Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2011 12:52 am**

Fist and Faith wrote:
rusmeister wrote:I feel that there may be a general misunderstanding (held by most?) that I am somehow advocating that we go through our lives quaking every minute in fear of death. What I am saying is much more along the lines of asking whether we consider death as more than just a future abstraction, whether we have ever tried to see it happening to ME, RIGHT THIS MINUTE. That's why I referred to Ebenezer Scrooge - an admittedly fictional character who actually DID see his death as an accomplished fact, and not as something to be waved off and ignored.
What you are really saying is that not having the same feeling for it that you have is proof that we have not thought about it as deeply as you have. (Unless we're insane.)

rusmeister wrote:but that there are other false philosophies, such as materialism, that have nothing at all to offer when faced with a meaningless death, and that a person may imagine all sorts of things (an unbeliever may imagine, for instance, that he could look back on a life well-lived, by his lights, and so, have no fear or regrets, just as a believer may imagine potential comfort in an afterlife) that are revealed as nonsense in the face of an actual test - that only a resolute faith in something in the face of the perfectly normal and rational fear at that point will hold to what they believe - for both the believer and unbeliever alike. I think that for people who are actually sane, BS that they didn't fully believe in to the hilt will fall apart in the face of it.

Thinking about your comments, I would hasten to agree that we certainly do not welcome suffering and wish it to end as soon as possible. But when we 'hope that the pain (or anything) is over quickly', we also hope that the 'movie' will somehow continue. Otherwise, what does it matter whether it is over or not, if I am completely not, to experience either suffering or joy? Why does it matter if I studied Russian or not, traveled the world or not - what difference does any of my life make to me at all if I am dead?

The thing that is insane is actually standing on those tracks and not feeling any fear at all - a complete indifference to one's own life and death. I doubt anyone here actually fits that bill - but the words of some people suggest that logically, that is how they would feel (only I don't believe that they actually would when push came to shove).

I have not yet been tested. And I fear that test. And so I am training the habit of faith - sometimes poorly, like now, sometimes much more fervently - I turn to God the quickest when things go very wrong - as they did a few weeks ago. But as long as things are going well, we don't need God. We are self-sufficient, and our practical philosophy of life (such as materialist improvement of my life here) works... until it doesn't work. When you get cancer, when your child dies, when the gun is pointed at your head and all of the things of this world are about to become dust and ashes - that, unfortunately, is when we tend to finally come to our senses (and some most unfortunately of all, not even then).
None of what you say suggests that worldviews like mine are not the truth of existence. Bad things happen to good people. And, in the end, we cease to exist. It is not any sort of "failure" on the part of my worldview that it doesn't assuage the fears and insecurities that these facts instill in you. It is not evidence that my worldview is not accurate.

I don;t think there's much to say here, except that you keep ascribing as personal to me (as if they were my "fears and insecurities") what really is universal, and so ignore the curious fact that people really DO object to death and see it as a tragedy, and not "a natural part of life". It is the armchair general who uses that expression, and the person at the funeral who much more sensibly sobs. It is a complete lack of sense, in the literal sense - an inability to sense the obvious. That is a danger, if not the danger, of sophistry - the ceasing of ability to sense what is obvious to a child.
(Edit add:) There is a lot I could say about the virtue of children - of the good qualities which adults have a depressing ability to lose. There is a great deal of sense in the words of Christ that if we wish to enter the Kingdom of heaven, we must become like little children (again). In a very real way, it is our sophistication that damns us.
An essay on baby-worship by the jolly fat man (GK Chesterton for "newbies") - quite inspiring:
www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/The_ ... BY-WORSHIP

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:57 pm**

rusmeister wrote:I don;t think there's much to say here, except that you keep ascribing as personal to me (as if they were my "fears and insecurities") what really is universal, and so ignore the curious fact that people really DO object to death and see it as a tragedy, and not "a natural part of life".

But is it universal? Or are you just ascribing as universal what is actually personal to you and some (not all) others? Yes, I would agree that people do see death as a tragedy - some people. Other people, like myself, see it as simply nature. Yes, we grieve because the person who has died is gone from our lives. We won't see them, touch them or speak with them again. But that doesn't mean we object to death and see it as a tragedy.

rusmeister wrote:AS to your own response to such a situation, it reminds me of Capt. Kirk in Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, who had never faced death, but only cheated it. As something ultimately inevitable, the reaction of seeking to avoid it does not answer how to consider it when it finally comes and gets around all of your cleverness, dexterity and planning.

