Precisely because he tells you he doesn't want disciples, that the notion of having them is anathema to his way of seeing the world. He could only laugh at anyone who described themselves as a "Nietzschean" - it's a contradiction in terms; to call yourself a "Nietzschean" is in itself the best proof that you've understood nothing about the core of his writings.

But this all means there's nothing wrong with not questioning life, there's nothing wrong with staying inside the one conceptual lens you were born with, and there's absolutely nothing superior about doing otherwise. It's all just different modes of life, and all life (on earth at least) is just one, enormous, heaving, whole and indivisible phenomenon. That's what it is. Not its meaning, just what it is.

Blah, blah, blah... I'll sign off with a last quote to sum up my thoughts on the subject of people who punch down and people who reach the point where they let go of all that shite:

"The world is a good judge of things, for it is in natural ignorance, the true state of man. The sciences comprise two extremities that meet up with each other. The first is that pure, natural ignorance under which man finds himself when born. The other extremity is the place great souls reach when, having scanned all that man might know, they discover that they know nothing and meet themselves back in that same ignorance they departed from. But it is now a knowing ignorance, a self-aware ignorance. Those in-between the two, who have left natural ignorance behind but not managed to reach knowing ignorance, they are smeared with some smug knowledge and pretend to be an authority. These latter disturb the world and judge badly of everything. It is the laypeople and the wise that set the world in motion, those others look down on it and are looked down upon in return. They judge badly of everything, and the world judges them well for it."
- Pascal, Thoughts, §327

That's nice and poetic and hard to argue with but it is in itself a very smug statement.  You are born ignorant,  you attain the ultimate goal of knowledgeable ignorance,  you die.  So does that mean that there is an endpoint we should strive for? That ultimate ignorance? What if you only get halfway along that journey compared to the more curious person next to you but you are twice as far as the other person? Who wins? Have you achieved ultimate ignorance or are you caught between two ignorant stools,  and do you die, not an enlightened ignoramus,  merely an ignoramus?

Perhaps that means that meaning only lives in the moment.  It is amorphous,  it changes for you as you grow,  as you look at it and wonder at it.  If the second law of thermodynamics holds true then anything beyond the moment is irrelevant,  but that's too nihilistic a philosophy to carry you from day to day.  It's probably true,  the universe will probably end in several billion years,  and if you are a physicist researching the universe then you'll find meaning in such discoveries.  But I think that the meaning is probably in the solving of those riddles,  rather than the fatalistic acceptance of the ultimate futility of existence.

I guess it implies that part of that journey to 'ultimate ignorance' is both not caring and not judging, or at least losing the idea of achieving a plane of thought being competitive or an end point at all.  Or I'm looking at it arseways  :laugh:

Anyone got any good reading recs for this sort of stuff?  The only philosophical stuff I've read are excerpts of some of Plato's work online, and Nietszche's Antichrist.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 08, 2019, 11:56:08 AM
That's nice and poetic and hard to argue with but it is in itself a very smug statement.  You are born ignorant,  you attain the ultimate goal of knowledgeable ignorance,  you die.  So does that mean that there is an endpoint we should strive for? That ultimate ignorance? What if you only get halfway along that journey compared to the more curious person next to you but you are twice as far as the other person? Who wins? Have you achieved ultimate ignorance or are you caught between two ignorant stools,  and do you die, not an enlightened ignoramus,  merely an ignoramus?

There's no winning, I don't know where you're getting that from. But it does tell you that the only rational endpoint is to reach an understanding of how much is necessarily unknowable and therefore give in, let go to a state of relative ignorance. If you know at the beginning of your "quest for understanding" that this is the only endpoint, then you'll advance already in the right frame of mind. The path to yoga is yoga, etc. (Readers of Nietzsche may recognize the person of the overman in this statement; the destination is to be a bridge towards.)

It also provides a rational argument for not being a dick towards people you consider to be less "learned" than you, since on a scale of total ignorance to total knowledge, there is no measurable difference between any two states of human "learnedness" so close they both fall to total ignorance when marked on that scale.

Is the most effective way to move forward in ignorance then to do nothing? Lie down and wait for death? Life is short but that sounds like it would be a long oul stint.

That would be a nihilistic interpretation of the idea. There are many, many, many other ways of interpreting it; that's part of the point.

Indeed.  The point is what I was getting at and which others have brought up as well.  Life is essentially meaningless, so far as we know scientifically, so any meaning we attach to it is our own rather than divinely ordained.  Maybe the question is is meaning meaningless even if it provides fuel for our otherwise meaningless existence.  But then we are getting into philosophical circular thinking.  And maybe philosophy is the wrong place to look for meaning.  Maybe it's too focused on deconstruction to offer a road map for being.  But we exist,  that much we can say with some certainty, so if we exist there must be some kind of truth to that.  It could be knitting, that's all I'm saying. 

Well, Alan Watts also once communicated zen to the seeking western mind like this: "the meaning of life is just to be alive."

All very interesting ideas and I would add that 'life is meaningless' is one philosophy towards life. I would also clarify that I was posing a question earlier about happiness. Is happiness the ultimate goal? Frankl allowed himself to be 'happy' in Auschwitz. It meant that he survived where others didn't. And yet others would see the chasing of fleeting moments, the cup of tae and the 5 finger shuffle as a waste of the great potential we have. More stoic types, monks, warriors etc who purposely avoid those pleasures in order to discipline themselves and put order on their lives. So, who is 'right' and does 'right' even exist?


Another point I would add is that many people now follow the modern 'trend' of atheism and death is the end, scjence explains everything and there is no real 'meaning' to life. I would wonder if, again, this is a mode of thinking that we have forced ourselves into and, like Dawkins and the likes, would be unwilling to budge from that standpoint. I'm no great mind but I wonder if the magic of existence has been drained out of us when we close doors to a possibilty of some real 'meaning' to life. Personally, I would echo what Black Shepherd said earlier and stress the humility the reading of the likes of Nietzsche has brought to my life. Far from.using 'reads' as a tool to beat people with, it has allowed me both to focus out and view the gigantic and mostly chaotic complexity which surrounds me whilst on a personal level understanding the infinite complexities that make up my own person and every person in the world. If I was prone to Catholicism I might say we are all god's children, and outside of that, the 'be cool to everyone' idea echoed previously is a good way to put it.


And yet,  that's my humble little truppence worth of an idea. I would say by the mere fact that you're asking yourself about the meaning of life shows that you are at the very least trying to do something with the cards that you have been dealt. All that said, this idea of betterment, and working towards an 'ultimate goal' sounds very utopian/Christian to me. Advancing technology, going to the stars etc, again is one way of looking at the world and comes from a very Western approach to life. But I find myself going around in circles here, and that is probably the danger of overthinking things. Maybe it's best just to nail your colours to the mast and work as best as you can within that 'limited' space of your life...questions are endless, I find myself rambling, time for a poo.

The Offspring's "Meaning of Life" is a great opener for a cracker of an album.

Think about your death. Would you in your final moments have regret? Would you have unfulfilled desires? How do you think your loved ones will remember you? Or even friends and acquaintances? I'm not sure that this will invest more meaning in your life, but may help to identify changes you may like to make. Alternatively, if it's these very things that are a source of stress, learn to meditate, it won't make you happy, but it's useful for slowing the minds hamster wheel.

Taking it in a bit of a different direction, I've been struck in the last four months of parenthood by how spontaneous a reaction to existence laughter is. Crying due to some form of discontent and laughter are the two principal forms of expression of our little lad so far. Fits pretty well with the absurdity of life really, just gotta make sure he doesn't get brainwashed into taking the discontent bit too seriously, cos you gotta laugh at it all otherwise one'd just be a moany bastard!

