Clarification on Purpose in and of Life
neurusilo
nature" (thus implying a need to move forward as a whole, among other
things) is a fallacy. I haven't entirely hammered out my take on that, but
it is an interesting notion to consider. Is the need for progress really
more than a story we've told ourselves for so long, that we came to believe
it? We've been shown to waste centuries on end in the past, with very
little progress at all. As far as a search for a universal meaning, we're
as far away from that today as we've ever been.
Any search for a grand justification of existence as a sentient animal is
little more than a grasp for God. If you believe, then you need no further
justification. If not, do you really wish to know the truth? Do you really
wish to know that we are little more than a statistical oddity? Kinda pops
the balloon. We think too damn much for our own good. We're all just a
little disoriented from the speed at which things have changed in the past
hundred years. We mourn our loss of stability, the attacks on the
meta-narrative. We only wish to regain our footing. Serious withdrawl
going on here. We need to ween ourselves from invisible belief systems, and
be okay with it. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
We need to enjoy each other's company, have a little fun, and die.
All this anxiety is bullshit. It isn't what /I/ paid for.
God isn't dead, he's fired. Bastard.
--
*************
neurusilo
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
-Beckett
"Matthew" <fo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:396AA8CE...@erols.com...
> I need to clear something up that I've been really god damn hazy
> about...
>
> *muttering in the background*
>
> Alright, alright already. I need to clear a lot of things up that I've
> been hazy about. Heres the most important, in my oh so humble opinion:
>
> I've stated two opinions:
> 1) Life has as much meaning as you give it. No more and no less.
> 2) The purpose of life is to search for the greater meaning.
>
> Scratch both of them. Their both convoluted and paradoxical. Let me
> reiterate my personal beliefs:
>
> An individuals life has whatever meaning its given by that person. No
> more and no less. We give our own lives meaning. But life itself, on a
> greater scale, on a scale greater than the individual, has a singular
> purpose, a final place to move towards. Life as a whole is about
> searching for a universal meaning. It is the search for an absolute
> truth that in and of itself justifisies its own very existance. It is
> the quest for everyone within humanity to become an Ubermensch. Not
> just one person who justifies the existence of humanity, but humanity as
> a whole, giving value and meaning to its own existance.
>
> Sorry about being so god damn incomprehensible. I was a little bit
> desper... um.... yeah, desperate. *wink matisse (no hard feelings)*
>
> Matt
Matthew
Satanas Uxora
Matthew wrote:
> An individuals life has whatever meaning its given by that person. No
> more and no less. We give our own lives meaning. But life itself, on a
> greater scale, on a scale greater than the individual, has a singular
> purpose, a final place to move towards. Life as a whole is about
> searching for a universal meaning. It is the search for an absolute
> truth that in and of itself justifisies its own very existance. It is
> the quest for everyone within humanity to become an Ubermensch. Not
> just one person who justifies the existence of humanity, but humanity as
> a whole, giving value and meaning to its own existance.
That is ... well, painful.
I suppose now is as good a time as any to re-post
the Manifesto of the People's Entropy Research
Front.
Here goes:
The law of contradition constitutes a definite limit to
meaning in human expression and understanding. A thing
cannot both be and not be simultaneously. The nature
of our relationship with the universe makes discernment,
and therefore choice, unavoidable.
Dichotomies are dangerous. Because we apprehend the
universe by means of the law of contradiction,
dichotomy-based thinking is understandably widespread.
But our survival depends on developing an ability to
distinguish between valid existential claims and
adjectival attributions.
Language operates by exclusion, by the application
of the law of contradiction. Its universal use
encourages the fallacy, responsible for unimaginable
suffering throughout human history, that properly
specific exclusions and distinctions are themselves
universal. This fallacy is the illusion of the
absolute. By fostering the illusion of the absolute,
language can lead humans to inhumanity.
Existence precedes essence -- but most of the factors
that shape our essences exist before us. Born to
specific people in a specific time and place, we are
thrust from the womb into a specific pattern of choices,
a specific range of possibilites.
Social contracts are valid only when continually,
individually reaffirmed. No contract binds absolutely.
Humans differ radically from their environment. Humans
make choices; the environment does not. Purpose is a
fundamental characteristic of humans, but to attribute
it to the environment is always erroneous. The question
"Why are we here?" admits only a human response.
Freedom is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Denoting
freedom good-in-itself, an end rather than a means,
provides license for a sanctimonious brutality capable
of annihilating any human culture. Our subjective
apprehension of reality makes it impossible for any
system not based upon individual moral authority to
function non-destructively.
Chris (@tikva)
<neur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On such an existential note, some might argue that any concept of a "human
>nature" (thus implying a need to move forward as a whole, among other
>things) is a fallacy. I haven't entirely hammered out my take on that, but
>it is an interesting notion to consider. Is the need for progress really
>more than a story we've told ourselves for so long, that we came to believe
>it? We've been shown to waste centuries on end in the past, with very
>little progress at all. As far as a search for a universal meaning, we're
>as far away from that today as we've ever been.
And in terms of being able to define it, we probably always will be.
But that doesn't imply that such a universal meaning doesn't exist.
>Any search for a grand justification of existence as a sentient animal is
>little more than a grasp for God. If you believe, then you need no further
>justification.
There's a big difference between a belief in God, however we may
envisage God to be, and a grasping for God. To know that there is a
higher power, and to know no more than that, doesn't give existence a
meaning any more than a young child's knowing that his parents exist
gives meaning to his existence.
Belief in a higher power is only the beginning of the real search. And
it is a search which has no end because we are exploring the infinite.
There is progress. The seeker is increasing his knowledge of and his
depth of communion with God but he never gets any nearer the end of
the quest.
> If not, do you really wish to know the truth? Do you really
>wish to know that we are little more than a statistical oddity? Kinda pops
>the balloon. We think too damn much for our own good. We're all just a
>little disoriented from the speed at which things have changed in the past
>hundred years. We mourn our loss of stability, the attacks on the
>meta-narrative. We only wish to regain our footing. Serious withdrawl
>going on here. We need to ween ourselves from invisible belief systems, and
>be okay with it. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
All living belief systems are invisible - including the belief that
life is meaningless.
>We need to enjoy each other's company, have a little fun, and die.
If we really are no more than a "statistical oddity", what ever that
means, then yes, I want to know it because then, like Qoheleth I can
eat, drink and be merry without thinking that I am missing what life
is really about.
On the other hand, if our purpose on Earth is to get to know God and
to commune with Him then I would hate to miss out on that.
---
Chris
Satanas Uxora
"Chris (@tikva)" wrote:
> Belief in a higher power is only the beginning of the real search. And
> it is a search which has no end because we are exploring the infinite.
> There is progress. The seeker is increasing his knowledge of and his
> depth of communion with God but he never gets any nearer the end of
> the quest.
I shouldn't bring this up, but...
I experienced profound communion with God when
I was a child. I remember the first time it
happened. I was 8. I was a miserably shy kid.
One day, on the playground, I was feeling
especially bitter and alone and resentful of
all the other children, who were playing happily.
I looked up at the sky and suddenly a tremendous
feeling of joy -- elation -- love -- hit me.
I suddenly grasped, in a clumsy and indirect
way, a wonderful uplifting truth about myself
and everyone around me. One moment I hated
them; the next I was filled with miraculous
love. And because of my religious upbringing
I knew what to call that love: it was God.
Over the years I felt this sense of wonderful
overpowering loving exalted understanding many
times.
I called the thing God for a long time. I
thought that I had a personal relationship with
God. Then I read the Bible and studied a bit
and realized that I wasn't a Christian after
all.
Did the wonderful thing go away? No.
In fact, I have experimented, and the wonderful
thing doesn't care what I call it. It just is.
It's like clay. I can shape it into anything
I want by changing the words I use to think
of it... but it keeps on being clay.
I believe everyone has a certain amount of this
clay, and people do all sorts of crazy things
with it.
pinkorangered
>
>I need to clear something up that I've been really god damn hazy
>about...
[snip]
You remind me of myself as a youth. I fitted two new differentials (okay, one
was stolen) to my car before I realised it just needed some grease on the
universal joint. Do you know how much effort it tales to (a)steal and (b)fit a
differential? Greasing the uni joint, OTOH, takes about 7 seconds. And you
only have to do it once.
The happiest person I know is Nat. She's bright enough to know what's going
on, but uneducated. She's fat. She's poor. She has never pondered the meaning
of life.
Stop asking, and just BE.
