Early Retirement Extreme Forums

BRUTE wrote:@Pagliaccio: how does the universe originate from meaning?

If you accept as a premise that the universe issued from a random accident, then affirming that there is no such a thing as "meaning" is simply taking the matter to its logical conclusion (so, very consistent of you); just take the opposite paradigm as the foundation for my post and it will make sense—Creation being understood as the impartation of form (and meaning) to the primeval matter.

double post bug strikes again

@Pagliaccio

brute wouldn't necessarily subscribe to the idea that the universe is created (is that what Pagliaccio means by issued?) from a random accident. rather, brute has no clue how the universe came into being. with regards to order of atoms or formations thereof within the universe, brute doesn't think these are "random" as much as "arbitrary and deterministic" - it's no accident, it's a clockwork with maybe some random-like pockets in there.

if Pagliaccio says that meaning came first, does this imply some sort of god-like first mover with a (meaningful) plan?

@BRUTE: God, specifically.

I think people waste time with the Brute trying to dissuade him from his nihilism. If Brute is truly a nihilist, it matters to him not. Nihilism is a snake eating its own tail. Think about it - if all is meaningless, then contemplating or believing in nihilism is meaningless in and of itself.

My own philosophical leanings are more in line with "I think therefore I am, ergo, if I think my life has meaning, it does." Brute can have his nihilism, and I'll have my meaningful purpose. Different strokes...

Pagliaccio wrote:@BRUTE: God, specifically.

brute's not super into the whole God-thing, so he finds it hard to entertain that train of thought.

I am only concerned because I suspect that BRUTE is trying to divert us from seeing that his true purpose is world domination.

My wife was looking at dogs... and she's a cat person.

George the original one wrote:My wife was looking at dogs... and she's a cat person.

There was a great little 10 second cartoon video I saw last week but can not longer locate. It was a guy and his dog walking down a nice looking path with trees and a lake in front of them -- a pleasant scene.

It showed a thought bubble for the guy -- a whole jumble of future-oriented crap about money and stuff and other issues. And then a thought bubble for the dog, which was exactly what the dog was seeing in that moment.

The point made was the same as in Zimbardo's "Time Paradox" (see the website for more detail and a quiz) -- future orientation is important to yield success in the future, but present orientation is important for enjoying life.

Dogs help us live more in the moment and appreciate what it there. Ultimately, you are looking for a balance.

Dragline wrote: future orientation is important to yield success in the future, but present orientation is important for enjoying life.

Dogs help us live more in the moment and appreciate what it there. Ultimately, you are looking for a balance.

..... and then the guy bent down and picked up a steaming pile of dog shit with his hand protected by a recycled grocery bag while the dog, barking and wheezing, dragged him into the mud at the side of the lake as it tried to chomp on a flock of terrified ducks. Ahhh, living in the moment.

@Ego, dogs invariably make me laugh with their wild enthusiasm, energy and slobbery love. Steaming piles of shit are part of every experience, whether human, canine or otherwise. Loving something will involve dealing with shit at some point. This includes having children, having pets and adults getting old together. Truthfully, it is living in the moment as the moment really exists; not as we imagine it should be.

Life does not have to have any meaning to it. It just has to be lived.
-Dexter

The Chippewa kept dogs as pets, but also ate them cooked in maple syrup.

halfmoon wrote:Loving something will involve dealing with shit at some point.

True.

Reminds me of a story I heard while taking a wilderness medicine course recently. A group of corpsmen attending the military version of the program found a pig living on the rural compound where the course was being held. They adopted it, named it, fed it the scraps from their mess and turned it into the group mascot. Toward the end of the course, after everyone fell in love with the thing, the training office gathered them into a group and - BLAM - shot it in the gut with a shotgun, then screamed, "SAVE PRIVATE RYAN!"

Fortunately, I am not in the military so I can get my slobbery love, shit, and whatnot from human beings when the need arises.

Augustus wrote:This is not depressing, just observant. The universe dying out along with all of us is not depressing either, just a constraint we live with, like not being born rich or beautiful, we are what we are.

well said.

fiby41 wrote:Life [..] has to be lived.

citation needed

BRUTE wrote:brute's not super into the whole God-thing, so he finds it hard to entertain that train of thought.

Fair enough. Pragmatically, however, notice that being able to do just that—entertain a thought without accepting it—could give you a competitive advantage in many areas; incidentally, although the attribution is disputed, Aristotle is said to have named that ability as the mark of an educated mind.

brute actually dislikes that quote about being able to entertain two conflicting thoughts. it's probably just imprecise.

holding conflicting thoughts at the same time is cognitive dissonance, and brute hardly thinks it speaks of a mind's education, but rather ignorance.

what could be said is that holding two seemingly conflicting thoughts, both of which seem on the surface correct, but allowing for the idea that at least one of them is imprecisely formulated or otherwise wrong, or the relation between them is unclear, is the mark of an educated mind. basically, skepticism.

Holding them simultaneously is cognitive dissonance. With practice cognitive dissonance becomes double-think.

Being able to entertain disagreeable [trains of] thoughts is entirely different and has to do with the capacity for empathy or theory of mind.

Ego wrote:

halfmoon wrote:Loving something will involve dealing with shit at some point.

True.

Reminds me of a story I heard while taking a wilderness medicine course recently. A group of corpsmen attending the military version of the program found a pig living on the rural compound where the course was being held. They adopted it, named it, fed it the scraps from their mess and turned it into the group mascot. Toward the end of the course, after everyone fell in love with the thing, the training office gathered them into a group and - BLAM - shot it in the gut with a shotgun, then screamed, "SAVE PRIVATE RYAN!"

Those trainers knew their shit.

@Kriegsspiel, have you done live tissue training? From what they said, the emotional connection and the squealing of the injured animal is as close to a real world scenarios as possible. Of course, there are a few issues....
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/270346 ... e-training

As I walk through my apartment building and hear the animals of these young professions squealing for attention and scratching at the doors, I wonder how far apart the two are.