The meaning of life is that we are all fucked.

@McLove...book yourself a trip to somewhere warm this winter. The dark nights and too much black metal might be taking their toll on you. A nice happy ending in some seedy Thai massage parlour followed by a week lying under a palm tree works wonders so I'm led to believe :laugh: :abbath:

Funny enough,  I'm off to Oz in five weeks as the wife is from Melbourne  8)

That said,  I love winter,  I love its darkness and dreariness and coldness.  It's like living through Turn Loose the Swans!

Have any of you read Joseph Campbell's 'a Hero with a thousand faces'? I'm eager to read it as I have listened to much of his stuff on youtube. It talks about the Hero myths and archtypes that run through 'every' culture and religion all the way back through history. Greatly influenced by Jung, Nietzsche and the likes, I'm sure Bölzer would be fans. Flies in the face of the modern 'meaninglessness' epidemic and I wonder, again, if we are far too sure of ourselves in terms of having it all figured out..i.e. no higher power, no real meaning etc etc.

Another point, in relation to Buddhism, which I know very little about and I may be guilty of summing it up all too easily. That said, I have spent quite a bit of time travelling throughout Asia and I would wonder if Buddhism is even culturally or psycholgically/philosophically accessible to us in the west. We are not passive, calm people, and we have very different views and feelings on life. Our mythology and culture come out of the likes of Cuchulainn, Thor, Achilles, King Arthur and chivalry etc etc, fused with the Christian stream of thinkibg that pervades every aspect of our lives even still, maybe not on a conscious level but certainly in terma of values etc etc.

Not sure if I'm explaining myself too well here, my point being that maybe we already had the meaning figured out, and, as we are prone to doing in this modern existence, threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Just riffing here and open to talking more shite on the subject.

I was reading something recently, I think it was the recent Pinker,  and he was talking about the values that we ascribe to Christianity as being more biologically ingrained. Christianity in its original form was much less forgiving,  more punitive in every sense and not the cup of tea,  have a little natter and be nice to your granny philosophy that it is now.  He was making the point that the more Christianity abandoned its core principals,  the more it became a humanist ideology and more like the reasonable form it is now where everyone is grand,  sure,  God bless. So we don't in fact live in a true Christian society,  we actually live in a humanist one and for Christianity to have kept its relevance it had to change. I liked that idea.

I picked up 'What is Life?' By Schrödinger today so I'll get stuck into it in the next while.  Might provide a few interesting insights on these matters.

That's very interesting. Funnily, I can't remember who it was saying it, but the whole degredation of the church and it's perversion in terms of corruption, paedophilia and all these sicknesses that are prevalent in it can be traced to a complete relaxing of the rules, a destruction of the essence of priesthood, to be apart, to be clean, to being holy etc. That was then lined up with the idea that long ago the churches abandoned the idea of a divine God, and the worship is actually a following of the HUMAN Christ...as you say it is Humanist, focussing on Christ the human..a cop out as such. They are followers of Christ as oposed to believers in some sort of transcendental God.

There are impacts also in terms of the hierarchies of the different churches. Luther basically democratised things and laid the seeds for democracy..everyone could then create their own dialogue with God instead of having a priest interpret the word of God for then. If we look at other cultures, the Shaman was the intermediary between the worlds, but then everyone started having a go as such, which leads to all sorts of opinions and a total watering down of things. The downgrading of Mary in the Protestant tradition took the female out of the picture and it's results can be seen in the hyper masculinity now prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture of the United States. We Catholic type societies continued to venerate the female..in Spain it's all to do with the Virgin, Mexico the same, our own grottos in Ireland, and, again, we lack that, I would argue, 'Bang Bros' style total disrespect for the female that I witnessed during my couple of Summers in America...maybe MeToo and it's likes were long overdue for them.

Another thing I read in Jung recently was that because education wasn't available to the slaves, and Christianity was a slave religion, education as a desire/goal had to be sidelined. Other things took precedence and it led to a suspiscion of arrogant, informed opinions, education being seen as haughty etc etc. When I thought about the complete anti intellectual vibe that permeated the Christian Brothers school I attended, I chuckled at that paragraph. Any lad that showed the slightest sense of intelligence was branded 'a lick'..that was more the students doimg that than any teacher admittedly. Will have to read some Pinker...sounds interesting.

I find his books interesting.  I read Enlightenment,  Now and I find his take on things positive and a nice antidote to the apocalyptic ultra- negative outlook that seems to be the norm.  Currently tipping through How the Mind Works which is more of a scientific explanation of the brain mechanism and consciousness.  Again,  interesting stuff.

Interesting points in your post above.  What I got from Pinker's message was that any religion that intends to remain relevant,  I suppose as people gain more and more knowledge about the universe and everything in it,  and as societies demand human rights and equality among the sexes and races,  religions almost have to become the opposite of what they historically were or they get sidelined.

You probably also have to factor in that the public face of the church is vastly different to the power games going on in the background.  The church didn't become so powerful and wealthy by being a bunch of lovely boys  :laugh:

The early church, of the New Testament, was a socialist commune where all possessions were shared, which is essentially the only format that actually fits with Jesus' teachings (whether or not he was human or a symbol for magic mushrooms!). That we almost immediately veered away from living in a Christ-like way is why Nietzsche says there was only ever one Christian and he died on the cross. If you take Christianity to be, at origin, based only on Christ's teachings, then you couldn't find a more "humanist" creed (love your neighbor, who shall cast the first stone?, etc., etc.) Obviously it's very far away from what Rome did to that creed, but I think here again Pinker is just imagining up nice narratives and leaning them on vague ideas we have of the past.

I think the Catholic Church is so far from Christ it's laughable. It seems based more on the evangelical writings of St Paul, as far as ritual, tradition and ethics go. Paul was no fan of the ladies either, except her up there. As for the behind the scenes, politicking and such, yeah laundering drug money, Vatican bank scandals, cosying up to the mafia and assassinations, real Christian values. P2 anybody?
Stephen Knight, David Yallop and Robert Anton Wilson all have good books on the above. As for the degradation of Christian ethics and the RC church's lust for power, The Name of the Rose is fiction, but discusses those topics in a really interesting way.

Arriving late to the discussion here, but I'm with the many people above that consider life to be meaningless, as far as a collective standpoint goes. However, it doesn't need to be banal. Different people will invest their time in different things, therefore giving their lives multiple meanings, and each individual may as well shift from one aim in life to another along the course of his/her life, adding to life's multiplicity mix.

I'll avoid even slightly giving the impression that I think that, as Pedrito said, I "have everything figured out", but at some point in my life I've come across the idea that we often try to find our peace, happiness or whatever joy you're looking for by recreating the same frame of mind of what we call the "golden age", which is but an illusion mostly attributed to the time we lived in (or an idea of  a time previous to the time we were born in) rather than to the lack of consciousness we had amounted until then, a common misconception that mankind's wellbeing was better in the past.  That idea stuck to me as to show that constant learning and bettering yourself is more of a remedy to our existence after you pose yourself the question "is ignorance bliss?" than an actual goal or achievement, as posing the question itself is the turning point where you've been stricken by - in the words of Emil Cioran - the dagger of consciousness.  That said, one spends a good deal of time unlearning the heavy cultural bagagge that has been drilled into our heads in our early years in order to deal with the mutable and urgent character of life these days, so I think what we are looking for here is to answer "what is the meaning of life 'in our time'?"