>Sorry about being so god damn incomprehensible. I was a little bit
>desper... um.... yeah, desperate. *wink matisse (no hard feelings)*
Oh dear. Caveat emptor, I guess.
matisse
Matthew wrote:
> I need to clear something up that I've been really god damn hazy
> about...
>
> *muttering in the background*
>
> Alright, alright already. I need to clear a lot of things up that I've
> been hazy about. Heres the most important, in my oh so humble opinion:
>
> I've stated two opinions:
> 1) Life has as much meaning as you give it. No more and no less.
> 2) The purpose of life is to search for the greater meaning.
>
> Scratch both of them. Their both convoluted and paradoxical. Let me
> reiterate my personal beliefs:
>
> An individuals life has whatever meaning its given by that person. No
> more and no less. We give our own lives meaning. But life itself, on a
> greater scale, on a scale greater than the individual, has a singular
> purpose, a final place to move towards. Life as a whole is about
> searching for a universal meaning. It is the search for an absolute
> truth that in and of itself justifisies its own very existance. It is
> the quest for everyone within humanity to become an Ubermensch. Not
> just one person who justifies the existence of humanity, but humanity as
> a whole, giving value and meaning to its own existance.
>
I'm glad you were able to see how convoluted you were being. You still have
at least one paradox left, though. And for the hell of it, i am going to
speak in a manner i rarely talk in, but others so love to make fun of. This
is for you Buk!
It seems to me that you are mixing two systems that don't go together. On
the one hand you seem to be a Hegelian, whereby everything is about Geist
coming to fruition, while on the other you mention the Ubermensche. It
seems to me that you cannot mix these two ways of thinking. You seem to be
mixing an organic notion of society with an inherently individualistic one
in a manner that doesn't seem to work. N himself would posit an organic
notion of society, whereby everyone's purpose is individual in the sense of
becoming 'who they are,' but organic in the sense that this in itself is
required to produce the Ubermensche, who most likely will be one person who
will justify all of humanity. But even then Man posits the overall purpose
and meaning, which is humanities constant overcoming.
If this is how you are thinking about it, wonderful, if not, would someone
please explain to me how this 'link' can be done if on the one model Man
himself gives life meaning and purpose while on the other man is a vehicle
for some absolute, Geistly meaning?
I have a few ideas about this, but......
>
> Sorry about being so god damn incomprehensible. I was a little bit
> desper... um.... yeah, desperate. *wink matisse (no hard feelings)*
>
nothing is personal, dear. it is all just a game.
matisse
Jonah Thomas
>It seems to me that you are mixing two systems that don't go together. On
>the one hand you seem to be a Hegelian, whereby everything is about Geist
>coming to fruition, while on the other you mention the Ubermensche. It
>seems to me that you cannot mix these two ways of thinking. You seem to be
>mixing an organic notion of society with an inherently individualistic one
>in a manner that doesn't seem to work. N himself would posit an organic
>notion of society, whereby everyone's purpose is individual in the sense of
>becoming 'who they are,' but organic in the sense that this in itself is
>required to produce the Ubermensche, who most likely will be one person who
>will justify all of humanity. But even then Man posits the overall purpose
>and meaning, which is humanities constant overcoming.
>If this is how you are thinking about it, wonderful, if not, would someone
>please explain to me how this 'link' can be done if on the one model Man
>himself gives life meaning and purpose while on the other man is a vehicle
>for some absolute, Geistly meaning?
Here is one approach. I don't stand behind it but it seems to be what you
asked for.
Let's suppose that individual humans can sometimes think for themselves and
create new things. But usually they copy the (usually) successful behaviors
of others. This is appropriate. We can sometimes be individuals, but that
usually results in failure. Do too much of it and you fail too much.
So people trying out new things take the place of mutation, while people
copying others who seem successful take the place of reproduction. Mostly,
the external environment selects, as always, but to some extent people
select for themselves, they can decide as individuals what success is for
them -- with the caveat that when they choose personal goals that hurt them
too badly, they tend to fail in multiple contexts and few others will copy
them.
So then the Ubermensch would be the one who creates a successful mutation.
He succeeds at his own chosen goals, and succeeds at the larger game, and
many people copy him thus transforming the society.
So N would glorify the individuals who attempt to make improvements (but who
mostly fail), while H would glorify the copying process that brings the
innovations to fruition. For myself I don't see why any part of this
justifies any other part or justifies the whole, or why any of it needs to
be justified.
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
Dear Matisse,
Is there, in Nietzsche, supposed to be only one Ubermann? Or is there
some sort of group of them? (And what's that about "Xray vision?")
D.
- --
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
"La vida no es noble, ni buena, ni sagrada." --Pablo Neruda (ain't it?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOWt+tBz40he1RakNEQLgvwCgu0sQWdo34sdiua4SOS+QnlQFlTkAnAh2
XjFyjSWCgO3+Kdcf/VoDyRrR
=fJ9h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
buk...@baileylink.net
Satanas Uxora <sain...@anti-social.com> was grumping about:
> The law of contradition constitutes a definite limit to
> meaning in human expression and understanding. A thing
> cannot both be and not be simultaneously.
You haven't talked to Matisse when she has been heavily drinking!
> The nature
> of our relationship with the universe makes discernment,
> and therefore choice, unavoidable.
Unless you are on auto-pilot. I have relatives on auto-pilot. It is a
sad sight. The freely willing (free willy!) fraction does have to
choose. What are those choices again?
> Dichotomies are dangerous. Because we apprehend the
> universe by means of the law of contradiction,
> dichotomy-based thinking is understandably widespread.
If you want to call cofactor analysis dichotomy based thinking, you are
absolutely right. People who don't understand the varieties of causal
phenomena, who don't appreciate Hume, make poor cofactor analyses and
these can be labelled false dichotomies as well as anything. And
people who do appreciate the subtleties involved are prone to just plain
making mistakes.
Can you find the relation between the following two sets:
set 1 : { Ilya, Jonah, Jennifer, Juliane, The good witch of the north }
set 2 : { Astrology, Evolution, Logic, Nihilism, Panglossianism }
?????????????
> But our survival depends on developing an ability to
> distinguish between valid existential claims and
> adjectival attributions.
Nah. Our survival depends on continued strong consumer confidence and
cleverly cynical abuse of the human rights of dark skinned third world
people. If we are lucky, that guy who said you can't fool all the
people all the time didn't comprehend just how twisted humanity is
capable of becoming.
> Language operates by exclusion, by the application
> of the law of contradiction.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with cheese, and the
Word was cheese.
> Its universal use encourages the fallacy, responsible
> for unimaginable suffering throughout human history,
> that properly specific exclusions and distinctions
> are themselves universal.
Some are free and some are slaves and some sew shoes in a sweathouse for
a dollar a day. It is all just and right. The good witch of the north
told me this in a dream.
I won't tell you what she did after that.
> This fallacy is the illusion of the
> absolute. By fostering the illusion of the absolute,
> language can lead humans to inhumanity.
I thought it was the illusion of "I have mine, to hell with everybody
else." Also known as the Republican Health Care Plan.
> Existence precedes essence -- but most of the factors
> that shape our essences exist before us.
You left out the part about ontogyny recapitulating phylogyny.
> Born to
> specific people in a specific time and place, we are
> thrust from the womb into a specific pattern of choices,
> a specific range of possibilites.
You left out the part about if you are lucky.
> Social contracts are valid only when continually,
> individually reaffirmed. No contract binds absolutely.
The one that says you have to pay your taxes is pretty absolute.
> Humans differ radically from their environment. Humans
> make choices; the environment does not.
The Earth Goddess does not find that funny.
> Purpose is a
> fundamental characteristic of humans, but to attribute
> it to the environment is always erroneous.
Not necessarily. I lived a completely purposeless existence for years.
> The question
> "Why are we here?" admits only a human response.
Why aren't we not here is this human's only response to that question.
> Freedom is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Denoting
> freedom good-in-itself, an end rather than a means,
> provides license for a sanctimonious brutality capable
> of annihilating any human culture.
They usually phrase it as "it's either us or them."
> Our subjective
> apprehension of reality makes it impossible for any
> system not based upon individual moral authority to
> function non-destructively.
The ones based on individual moral authority look pretty
non-non-destructive to me. May be you have a false dichotomies here?
Bukvich
[ ' on top of thee recapitulates spilled jism outta me ' ]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dav
read about the meaning of life but forgotten about it. Unfortunately, I'm
not being sarcastic, but it all seems somehow symbolic and I don't like this
music.
Matthew <fo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:396AA8CE...@erols.com...
> I need to clear something up that I've been really god damn hazy
> about...
