Re: The Meaning of Life

[Stathis Papaioannou]

Tom Caylor writes:

>I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
> >on truth.  Purpose would go along with that.  I think that this
> >situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the "primary
> >matter" situation.  I think you maintain that experience is enough.  I
> >maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having
> >faith that there is ultimately something "there".  I'm not interested
> >in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a
> >whim.  I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable
> >good in us.
>

If you built a model society and set its citizens instincts, goals,
laws-from-heaven (but really from you) and so on, would that suffice to
provide "meaning"?

Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: The Meaning of Life

[Brent Meeker]

Tom Caylor wrote:
> On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tom Caylor wrote:
>>> Brent Meeker wrote:
 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>> Tom Caylor writes:
>> Brent Meeker "It does not matter now that in a million
>> years nothing
> we do now
>>> will matter."
>> --- Thomas Nagel
> We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
> Tom
 That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we
 do
> now will
 matter.
>>> Why do you say "we might like to believe Nagel"? Why would
> anyone want
>>> it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a
> million years?
> In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a
> basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and
> controlling things in our immediate sphere of "care abouts", like
> our animal instincts.
>> I never said otherwise.  It is you who keep pretending that if we don't 
>> worship a sky god we're reduced to animal instincts.
>>
>> You keep bringing up "meaning".  Do you not see that "meaning" is reference 
>> to something else.  Words have meaning because they refer to things that are 
>> not words.  In order to act you need purpose, an internal thing.  You don't 
>> need "meaning"; except by reference to your own purpose.  If you act to 
>> satisfy someone else's purpose, then you have to answer the question, "Why 
>> was it your decision, your purpose, to satisfy someone else?"
> 
> I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
> on truth.  Purpose would go along with that.  I think that this
> situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the "primary
> matter" situation.  I think you maintain that experience is enough.  I
> maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having
> faith that there is ultimately something "there".  I'm not interested
> in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a
> whim.  I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable
> good in us.
> 
 But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of
 - including how things will be a million years from now, including
 an abstract principle, even including a fine point of theology.
>>> Sorry that I don't have much time.  I agree with your statement
>>> above.  However, see below.
> (Such a local basis does not support doing things like
> sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in
> the future.)
>> Depends on what you mean by "local basis".  You seem to mean "animal 
>> instincts".  But I, here and now, can care about whether democracy survives 
>> in the U.S. in 2100, whether global warming kills people in Bangladesh, 
>> whether AIDS spreads in Africa, whether a theory of quantum gravity will 
>> ever be discovered.
> 
> But the wonderfully unexplainable good thing is that these cares of
> yours actually mean something that other people can appreciate, 

Nothing inexplicable about that at all.  Other people are products of the same 
evolutionary process, so inevitably they share a sense of what's good and what 
isn't; but this includes looking out for themselves and their kin first, so 
everybody appreciates altruism...in other people.

>and
> that what you see as being worthy to pursue or fight against,
> individually and collectively, can *actually be* worthy, independent
> of what we may think.

I don't even know what "actually" means here.  Is it like a scientific finding, 
that everybody can replicate and agree on?  Or is it like an unknowable really 
real reality?
 
 For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of
 such sacrifice so far in the future.   But people sacrifice for
 others that they know all the time.
>>> This statement seems to be in conflict with your previous statement.
>> How?
>>
> 
> I explained in the following sentences.
> 
>>> Theology (I'd rather say "being in communion with the personal God"
>>> in from whom we have our personhood, rather than an academic pursuit)
>>> is a way of enabling us to "see" things, expand our consciousness,
>>> outside of the immediate sphere of "care abouts" that are defined by
>>> animal instincts, the five senses, etc., and to see things such as
>>> the nobility of giving our life for a cause that is greater that this
>>>  local, supposedly (but not truly) autonomous, sphere.
>> You seem to assume that "non-local" = "good".  Tell it to the victims of 
>> 9/11.
>>
> 
> I'm not assuming that.  This prompts me to bring up the Solzhenitsin
> quote again about the line between good and evil going down the center
> of every human.  This quote is saying something more than "I value
> certain things, and I don't value (or even I am horrified by) other
> things.

Re: The Meaning of Life

[Jesse Mazer]

Tom Caylor wrote:

>
>I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
>on truth.  Purpose would go along with that.  I think that this
>situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the "primary
>matter" situation.  I think you maintain that experience is enough.  I
>maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having
>faith that there is ultimately something "there".  I'm not interested
>in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a
>whim.  I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable
>good in us.