And there's nothing wrong with that

Cheat death while you can, and accept it when cheating it is no longer an option. Considering it doesn't really achieve anything, since it's going to happen whether you spend time thinking about it or not.

rusmeister wrote:When one comes to the point of death, one can see that it is NOT 'enough' to have lived (an action already in the past - that's the meaning of the present perfect verb tense - I'm an English grammar teacher). Only one who sees continuation (for whom life is NOT a completed action in that final sense) can logically use the word "enough".

No. I disagree. "Enough" is simply what's sufficient to answer a need or want. If your need is for something more, then it's clearly not enough for you to have lived, but you can take it at face value when I say this one life, or (if you're going to argue that something in the past can't satisfy a present need) the memories of life that are present at the time of death, would be enough for me. I could even go so far as to argue that religion is simply an expression of the human desire for more that served us well for a very long time, but is causing us so many problems now with such things as obesity and debt. That doesn't mean I think it's bad, and I even say at times (and flippantly) that I'd love to be able to "get religion." It must be very comforting to be loved by an omnipotent deity. The trouble is, when I can see that religion could be nothing more than a product of evolution, and no-one can prove scientifically that isn't the case, I'd always question my beliefs. And I don't think faith encompases the statement: "If I'm wrong, and life ends in oblivion, I won't know anything about it."

It's all my mother's fault. She brought me up to be too cynical

Posted: **Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:10 pm**

All well said, Tenara.

And aside from that, rus, even if EVERYONE felt as you do (And you surely don't have numbers to back up your claim of universal feelings about it. Go start a poll. Ask people to rate death on a scale of 1-10, 1 being "Sad, because the person who has died is gone from our lives, but natural." and 10 as "Absolute horror. Unnatural. Wrong." It will not turn out the way you have decided it will.), that's not evidence for a creator or afterlife. It would just be evidence that we don't like the situation we're in. It wouldn't be evidence that that's not the situation we're in. Wishful thinking does not make new truths or realities.

Posted: **Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:48 am**

We should start a poll.

(Good post Tenara.)

--A

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:27 pm**

I figured I'd read my first post, just to see how it looks months later. I'm happy to say I'm still very happy with it. Heh.

Posted: **Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:33 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:I figured I'd read my first post, just to see how it looks months later. I'm happy to say I'm still very happy with it. Heh.

I'm very happy with my first memories, implanted or not. They have a meaning to me which I can't quite destroy, even though the meaning itself is just made up by yours truly.

Posted: **Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:10 pm**

That's good news, H! (I assume. Apologies if not.) What I meant, to be more clear... Naturally, I feel the same about it all as I did when I wrote it. But I'm happy with how I expressed it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 25, 2011 9:30 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:That's good news, H! (I assume. Apologies if not.) What I meant, to be more clear... Naturally, I feel the same about it all as I did when I wrote it. But I'm happy with how I expressed it.

Nice. And I think it is good news to some extent?? However, it also makes me feel rather pathetic, that my earliest memories contained clues to a truth I only made sense of now. At the same time, I'm happy I made it that far without really grasping meaninglessness.

Posted: **Mon Jul 25, 2011 11:33 pm**

A couple of things strike me about the existentialist/nihilist position. The first is that they rely solely on language and reason to support their position. They have little room to include anything that cannot be held in language or encompassed by reason. This means that the first two years of our life are effectively rendered irrelevant when there is a possibility that they may actually lay down the patterns that shape the rest of our life.

The other difficulty that I see relates, paradoxically, to the body. You would think that such avowedly materialist worldviews would champion the body and ensure that all its potentialities were actualised.

But here's an irony: what if a huge portion of the body's potentials are activated through an engagment with the spirit? (And what if an engagment with the spirit often only comes through fear?) Now you have the paradox. A thoroughly materialist worldview actually leads to a reduction of the importance of the most material engagement we have in our lives.

Here's a sample of the activities that I have tried (there are lots more that I haven't tried) which engage both the pre-linguistic and the body: shiatsu, reflexology, energy healing, osteopathy, cranio-sacral work, rebirthing, holotropic breathwork, Aura-Soma, t'ai chi, yoga, meditation, chakra balancing, homeopathy, chiropractic, shamanism, dream work.

(Ironically, some of these practices have been around for thousands of years and paying heed to their traditional wisdom chimes, in a way, with some of what rus is always on about

)

u.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:25 am**

ussusimiel wrote:A couple of things strike me about the existentialist/nihilist position. The first is that they rely solely on language and reason to support their position. They have little room to include anything that cannot be held in language or encompassed by reason. This means that the first two years of our life are effectively rendered irrelevant when there is a possibility that they may actually lay down the patterns that shape the rest of our life.