>
> *muttering in the background*
>
> Alright, alright already. I need to clear a lot of things up that I've
> been hazy about. Heres the most important, in my oh so humble opinion:
>
> I've stated two opinions:
> 1) Life has as much meaning as you give it. No more and no less.
> 2) The purpose of life is to search for the greater meaning.
>
> Scratch both of them. Their both convoluted and paradoxical. Let me
> reiterate my personal beliefs:
>
> An individuals life has whatever meaning its given by that person. No
> more and no less. We give our own lives meaning. But life itself, on a
> greater scale, on a scale greater than the individual, has a singular
> purpose, a final place to move towards. Life as a whole is about
> searching for a universal meaning. It is the search for an absolute
> truth that in and of itself justifisies its own very existance. It is
> the quest for everyone within humanity to become an Ubermensch. Not
> just one person who justifies the existence of humanity, but humanity as
> a whole, giving value and meaning to its own existance.
>
> Sorry about being so god damn incomprehensible. I was a little bit
> desper... um.... yeah, desperate. *wink matisse (no hard feelings)*
>
> Matt
ly...@my-deja.com
Thomas) wrote:
>matisse <j...@deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It seems to me that you are mixing two systems that don't go together. On
>>the one hand you seem to be a Hegelian, whereby everything is about Geist
>>coming to fruition, while on the other you mention the Ubermensche. It
>>seems to me that you cannot mix these two ways of thinking. You seem to be
>>mixing an organic notion of society with an inherently individualistic one
>>in a manner that doesn't seem to work. N himself would posit an organic
>>notion of society, whereby everyone's purpose is individual in the sense of
>>becoming 'who they are,' but organic in the sense that this in itself is
>>required to produce the Ubermensche, who most likely will be one person who
>>will justify all of humanity. But even then Man posits the overall purpose
>>and meaning, which is humanities constant overcoming.
>
>>If this is how you are thinking about it, wonderful, if not, would someone
>>please explain to me how this 'link' can be done if on the one model Man
>>himself gives life meaning and purpose while on the other man is a vehicle
>>for some absolute, Geistly meaning?
>
>Here is one approach. I don't stand behind it but it seems to be what you
>asked for.
>
>Let's suppose that individual humans can sometimes think for themselves and
>create new things. But usually they copy the (usually) successful behaviors
>of others. This is appropriate. We can sometimes be individuals, but that
>usually results in failure. Do too much of it and you fail too much.
Only for people who are bad at being individuals.
>
>So people trying out new things take the place of mutation, while people
>copying others who seem successful take the place of reproduction. Mostly,
>the external environment selects, as always, but to some extent people
>select for themselves, they can decide as individuals what success is for
>them -- with the caveat that when they choose personal goals that hurt them
>too badly, they tend to fail in multiple contexts and few others will copy
>them.
>
>So then the Ubermensch would be the one who creates a successful mutation.
>He succeeds at his own chosen goals, and succeeds at the larger game, and
>many people copy him thus transforming the society.
Doesn't a Ubermensch usually come along when society is ripe for a
revolution? I guess I should have asked first for the definition of a
Ubermensch. I am taking it to mean someone who commands power over
the rest of the organism.
In those cases, are people copying successful behaviors or are they
revolting against a society or an authority that they basically deem
illegitimate?
Would it be possible for society to create a Ubermensche if there
were not sufficient impetus for him/her to desire overcoming? If
society is sick enough there is enough desire to overcome something
that is larger in scope than himself. He stops defining things in
terms of individual goals but speaks and thinks in terms of larger
goals. This gives him appeal to the rest of the organism/society.
The Ubemensche needs a large purpose that includes the larger society
and not just himself to create that impetus within himself.
The Ubermesche's message is that society is sick, the frontier
antibody in the organism. The rest of that organism knows it is sick
but has been fevered and weak and unable to fight. A bunch of humans
reduced to something almost less than human, finally wakes up and
realizes it has been stripped bare of individual authority,
unbelievably constricted. The individuals collectively realize the
sickness and declare war on it with the Ubermensch leading the pack.
If society were not sick in that instance there would be too great a
cost to giving up individual authority and you could not get a large
band of people to support the cause. The Ubermensch's authority would
be questioned, he/she would be hassled....a madman/woman.
Of course I know I am talking out of my ass as I have seen people
become zombies without a war or pestulance or anything, they just gave
it away. There wasn't even anything to overcome.
But it was a hallucination and so then they medicated me.
Jonah Thomas
>jeth...@ix.netcom.com (Jonah Thomas) wrote:
>>Let's suppose that individual humans can sometimes think for themselves and
>>create new things. But usually they copy the (usually) successful behaviors
>>of others. This is appropriate. We can sometimes be individuals, but that
>>usually results in failure. Do too much of it and you fail too much.
>Only for people who are bad at being individuals.
Have you ever done computer programming? In general, when people do
something complicated they don't get all the bugs out. They don't even know
where the bugs are until they get a lot of experience.
If you use an established product, a lot of the bugs will have been fixed
already and a lot of the others will be known. There will be accepted ways
to use the thing that mostly work. If you build your own home-brew system,
you're on your own and chances are you'll find some bad bugs by
trial-and-error.
When you go your own way it's *predictable* that you'll fail a lot. If you
already knew all about how to do it that way, it wouldn't be new.
>>So people trying out new things take the place of mutation, while people
>>copying others who seem successful take the place of reproduction. Mostly,
>>the external environment selects, as always, but to some extent people
>>select for themselves, they can decide as individuals what success is for
>>them -- with the caveat that when they choose personal goals that hurt them
>>too badly, they tend to fail in multiple contexts and few others will copy
>>them.
>>So then the Ubermensch would be the one who creates a successful mutation.
>>He succeeds at his own chosen goals, and succeeds at the larger game, and
>>many people copy him thus transforming the society.
>Doesn't a Ubermensch usually come along when society is ripe for a
>revolution? I guess I should have asked first for the definition of a
>Ubermensch.
I was using it to fit my perception of N's perception. A superior
individual, with the focus on him -- his superiority is supposed to justify
everything.
>I am taking it to mean someone who commands power over
>the rest of the organism.
I was looking for something that could actually work, so I looked for people
who set plausible good examples.
>In those cases, are people copying successful behaviors or are they
>revolting against a society or an authority that they basically deem
>illegitimate?
Sometimes they are copying behaviors. Other times they are doing both.
They usually won't actually revolt until they see something better.
>Would it be possible for society to create a Ubermensche if there
>were not sufficient impetus for him/her to desire overcoming? If
>society is sick enough there is enough desire to overcome something
>that is larger in scope than himself. He stops defining things in
>terms of individual goals but speaks and thinks in terms of larger
>goals. This gives him appeal to the rest of the organism/society.
>The Ubemensche needs a large purpose that includes the larger society
>and not just himself to create that impetus within himself.
Yes, to my way of thinking that's what keeps him from being mostly
irrelevant. You and I aren't thinking in nearly the same terms, and I'm not
sure how much overlap there is.
>The Ubermesche's message is that society is sick, the frontier
>antibody in the organism. The rest of that organism knows it is sick
>but has been fevered and weak and unable to fight. A bunch of humans
>reduced to something almost less than human, finally wakes up and
>realizes it has been stripped bare of individual authority,
>unbelievably constricted. The individuals collectively realize the
>sickness and declare war on it with the Ubermensch leading the pack.
Well, maybe. Sometimes it's a bunch of individuals who see a better way.
Sometimes it's a sick society that has no room for all of them, and so it
shooes some of them out to find their fortunes. It's hard to tell the
pioneers from the discards, before they find their new way.
>If society were not sick in that instance there would be too great a
>cost to giving up individual authority and you could not get a large
>band of people to support the cause. The Ubermensch's authority would
>be questioned, he/she would be hassled....a madman/woman.
There is no authority beyond "I tried this, and here's how it worked, see
for yourself".
ly...@my-deja.com
>ly...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>jeth...@ix.netcom.com (Jonah Thomas) wrote:
>
>>>Let's suppose that individual humans can sometimes think for themselves and
>>>create new things. But usually they copy the (usually) successful behaviors
>>>of others. This is appropriate. We can sometimes be individuals, but that
>>>usually results in failure. Do too much of it and you fail too much.
>
>>Only for people who are bad at being individuals.
>
>Have you ever done computer programming? In general, when people do
>something complicated they don't get all the bugs out. They don't even know
>where the bugs are until they get a lot of experience.
OK.
What about people who create something new, invent?
They experience bugs and flaws and retry and retry, but by doing
something totally different and doing what they were told can't be
done or simply doing something not conceived of before, they made
massive contributions to society.
