WJ

SB!

Let's assume for the sake of grins that a cat has no or very little sentience to its existence. (Or at least not at the levels of human Beings.) Let's further assume that its own motivation behind its curiousity (curiousity might be the wrong concept here but metaphorically it works) is unemotional/objective in the sense it does not seek knowledge that has any higher sense of purpose or meaning attached to it. (Its existence or survival needs are not based on human sentient existence.) In contrast, a human apparently has a choice between an 'uncaring' curiousity and one that is more caring. The question is of what value is the "enthusiasim" (as I agree with you) if one lacks a caring? Or why should one care to be enthused at all?

Perhaps as one decides to take the 'sojourn' in such process of objective uncaring study (if that's even possible because some thing motivates you to make the choice to start) at some point one gets 'brainwashed' as you might say in being convinced that objectively, thus and so is absolute. Question: why do humans become 'brainwashed' over a load of...that relates to the meaning(s) of existence?

Why do we care about things like 'meaning' and the will to learn and subsequently believe? In otherwords, if caring distinguishes good learning v. not-so-good learning viz. the study of things involving the meaning of life, how much is enough? Apparently there is a sort of balancing act depending on the person.

There must be a benefit for sentient existence. But how can feeling be a guide to objective truth about the meaning of same? Thoughts?

Walrus

snatchbalance

WJ,

1. I guess that certain forms of sentience confir certain survival advantages upon the holder of such sentinence. I see no other teleological implications.

Do cats and human feel joy in exploration and discovery? Speaking for myself, yes. Is this sufficent motivation for further exploration and discovery in and of itself? I think yes. Is all this part and parcel of being a cat or a human? again, I think yes.

2. Can any of this guide us, or cats, to an OBJECTIVE MEANING, I think not. Nor would I expect it to.

3. I think it can lead me to an investgation of the best possible life for me and the people around me. I don't think one can ask for much more.

4. In regards to the notion of ojectivity, I think we may be talking past each other. I think many people can agree on the nature of certain aspects of meaning. But to look for some standard other than human, something that imparts meaning where there once was none, well, in my judgement, if that's what you're looking for, is a waste of time.

SB

snatchbalance

WJ,

It's easier than thinking.

SB

WJ

SB!

You said:


3. I think it can lead me to an investgation of the best possible life for me and the people around me. I don't think one can ask for much more.

4. In regards to the notion of ojectivity, I think we may be talking past each other. I think many people can agree on the nature of certain aspects of meaning. But to look for some standard other than human, something that imparts meaning where there once was none, well, in my judgement, if that's what you're looking for, is a waste of time. [end quote]

I believe, and could be mistaken, that if some thing imparts meaning to you and only you, then it is worth the effort. But what makes that complicated is that you wished a "...best possible life for me and the people around me."

Forget about theology please; how, why, and by what method is that which you just said, acheived?
When you said 'creating meaning out of no thing' in so many words, isn't that basically what you are talking about; the need to make life meaningful for no apparent reason?

Walrus

snatchbalance

WJ,

Well, I certainly don't have a magic pill, but if something I did(I think doing is the key) makes my life, or my family's life better isn't that reason enough; I feel better for it. Isn't the meaning intensive to the action? Aren't they bound together, like feeling and judgment? Can you talk about one without talking about the other at the same time?

Is there a "need" for this? I don't exactly know. I guess some sociopaths only care for thier own immediate pleasure and gratification. They gain no pleasure by trying to improve the world around them. The majority of humanity does not operate that way.

Most people do derive pleasure from doing "good". Like curiosity, it's one of things that makes a person a person.

We seem to be drifting way off of the original topic.

SB

WJ

Snatch!

I realize you may think this is a bit off-topic, however, a point is emerging about the problems of objectivity and logic (pure reason-whatever that really means). To that end, let's assume formal logic's direct analogy is mathematics(good assumption). Your claim that 'brainwashing' is analogous to 'not thinking' is really a misnomer. It is actually the other way around relative to this thread topic.

This is one of many points here. Pure reason is actually easier! Just like the ontological trickery. But more importantly, just like 1+1 can be performed by anyone with a calculator; the 'meaning' is lost in the 'unemotional' result from the [correctness/incorrectness of the] equasion itself.

You seem to be hanging your hat on the rules of objectivity to justify a curiousity, pursuit, and/or belief about some unknown thing of study. How is the meaning of Jesus germain to mathematics?

I don't mean to break-bad on you like this, but I see you are stuck in the contradictory rut of expecting objectivity to make its appearance in order to justify a some thing. Do we need to re-hash conscious sentient existence again?

Does this speak to the holes in your argument about pure objective study? You indicated a lack of separation, yet you err toward objectivity. While that is appropriate in determining some truth's about the physical world, if falls short from a methodoligy standpoint viz. the meaning of [Deity].

Agree? If not, why not?

Walrus

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

victorialis

Yep.

snatchbalance

WJ,

1. I still get the feeling that we are somehow speaking past each other. In my mind, I never made an argument that "study" is objective. The desire, approach, methodology, mental filters employed, etc. are all very subjective. About he best one can do, is try to be aware of such limitations when embarking on the study of any subject.

2. During such study, as a means of validating or invalidating one's conclusions, one can employ some tools, mathematics, logic, experiments, etc., that are on there surface, objective. Of course, these tools are also subject to manipulation. This is why the sciences insist on numerous independent confirmations before accepting such results.

3. How does this apply to a diety? I don't know. The notion of dieties is purly subjective, IMHO. Can one subject such notions to mathematical or logical analysis, I think not.

4. Of course, personnal or subjective "meaning" in and of itself, in many cases, is not amenable to logical analysis.

5. I think the original problem of this thread revolves around people manipulateing logic, and using false logic, to support thier own agenda.

6. The tools introduce an element of objectivity to study. The study itself is only as honest as the person using the tools.

SB

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>