I have started reading "The Denial of Death" by Ernest Becker as recommended above, and the central ideal that man's problem is to be heroic in several levels of his intrinsically narcissistic existence in order to overcome death seems pretty interesting and should throw something into the pot here.

Pedro mentioned his concern at the decline of Christianity as possibly contributing to a more widespread despair in society.  The God shaped hole. This is something I hear mentioned a lot and it jars with me.  I can think of one or two possible reasons as to why one might make such a claim but nothing convincing.  What's the rational there that I am overlooking? I think O Drighes hit on something resonant in his post above that touches on this idea.

I wonder if developing the language of meaning is the most important step.  To be able to define the question itself,  for yourself,  is the first step on the road to discovery and one that should conceivably open up a myriad of possible avenues to explore. Simply being aware that meaning might exist as a way of living can open your eyes to the meaning that already exists in front of you, in the things you do and how you live every day. 

Quote from: Black Shepherd Carnage on November 10, 2019, 06:52:36 PM
The early church, of the New Testament, was a socialist commune where all possessions were shared, which is essentially the only format that actually fits with Jesus' teachings (whether or not he was human or a symbol for magic mushrooms!). That we almost immediately veered away from living in a Christ-like way is why Nietzsche says there was only ever one Christian and he died on the cross. If you take Christianity to be, at origin, based only on Christ's teachings, then you couldn't find a more "humanist" creed (love your neighbor, who shall cast the first stone?, etc., etc.) Obviously it's very far away from what Rome did to that creed, but I think here again Pinker is just imagining up nice narratives and leaning them on vague ideas we have of the past.

I think I misrepresented Pinker in my earlier post.  He was saying that the values we live by are not biologically ingrained but came about from enlightenment thinking.  Religion had to adapt to those modes of thinking to remain relevant in a society that was moving away from the tyranny of punitive philosophies. I was confusing how early societies developed and how people,  early on,  realised that their best chance for success and safety was by working together. Not sure if that's entirely relevant to this conversation. 

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 11, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Pedro mentioned his concern at the decline of Christianity as possibly contributing to a more widespread despair in society.  The God shaped hole. This is something I hear mentioned a lot and it jars with me.  I can think of one or two possible reasons as to why one might make such a claim but nothing convincing.  What's the rational there that I am overlooking? I think O Drighes hit on something resonant in his post above that touches on this idea.

I wish I had the genius to have come up with those ideas  :laugh: i'm simply trading information that I have come across. What is my own personal opinion...well that's just too big a question to answer and I really don't have the answer. The original question was posed, what is the meaning to life and people very quickly answered you create your own meaning in a meaningless universe, and I'm not sure if we really analyse that response, that it holds up at all. How can we create meaning in the truest sense of the word when there is none? That was Nietzsche's life's work, or rather he wanted to address the nihilism that he saw coming as a result of our move away from organised religion and their principles that guided our society for a couple thousand years.

So, I have no idea about meaning. The idea that a God exists is laughed out of the room these days, and yet the afterlife, a higher meaning etc was what gave meaning to life for so long. And meaning in this regard is different to what drives us. I think we have ingrained drives that have allowed us to survive...competitiveness, horniness etc, but they don't explain 'meaning'. I'm driven to earn money, find a hot, big assed lady, write music, have children etc etc but is there a 'meaning' to any of it. That, is the billion dollar question. My own feeling is that I'm not writing anything off. I'm not sure we're quite as advanced or intelligent as we think we are. I'm also enjoying reading philosophy and psychology because it's teaching me how little I knew about what drives me both externally and internally. A never ending trip.

Yep,  I get you.  There is certainly an arrogance around a lot of the atheistic set,  even if they have a lot to offer, like Dawkins or Hitchins.

I think the second point you were making gets a bit at what I was saying about articulating meaning.  It's perfectly reasonable to go through life accepting what you are told as a child and living a perfectly happy life.  That might equate to the saying, ignorance is bliss, and I don't mean that condescendingly. We are all ignorant to a more or less degree because the world is too big and complex for us to know everything about it,  about history,  about all of the cultures,  all of the art,  literature,  poetry, music etc.  And who'd really want to know it all anyway? We'd all prefer to specialise in the areas that interest us...

Maybe the point I'm making is that the idea of there being meaning is meaning. I'm sceptical that an institution can provide simple answers on such an elusive concept,  at least one that could satisfy enough people to be impactful on society as a whole once it is removed.

Even if we accept that our moral compass has been set by Christianity,  that's fine.  Now we have it.  That's the gift religion has given us, its ingrained,  now let's explore the possibilities of mind expansion beyond the tight structures that religion imposes on us.  If the morals are set,  then why do we need to feel lost as a society without big daddy watching down on us from the depths of space?

Does this great malaise that we keep hearing about regarding modern society exist? Are we misinterpreting what we see as vacuity with nihilism? Are we guilty of interpreting another person's time wasting as being a sign of modern society having lost its way or lacking meaning while at the same time regarding our own time wasting as a foible of our otherwise immaculate character? Dunno if that makes sense or if I'm waffling but I know what I'm getting at.  I think...

This is a great thread. My thoughts on it are more or less interspersed here and there. It's the biggest question of them all and I don't think humankind is anywhere close  to coming up with an answer. I kinda hope it's revealed when we return to the cosmos, in death.  "Meaning" is such a big word and it reminds me of Carl Sagan's speech about the speck of dust that is Earth.  We are pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things, finding meaning is essentially futile, so for now, fulfillment is possibly the highest aspiration we should be seeking. Personal fulfillment but also seeking to have led a life of net gain once we reach the end.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 11, 2019, 02:26:06 PM
Yep,  I get you.  There is certainly an arrogance around a lot of the atheistic set,  even if they have a lot to offer, like Dawkins or Hitchins.

I think the second point you were making gets a bit at what I was saying about articulating meaning.  It's perfectly reasonable to go through life accepting what you are told as a child and living a perfectly happy life.  That might equate to the saying, ignorance is bliss, and I don't mean that condescendingly. We are all ignorant to a more or less degree because the world is too big and complex for us to know everything about it,  about history,  about all of the cultures,  all of the art,  literature,  poetry, music etc.  And who'd really want to know it all anyway? We'd all prefer to specialise in the areas that interest us...

Maybe the point I'm making is that the idea of there being meaning is meaning. I'm sceptical that an institution can provide simple answers on such an elusive concept,  at least one that could satisfy enough people to be impactful on society as a whole once it is removed.

Even if we accept that our moral compass has been set by Christianity,  that's fine.  Now we have it.  That's the gift religion has given us, its ingrained,  now let's explore the possibilities of mind expansion beyond the tight structures that religion imposes on us.  If the morals are set,  then why do we need to feel lost as a society without big daddy watching down on us from the depths of space?

Does this great malaise that we keep hearing about regarding modern society exist? Are we misinterpreting what we see as vacuity with nihilism? Are we guilty of interpreting another person's time wasting as being a sign of modern society having lost its way or lacking meaning while at the same time regarding our own time wasting as a foible of our otherwise immaculate character? Dunno if that makes sense or if I'm waffling but I know what I'm getting at.  I think...

Ahh now we're getting places. I would argue that the malaise has always existed but there was definitely a moment in history, where the signs were really bad. Nietzsche saw it coming and Jung is all about it. The vibe that was around Germany at the time seemed to be really intense and heading towards a really bad place i.e. the world wars. Are we still living in the anti-war inspired aftermath of all of that now, whereby peace and happiness is still valued and pushes us along?

