On the Role of Fantasy and Metaphysics in Understanding the Human Condition

[Aggie]

Sometimes metaphysical is that which we clever self-aware beings have fabricated out of the ordinary, the mundane, into a tapestry of mystery and imagination:  only existing in the imaginary realm of our own inner visions--

-- which some even more cleverer (_{is that even a word?} ) are able to impart to others with mere words in a row...

Whereas I do not, on one had, believe there is some sort of mystical "out there" entities (such as fairies, gods, intentional-bumps-in-the-night-beings), on the other had I fully recognize that within the realm of the imagination?  There certainly do exist dragons, and fairy queens, and invisible pink unicorns, and wish-granting, and the occasional rescue of the orphaned child into a realm where she or he is a long-lost king or queen (_{depending on their individual proclivities-- why couldn't a girl become king in imagination-land?  Especially since boys regularly become queens even in real life...} ).

These realms can be easily as profound, nay, more profound than that humble river carving out the canyon-- for one day, the river may be damed up, it may be diverted, it may become polluted.

But the art that is fiction?  That flows from clever monkeys' imaginations?   That may well live forever*-- for we clever monkeys have even beamed some of this into the outer darkness.  Unwittingly, of course.

Okay, that's my 3 and a half cents worth...

__________

_{* well... not exactly forever, as eventually the universe will wind down one way or another.  Or else some greater force--perhaps from some supra-universe? -- may interefere and cause it to collapse back on itself.  Just like some clever monkeys who work in really clever monkey-laboratories, have surmised is what caused the current rapid expansive state to begin.  But 'forever' in the sense of the life-scale within the universe itself, in that life began in our neck of the woods roughly 4 billion years ago-- and to a clever monkey who's average lifespan is measured in microscopic fractions of that, 'forever' could be considered anything of a similar timespan.}

Great post, Bob. It resonated greatly with me, and so I've waited until I've had time to sit and think about it before making an admittedly lengthy and fairly outrageous reply to it:


I feel that our society has lost – and many other societies are rapidly losing – the ability to use our capacity for imagination and fantasy to help us understand and give meaning to the material realities of our lives. Symptomatically, I feel that many, many people are going through the entire course of their lives without ever finding any real meaning or understanding.  In my opinion, this lack of meaning is a driver in the ever increasing levels of anxiety, depression and mindless consumerism that characterizes 'affluenza'. I really do feel this is the source of the happiness paradox in modern society – past a certain point of financial stability, a richer society is often a less happy one.

Part of the long-term legacy of the of the Enlightenment has been the loss of the ability to understand the role of myths as aids to understand the common life-passages, events and psychological stressors that we all face in our lives. Unfortunately, we've lost the notion that fact is not synonymous with truth and that fiction/fantasy is not synonymous with falsehood.  This is not a criticism of scientific rationalism; I rather think it's an even bigger issue in the case of religious fundamentalist literalism.  An insistence that anything that isn't literally true must be worthless and false (unless carefully acknowledged as made-up and therefore by definition not worthy of 'belief') has IMHO led to the disparity we see.  If we insist that that which is not literally true cannot hold truth, it's not surprising that believers in literary works containing truths they hold dear go to extraordinary ends and perform distorted rationalizations to attempt to support the literal truth of those works.  Likewise, if we insist that our understanding of how the world works can only be based in knowing the mechanistic and material process and events involved, we (IMHO) lose a great deal of our ability to even realize that other modes and methods of understanding exist.  For some of us, a complete knowledge of how the nuts, bolts, gears, nucleic acids, atoms and quarks fit together still represents a woefully incomplete understanding of what the whole thing means. For those who have virtually no knowledge of the scientific and material explanations that humankind has managed to suss out to this point...  well, quite frankly they're up shit creek with a turd for a paddle.

Before we had solid scientific truth, human understanding of the world necessarily included myth and fantasy. In many cases, the dominant myth-systems of the day were used as means of power and control to horrible ends.  Scientific sentiment and theory has also been used to such ends (eugenic sentiments as support for genocide, for example).  In neither case do I believe that the underlying systems were responsible for these atrocities; strip out the factors relating to dominance, power and control, these theories, myths, ideologies and belief systems lose their teeth and ability to drive good people to do evil things.

I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments on the role of imagination and the wonder of fiction.  However, I feel that we've done a very good job of stripping out much of the power that imagination and fiction could have in our lives by restricting the ways they are used. Imagination, and the wild, wonderful flights of self-expression that derive from it, is much too frequently enforced as being a thing for children, to be discarded as one approaches adulthood. Fiction is to be enjoyed as an escape from the world, but rarely allowed to be seriously approached as a commentary on or a guide to our lives. The insistence on 'belief' in spiritual or religious material and concepts creates a false dichotomy and dangerous divide between those who believe or do not believe this or that bit of scribbling by people (often lost to history) who have followed their imaginations to an understanding of some aspect of their life, their times or the problems facing their societies.  Instead, we split into little groups who insist that the problems of our times and societies can either be solved by pure rationalism and logic, or by blind adherence to an old set of rules which has little correspondence to our current conditions and current state of knowledge*. Neither appears to work very bloody well, IMHO.