How was the first computer invented, and how many times did it fail
before it succeeded?
Above you equated being individual with failure. In the grand scheme
of things it was the individual taking the chance that pulled society
forward by his/her vision.
>If you use an established product, a lot of the bugs will have been fixed
>already and a lot of the others will be known. There will be accepted ways
>to use the thing that mostly work. If you build your own home-brew system,
>you're on your own and chances are you'll find some bad bugs by
>trial-and-error.
Not a very controversial statement, hard to disagree with, but with
your child are you going to tell her to stick to what's tried and
true? Are you going to tell her to do what her peers do to be
successful as defined by that peer group?
Or when you see her fresh young mind becoming are you going to
encourage her creative spark and nurture her individuality so that she
does not let others lead her around and do her thinking for her?
If everyone just did use the established products we wouldn't have
gotten very far.
>When you go your own way it's *predictable* that you'll fail a lot. If you
>already knew all about how to do it that way, it wouldn't be new.
Every new thing fails until it succeeds.
>
>>>So people trying out new things take the place of mutation, while people
>>>copying others who seem successful take the place of reproduction. Mostly,
>>>the external environment selects, as always, but to some extent people
>>>select for themselves, they can decide as individuals what success is for
>>>them -- with the caveat that when they choose personal goals that hurt them
>>>too badly, they tend to fail in multiple contexts and few others will copy
>>>them.
>>>So then the Ubermensch would be the one who creates a successful mutation.
>>>He succeeds at his own chosen goals, and succeeds at the larger game, and
>>>many people copy him thus transforming the society.
>
>>Doesn't a Ubermensch usually come along when society is ripe for a
>>revolution? I guess I should have asked first for the definition of a
>>Ubermensch.
>
>I was using it to fit my perception of N's perception. A superior
>individual, with the focus on him -- his superiority is supposed to justify
>everything.
I didn't really buy into Nietzche's superman stuff. I was just
thinking about leaders, people who did change the world for better or
worse. People who the society defined as great for their times, at
the times they followed them.
You are talking about somebody replicating successful behaviors though
that already exist and adapting as opposed to overcoming what is out
there. That strikes me as a kind of mellow perception of N.
>
>>I am taking it to mean someone who commands power over
>>the rest of the organism.
>
>I was looking for something that could actually work, so I looked for people
>who set plausible good examples.
Just look at history and you will find enough examples that did work
for their times. You want one that will work. I still have to lean
towards the overcoming thing for something like that to happen within
the span of a single man or woman's lifetime.
>
>>In those cases, are people copying successful behaviors or are they
>>revolting against a society or an authority that they basically deem
>>illegitimate?
>
>Sometimes they are copying behaviors. Other times they are doing both.
>
>They usually won't actually revolt until they see something better.
Usually they won't revolt until things are bad enough first. Risk
aversion and all that. The 60's may have been unusual because of the
large number of young people. Young people are not risk averse.
>
>>Would it be possible for society to create a Ubermensche if there
>>were not sufficient impetus for him/her to desire overcoming? If
>>society is sick enough there is enough desire to overcome something
>>that is larger in scope than himself. He stops defining things in
>>terms of individual goals but speaks and thinks in terms of larger
>>goals. This gives him appeal to the rest of the organism/society.
>>The Ubemensche needs a large purpose that includes the larger society
>>and not just himself to create that impetus within himself.
>
>Yes, to my way of thinking that's what keeps him from being mostly
>irrelevant. You and I aren't thinking in nearly the same terms, and I'm not
>sure how much overlap there is.
Yeah, that wasn't an interpretation of Nietzche, that was me going off
on a tangent to make him relevant for me and trying to figure out how
history has played this out.
>
>>The Ubermesche's message is that society is sick, the frontier
>>antibody in the organism. The rest of that organism knows it is sick
>>but has been fevered and weak and unable to fight. A bunch of humans
>>reduced to something almost less than human, finally wakes up and
>>realizes it has been stripped bare of individual authority,
>>unbelievably constricted. The individuals collectively realize the
>>sickness and declare war on it with the Ubermensch leading the pack.
>
>Well, maybe. Sometimes it's a bunch of individuals who see a better way.
Yeah I guess you couldn't say that society was sick in the 60's when
the cultural movement took place, well not sick in the way that led
other societies to bloody revolutions or just blood.
Then again, it wasn't an example of a singular individual's meteoric
rise to power combined with a societal change. It was a bunch of
people still retainiing their individuality but joining together for
larger causes. No Ubermensche.
>Sometimes it's a sick society that has no room for all of them, and so it
>shooes some of them out to find their fortunes. It's hard to tell the
>pioneers from the discards, before they find their new way.
The sick society has more discards than anything else.
>
>>If society were not sick in that instance there would be too great a
>>cost to giving up individual authority and you could not get a large
>>band of people to support the cause. The Ubermensch's authority would
>>be questioned, he/she would be hassled....a madman/woman.
>
>There is no authority beyond "I tried this, and here's how it worked, see
>for yourself".
>
Well, I sure hope you're right on that one.
Oh hell, I just must be bored.
I don't want to get into any debates, not about Nietzche, not about
philosophy, not on alt.angst anyway. I guess I was just trying to
sort out how shit like that happens. I don't see the Ubermensche as
a good thing from a historical perspective. Whenever society was so
sick that it gave over to some monster, I wonder how it was that it
happened.
Individuals are great things. Individuals acting as individuals have
done incredible things for the world.
I generally put my faith in the individual rather than a group.
I have great faith in the individual. None in the Superman.
Because a superman can only be fashioned by a mob. Only a mob would
create a superman. That is my historical perspective.
Its wierd not too long ago that thing in Central Park, how that
violence broke out and people just stared or joined in because
it was somehow ok because they were just one of the pack.
Faceless. No responsibility
Like I said, I was bored, but that is about all I wanted to say.
I'll go read something now, maybe another Cosmo.
When are you guys going to do some angst?
Chris (@tikva)
<sain...@anti-social.com> wrote:
>I shouldn't bring this up, but...
Why ever not?
>I experienced profound communion with God when
>I was a child. I remember the first time it
>happened. I was 8. I was a miserably shy kid.
>One day, on the playground, I was feeling
>especially bitter and alone and resentful of
>all the other children, who were playing happily.
>I looked up at the sky and suddenly a tremendous
>feeling of joy -- elation -- love -- hit me.
>I suddenly grasped, in a clumsy and indirect
>way, a wonderful uplifting truth about myself
>and everyone around me. One moment I hated
>them; the next I was filled with miraculous
>love. And because of my religious upbringing
>I knew what to call that love: it was God.
Sounds good. My encounters with God were never as strong as that, nor
when I was so young. The first experience which I would call an
encounter with God was when I was about 15. For me the overriding
feeling was of being a part of something much greater than myself and
of my own little world. That, too, changed the way in which I saw
myself and the people around me in a way which surprised me.
>Over the years I felt this sense of wonderful
>overpowering loving exalted understanding many
>times.
A lot of people, including many who have been seeking for a long time,
would give much for experiences like that.
>I called the thing God for a long time. I
>thought that I had a personal relationship with
>God. Then I read the Bible and studied a bit
>and realized that I wasn't a Christian after
>all.
I'm puzzled. Was the God of the bible different from God as you had
experienced Him/Her/It during these times?
>Did the wonderful thing go away? No.
Brilliant.
>In fact, I have experimented, and the wonderful
>thing doesn't care what I call it. It just is.
>
>It's like clay. I can shape it into anything
>I want by changing the words I use to think
>of it... but it keeps on being clay.
>
>I believe everyone has a certain amount of this
>clay, and people do all sorts of crazy things
>with it.
My experience is that I am being shaped by God into more what He wants
me to be in a slow but continuous way. He has given me gifts which I
am free to use as I want but I try to look beyond the gifts to God
Himself.
---
Chris
Duckling Overlard
[...]
> Our survival depends on continued strong consumer confidence and
> cleverly cynical abuse of the human rights of dark skinned third
> world people.
Ayup. I'll drink to that.
> If we are lucky, that guy who said you can't fool all the people
> all the time
Was that Lincoln, Twain or Nixon?
> didn't comprehend just how twisted humanity is capable of becoming.
Or he was drunk and in a good mood.
[...]
> the part about ontogyny recapitulating phylogyny.
No: ITYM "misogyny recapitulates philology." Really.
[...]
> I lived a completely purposeless existence for years.
It's not purposeless if you continue to live it. To paraphrase,
if you choose to live for nothing you still have made a choice.
The purpose of your existence is keeping it purposeless.