Something else that fascinates me is this idea of 'Will'. Nietzsche talked about the Will to Power as opposed to other philosophers who talked about the Will to Survive and other concepts. Nietzsche said that the signs don't show that man only Wills to 'survive', we constantly do things that jeopardise our survival....smoking, riding, flying in airplanes, fighting etc etc etc. He was talking about the Will to Power as a kind of constant drive that we have. We get a good job, feel happy and not long after we're looking for something else. Win a football game, the next one becomes more important.

On a personal level, and I'm just riffing off my head here, in modern society, I think the drive for me isn't necesarily to FIND 'meaning', I think it's probably far more important for me not to LOSE 'meaning'. That goes back to the valuing of things, enjoyment, stuff that my cynical soul finds hard to do at times. Again, inverting what we have been told, all that programming, all that 'the world is an evil place' shite that is forced upon us. Now, it's forced upon us for good reason, to toughen us up to get us ready for life. But, maybe we're already tough enough, and we need to allow ourselves to actually bask a bit more in what is actually a 'miraculous' existence. Now that all sounds very wishy washy, and I puked a little when I wrote that, and that's the battle for me I think. It's a Ying/Yang type thing..life is tough and beautiful and getting some balance in there is hard enough without trying to solve the really big questions, which I'm not sure are solveable without dedicating lifetimes to the questions. That's what priests snd philosophers of the past did, if they found it hard, it's hardly surprising that we would, in between our moments of brief peace from Game of Thrones Boxsets, the M50 and Pornhub.

Quote from: Emphyrio on November 11, 2019, 03:40:33 PM
This is a great thread. My thoughts on it are more or less interspersed here and there. It's the biggest question of them all and I don't think humankind is anywhere close  to coming up with an answer. I kinda hope it's revealed when we return to the cosmos, in death.  "Meaning" is such a big word and it reminds me of Carl Sagan's speech about the speck of dust that is Earth.  We are pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things, finding meaning is essentially futile, so for now, fulfillment is possibly the highest aspiration we should be seeking. Personal fulfillment but also seeking to have led a life of net gain once we reach the end.

I'm on the same page with you there..not sure we're anywhere near a true understanding of the possibilities out in the world, universe or even internally. Nietzsche, who is a fuking savage, had a great little point in one paragraph, where he talked about Consciousness being the LAST development in the human body/being..(my terminology/vocab might be a bit off). Basically, our eyes developed, our hands, we learned to walk standing up, and (I think it's Consciousness is the word he uses) is the most recent addition in our evolutionary scale. It's a new addition, and as a result, how can we be so cocksure of ourselves. Something along those lines..Oul Friedrich tends to floor you at times. Black Shepherd is the man for Nietzsche in fairness, I wouldn't claim to any expertise on the subject.

Quote from: Pedrito on November 11, 2019, 04:12:37 PM

Quote from: Emphyrio on November 11, 2019, 03:40:33 PM
This is a great thread. My thoughts on it are more or less interspersed here and there. It's the biggest question of them all and I don't think humankind is anywhere close  to coming up with an answer. I kinda hope it's revealed when we return to the cosmos, in death.  "Meaning" is such a big word and it reminds me of Carl Sagan's speech about the speck of dust that is Earth.  We are pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things, finding meaning is essentially futile, so for now, fulfillment is possibly the highest aspiration we should be seeking. Personal fulfillment but also seeking to have led a life of net gain once we reach the end.

I'm on the same page with you there..not sure we're anywhere near a true understanding of the possibilities out in the world, universe or even internally. Nietzsche, who is a fuking savage, had a great little point in one paragraph, where he talked about Consciousness being the LAST development in the human body/being..(my terminology/vocab might be a bit off). Basically, our eyes developed, our hands, we learned to walk standing up, and (I think it's Consciousness is the word he uses) is the most recent addition in our evolutionary scale. It's a new addition, and as a result, how can we be so cocksure of ourselves. Something along those lines..Oul Friedrich tends to floor you at times. Black Shepherd is the man for Nietzsche in fairness, I wouldn't claim to any expertise on the subject.

Aye, we touched on him in college and I found him and Kierkegaard (?) very interesting. I've been meaning to get back into that stuff again. That said, I've been saying that for almost 15 years.

I've a heap of new books on front of me but the boul Nietzsche is on the shopping list. I read Thus Spoke Zarathustra a couple of years ago and it was interesting.

Tough book to rwad without guidance. Try Human all too hunan or The Gay Science

What guidance would you suggest to accompany it?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra has been sitting on my bedside book pile for a while. I've had a burgeoning interest in both him and Jung recently, but my dipping of the toe into both hasn't gone past a few videos, and some light reading.

I've found the Academy of Ideas channel to be great introductions to both, as well as a number of other philosophers. I'd imagine you've already encountered that stuff though.

I've dabbled in and out of philosophical reading for years. Am certainly no expert on it. Most of it melts my head and I struggle to finish hefty tomes. But I found Thus Spake Zarathustra very engaging. The fact there is a sort of linear narrative helps. It's hard to explain but I loved it in the same way I love certain moments in black metal music. It's embued with some current of 'truth', where the clouds part or everything aligns and things just seem 'right'. Transmits meaning greater than the sum of its parts. Its also a literary masterpiece with a beautiful tone and pace and that is probably its greatest attraction for me.

In contrast I found Beyond Good And Evil tough to pick up enjoy at length.

Also been enjoying Schopenhauers The World as Will and Representation on the 200th anniversary of its release. The actual book itself has been gathering dust on my shelf for yonks but an article in the magazine Philosophy Now has broken it down and made it a bit more understandable for this crude numbskull  :laugh:

Thus Spoke is readable (though maybe not readable enough to get the casual reader to the end) in the sense that, as Grim Reality says, it's written in a kind of scriptural narrative way which allows you to progress smoothly through (or in many cases over) extremely complicated and dense ideas without getting stuck. So you can read it as a piece of writing and certainly enjoy it like that. But to read it as a work of philosophy, I think it's actually more complex than any of his other works, and for exactly the same reason; because his thought is presented in it in images, allegories and metaphors, and there's no straight path to the bottom of those, especially since it's hard to tell when you've reached the actual bottom and not, for example, just the lid of a hidden compartment. There are more Nietzsche afficionados out there banging on such lids and repeating, "Look - bang, bang - see? It's the bottom - bang, bang - it's obvious!" than there are those who suspend judgement. And when you try to tell these afficionados otherwise... they blink! This "getting to the bottom" challenge is a big enough obstacle in all of his mid- to late-period writings, but in Zarathustra especially so. It would take literally a miracle for anybody to understand his philosophy on the basis of Zarathustra alone. All the above taken together is why he sub-titled it "a book for everyone [easy to read] and no one [virtually impossible to get to the bottom of]"

I'd agree with Pedrito; The Gay Science or Human, All Too Human first.

And if you're digging Schopenhauer at the moment, no better time to read Nietzsche's Untimely Meditation on him; "Schopenhauer educator". Great stuff from the early period.

Cheers, appreciate the insight.

I think I may give it a read now, go back through some of his other works, then read Thus Spoke again to see how my perception may or may not have developed.

I have such a backlog of things to get through reading wise, that I'm either truly embracing the thirst to find some meaning to life through topics such as these, or so fucking confused that I'm grasping at everything and anything to see if it sticks.

It sometimes feels like a very fine line.

Just make sure you have a laugh with it, that's what Zarathustra would tell you ;)

Zarathustra seems like a sound lad.

