--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > It doesn't have to have any reference to > > > enlightenment, nor is adopting it as an assumption > > > even necessarily pathological. It doesn't have to > > > change anything about how you interact with the > > > world; it just changes your understanding of the > > > meaning of "interact with the world." > > > > If there is a world. And a "you" / me. > > > > Maybe its all smoke and mirrors -- and we bought into it, and are now > > to vested in the delusion to give it up. > > Absolute skepticism has zero intellectual appeal for me. There is a > lot of leeway in how we perceive our world, but I don't see the value > in speculating that we aren't living in an objective physical world > through the prisms of our individual intelligence and attempting to > achieve some consensus. I also realize that theoretical physics type > brainiacs need to think at this level of abstraction. My intellectual > issues are very far down the ladder from this type of speculation. > It is interesting to me how my question about each of us being the creator of the world has morphed through subtle interpretation into equating creating with thinking. From what I can see, most creation in the universe occurs without any thinking at all; galaxies come and go, without any thinking at all. So why the assumption that in order to create, we must think?
All the talk about solipsism has to do with filtering and interpreting our world through thought and thinking, and concepts and interpretation. I wasn't originally talking about that, though its been an interesting tangent nonetheless.