In mentioning the idea of God deciding morality on a whim, you perhaps 
allude to the old counterargument to grounding morality in God in the first 
place, known as "Euthyphro's Dilemma" from one of Plato's dialogues--if God 
*chose* these supposed laws of morality, then they are ultimately arbitrary 
since God could have chose a completely different set of laws, but if moral 
truths are in some sense beyond God's ability to change, much like many 
philosophers would say the laws of mathematics or logic are, then it's not 
clear why you need "God" in your explanation at all, you could just cut out 
the middleman and postulate eternal platonic moral truths in the same way 
many on this list are prepared to postulate eternal platonic mathematical 
truths.

The only way in which I could see that it would make sense to relate 
goodness to "God" is to imagine a sort of pantheist God that represents a 
sort of ultimate pattern or harmony connecting every individual part of the 
universe, so goodness would represent some kind of orientation towards the 
ultimate pattern which encompasses all of us, and which would override 
individual conflicting interests. A variation on this might be the "Omega 
Point" idea that every individual finite being is on some sort of long-term 
path towards being integrated into an infinite superorganism (perhaps only 
as a limit that can never actually be reached in finite time), or in the 
concepts of this list maybe a single infinitely complex observer-moment with 
memories of every other observer-moment, which could also be seen as an 
ultimate pattern connecting everything (one might say, as in Frank Tipler's 
speculations about the Omega Point, that an infinite mind would itself 
contain simulations of every possible history in every possible universe 
leading up to it, so that the Omega Point would both be an endpoint of 
history but also contain all history integrated within it). In this view, 
every instance of individuals trying to cooperate and to understand and 
connect with each other is an incremental "step in the right direction", so 
one could ground "ultimate goodness" in that. I recently came across an 
interesting interview at 
http://www.wie.org/j34/swimme2.asp?%20from=lnk-zaadz discussing Teilhard de 
Chardin's thoughts on the Omega Point, and many on this list will be 
familiar with Frank Tipler's version which I mention above (even if Tipler's 
specific ideas about using the Big Crunch to do an infinite amount of 
computation in a finite time are proven wrong, as a transhumanist I'm still 
crossing my fingers that intelligence will find some loophole in the laws of 
physics that will allow it to continue forever without violating the laws of 
thermodynamics). But neither of these versions of "God" bears much 
resemblance to the creator-God separate from the rest of the universe that's 
imagined by most mainstream religions.

Jesse

_
Invite your Hotmail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live 
Spaces 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp007001msn/direct/01/?href=http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: The Meaning of Life

[Tom Caylor]

On Feb 13, 5:18 pm, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> > Brent Meeker wrote:
> >> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >>> On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> > wrote:
>
>  Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > Tom Caylor writes:
>
>  Brent Meeker "It does not matter now that in a million
>  years nothing
> >>> we do now
> > will matter."
>  --- Thomas Nagel
>
> >>> We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
>
> >>> Tom
>
> >> That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we
> >> do
> >>> now will
> >> matter.
>
> > Why do you say "we might like to believe Nagel"? Why would
> >>> anyone want
> > it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a
> >>> million years?
>
> >>> In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a
> >>> basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and
> >>> controlling things in our immediate sphere of "care abouts", like
> >>> our animal instincts.
>
> I never said otherwise.  It is you who keep pretending that if we don't 
> worship a sky god we're reduced to animal instincts.
>
> You keep bringing up "meaning".  Do you not see that "meaning" is reference 
> to something else.  Words have meaning because they refer to things that are 
> not words.  In order to act you need purpose, an internal thing.  You don't 
> need "meaning"; except by reference to your own purpose.  If you act to 
> satisfy someone else's purpose, then you have to answer the question, "Why 
> was it your decision, your purpose, to satisfy someone else?"

I'm talking about ultimate meaning, meaning which is ultimately based
on truth.  Purpose would go along with that.  I think that this
situation is similar (metaphysically isomorphic? :) to the "primary
matter" situation.  I think you maintain that experience is enough.  I
maintain that if all you have is relative references, you are having
faith that there is ultimately something "there".  I'm not interested
in any straw-man caricature god who decides what is valuable etc. on a
whim.  I'm interested in the source of the wonderfully unexplainable
good in us.

>
> >> But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of
> >> - including how things will be a million years from now, including
> >> an abstract principle, even including a fine point of theology.
>
> > Sorry that I don't have much time.  I agree with your statement
> > above.  However, see below.
>
> >>> (Such a local basis does not support doing things like
> >>> sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in
> >>> the future.)
>
> Depends on what you mean by "local basis".  You seem to mean "animal 
> instincts".  But I, here and now, can care about whether democracy survives 
> in the U.S. in 2100, whether global warming kills people in Bangladesh, 
> whether AIDS spreads in Africa, whether a theory of quantum gravity will ever 
> be discovered.