I'm reading this Jung book at the moment and it seens he may have been illegitimately related to Goethe. He also went to Basel university and talks at great length about Nietzsche whom he says was a complete outcast academically speaking in Basel where it was very difficult to find anyone who had heard of him or his writing. The fame seens to have arrived a lot later. What's really interesting is when Jung starts talking about symbols and behins to investigate alchemy and gnkstic writings etc. He dismissed it all until he began to see a type of symbolic language being used, which he also finds in Faust and Zarathustra...incredible layers of meaning according to him, I belive he wrote a massive book on Zarathustra and Faust is constantly referred to. This rolls into Taoism and all sorts of shit that I have no fucking clue about, but which led to many of his great 'discoveries' such as the subconscious, collective unconscious, synchronicity, archtypes etc which he says is the symbolic language needed to approach Zarathustra. Again, I could be misrepresenting the above with my terminology. It's a belter of a read though.

Another book I'm slowly farting throjgh is Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Basically goes back pre-Greece and gives you a run down of every philosopher and movement up to just after WW2, Chapter by chapter. For a dope like me, whose sex education was a 2 hour run through by a nun in 6th class and whose childhood was spent worrying that the devil was in the corner of the room, raised on piseógs and all that wonderful Irish madness, it's great to have some structure put on the 'why' of things. 'Why' we think certain ways etc. The Greek origins of our way of thinking..loads of 'oh fuck, ahhh now I see' moments. Loads of 'meanings' to life explored.

Russell's a History of Western Philosophy should be mandatory in school. I had a Christian brother in primary and spent a long time in the morning praying and singing hymns while he murdered a violin.(What a waste of time)  But yeah, a history is so readable, logical and enjoyable, despite its size.
I think humanity's greatest gift is creativity, from cooking to high art and anything related. The ability to communicate such through words, symbols and sounds is practical magick.
I am unfortunately quite the pessimist, and see the late 19th and early 20th century as the last flowering of humanity's spiritual and artistic spirit that could still be called beautiful. This in spite of the mechanised slaughter of war that would characterise much of the 20th century.
Academic philosophy of the present seems resigned to its epistemological crisis. It now seems like an equation to be solved for the amusement of other academics.
How did the discipline of philosophy go from asking what is good and how do we live a good life, to "let's mash Hegel and communism together and use that to analyse the movies of Hitchcock"?
Thankfully Nietzsche is still a valid antidote to existential emptiness, especially in the realm of art, ethics and meaning.

Does art and culture so to speak hold up without philosophy or is it just a form of philosophy? Without reading the works of the philosophers, what other routes to meaning are possible? I think it's interesting and predictable that philosophy will be high on the list when discussing the meaning of life (the question is itself philosophical) but it is surely just one route to meaning. 

Tricky one to answer, my best guess is each influences the other. Is time and distance from, and the success of an idea what qualifies it as formal philosophy? Western philosophy is so ingrained in our language that it's hard to escape it's influence. Does it's study enrich your life? I would have to say yes.
I feel the modern scientific view can leave out quality or experience from its descriptions. For example, we can name the frequencies in a melody, and map out tempo and show that info as sheet music. We know what parts of the anatomy are required for hearing the music. We can use mri or CT scans to show brain activity when listening to the music. But we can't really say why we prefer one song to another, why a particular section of the song makes us clench our jaw, double bass drum with our feet etc. We just know we fuckin love it. (BTW, this is your brain on music by Daniel Levitin is a great read, maybe a good follow up to the Pinker book you mentioned earlier)

Art at its best contains "meaning" to beat the band! The holy grail in the idea of the "total work of art", a fully immersive aesthetic experience where as many of the senses and sensibilities are stirred simultaneously, down to the environment framing a performance. Greek theatre would be the archetype, Wagner tried to recreate it at Beyrouth, but the ideal of it is captivating as something to tend towards. As music nerds, we yearn for it when we laud the vinyl experience; beyond the music, the ritual of it, the inlay that can fill the visual field, following the symbolism of the lyrics in real time, and so on.

I still don't know about "meaning" per se being found anywhere, neither through philosophy nor science nor religion, but in terms of experience, being brought through art to sensations that feel so alien yet rich when they occur, reading Nabokov or Dostoevsky, Goethe or Shakespeare, getting a sense of just how infinite experience can be without actually living it...to be honest, when philosophy is at its best, to my taste anyway, it's when it's creating that same kind of effect.

Our experiences are all we have, whatever domain we're exploring, so like my starting point here was, if you want to seek after something, go for direct experience, as Terence McKenna used to say.

Sounds interesting.  I'll keep an eye out for it. Funnily,  there was an expert on Moncrief yesterday trying to get to the root of why we dance when we hear music,  and saying it seems to be instinctive rather than taught. There is a theory that groups of people moving in harmony is useful from an evolutionary perspective, possibly for hunting and escaping danger. 

Anyway, art schmart, philosophy schmilosophy - if you want an up close and personal experience of some kind of "meaning" to life, an intense psychedelic (from the Greek "what reveals the mind") experience is the royal road, hands down, no doubt about it. Carried out in the proper environment, you could be decompressing meanings from that experience for years! There's evolutionary theories about that too, if you need 'em! (I always thought we moved instinctively to music due to the centre of balance being in the ear, so a biophysical explanation rather than a "this evolved for this" reason).

What's the royal road? Ayhauasca?

I've not taken ayahuasca, though many would reply yes. Any (relatively) non-toxic intense psychedelic experience will give you plenty to mull over. The Doors of Perception was on mescaline. You can easily get as transcendent an experience from Irish psilocybin mushrooms or psilocybin truffles available online. Let's not turn this into a psychedelics thread, but if you're really, really going after meaning, throw your mind out of your head and have a good long look at it.

I love hearing about people's drug experiences but I'm not into taking them myself so that's an avenue I'm unlikely to explore. The Doors of Perception has been on my shopping list for a couple of years but I've yet to come across a copy.

I'm still unpacking and being inspired by an ayahuasca experience I had over 10 years ago. I worked it into longer ritual, fasting and meditation. It still provides often changing meanings to my inner life. It's still an inspiration to the noise and drone I make at home for my own listening. If you do choose to use it, keep a bucket handy  ;)

Haha yeah,  I've heard a few detailed descriptions of the process and its immediate physical effects.  Maybe a nappy would be more convenient  :laugh:

You can't bate a couple of lines of hash at home on a Wednesday night lads.

Oh Kurt, you truly are a crackpot. 

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 13, 2019, 12:02:02 PM
I love hearing about people's drug experiences but I'm not into taking them myself

Why not?
Drugs are great.

Simply my choice.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on November 13, 2019, 03:16:39 PM
Simply my choice.

You may find some of the answers you are looking for in them!

I didn't start this thread to get advice,  it was just a discussion to see where other people look for meaning.  Getting a few reading tips and new perspectives is always a good thing but,  to be honest,  the chances of my beginning a career in drugs at 37 are well outside the bounds of likelihood,  and the prospect holds no interest for me. As I have maintained all along,  I think all of these options are just that,  options. I think that meaning is where you find it yourself. 

Doing mushrooms when I was in my late teens def changed me. Also a bad trip I had in the US changed me just as intensely. The doors of mind opened and I went into absolute overload, I was seeing thibgs, voices talking to me. Great to come out the other side but my God was it frightening. You realise that we deliberately, for good reasom, must have some sort of coccoon that we exist in mentally, that maybe evolved over millenia, to block out all this traffic and energy that exists. I'd love to do Ayahuasca but I don't have the balls. Currently here in Mexico though so never say never  :abbath:

What does strike me, jyst being here in the Yucatan peninsula is how the world must have looked to the ancient people. The sky is incredible, the storms, the stars, the animals. You can see how people were in a religious conversation with what they saw in the sky, when no electricity existed. Must have been incresible powerful.

