Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
> benjayk wrote:
>> Rex Allen wrote:
>>>> Where could the explanation begin?
>>> I'd say there is no explanation. It just is what it is. As Brent
>>> said...it's descriptions all the way down.
>> I wouldn't neccesarily disagree, though only if you mean verbal or formal
>> explanation. In a sense our life and our experiences are explanations of
>> something, don't you think so?
>> It is true though, that our lifes (all the content of conciousness and
>> way it evolves) itself then can have no complete explanation. So what
>> "wants" to explain then?
>> I think it seeks to explain that it *needs* no explanation beyond itself,
>> because it is good and nobody *absolutely* needs an explanation for what
>> good. If it is good enough, you will except it without explanation -
>> this is the ultimate explanation.
>> Who could ever disagree with "The world is perfect, it is just here to
>> experience ever increasing joy and learn something exciting about
>> ourselves?" when it really comes down to it? So how could it be a wrong
>> explanation for anyone?
>> I see no way.
> Well if you were dying of AIDS, your husband had his hands hacked off by
> militias, and your child was starving to death you might see a way.
In this case I probably wouldn't believe that the world is perfect.
Nevertheless it may be the case that the things I perceive as bad are
ulitmately not bad at all, even to the contrary. Certainly it is very
unpleasant to have AIDS, but both having AIDS and dying may be a good tool
for your own development and thus a tool for the "good".
As I wrote before I had times that I had the thought I was destined to be in
hell (on a N2O trip) and I was quite depressive for a few years in my
life... I certainly didn't believe that the world was very good then.
But in retrospection I have to disagree (even though I still am very far
from feeling this at all times). All the bad feelings passed and were
relatively meaningless, so how could I complain?
Probably "perfect" is the wrong word, because it may suggest that there is
nothing bad about it. Obviously there is. But I really think that there is
nothing *ultimately* bad about it, because every bad things "wants" to get
rid of itself. So I find it plausible bad things are impermanent and thus
are just a tool to get us to the "good". They are bad, but they are good
too. And the good prevails, I think, as it is potentially eternal.
What I really wanted to express, and it probably didn't get across, is that
"reality" could be perfect in the sense it is ultimately better than all
your expectations and imaginations and thus ultimately there is simply no
reason to say: "I don't want 'truth' or reality to exists" and THAT may be
the ultimate reason. It is the argument that swallows all counterarguments
by sheer goodness.
If reality wouldn't be that way all beings would want to try to escape
reality/truth, not only temporarily, but forever. But then how could it be
called reality or "the truth"? If every one tried to escape truth
ultimately, the consensus truth would start to be not the "real" truth...
But then what could define the real truth? How could subjective truth and
objective truth diverge without making truth meaningless?
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>> I agree here. But I would add that conciousness can conceivably make
>> independent sense for me, while numbers or matter can't.
>> For me numbers don't make independent sense of the appearance (!) of
>> too. Since I cannot conceive of any meaning of the number 2 without
>> reffering to some "real" (in the sense of every day usage) object.
> But can you conceive of a meaning for 10 930 702 499?
Yes, for example in the context of computer files the number could mean "so
many of 'bytes' that I should consider moving the file to my external drive,
in order to save space, except the file is important". It is true that the
number 14 233 744 161 could have the same meaning, so for me this number has
no "special" meaning. But I didn't say every number has to have a special
meaning (for me) in any context.
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>> Maybe "what really exists" is not a meaningful thing to ask in first
>> because if something "really" exists, it certainly cannot be expressed
>> words. So why aks a question that can't be answered with words at all?
> But we can ask for true descriptions about it. Isn't it true that you
> are reading a computer screen? Of course we can't be sure about this,
> but we don't have to give up betting on it.
I completely agree! We can indeed ask for true (or at least practical)
descriptions of something, no matter whether it "REALLY REALLY" exist. I
think my computer screen does really exist, but not in the ultimate sense of
"really really" existing (that is independently of everything else), which I
was referring to. After all I could destroy my screen and than it would not
exist "so much".
Personally I am sure that my computer screen exists, because I see it, I am
just not sure about what that could mean beyond what it means for me (or if
it exists beyond me), I am not sure about its "real" meaning.
I meant that the word "existing" is relative (as becomes clear in our
apparent missunderstanding) and so to ask for "really existing" in the sense
of absolute existance is not meaningful.
That is not to say there is/are no absolute existing "thing(s)", but I don't
now what this absolute could mean "absolutely" and I think it is futile to
want a answer you can put in words.
Brent Meeker-2 wrote:
>> Probably we generally should take words less serious (especially with
>> regards to fundamental questions) and expect no satisfying answers from
> What do you propose - that we remain silent as mystics? Or do think
> mathematical words are different and we should take "2" and "successor"
> more seriously than "chair" and "dog"?
I only propose we don't act like words *are* the answers to fundamental
questions. They help to find the answers to these questions only in so far
as they show their own deficiency. We can talk about them and it may be
useful to talk about them, but only to find an answer in so far that there
is none to find (in words) . Probably this is a bit of a Zen-position ;).
I think we should take words more serious that have a stable and
intersubjectively concurrent meaning for us and that are practical to use
and we should take words less serious that are fuzzy and theoretic. Words
that we IMO can take quite serious are words like "Window", "T-Shirt",
"Zebra" as opposed to "reality", "succesor", "love"... I think if we use
reality (in a philosophic context) as a serious word we miss the point of
reality: That it is nothing serious and fixed, but something playful and
View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at