This, you see, exemplifies why you're not Eris' father.
The
P.S. Fuck PGP-digning for now: I'm too tired to set it up. If you
don't believe I wrote this may a boil rise on your backside
(a nice juicy Ilya-nourishing one).
matisse
'David O'Bedlam' wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear Matisse,
>
> Is there, in Nietzsche, supposed to be only one Ubermann? Or is there
> some sort of group of them? (And what's that about "Xray vision?")
>
> D.
>
The Ubermann is suppose to be an Ideal, A goal, something that we have to
work towards. The chances of producing just one would be a miracle. It is an
Ideal, the meaning and purpose of LIfe, for N.
J
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Jonah Thomas wrote:
[...]
> When you go your own way it's *predictable* that you'll fail a lot.
> If you already knew all about how to do it that way, it wouldn't be
> new.
Exactly. Look at me, for instance.
Something else: a hero is someone who undertakes possibly difficult
endeavors even though there are no rewards in place for that and the
chances it'll ever pay off in any useful way are slim, even though
everyone will say it's crazy (including sometimes one's own "better
judgment"), simply because it *feels* like the right (or only) thing
to do. By that (true) standard running into a burning house to save
a crying baby is *not* heroic because it *is* (usually) immediately
rewarding (like it's a good way to get your name in the paper) and
because no one will blame you if you don't survive to accomplish it;
whereas it *is* true heroism to tell a couple of steroid-puffed cops
they're acting like "pissy little girls", when the expected outcome
is that even your best friends will shake their heads at your folly.
"Live dangerously!" --Nietzsche
Uberifically,
The
- --
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
"La vida no es noble, ni buena, ni sagrada." --Pablo Neruda (ain't it?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOWy4qRz40he1RakNEQIKsgCg+w7BTYdJXbjhsWRwSB44aACRiy8AnRy6
hFVNKa+U1mdZmc6N+XAVad+j
=4Eor
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lyrah
>
>
>'David O'Bedlam' wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> Is there, in Nietzsche, supposed to be only one Ubermann? Or
is there
>> some sort of group of them? (And what's that about "Xray
vision?")
>>
>> D.
>>
>
>The Ubermann is suppose to be an Ideal, A goal, something that
we have to
>work towards. The chances of producing just one would be a
miracle. It is an
>Ideal, the meaning and purpose of LIfe, for N.
>
>J
The ideal is an invention.
Go back to your original question of how the two can be linked.
I keep thinking Nazi's and Supermen.
I keep thinking that the moment we name something as ideal is the
moment we have sealed our doom. We are unable to question the
ideal.
I know I am reading it wrong, it should be a good thing, it is
supposed to be a good thing.
So you said you had ideas on how the two could be linked,
presumably you mean the ideal would be achieved.....so how would
that go?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
sollilja
<lyrahN...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>I keep thinking that the moment we name something as ideal is the
>moment we have sealed our doom. We are unable to question the
>ideal.
>
>
>I know I am reading it wrong, it should be a good thing, it is
>supposed to be a good thing.
>
>So you said you had ideas on how the two could be linked,
>presumably you mean the ideal would be achieved.....so how would
>that go?
"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even
glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is
always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and
seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realization of
Utopias." --Oscar Wilde
I don't necessarily agree with this, but it is one point of view.
Jonah Thomas
>Jonah Thomas wrote:
>[...]
>> When you go your own way it's *predictable* that you'll fail a lot.
>> If you already knew all about how to do it that way, it wouldn't be
>> new.
>Exactly. Look at me, for instance.
Don't you already know how to do it your way? Is it new for you?
>Something else: a hero is someone who undertakes possibly difficult
>endeavors even though there are no rewards in place for that and the
>chances it'll ever pay off in any useful way are slim, even though
>everyone will say it's crazy (including sometimes one's own "better
>judgment"), simply because it *feels* like the right (or only) thing
>to do.
A hero is somebody they hold up for admiration, intending others to follow
the example to get the chance to be heroes too.
>By that (true) standard running into a burning house to save
>a crying baby is *not* heroic because it *is* (usually) immediately
>rewarding (like it's a good way to get your name in the paper) and
>because no one will blame you if you don't survive to accomplish it;
If you don't survive you likely won't care whether people blame you or not.
It's heroic because people say it is. There's no other standard.
>whereas it *is* true heroism to tell a couple of steroid-puffed cops
>they're acting like "pissy little girls", when the expected outcome
>is that even your best friends will shake their heads at your folly.
Do you know what to expect? Do you get what you expect? Is it something
new that's likely to give a result you can't predict?
I dunno, David. You could use your head to pound nails into a board that
nobody particularly wants nails pounded into, and by your definition it's
heroism -- provided that it feels like the right thing to do. But then, it
probably wouldn't. Scratch one strawman.
So the question is, why would it seem like insulting cops with predictable
wear-and-tear on you and predictably no good result, would feel like the
right thing to do? I could imagine it might seem right to shoot them from
cover, or put cyanide in their coffee or LSD in their tea, or give them free
admission to a yoga class or a meditation group, or something else that
might affect them in some positive way. I don't see how it does anybody
much good to act out a traditional social stereotype. Sure, they get to act
out their aggressions a little which might put them in a better mood for the
next guy, but.... why not try your heroism on something where you aren't
certain ahead of time of the bad result?
David O'Bedlam
Hash: SHA1
Dear Jet,
Matthew Arnold, Freddy N., and the guy who wrote "A World Lit Only
By Fire" might disagree with you on what constitutes heroism and on
the standards to judge it by; I know I do, but you've consistently
failed to recognize my citations of my own authority.
Then again, you've not been one to endanger yourself for any reason,
said risk constituting a necessary ingredient in every definition of
"hero" I've ever heard of, so maybe you read up on it somewhere....
The
- --
(C) 2000 by TheDavid(TM) | David, P.O. Box 21403, Louisville, KY 40221
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
"La vida no es noble, ni buena, ni sagrada." --Pablo Neruda (ain't it?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBOWz+bhz40he1RakNEQJJHgCg57J4mw5sTp/CMLuQx1xR5/FprLMAoOYw
n4BQoT+5MvjjT/6lMoMqBhHB
=LXLW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jonah Thomas
>Matthew Arnold, Freddy N., and the guy who wrote "A World Lit Only
>By Fire" might disagree with you on what constitutes heroism and on
>the standards to judge it by; I know I do, but you've consistently
>failed to recognize my citations of my own authority.
It's strange to see you appeal to authority.
Anyway, do you think Arnold, N or the other guy would say you were a hero
for sassing cops?
How about this: Say you walk into some sleazy bar and find some group of
three or four big mean-looking guys, preferably with scars and biker-belts
and big heavy scuffed boots, and you go up to them and insult them the best
you can and offer to beat them all up. Would you be as much of a hero for
doing that as you would if it was cops?
Jonah Thomas
>jeth...@ix.netcom.com (Jonah Thomas) wrote:
>>ly...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>jeth...@ix.netcom.com (Jonah Thomas) wrote:
>>Have you ever done computer programming? In general, when people do
>>something complicated they don't get all the bugs out. They don't even know
>>where the bugs are until they get a lot of experience.
>OK.
>What about people who create something new, invent?
>They experience bugs and flaws and retry and retry, but by doing
>something totally different and doing what they were told can't be
>done or simply doing something not conceived of before, they made
>massive contributions to society.
Yes. And often they find that what people said couldn't be done, they can't
do.
>How was the first computer invented, and how many times did it fail
>before it succeeded?
We have one documented failure, with Babbage. He spent a fair amount of
money for his time and apparently didn't handle the friction well enough,
and he ran out of money before he finished redesigning. In modern times we
don't have a list of 'failures to invent the computer', we have a series of
small steps that worked. No one bothers to list the punch-card designs that
weren't quite good enough, the card-sorter models that almost worked, etc.
>Above you equated being individual with failure. In the grand scheme
>of things it was the individual taking the chance that pulled society
>forward by his/her vision.
Yes. But often it's more like going through a maze, and the way you find
the dead ends is by following them all the way, and you don't know whether
there's anything there until you find it. Later, people can follow the path
that works. The one who finds that path is likely to have a lot of failure
first. And while he's failing there's no guarantee and often no indication
that he will ever succeed, or what kind of success he might have.
>>If you use an established product, a lot of the bugs will have been fixed
>>already and a lot of the others will be known. There will be accepted ways
>>to use the thing that mostly work. If you build your own home-brew system,
>>you're on your own and chances are you'll find some bad bugs by
>>trial-and-error.