I'm not sure what you mean. I only see that no reason means you can't understand this position, and no language means you can't communicate it.

ussusimiel wrote:But here's an irony: what if a huge portion of the body's potentials are activated through an engagment with the spirit? (And what if an engagment with the spirit often only comes through fear?) Now you have the paradox. A thoroughly materialist worldview actually leads to a reduction of the importance of the most material engagement we have in our lives.

Only a paradox and reduction if there actually is a spirit, and only if engagement with it is necessary to activate any of the body's potentials. But if there is no spirit, or if its engagement is not necessary, then no loss.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:35 am**

Fist and Faith wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. I only see that no reason means you can't understand this position, and no language means you can't communicate it.

I suppose what I am trying to get at here is there are experiences that we have (deducible by reason) that are pre-linguistic and so to handle the consequences of these experiences (if and when they arise) we need to be open to other ways of knowing that are not necessarily amenable to language and may seem completely unreasonable. Poetry and symbols are great examples of how such material is most often dealt with. (Dreams are a good place to get an idea of the kind of material I am talking about.)

Fist and Faith wrote:Only a paradox and reduction if there actually is a spirit, and only if engagement with it is necessary to activate any of the body's potentials. But if there is no spirit, or if its engagement is not necessary, then no loss.

This is where belief in the testimony of other people's experiences comes into play (no pressure there then

) . I have learned a lot about stuff that I never even imagined possible by first taking seriously the things that people I trusted told me. I had no experience of auras, chakras or energy until solid people around me began to talk about them seriously. At first I dismissed them out of hand but as the years went by and I realised that the people involved weren't mad, deluded or phonies I began to give credence to the possibility of such things. That allowed me to skeptically try a couple of the suggested alternative treatments. And it wasn't until years later that I finally began to accept the reality of my own experiences.

The consequence of more than a decade of skeptical testing is an expansion of my sense of being and an excitement about human potentials that I could never have even imagined when I first heard about such things. As a guy I know says, 'After 30 years working with the human body it is more of mystery now than when I began'. I have been cajoled, led and dragged to knowledge that I couldn't have conceived of before I experienced it. Some things cannot be imagined only experienced. Our Western education cannot (or will not) tell of the possibility of such things, and our religions (and here myself and rus part company in a serious way) demonise such experiences and knowledge because they are threatened by them in a fundamental way.

u.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:14 am**

We certainly have pre-linguistic experiences in the sense that some of our behaviour and reaction (perhaps more than some) are holdovers to a biologically distant past.

We evolved a certain way for certain reasons, and "modernity" hasn't been around long enough to change that.

--A

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:18 am**

I get the sense ussusimiel is pointing more towards mystic experience, which is generally held to be ineffable. Doesn't stop mystics writing screeds upon screeds about their experiences though

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:14 pm**

Great post!

ussusimiel wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. I only see that no reason means you can't understand this position, and no language means you can't communicate it.
I suppose what I am trying to get at here is there are experiences that we have (deducible by reason) that are pre-linguistic and so to handle the consequences of these experiences (if and when they arise) we need to be open to other ways of knowing that are not necessarily amenable to language and may seem completely unreasonable. Poetry and symbols are great examples of how such material is most often dealt with. (Dreams are a good place to get an idea of the kind of material I am talking about.)

...psst -- music. Mention music. Specifically Bach.

ussusimiel wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:Only a paradox and reduction if there actually is a spirit, and only if engagement with it is necessary to activate any of the body's potentials. But if there is no spirit, or if its engagement is not necessary, then no loss.
This is where belief in the testimony of other people's experiences comes into play (no pressure there then ) . I have learned a lot about stuff that I never even imagined possible by first taking seriously the things that people I trusted told me. I had no experience of auras, chakras or energy until solid people around me began to talk about them seriously. At first I dismissed them out of hand but as the years went by and I realised that the people involved weren't mad, deluded or phonies I began to give credence to the possibility of such things. That allowed me to skeptically try a couple of the suggested alternative treatments. And it wasn't until years later that I finally began to accept the reality of my own experiences.

The consequence of more than a decade of skeptical testing is an expansion of my sense of being and an excitement about human potentials that I could never have even imagined when I first heard about such things. As a guy I know says, 'After 30 years working with the human body it is more of mystery now than when I began'. I have been cajoled, led and dragged to knowledge that I couldn't have conceived of before I experienced it. Some things cannot be imagined only experienced. Our Western education cannot (or will not) tell of the possibility of such things, and our religions (and here myself and rus part company in a serious way) demonise such experiences and knowledge because they are threatened by them in a fundamental way.