I think purity and strength of intent can lend a deeper purpose or meaning to actions. Being a habitual stoned waster may not be very useful unless your intent is to get fatter on snacks. A well timed joint can help break habitual thoughts and feelings if you want to get into a good book, movie or piece of music.
We have all had experience of a bad gig, where it seems the band is just phoning it in and the music fails to connect. Similarly, I know I can feel really energised by a good gig where the band seem focused and engaged when the music really hits home. In this way too, I think the difference between music as art or music as entertainment can depend on the intent of the creator(s). Of course it's success as such depends largely on the (right) audience.
As an aside, I hope I'm not coming across as up on my soapbox, just enjoying this discussion is all.

Nqh that's class man. It's the same with martial arts amongst other activities. Getting so goof at something that it becomes an expression of wjo you are as opposed to just cloberring lads in the schoolyard. Being a master of your body, movements and emotions.

Again, going back to the ancients. Just did a tour of Tulum there..Mayan ruins on the coastline, incredibly spectacular. The 'meaning' that was given to life, birth, manhood, death etc etc etc is something that modern life has probably all but done away with. Again, are we moderns REALLY that advanced. Has science and tech and some brainwashing made us far too cocksure of ourselves? Hard to know. I'm also wary of conferring upon past people some greatness or mystical quality. They all got up and had a shit in the morning too. I'm more referring to their veneration of life and nature. A good big schlug of.mushy tea and some Pink Floyd would go down lovely here instead of sitting in Starbucks haha

Colour me jealous, it's a place I'd love to visit... Maybe need to start a holiday snaps thread   :)

I went for 10 days hiking in the Scottish highlands during Easter, and there were moments every day when I was completely alone (couple of hairy cows aside), no phone and feeling of calm and the erasure of my 'problems' was something I'd never experienced in my adult life. My work life (I'm a secondary school teacher) allows me little time for thought and reflection bar parroting what I've been reading or watching, so that pure solitude, not a car or wifi signal anywhere near me allowed the auld mohín to feel that slack jawed wonder and immersion in my surroundings that I only remember having as a young lad.

Going back a bit further north again Easter 2020, already consumed with the thoughts of it. Magic, highly recommended to anyone who feels fried by working and living in a city.

Where in the Highlands did you go? If you're going to return and go further north I would recommend Torridon.

Nothing like a bit of peace Kev..sounds class.

With Bölzer's Hero album in mind, I've been reading Jung and now I've had my head turned towards Joseph Campbell. I really don't like the way they put meditation music on every fucking interesting lecture in youtube land, but if you can disregard the music, this video is really great..


https://youtu.be/uRRrdmD3Bak

A lot of the stuff I'm reading and listening to at the moment seems to all be focussed on the same ideas..Nietzsche, Jung, Joseph Campbell, Herbert's Dune and Bölzer  :laugh: Campbell talks here about affirmation as opposed to this modern hatred of life, or rather, life as suffering. Nietzsche was at great pains to find a way out of the Schopenhaurean 'life is suffering' fix. Campbell in another video talks about how we have this concept of Jesus suffering on the cross and yet, he tells, it should be seen in completely the opposite way, that Christ went as a bridegroom to the cross, he went to the cross with his head up, a 'Hero' as such. All very interesting, and worth a listen, for anyone interested in Myth, Religion, Philosophy, Science, whatever the hell you're into.

Interesting little fact that Campbell was great friends of one of my great Heroes, John Steinbeck, and it seems a lot of these themes were reflected in Steinbeck's writing.

Sounds interesting.  I'll give it a whirl on a bit.  Currently listening to 'A Single Point of Light' by Terminus which is pretty damn uplifting stuff.

The Campbell vid without shitty mystical music

https://youtu.be/0ksSRNl0n2A

I was suppose to suggest the The Hero with a Thousand Faces to you here but forgot and also thought you most likely had read it before.

I'm a bleedin philistine trying to catch up with stuff that I should have been reading 20 years ago :laugh:

Quote from: Cosmic_Equilibrium on November 21, 2019, 06:46:05 PM
Where in the Highlands did you go? If you're going to return and go further north I would recommend Torridon.

Didn't go past Fort William this year, 2020 I have the BnBs booked from there are as a starting point and finishing around the Inverness area with a few days leeway to continue if I feel like it. I'll give Torridon a look there, cheers.

I wonder with the current state of the world, with the BLM protests and the ongoing lunacy (in my view) of the trans debate, are we, as a species and a global society, seeing a deeper search for meaning or are we seeing a complete break from/ breakdown of meaning? Could all of these various fractures and all of the copious, disparate interpretations of them be taken as evidence that there is, in fact, no meaning to be gained or lost in the first place? Certainly no single common meaning or truth beyond that of the individual. Maybe trying to find substance in, and quantification of, existence through the collective is a spiritual cul de sac. If events can be legitimately viewed from two diametrically opposed view pints that lead to completely different versions of reality,  then is it simply a matter of picking one reality over the other,  or picking one unreality over the other?

I think there is definitely a move way from "The last shall be first and the first shall be last" mentality as people realise, no, the first are always first and the last are always last and the first have a vested interest the last thinking they shall be first. If you accept that you only get one go on the ride, you're less likely to squander it "knowing your place" and being the shit on someone else's shoe so you can be rewarded after the ride ends. The move away from organised spirituality would, arguably, also mean a movement away from shame, resulting in people being more likely to assert themselves as they feel they are, rather than bottling it all up. We accept that there has always been homosexuality, transgenderism (even if not acted upon), only now we are seeing people finally express themselves.

Harking back to the psychedelic chit chat awhile back, I do see them as having quite a prominent place in novel, emergent forms of seeing ourselves and our place on the planet moving forward into the next few decades. They've been an elephant in the room since they fell out of psychiatric circles in the fifties, and one fantastic thing now is that their potential is being handled and rationally espoused by people with a little more nous and respect than the likes of Timothy Leary.

I love listening to Terence McKenna's take on things, admittedly. He was barking, and his Timewave Zero theorem really showed that up. Towards the end he bowed to some of that real bog standard 2012 stuff. But a lot of his speeches are absolutely brilliant, knowingly poetic takes on human conscious and the role psychedelics may play in them. His main overriding theme was always to keep questioning, don't succumb to dogma but awareness and the imagination etc has an inherent epic of mystery and driving meaning to it that's worth exploring.

I like that, and think it's a decent blueprint to follow today. Proper meaning, mind you. And proper mystery. Not subscribing to some new age bollocks which is just another systemic way of examining yourself, which only goes so far because it is ultimately based on somebody else's system. That's another of the great man's quotes: "You have to take seriously the notion that understanding the universe is your responsibility, because the only understanding of the universe that will be useful to you is your own understanding."

I like his send up of the Big Bang theory as well of being science needing one free miracle - that everything exploded from nothing for no apparent reason - before it explains the rest. Admittedly modern scientific understanding is trying to get inside that one a little more, too, but it's cheeky out.

I say this as someone who can't take psychedelics, either. I done my nut in on the other side of my twenties and every time it's tempting to just take the leap and order some truffles, there's that hesitancy there that I know has the potential to grow into a demon if I'm off tripping. I find the discourse around them genuinely irresistible, though.  The lore that others have brought back from their obviously meaningful, narrative driven, directed experiences gives me a vague sort of hope in the mystery and potentiality of nature as a sort of massive connected oversoul.