>Not a very controversial statement, hard to disagree with, but with
>your child are you going to tell her to stick to what's tried and
>true? Are you going to tell her to do what her peers do to be
>successful as defined by that peer group?
Of course not. But the dual question is, how much R&D can you afford before
it pays off?
>Or when you see her fresh young mind becoming are you going to
>encourage her creative spark and nurture her individuality so that she
>does not let others lead her around and do her thinking for her?
She might find thinking for herself is fun. Then it can be its own reward
and discounted in the accounting. But there are costs.
>If everyone just did use the established products we wouldn't have
>gotten very far.
Yes. It's a public service to try out all the dead ends so other people
won't have to.
>>When you go your own way it's *predictable* that you'll fail a lot. If you
>>already knew all about how to do it that way, it wouldn't be new.
>Every new thing fails until it succeeds.
And sometimes it succeeds for somebody else, several generations later.
>I didn't really buy into Nietzche's superman stuff. I was just
>thinking about leaders, people who did change the world for better or
>worse. People who the society defined as great for their times, at
>the times they followed them.
>You are talking about somebody replicating successful behaviors though
>that already exist and adapting as opposed to overcoming what is out
>there. That strikes me as a kind of mellow perception of N.
Yes. Well, N was a product of his times.
>>>I am taking it to mean someone who commands power over
>>>the rest of the organism.
>>I was looking for something that could actually work, so I looked for people
>>who set plausible good examples.
>Just look at history and you will find enough examples that did work
>for their times. You want one that will work. I still have to lean
>towards the overcoming thing for something like that to happen within
>the span of a single man or woman's lifetime.
There's no particular reason for it to happen in a single lifetime. I
figure the mindset I exemplify will take about four generations to dominate
the culture, assuming we maintain a culture where my sort of problems are
worth solving. If we revert to a small agrarian population then it might
take much longer.
>>They usually won't actually revolt until they see something better.
>Usually they won't revolt until things are bad enough first.
That too. But when things are *really* bad then the cut-off point for
alternatives is much lower. In a time of mass starvation it doesn't seem
bad to kill off the nobles and let amateurs have a try at government. When
they can hardly do worse, what's to lose?
>Risk
>aversion and all that. The 60's may have been unusual because of the
>large number of young people. Young people are not risk averse.
Something about lots of young people and mass media. There are lots of
developing countries with an even higher proportion of young people, that
don't have anything like the 60's were for us.
>>>Would it be possible for society to create a Ubermensche if there
>>>were not sufficient impetus for him/her to desire overcoming? If
>>>society is sick enough there is enough desire to overcome something
>>>that is larger in scope than himself. He stops defining things in
>>>terms of individual goals but speaks and thinks in terms of larger
>>>goals. This gives him appeal to the rest of the organism/society.
>>>The Ubemensche needs a large purpose that includes the larger society
>>>and not just himself to create that impetus within himself.
>>Yes, to my way of thinking that's what keeps him from being mostly
>>irrelevant. You and I aren't thinking in nearly the same terms, and I'm not
>>sure how much overlap there is.
>Yeah, that wasn't an interpretation of Nietzche, that was me going off
>on a tangent to make him relevant for me and trying to figure out how
>history has played this out.
Politicians try to identify themselves with good symbols. When the symbols
tarnish, so do the politicians unless they can switch like hermit crabs. So
Kennedy was the New Camelot, Johnson wanted to be the Great Society, Nixon
was Peace with Honor, Carter was Honest, Not a Nixon, Reagan was America is
Still Great, toward the end Bush wanted to be The Education President. Etc.
When times are really bad some politician will try to be The Ubermensche.
It's mostly image.
>>>The Ubermesche's message is that society is sick, the frontier
>>>antibody in the organism. The rest of that organism knows it is sick
>>>but has been fevered and weak and unable to fight. A bunch of humans
>>>reduced to something almost less than human, finally wakes up and
>>>realizes it has been stripped bare of individual authority,
>>>unbelievably constricted. The individuals collectively realize the
>>>sickness and declare war on it with the Ubermensch leading the pack.
Politics by other means.
>>Well, maybe. Sometimes it's a bunch of individuals who see a better way.
>Yeah I guess you couldn't say that society was sick in the 60's when
>the cultural movement took place, well not sick in the way that led
>other societies to bloody revolutions or just blood.
>Then again, it wasn't an example of a singular individual's meteoric
>rise to power combined with a societal change. It was a bunch of
>people still retainiing their individuality but joining together for
>larger causes. No Ubermensche.
It's hard to tell how much what we're talking about is media. We look back
at our shared assumptions as if they were true. Let's see. We had WWII,
looking back it was inevitable that we'd win but some of us weren't sure at
the time, Germany might have gotten their secret weapons working or
something. Eisenhower said the important thing was to win the war quickly
and bring the boys home. Then we had the early Cold War. The economy ran
slow enough to keep interest rates very low. Times weren't particularly
good but it was a lot better than being in a world war. We bluffed the
russians with secret weapons and didn't actually spend a whole lot on them.
We ran the space program cheap by sitting it on top of cheap missiles.
And then in the sixties we looked around, and times were good. We were
collectively rich. The slogan was, "If we can send a man to the moon, why
can't we...." Meanwhile, the mechanised agriculture of the 1950's sent a
lot of sharecroppers to northern cities where they didn't particularly find
jobs waiting for them. We set up the welfare system as a stopgap for that.
We had sudden wealth, we could spend it as we liked. Segregation became an
issue -- we had sudden wealth and we could help out poor people out of the
increase without anybody else feeling the pinch. And we chose to stop the
evil international communists by whatever means needed. So we spent all the
new wealth and more on Viet Nam.
>>Sometimes it's a sick society that has no room for all of them, and so it
>>shooes some of them out to find their fortunes. It's hard to tell the
>>pioneers from the discards, before they find their new way.
>The sick society has more discards than anything else.
Yes.
>>>If society were not sick in that instance there would be too great a
>>>cost to giving up individual authority and you could not get a large
>>>band of people to support the cause. The Ubermensch's authority would
>>>be questioned, he/she would be hassled....a madman/woman.
>>There is no authority beyond "I tried this, and here's how it worked, see
>>for yourself".
>Well, I sure hope you're right on that one.
I'm not. That's the only authority I want to recognise. But there is also
"Pay attention to me because I have a gun".
>I don't see the Ubermensche as
>a good thing from a historical perspective. Whenever society was so
>sick that it gave over to some monster, I wonder how it was that it
>happened.
When the business-as-usual politicians fail. WWI was disastrous for Russia,
and the government collapsed. The 'peace' after WWI was disastrous for
Germany and the government collapsed. There were peasants starving for
Louis XV and the government collapsed. Similarly for Chiang Kai Shek. Etc.
Carter Boisvert
lyrah <lyrahN...@my-deja.com.invalid>
> The ideal is an invention.
>
> Go back to your original question
Go back to your philosophy books. If you don't synthesize the
antinomies that obtain between realism, idealism, and nominalism, you
haven't even made it into the twentieth century.
(Just testing out arrogance theories, here, *please* don't mind me)
>We are unable to question the ideal.
Actually, one of the sacred ideals of the worldwide angst-scene is To
Question All Idealism.
(please see above disclaimer. Please?)
neurusilo
As far as a search for a universal meaning, we're
> >as far away from that today as we've ever been.
>
> And in terms of being able to define it, we probably always will be.
> But that doesn't imply that such a universal meaning doesn't exist.
But seriously, the question arises: What use is there in a universal
meaning that cannot be identified? Eternal mortal torment? (I think I made
an oxymoron?!) Or are we stupid for seeking privy to this information? If
you know, please fill me in. I'm interested. I can be bought.
> There's a big difference between a belief in God, however we may
> envisage God to be, and a grasping for God. To know that there is a
> higher power, and to know no more than that, doesn't give existence a
> meaning any more than a young child's knowing that his parents exist
> gives meaning to his existence.
>
> Belief in a higher power is only the beginning of the real search. And
> it is a search which has no end because we are exploring the infinite.
> There is progress. The seeker is increasing his knowledge of and his
> depth of communion with God but he never gets any nearer the end of
> the quest.
Perhaps you are correct. Any single person might be considered a fool for
seriously believing they might be able to capture the keys to the kingdom
within a lifetime. This seems pretty futile at first glance, but if a
person were to find any sort of fulfillment this way, then it is worthwhile.
I've been very spiritual in my life, but I am at a point where God has left
me, and I'm not sure what to make of it. Has un-belief made me a better
person? Hardly. But my un-belief is a symptom, not a cause, of The Void.