But the wonderfully unexplainable good thing is that these cares of
yours actually mean something that other people can appreciate, and
that what you see as being worthy to pursue or fight against,
individually and collectively, can *actually be* worthy, independent
of what we may think.

>
> >> For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of
> >> such sacrifice so far in the future.   But people sacrifice for
> >> others that they know all the time.
>
> > This statement seems to be in conflict with your previous statement.
>
> How?
>

I explained in the following sentences.

> > Theology (I'd rather say "being in communion with the personal God"
> > in from whom we have our personhood, rather than an academic pursuit)
> > is a way of enabling us to "see" things, expand our consciousness,
> > outside of the immediate sphere of "care abouts" that are defined by
> > animal instincts, the five senses, etc., and to see things such as
> > the nobility of giving our life for a cause that is greater that this
> >  local, supposedly (but not truly) autonomous, sphere.
>
> You seem to assume that "non-local" = "good".  Tell it to the victims of 9/11.
>

I'm not assuming that.  This prompts me to bring up the Solzhenitsin
quote again about the line between good and evil going down the center
of every human.  This quote is saying something more than "I value
certain things, and I don't value (or even I am horrified by) other
things."  This by itself is meaningless unless there is some basis
upon which it is good to value some things and be horrified by other
things.  Solzhenitsin believed in the personal God (who is love), and
so he could believe in actual good and evil, and that we each have a
choice between them.  Without that, we have no choice, we just like
what we like and that's that.

>
> >>> But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say
> >>> that it doesn't matter.
>
> >>> Tom
>
> >>> If we discovered some million year old 

Re: The Meaning of Life

[Brent Meeker]

Tom Caylor wrote:
> Brent Meeker wrote:
>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
 
> Tom Caylor writes:
 
 Brent Meeker "It does not matter now that in a million
 years nothing
>>> we do now
> will matter."
 --- Thomas Nagel
 
>>> We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
 
>>> Tom
 
>> That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we
>> do
>>> now will
>> matter.
 
> Why do you say "we might like to believe Nagel"? Why would
>>> anyone want
> it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a
>>> million years?
>>> 
>>> In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a
>>> basis for meaning that is more universal than explaining and
>>> controlling things in our immediate sphere of "care abouts", like
>>> our animal instincts.

I never said otherwise.  It is you who keep pretending that if we don't worship 
a sky god we're reduced to animal instincts.

You keep bringing up "meaning".  Do you not see that "meaning" is reference to 
something else.  Words have meaning because they refer to things that are not 
words.  In order to act you need purpose, an internal thing.  You don't need 
"meaning"; except by reference to your own purpose.  If you act to satisfy 
someone else's purpose, then you have to answer the question, "Why was it your 
decision, your purpose, to satisfy someone else?"

>> But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of
>> - including how things will be a million years from now, including
>> an abstract principle, even including a fine point of theology.
> 
> Sorry that I don't have much time.  I agree with your statement 
> above.  However, see below.
> 
>>> (Such a local basis does not support doing things like 
>>> sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in
>>> the future.)

Depends on what you mean by "local basis".  You seem to mean "animal 
instincts".  But I, here and now, can care about whether democracy survives in 
the U.S. in 2100, whether global warming kills people in Bangladesh, whether 
AIDS spreads in Africa, whether a theory of quantum gravity will ever be 
discovered.

>> For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of
>> such sacrifice so far in the future.   But people sacrifice for
>> others that they know all the time.
> 
> This statement seems to be in conflict with your previous statement. 

How?

> Theology (I'd rather say "being in communion with the personal God"
> in from whom we have our personhood, rather than an academic pursuit)
> is a way of enabling us to "see" things, expand our consciousness, 
> outside of the immediate sphere of "care abouts" that are defined by 
> animal instincts, the five senses, etc., and to see things such as
> the nobility of giving our life for a cause that is greater that this
>  local, supposedly (but not truly) autonomous, sphere.

You seem to assume that "non-local" = "good".  Tell it to the victims of 9/11.

> 
>>> But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to say
>>> that it doesn't matter.
>>> 
>>> Tom
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think
>>> wonder at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh
>>> dismay at its wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the
>>> significance of this observation is.
>> I don't think it's true.  My exhibit A is the Aztecs.
>> 
> 
> I think the significance of Stathis' observation is this.  Our local 
> sphere of "care abouts" mostly has to do with "what can I get out of 
> it".  It is more immediately obvious that we could possibly gain 
> something from someone else's achievements or ideas, rather than from
>  their wickedness.  In fact, it is probably true.  Studying goodness
> is more fruitful than studying wickedness.