And yet Western religions, by and large, accept angels, and have canonized *some* people who have had the kinds of experiences you describe. The only difference I see between Church-sanctioned visions of the Virgin, and visitations to others by other gods/goddesses, is one of interpretation.

But u., you'll never get anywhere with Fist if you go down that road. He's adopted an extremely narrow definition of "miracle".

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:34 pm**

Yeah, as opposed to:
"Wait! That usually only happens on Wednesdays. But today is Tuesday! It's a miracle!!"

u, I understand what you mean. And I'm open to the possibility of various things because many people claim to have had experiences that can't be explained without the supernatural. Alas, I'm not one of those people, and I've never met one of them in person. It is therefore not something I can base my worldview on.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:11 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:Yeah, as opposed to:
"Wait! That usually only happens on Wednesdays. But today is Tuesday! It's a miracle!!"

Okay, Mr. Smart Guy.

You know what I'm talking about.

u., I meant to refine the ideas in your earlier post about languageless toddlers. Babies begin to understand language much earlier than the age of 2 -- they just can't form the words themselves. Babies younger than a year old understand simple commands -- "wave bye-bye," "no," etc. (I once heard of a kid, perhaps 18 months old, who would repeat "no no no" aloud as he crossed the room to the thing he knew he wasn't supposed to touch.

Clearly he knew what "no" meant; he just didn't have the impulse control to stop himself from doing something he wasn't supposed to do.)

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 3:48 pm**

Fist and Faith wrote:Yeah, as opposed to:
"Wait! That usually only happens on Wednesdays. But today is Tuesday! It's a miracle!!"

u, I understand what you mean. And I'm open to the possibility of various things because many people claim to have had experiences that can't be explained without the supernatural. Alas, I'm not one of those people, and I've never met one of them in person. It is therefore not something I can base my worldview on.

This makes perfect sense to me. I know, personally, a dozen or so people that have spent a decade or two or even three seeking mystical experience and coming up empty...and even more like your version. Don't completely deny the possibility, but because it has never happened to them it makes no sense to make life decisions based on it. And it makes perfect sense to be that way.
I know the mystical exists/happens, [and not all of them are "good," or "enlightening" or "pleasant"] but it's only a very small influence in any decisions I make, it's more a texture/tint/mild fluorescence that infuses experiences, not a practical guide to living or objective to pursue...and I'm not willing to therefore say God/ess-es and/or other beings exist/influence/control. I'm not even willing to say that the mystic/miraculous is necessarily "supernatural." Many seem to see the "Laws of the Universe" as a solid wall of limits, I view them more like a net [probably closer to a fine silk mesh, really]. The mystical happening either in the spaces, or [perhaps] there are strands in the weave that we haven't quite spotted and followed yet.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:18 pm**

Vraith wrote:I'm not even willing to say that the mystic/miraculous is necessarily "supernatural." Many seem to see the "Laws of the Universe" as a solid wall of limits, I view them more like a net [probably closer to a fine silk mesh, really]. The mystical happening either in the spaces, or [perhaps] there are strands in the weave that we haven't quite spotted and followed yet.

I agree. At this point, I attribute this stuff to the supernatural because we don't have a better answer. But I'm not about to repeat the Dark Ages mistake of insisting on it if/when a more complete explanation is forthcoming.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 6:49 pm**

aliantha wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:Yeah, as opposed to:
"Wait! That usually only happens on Wednesdays. But today is Tuesday! It's a miracle!!"

Okay, Mr. Smart Guy. You know what I'm talking about.

Actually, if I understand your definition, the difference I see between it and what I just said is quantitative, not qualitative. For me, it's the same thing.

Posted: **Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:08 pm**

I tend to associate 'supernatural' with 'impossible'. If ghosts exist, they are part of the natural order of things... otherwise, they wouldn't be there.

There's another possibility, but that involves frames of references and doesn't really negate my first point.

I have always been able to find naturalistic explanations for any thing 'odd' that I might have experienced, or that anyone else has... so long as I look. (i.e., my father has claimed to have several experiences wrestling with dark spirits trying to dissuade him from some course. It's a sort of binding, suffocation, and darkness as he describes it. A simple explanation: sleep apnea. Do to my father's snoring and sleeping on his back, this is a possible explanation. During transitions due to a major decision, he may be less able to soundly sleep because of his concern. In this semi-conscious state, he can become more aware of when his body has difficulty breathing. Shades of darkness may also result. This is just one naturalistic explanation.)

But, like ali, anyone can believe what they want... so long as they don't shove it down other people's throats.

Kevin's Watch

Meaninglessness