If I stumble across epiphany, then I will embrace it. I'll only hold my
breath if I'm truly seeking a way out. I am unwilling, and I'm not afraid
to admit it. These are not wisest of days for me. I am a hallway of locked
doors.
We need to ween ourselves from invisible belief systems, and
> >be okay with it. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
>
> All living belief systems are invisible - including the belief that
> life is meaningless.
That was kind of what I was saying. We need to ween ourselves of unfounded
belief systems. Perhaps I condone finding a happy form of nihilism.
Some would argue that the inevitable result of such a shallow era of mankind
is a genuine spiritual renaissance. This may be correct. Perhaps we will
rediscover fanatacism, but only after it is proven to us to be a worthwhile
pursuit once again. Right now, God's representatives are in the midst of a
PR nightmare. Serves 'em right.
> If we really are no more than a "statistical oddity", what ever that
> means
Yeah, I know. I didn't feel too good about that. Anything that is at all
possible, immediately becomes highly probable when concepts such as infinity
are introduced. Interestingly, that means that if Intelligent Design is at
all possible...
But I'm not one to answer that question.
then yes, I want to know it because then, like Qoheleth I can
> eat, drink and be merry without thinking that I am missing what life
> is really about.
>
> On the other hand, if our purpose on Earth is to get to know God and
> to commune with Him then I would hate to miss out on that.
But is it really that easy to jump from 'I would like a higher purpose' to
'I'm okay without one'? This is all something that runs much deeper in most
people than reason. People will willfully toss out reason in favor of
comfort, despite whatever evidence is posed. It invokes our most stubborn
behavior. At this point, it's merely a personal decision to be made, and as
we indirectly touched upon earlier, may always remain so. Some of us are on
the fence, and neither view seems to be too tantalizing. I cannot dedicate
myself either way, because /I do not know/. If only it were as easy as
tossing a coin. Best to be Qoheleth, and wait for a ray of light that may
never come.
--
*************
neurusilo
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
-Beckett
"Chris (@tikva)" <ch...@tikva.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v4klms8e71t3rj6dk...@4ax.com...
> Belief in a higher power is only the beginning of the real search. And
> it is a search which has no end because we are exploring the infinite.
> There is progress. The seeker is increasing his knowledge of and his
> depth of communion with God but he never gets any nearer the end of
> the quest.
>
Dav
neurusilo <neur...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:8kmj94
> I am unwilling, and I'm not afraid
> to admit it. These are not wisest of days for me. I am a hallway of
locked
> doors.
Maybe the answer is to stop putting so much effort into trying to force one
of those doors open from your side and to wait for someone to push one open
from the other.
> Some would argue that the inevitable result of such a shallow era of
>mankind
> is a genuine spiritual renaissance. This may be correct. Perhaps we will
> rediscover fanatacism, but only after it is proven to us to be a
worthwhile
> pursuit once again
It seems to be fanatical atheists who have all the fervour currently.
Trouble is, religions ask you to make sacrifices - if not sheep and goats,
then your time, energy, money and thoughts. Unfortunately, we live in a
world where making sacrifices even for other people are often viewed with
suspicion so giving up something for a possibly non-existant entity doesn't
appear to be that appealling to a lot of people.
I like the whole pilgrimage to Mecca thing, y'know.
Chris (@tikva)
<neur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Chris (@tikva)" <ch...@tikva.demon.co.uk> wrote
>As far as a search for a universal meaning, we're
>> >as far away from that today as we've ever been.
>>
>> And in terms of being able to define it, we probably always will be.
>> But that doesn't imply that such a universal meaning doesn't exist.
>
>But seriously, the question arises: What use is there in a universal
>meaning that cannot be identified? Eternal mortal torment? (I think I made
>an oxymoron?!) Or are we stupid for seeking privy to this information? If
>you know, please fill me in. I'm interested. I can be bought.
As I see it the key is that even though we can't define ( not the same
as identify ) universal meaning because it is beyond our finite
capabilities to do so, it is quite possible that universal meaning can
make contact with us. The limitations are one sided.
If that happens then although we can't define it or know very much
about it, we can experience it and it can give us a direction and a
focus for our journey.
>> Belief in a higher power is only the beginning of the real search. And
>> it is a search which has no end because we are exploring the infinite.
>> There is progress. The seeker is increasing his knowledge of and his
>> depth of communion with God but he never gets any nearer the end of
>> the quest.
>
>Perhaps you are correct. Any single person might be considered a fool for
>seriously believing they might be able to capture the keys to the kingdom
>within a lifetime. This seems pretty futile at first glance, but if a
>person were to find any sort of fulfillment this way, then it is worthwhile.
>I've been very spiritual in my life, but I am at a point where God has left
>me, and I'm not sure what to make of it.
How do you mean "God has left you"?
> Has un-belief made me a better
>person? Hardly. But my un-belief is a symptom, not a cause, of The Void.
>If I stumble across epiphany, then I will embrace it. I'll only hold my
>breath if I'm truly seeking a way out. I am unwilling, and I'm not afraid
>to admit it. These are not wisest of days for me. I am a hallway of locked
>doors.
Part of the search involves finding keys which will unlock these
doors. It does seem that we are intended to seek and the way is not
always made easy for us. I don't know why that should be but it seems
to be the common experience in many spiritual traditions.
>We need to ween ourselves from invisible belief systems, and
>> >be okay with it. I don't see that happening in my lifetime.
>>
>> All living belief systems are invisible - including the belief that
>> life is meaningless.
>
>That was kind of what I was saying. We need to ween ourselves of unfounded
>belief systems. Perhaps I condone finding a happy form of nihilism.
To me that sounds like a contradiction in terms. Nihilism seems to me
to be a philosophy of despair, of denial.
>Some would argue that the inevitable result of such a shallow era of mankind
>is a genuine spiritual renaissance. This may be correct. Perhaps we will
>rediscover fanatacism, but only after it is proven to us to be a worthwhile
>pursuit once again. Right now, God's representatives are in the midst of a
>PR nightmare. Serves 'em right.
Well, yes. I cringe when I hear many of them, especially on some TV
networks.
>> On the other hand, if our purpose on Earth is to get to know God and
>> to commune with Him then I would hate to miss out on that.
>
>But is it really that easy to jump from 'I would like a higher purpose' to
>'I'm okay without one'? This is all something that runs much deeper in most
>people than reason. People will willfully toss out reason in favor of
>comfort, despite whatever evidence is posed. It invokes our most stubborn
>behavior.
It's not easy and perhaps it could be argued that if there is no
higher purpose and it make us feel better to believe that there is,
then why not? There is nothing to lose. I really don't know how I'd
react if it happened that I was led to believe that life was
meaningless. Perhaps I wouldn't be able to make that jump. As it is
I'm nowhere near believing that and I don't think that I'm filtering
the evidence.
> At this point, it's merely a personal decision to be made, and as
>we indirectly touched upon earlier, may always remain so. Some of us are on
>the fence, and neither view seems to be too tantalizing. I cannot dedicate
>myself either way, because /I do not know/. If only it were as easy as
>tossing a coin. Best to be Qoheleth, and wait for a ray of light that may
>never come.
If I think about why I have dedicated myself to the theistic, and
specifically Christian, way I can only say that it comes down to
experience. I don't *know* that the way I have chosen to follow is the
true one, or if there is a true one, but my experience of God leads me
in that direction. I don't *know* that the external world exists but
likewise my experience leads me to believe that it does - and
certainly to act on the assumption that it does.
---
Chris
Horny Old Goat
><neur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>But seriously, the question arises: What use is there in a universal
>>meaning that cannot be identified? Eternal mortal torment? (I think I made
>>an oxymoron?!) Or are we stupid for seeking privy to this information? If
>>you know, please fill me in. I'm interested. I can be bought.
>As I see it the key is that even though we can't define ( not the same
>as identify ) universal meaning because it is beyond our finite
>capabilities to do so, it is quite possible that universal meaning can
>make contact with us. The limitations are one sided.
But that's an inadequate criterion. There could be many many things that
are beyond our finite capacities, that might contact us. What if an evil
one does?
>If that happens then although we can't define it or know very much
>about it, we can experience it and it can give us a direction and a
>focus for our journey.
It's risky to accept direction from something just because it's far superior
to us. Of course, if we refuse there's a fair chance that it would be
willing and able to force us, so we might not have much to lose.
neurusilo
*snip*
> It's risky to accept direction from something just because it's far
superior
> to us. Of course, if we refuse there's a fair chance that it would be
> willing and able to force us, so we might not have much to lose.