You're assuming that you have somehow decided what is good and what is wicked.  
But that's the question isn't it.  I know what I value and I can build on that. 
 I don't see how I can build on somebody else's values; how could I let someone 
else decide for me what is valuable?

> (Rather lopsided isn't it? How could such a thing be generated from
> Everything (or Nothing)?) But whoever said that "what matters" is
> only about wickedness and not goodness?
> 
>> Brent Meeker There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself to
>> be burned for an opinion. -- Anatole France
> 
> This is precisely my point.  If all that exists is internal meaning 
> (i.e. opinion), then there is no true basis (even in the literal
> sense of "true") for anything more than a dog-eat-dog world (unless
> the other dog provides 1st person subjective gratification).
> 
> Tom

You keep assuming that all internal meaning is selfish, short-sighted opinion.  
This is false.  As I said above, it can include anything we think about

Re: Jason + Stathis

[Jason Resch]

On 2/10/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Jason doesn't currently allow file uploads. I tried to upload a copy
> of my book's cover art, but had to link externally instead. Up to him
> whether he turns this feature on or not, I guess...



I've just enabled file uploading, it was disabled in the default
installation of the software.

Jason

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

Re: The Meaning of Life

[Tom Caylor]

Brent Meeker wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/12/07, *Tom Caylor* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >  > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >  >
> >  > > Tom Caylor writes:
> >  >
> >  > >  > > > Brent Meeker
> >  > >  > > > "It does not matter now that in a million years nothing
> > we do now
> >  > > will matter."
> >  > >  > > > --- Thomas Nagel
> >  >
> >  > >  > > We might like to believe Nagel, but it isn't true.
> >  >
> >  > >  > > Tom
> >  >
> >  > >  > That is, it isn't true that in a million years nothing we do
> > now will
> >  > >  > matter.
> >  >
> >  > > Why do you say "we might like to believe Nagel"? Why would
> > anyone want
> >  > > it to be the case that nothing we do now will matter in a
> > million years?
> >
> > In order to think in terms beyond a few generations, we need a basis
> > for meaning that is more universal than explaining and controlling
> > things in our immediate sphere of "care abouts", like our animal
> > instincts.
>
> But what we care about right now, may include anything we think of - 
> including how things will be a million years from now, including an abstract 
> principle, even including a fine point of theology.

Sorry that I don't have much time.  I agree with your statement
above.  However, see below.

>
> >(Such a local basis does not support doing things like
> > sacrificing your life for others even a couple thousand years in the
> > future.)
>
> For the very good reason that one cannot foresee the benefits of such 
> sacrifice so far in the future.   But people sacrifice for others that they 
> know all the time.

This statement seems to be in conflict with your previous statement.
Theology (I'd rather say "being in communion with the personal God" in
from whom we have our personhood, rather than an academic pursuit) is
a way of enabling us to "see" things, expand our consciousness,
outside of the immediate sphere of "care abouts" that are defined by
animal instincts, the five senses, etc., and to see things such as the
nobility of giving our life for a cause that is greater that this
local, supposedly (but not truly) autonomous, sphere.

>
> > But if we reject the ultimate basis, then it feels good to
> > say that it doesn't matter.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > If we discovered some million year old civilization today I think wonder
> > at its achievements, however paltry, would far outweigh dismay at its
> > wickedness, however extreme. I'm not sure what the significance of this
> > observation is.
>
> I don't think it's true.  My exhibit A is the Aztecs.
>

I think the significance of Stathis' observation is this.  Our local
sphere of "care abouts" mostly has to do with "what can I get out of
it".  It is more immediately obvious that we could possibly gain
something from someone else's achievements or ideas, rather than from
their wickedness.  In fact, it is probably true.  Studying goodness is
more fruitful than studying wickedness.  (Rather lopsided isn't it?
How could such a thing be generated from Everything (or Nothing)?)
But whoever said that "what matters" is only about wickedness and not
goodness?

> Brent Meeker
> There is a certain impertinence in allowing oneself
> to be burned for an opinion.
> -- Anatole France

This is precisely my point.  If all that exists is internal meaning
(i.e. opinion), then there is no true basis (even in the literal sense
of "true") for anything more than a dog-eat-dog world (unless the
other dog provides 1st person subjective gratification).

Tom


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---