I think from enough mindfulness, long walks and good old fashioned bookworming you can reach those same heights, though it'll be a gradual ascent with less visual fireworks and wondering why you're still standing in the bathroom. I respect the journey, though, and it gives me belief that there can be one. I'm genuinely fine with  never taking DMT because I believe people's accounts that they really were somewhere else. I do. It's just too fucking mental.

Quote from: Scáthach on November 13, 2019, 04:22:19 PM
I think purity and strength of intent can lend a deeper purpose or meaning to actions. Being a habitual stoned waster may not be very useful unless your intent is to get fatter on snacks. A well timed joint can help break habitual thoughts and feelings if you want to get into a good book, movie or piece of music.
We have all had experience of a bad gig, where it seems the band is just phoning it in and the music fails to connect. Similarly, I know I can feel really energised by a good gig where the band seem focused and engaged when the music really hits home. In this way too, I think the difference between music as art or music as entertainment can depend on the intent of the creator(s). Of course it's success as such depends largely on the (right) audience.
As an aside, I hope I'm not coming across as up on my soapbox, just enjoying this discussion is all.

all that sounds great but usually it's too late in life by the time we settle on that philosophy.

I pushed hard for that stuff for a year here and there but it's so easy to be undermined by others, or to let yourself down on your own.

following your true inner voice is usually the best approach, even if most of us barely do it.

Following your internal voice is true but it's also a paradox.  We are all influenced and are unable to grow without external influence.  We need to follow the wisdom of others, to be exposed to new ideas,  and there are so many and they are constantly changing with the advent of technology and developments within science.   I suppose you are getting at the point that we ultimately make our own reality,  which would indicate that life itself is inherently meaningless?

Quote from: Eoin McLove on June 12, 2020, 12:24:07 PM
Following your internal voice is true but it's also a paradox.  We are all influenced and are unable to grow without external influence.  We need to follow the wisdom of others, to be exposed to be ideas,  and there are so many.  I suppose you are getting at the point that we ultimately make our own reality,  which would say that life itself is inherently meaningless?

well I kind of think there is less interchange between the inner voice and social mores, and even just passive influences from weather or people or cultural items than you're suggesting above. the taboo seems to be in rejecting the inner-outer interrelationship, and going inner-inner, but without narcissism or depression.

With age the realisation is that everything is there to keep you disconnected from your inner self, as 90s self-help as that sounds. That we all create our own reality might stem from what I'm saying but oddly it seems less important than the process of building a bridge between you and yourself. I'm not quite saying that life is inherently meaningless either, though again it is a passive conclusion/consequence of the inner self/reconnection thing.

I'll be 40 next year and the last 6 months have been spent in a funk about time wasted, things that seemed important but weren't, important things unsaid/undone.

Quote from: Eoin McLove on June 12, 2020, 11:20:01 AM
I wonder with the current state of the world, with the BLM protests and the ongoing lunacy (in my view) of the trans debate, are we, as a species and a global society, seeing a deeper search for meaning or are we seeing a complete break from/ breakdown of meaning? Could all of these various fractures and all of the copious, disparate interpretations of them be taken as evidence that there is, in fact, no meaning to be gained or lost in the first place? Certainly no single common meaning or truth beyond that of the individual. Maybe trying to find substance in, and quantification of, existence through the collective is a spiritual cul de sac. If events can be legitimately viewed from two diametrically opposed view pints that lead to completely different versions of reality,  then is it simply a matter of picking one reality over the other,  or picking one unreality over the other?

I think this is how we´  ve learnt to interpret things, that there is no fact or meaning to things, we´  re being sold this idea, programmed in many ways. It comes out of recent history, the idea that everyone has an equal voice and an equal right and an equal capacity etc etc. These are ideas that led up to  the French Revolution, led to Communism and the likes. Man as nothing more than flesh and blood and a cog in the machine, everything is mechanical made of unconscious matter, despite us believing prior to that that animals, the sun amongst others were conscious.

Yes, there are different ways to interpret the world to see the world but there are loads of holes in that too. Different strains of philosophy will argue one way or the other and they´ re all very compelling, but, honestly, I wouldn´  t be writing anything off just yet. An awful lot of what we perceive to be scientific fact is merely speculation and theory that we´ ve come to accept as fact. I think we´  re only starting to scratch the surface with a lot of it. I´´ m open to correction but Consciousness hasn´ t been explained by science, and it´  s going to be fascinating to see where it leads us. See the Hard Problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

So, we´ re in a moment in history. We´  re still only coming out of the dark ages. Spirit, God, the Universe, purpose, Consciousness..who knows what´ s real or not? It´ s going to be really interesting to see where we might go with everything if we don´ t end up burning the whole thing to the ground first, which would be my worry.

I'm fascinated by consciousness. It's such a difficult question but from what I have read about it and the various discussions I've listened to on it I'd err toward it being an emergent property of brain functions. But what I have grown to love about science, having taken an active interest over the past few years, is that very fact of it being all so new and unexplored. I enjoy the dichotomy of feeling like you are learning something true while trying to remain flexible and open to the idea that all you know is actually wrong; a new theory arrives to throw a spanner in the works. Rather than finding despair in that, I think the process itself is meaningful even though it means you will probably die with more questions than answers. 

Isn't it funny how attached we can become to very specific, detailed, contingent value systems all the while admitting we don't know what life is about?

Hmmmm I´ m not sure you´  re being completely fair there. The idea that everything is meaningless is what he is talking about and that is used politically now to argue for whatever is de moda.

But, Chris, you´ re a great man for this stuff. Would be interesting to hear your perspectives.

Not aimed at Andy at all. It's a notion I remind myself of every day as a means of returning to the sphere of my own direct experience. Meaning, in the grand sense intended here, has a tendency to short circuit emotional response, because there is no meaning system that perfectly matches experience, but that fact is not something the mind-brain likes to face. So we lose our shit if we don't have a means of relaxing the cords of "meaning".

Apologies, I took you up wrong there.

Sure wouldn't I be an awful shitehawk if I was to try and make out, here of all places, that I don't get caught up in certain value systems myself!? I do try to favour those that most leave open others to discover their own experience, but even that may be misled...in any case, it's not "better" than anything else, just what I prefer. Believing individual adults still have the capacity to break free of whatever conceptual systems they have assimilated, and "knowing" that no subjective experience comes close to those moments of boundary dissolution, thus hoping that as many people as possible will live in times and places where that is permitted, encouraged even, that's a world I'd consider a human utopia of sorts; where the meaning of life would be free exploration of meaning. All very much paraphrased from Nietzsche and Feyerabend and McKenna and Watts, if that all floats anyone's boat.

Funny you should mention Feyerabend, I found myself reading something by him purely by chance a while back. Any book you'd recommend or is he better listened to?

I don't even know what his voice sounds like! Against Method is extremely entertaining and rich. He's very much a Jungian trickster, but a good sort.

Quote from: Pedrito on June 12, 2020, 01:38:45 PM

Quote from: Eoin McLove on June 12, 2020, 11:20:01 AM
I wonder with the current state of the world, with the BLM protests and the ongoing lunacy (in my view) of the trans debate, are we, as a species and a global society, seeing a deeper search for meaning or are we seeing a complete break from/ breakdown of meaning? Could all of these various fractures and all of the copious, disparate interpretations of them be taken as evidence that there is, in fact, no meaning to be gained or lost in the first place? Certainly no single common meaning or truth beyond that of the individual. Maybe trying to find substance in, and quantification of, existence through the collective is a spiritual cul de sac. If events can be legitimately viewed from two diametrically opposed view pints that lead to completely different versions of reality,  then is it simply a matter of picking one reality over the other,  or picking one unreality over the other?