If there were some sort of omniscient force surrounding us, or whatever, do
you think it's really fair to say that it truly cares what our individual
stances are in regards to it? Disbelief would not jeopardize its existence,
yet Christian self-importance seems to imply this.
I'd envision a God of balance and neutrality, concerned with the whole
equally. Any less would undoubtedly fall in the realm of malevolence, and
render a working universe nearly impossible (the way I see it).
Unless you're presenting something short of almighty God, of course.
...diety-like beings and whatnot. If Loki came down and said, "Bad news...
I'm real! (Better start building temples, NOW!)"
--
*************
neurusilo
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
-Beckett
"Horny Old Goat" <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8kvk1g$3ak...@ix.netcom.com...
> ch...@tikva.demon.co.uk wrote:
> ><neur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>But seriously, the question arises: What use is there in a universal
> >>meaning that cannot be identified? Eternal mortal torment? (I think I
made
> >>an oxymoron?!) Or are we stupid for seeking privy to this information?
If
> >>you know, please fill me in. I'm interested. I can be bought.
>
> >As I see it the key is that even though we can't define ( not the same
> >as identify ) universal meaning because it is beyond our finite
> >capabilities to do so, it is quite possible that universal meaning can
> >make contact with us. The limitations are one sided.
>
> But that's an inadequate criterion. There could be many many things that
> are beyond our finite capacities, that might contact us. What if an evil
> one does?
>
> >If that happens then although we can't define it or know very much
> >about it, we can experience it and it can give us a direction and a
> >focus for our journey.
>
neurusilo
>Disbelief would not jeopardize its existence,
> yet Christian self-importance seems to imply this.
Sorry Chris(@tikva) or any other theists who might take offense by this.
What I mean is, the notion that 'I am better than you, because I believe,
and you will suffer the consequences of disbelief, because God is taking
notes...' I don't believe it. It hints at the age-old notion that a God
without worshippers ceases to be. It betrays a fear that the 'truth' may
die. Such fears wouldn't be necessary, if one /knew/ that they held the
truth, that their God was /real/.
--
*************
neurusilo
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
-Beckett
"neurusilo" <neur...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8l0ker$atg$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Horny Old Goat" <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> *snip*
> > It's risky to accept direction from something just because it's far
> superior
> > to us. Of course, if we refuse there's a fair chance that it would be
> > willing and able to force us, so we might not have much to lose.
>
> If there were some sort of omniscient force surrounding us, or whatever,
do
> you think it's really fair to say that it truly cares what our individual
> stances are in regards to it? Disbelief would not jeopardize its
existence,
> yet Christian self-importance seems to imply this.
>
> I'd envision a God of balance and neutrality, concerned with the whole
> equally. Any less would undoubtedly fall in the realm of malevolence, and
> render a working universe nearly impossible (the way I see it).
>
> Unless you're presenting something short of almighty God, of course.
> ...diety-like beings and whatnot. If Loki came down and said, "Bad
news...
> I'm real! (Better start building temples, NOW!)"
>
>
> --
> *************
> neurusilo
>
> Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better.
> -Beckett
> "Horny Old Goat" <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8kvk1g$3ak...@ix.netcom.com...
> > ch...@tikva.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > ><neur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>But seriously, the question arises: What use is there in a universal
> > >>meaning that cannot be identified? Eternal mortal torment? (I think
I
> made
> > >>an oxymoron?!) Or are we stupid for seeking privy to this information?
> If
> > >>you know, please fill me in. I'm interested. I can be bought.
> >
> > >As I see it the key is that even though we can't define ( not the same
> > >as identify ) universal meaning because it is beyond our finite
> > >capabilities to do so, it is quite possible that universal meaning can
> > >make contact with us. The limitations are one sided.
> >
> > But that's an inadequate criterion. There could be many many things
that
> > are beyond our finite capacities, that might contact us. What if an
evil
> > one does?
> >
> > >If that happens then although we can't define it or know very much
> > >about it, we can experience it and it can give us a direction and a
> > >focus for our journey.
> >
Carter Boisvert
> If there were some sort of omniscient force surrounding us, or
whatever, do
> you think it's really fair to say that it truly cares what our
individual
> stances are in regards to it?
[..]
> Unless you're presenting something short of almighty God, of course.
> ...diety-like beings and whatnot.
That's what people do. People have little brains, not only smaller
than the universe, but smaller even than the earth. It is hard to
comprehend much. When someone uses the term "God" to mean "the
absolute, omniscient all-powerful being", I usually take it as referring
to the absolute limits they can conceive of in their little world.
Jet Thomas
>*snip*
>> It's risky to accept direction from something just because it's far
>> superior to us. Of course, if we refuse there's a fair chance that it
>> would be willing and able to force us, so we might not have much to lose.
>If there were some sort of omniscient force surrounding us, or whatever, do
>you think it's really fair to say that it truly cares what our individual
>stances are in regards to it? Disbelief would not jeopardize its existence,
>yet Christian self-importance seems to imply this.
I naturally tend to think of the christian view like the taoist one. Like,
probably God wouldn't have a whole lot invested in whether you believe in
him. And still there could be some scriptures that might be some help in
getting along in the world, the equivalent of sayings like 'if you drive on
the wrong side of the road you're asking for trouble' and 'don't piss into
the wind' etc.
>I'd envision a God of balance and neutrality, concerned with the whole
>equally. Any less would undoubtedly fall in the realm of malevolence, and
>render a working universe nearly impossible (the way I see it).
Suppose there was such a god, who still allowed lesser beings to exist who
were still much greater than us. Then....
>Unless you're presenting something short of almighty God, of course.
>....diety-like beings and whatnot. If Loki came down and said, "Bad news...
>I'm real! (Better start building temples, NOW!)"
A good example. A neutral God might allow a trickster godlet to pass out
all sorts of misinformation, without interfering. And if you find yourself
eating a small pebble every day and wearing a fava bean on your forehead, it
probably won't disturb the greater balance of the universe very much. But
there could be personal risks for you in being too gullible, in following
greater beings too fervently just because they're greater.
Chris (@tikva)
<neur...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Horny Old Goat" <jeth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>*snip*
>> It's risky to accept direction from something just because it's far
>superior
>> to us. Of course, if we refuse there's a fair chance that it would be
>> willing and able to force us, so we might not have much to lose.
True. In fact, for me, the fact that we find ourselves wooed rather
than coerced points in the direction of God being good rather than
evil.
>If there were some sort of omniscient force surrounding us, or whatever, do
>you think it's really fair to say that it truly cares what our individual
>stances are in regards to it? Disbelief would not jeopardize its existence,
>yet Christian self-importance seems to imply this.
I don't know of any strand of Christianity which says that God's
existence depends on whether people believe in Him. If He cares it's
not because of any danger to Himself but rather because He wants what
is best for us. The various doctrines of grace go into detail about
that.
---
Chris
Chris (@tikva)
wrote:
>>If there were some sort of omniscient force surrounding us, or whatever, do
>>you think it's really fair to say that it truly cares what our individual
>>stances are in regards to it? Disbelief would not jeopardize its existence,
>>yet Christian self-importance seems to imply this.
>
>I naturally tend to think of the christian view like the taoist one. Like,
>probably God wouldn't have a whole lot invested in whether you believe in
>him. And still there could be some scriptures that might be some help in
>getting along in the world, the equivalent of sayings like 'if you drive on
>the wrong side of the road you're asking for trouble' and 'don't piss into
>the wind' etc.
I only have a superficial knowledge of Taoism but it seems that one of
the big differences between Taoism and Christianity is that
Christianity teaches that God does care about individuals and whether
they relate to God or not. Even though God doesn't need to.
>>I'd envision a God of balance and neutrality, concerned with the whole
>>equally. Any less would undoubtedly fall in the realm of malevolence, and
>>render a working universe nearly impossible (the way I see it).
>
>Suppose there was such a god, who still allowed lesser beings to exist who
>were still much greater than us. Then....
>
>>Unless you're presenting something short of almighty God, of course.
>>....diety-like beings and whatnot. If Loki came down and said, "Bad news...
>>I'm real! (Better start building temples, NOW!)"
>
>A good example. A neutral God might allow a trickster godlet to pass out
>all sorts of misinformation, without interfering. And if you find yourself
>eating a small pebble every day and wearing a fava bean on your forehead, it
>probably won't disturb the greater balance of the universe very much. But
>there could be personal risks for you in being too gullible, in following
>greater beings too fervently just because they're greater.
If the supreme being isn't on our side or is against us then there's
no hope for us anyway. Sometimes risks have to be taken.
---
Chris