I think this is how we´  ve learnt to interpret things, that there is no fact or meaning to things, we´  re being sold this idea, programmed in many ways. It comes out of recent history, the idea that everyone has an equal voice and an equal right and an equal capacity etc etc. These are ideas that led up to  the French Revolution, led to Communism and the likes. Man as nothing more than flesh and blood and a cog in the machine, everything is mechanical made of unconscious matter, despite us believing prior to that that animals, the sun amongst others were conscious.

Yes, there are different ways to interpret the world to see the world but there are loads of holes in that too. Different strains of philosophy will argue one way or the other and they´ re all very compelling, but, honestly, I wouldn´  t be writing anything off just yet. An awful lot of what we perceive to be scientific fact is merely speculation and theory that we´ ve come to accept as fact. I think we´  re only starting to scratch the surface with a lot of it. I´´ m open to correction but Consciousness hasn´ t been explained by science, and it´  s going to be fascinating to see where it leads us. See the Hard Problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

So, we´ re in a moment in history. We´  re still only coming out of the dark ages. Spirit, God, the Universe, purpose, Consciousness..who knows what´ s real or not? It´ s going to be really interesting to see where we might go with everything if we don´ t end up burning the whole thing to the ground first, which would be my worry.

You've put out some great insights here

Quote from: Pedrito on June 12, 2020, 03:10:54 PM
Funny you should mention Feyerabend, I found myself reading something by him purely by chance a while back. Any book you'd recommend or is he better listened to?

Last of the Feyerabenders, great film, full of esoteric hints

Quote from: Pedrito on June 12, 2020, 01:38:45 PM

Quote from: Eoin McLove on June 12, 2020, 11:20:01 AM
I wonder with the current state of the world, with the BLM protests and the ongoing lunacy (in my view) of the trans debate, are we, as a species and a global society, seeing a deeper search for meaning or are we seeing a complete break from/ breakdown of meaning? Could all of these various fractures and all of the copious, disparate interpretations of them be taken as evidence that there is, in fact, no meaning to be gained or lost in the first place? Certainly no single common meaning or truth beyond that of the individual. Maybe trying to find substance in, and quantification of, existence through the collective is a spiritual cul de sac. If events can be legitimately viewed from two diametrically opposed view pints that lead to completely different versions of reality,  then is it simply a matter of picking one reality over the other,  or picking one unreality over the other?

I think this is how we´  ve learnt to interpret things, that there is no fact or meaning to things, we´  re being sold this idea, programmed in many ways. It comes out of recent history, the idea that everyone has an equal voice and an equal right and an equal capacity etc etc. These are ideas that led up to  the French Revolution, led to Communism and the likes. Man as nothing more than flesh and blood and a cog in the machine, everything is mechanical made of unconscious matter, despite us believing prior to that that animals, the sun amongst others were conscious.

Yes, there are different ways to interpret the world to see the world but there are loads of holes in that too. Different strains of philosophy will argue one way or the other and they´ re all very compelling, but, honestly, I wouldn´  t be writing anything off just yet. An awful lot of what we perceive to be scientific fact is merely speculation and theory that we´ ve come to accept as fact. I think we´  re only starting to scratch the surface with a lot of it. I´´ m open to correction but Consciousness hasn´ t been explained by science, and it´  s going to be fascinating to see where it leads us. See the Hard Problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

So, we´ re in a moment in history. We´  re still only coming out of the dark ages. Spirit, God, the Universe, purpose, Consciousness..who knows what´ s real or not? It´ s going to be really interesting to see where we might go with everything if we don´ t end up burning the whole thing to the ground first, which would be my worry.

consciousness isn't really the big issue anymore- maybe 4 years ago, the focus moved elsewhere, some might say backwards, to older issues. Even that to and fro between 'hard' problems, and other things is kind of a trap, something to move beyond.

if you're over 30, Watts, Nietzsche, and Chomsky are to be thanked and replaced gently on the book shelf. Jung is different somehow, Jung is for life.

anyway we're all a little stupider than we like to think, but slowly, slowly we're showing some small signs of growth. Really small refinements before running out of time seems to be what it is.

Since you seem to have such a problem saying yes to the present, one might rather recommend taking Nietzsche the ja-sager and Watts the meditator back down off the shelf for some tips.

we were all Jung once!

A thought for entertaining:

"And people get all fouled up because they want the world to have meaning as if it were words...
As if you had a meaning,
as if you were a mere word, as if you were something that could be looked up in a dictionary.
You are meaning."
Alan Watts

Further to that, and in agreement with it: isn't the meaning of life unquantifiable by its' very nature anyway and completely individual to the experiencer?

Like for some, the meaning of life might boil down to something like instagram likes and for another it might be how many monkeys they have speared for today's dinner. I guess that is the beauty of the search for meaning, that we all get to take our own view on it entirely while never being able to truly get the idea across to someone else, as they will have a meaning entirely of their own.

And there is beauty in the idea of trying to explain it to another all the same, and hearing what they think on it. Those conversations can shine a mental light on other facets of what is meaningful, while we still form ideas entirely of our own.

https://youtu.be/8eXBiHDcFAQ

This could be of interest to some of you. It's true that Bohm has indirectly inspired possibly more "quantum woo" nonsense than anyone else, but I'd belong to those who believe that the scientific edifice's exclusionary elitism is just as much to blame. The documentary is a bit more physics centered than I thought, and notably doesn't go into any of his ideas about creativity, which for me is where he really shines. But anyway, enough of my yakkin', let's boogie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDpurdHKpb8

Intellect: Ostensibly there is colour,  ostensibly sweetness,  ostensibly bitterness,  actually only atoms and the void.

Senses: Poor intellect,  do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat.

Democritus.

Rings a bell regarding a certain forum user  :laugh:

Quote from: Eoin McLove on July 12, 2020, 09:48:58 PM
Intellect: Ostensibly there is colour,  ostensibly sweetness,  ostensibly bitterness,  actually only atoms and the void.

Senses: Poor intellect,  do you hope to defeat us while from us you borrow your evidence? Your victory is your defeat.

Democritus.

Rings a bell regarding a certain forum user  :laugh:

I'm a fool who knows he's a fool. It doesn't stop there being far out stuff happening. Well done on the pre-Socratics though. Those guys are often overlooked

True that. Even though, after Democritus, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles and company, philosophy did kind of Plateau*.


* According to Whitehead anyway.

Academic puns (there's another one right there!) aside, Democritus was the man:
"Nature and education are somewhat similar. The latter transforms man, and in so doing creates a second nature."

That right there is everything.

Quote from: Black Shepherd Carnage on July 12, 2020, 10:45:24 PM
True that. Even though, after Democritus, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles and company, philosophy did kind of Plateau*.


* According to Whitehead anyway.

Fantastique!  :laugh: One for the academic huns.

Quote from: Scáthach on July 13, 2020, 10:50:23 PM

Quote from: Black Shepherd Carnage on July 12, 2020, 10:45:24 PM
True that. Even though, after Democritus, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles and company, philosophy did kind of Plateau*.


* According to Whitehead anyway.

Fantastique!  :laugh: One for the academic huns.

Someone should be Aristotting up all the puns... maybe it Kant be Donne.

I've been listening to Sheldon Solomon talking about the important role of death in life over the past couple of days. Going to grab one of his books tomorrow I think.  Interesting dude and lots of interesting things to ponder in what he is saying, or at least a lot of it resonates with my own outlook and, obviously,  goes a lot deeper into these ideas that I could manage myself.