_{*by example, I am always in awe of how much very sensible and practical public health policy is set out in Leviticus, considering the time in which it was written.  Until fairly recently, that book probably contained the best available set of procedures for dealing with mould-based 'sick building syndrome' (well, maybe not the bit about using a live bird to sprinkle the blood of a dead bird around the place), plus some overly harsh but quite practical measures for reducing exposure to Trichinella and red tide contaminated shellfish.  One might also wonder whether the restrictions on certain food animals and sources may have been designed to keep a nomadic people from settling in areas where they'd be in conflict with other tribes – I suspect it's hard to wander the desert with a herd of pigs instead of goats or cattle.}

I personally see great potential for personal satisfaction in consciously blurring the lines between fact and fantasy in the search for understanding and truth. This is the role I see exploring the metaphysical playing with respect to the individual. The great trick about this – which is admittedly rather difficult on a wholesale level – is to keep the appropriate amount of wink/nudge and awareness of the fact that what one is embracing as an explanation or model of understanding is not literally, factually 'true', and that this does not mean that it is in any way necessarily 'false' in essence.

On a community level, I see the greatest potential not in ideology or beliefs, but in creating a participatory culture of expression and pseudo-ritual. I feel that this is woefully lacking, and that in the rejection of the trappings of religion in secular society, we have all too often lost any means of dragging each other out of our individualist self-isolation and into a communal myth-space that has the ability to connect us and bond us together at the roots of authentic human experience. Our focus on rationalism and individualism has too often led us to view any use of one's abilities and talents for the purpose of promoting trans-individual experience, without or beyond any centrally-imposed narrative, as at least a waste of time, and even as a dangerous and socially deviant exercise. Especially in heterogeneous, immigrant-based societies, we have lost nearly all traces of folk culture or the ability to generate or participate in authentic folk culture and public festivity (unless it is carefully wrapped in the guise of financially profitable enterprise). We don't sing, we don't dance, we don't beat on drums, we rarely feast with those we don't know intimately, and if we do any of these things, they are stripped of any real expression, character or exuberance until they are 'safe'.  I find it confounding that in a society that worships private individualism, we also worship public conformance to the blandest and most highly sanitized standards of behaviours and expression possible. We may tolerate a fairly wide range of personal expression in fashion, speech or expression of beliefs in others, but the vast majority simply cannot tolerate these forms of expression in themselves, unless conducted with excellence.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I have long suspected that humans using fictional universes solely existing within the collective imaginations¹ of a shared experience.

Not all that long ago, as these things went, that collective imaginary space existed with the ritual story-telling; that was the only way we clever monkeys had, for we had not stumbled upon the notion of symbolizing our mouth-noises yet.

Then, for the longest of times, our collective imaginary universes² could only exist by way of words in a row.

And I think, this method both contributed to the expansion of the imaginary universe, but also to the loss of some of it's parts-- for words-in-a-row are necessarily limited, even if there are illustrations-in.   How to capture the reader's response to some Great Story?  Apart from the fortunate few, who were also clever monkeys, at least with regards to arranging words-in-a-row in a clever way.  As for the loss, we can never know-- those who's brains contained those parts are long gone from anything we may access in the here-and-now. 

But, I'm drifting a bit:  the latest incarnation of these imaginary universes, is in the form of pictures-in-a-row-- so clever are these modern monkeys, that the pictures fly by so fast, they fool our monkey-senses into seeing them as having a kind of alive-ness.

But, any monkey can see these fast-pictures-in-a-row, and marvel-- the requirement for the individual monkey-brain to contribute some imagination to go with, is greatly diminished.   It is sufficient to simply watch passively.

And I wonder at that-- is the latest method of story-telling, failing to teach our young, how to use their imaginations?

And, as I ponder that, I realize it's silly:  no, of course it isn't.  Moving-pictures is no detriment to the collective imaginary response than were the first written books--

-- and I've no doubt the oral storytellers lamented this "newfangled writing", back in their day, as the "end of all civilization as we know it".

Well. 

As it turned out?  They were actually right about that one!  Writing certainly did end the pre-literate phase of human culture-- for good or ill, it ended it definitively.

And who's to say what the invention of moving-picture telling of imaginary tales will have on the long-term civilization we clever monkeys have invented so far?

I suspect it will end the writing-only civilization in ways we cannot imagine.

But I also doubt very much, this clever, but watching monkey will be around to witness what it turns out to be.

And what about this latest phase of our clever monkey-ness?  The intertubes?

What will a tool that essentially connects the entire world together, instantly, have on these disparate and distinct cultures we clever monkeys have made for ourselves?

We've already seen one bona-fide miracle:  Egypt.   And the almost bloodless change of government, using that clever tool, the intertubes-- something that would have been impossible even 30 years previously.

I suspect Those That Control Power do not yet realize the genie they have unleashed upon the world; and I also suspect it has already grown beyond their ability to control--

--- even China's desperate attempts at bottling up the intertubes has not been successful.

I see it as the first Global Village-- the intertubes is a kind of Global Campfire, wherein we clever monkeys can tell our monkey-stories and describe monkey-imaginary Universes to the world at large.

Where we monkeys go from there?

Author C Clarke hinted in Childhood's end-- but I think he missed it, he imagined a sort of evolutionary next-step.

I think the next-step will be one of a global cultural revolution myself.


__________________________________

¹ both the author's and the even greater one within the minds of the readers--who always have a greater scope than the original authors-- that's the way of these things.

² and make no mistake-- there were always multiple universes, even within a mono-culture, no two individuals respond exactly the same to a Great Story.

[pieces o nine]

I enjoyed reading both of those posts, gentlemen.  Good thoughts to muse on.

[Aggie]

I see it as the first Global Village-- the intertubes is a kind of Global Campfire, wherein we clever monkeys can tell our monkey-stories and describe monkey-imaginary Universes to the world at large.

Where we monkeys go from there?

Author C Clarke hinted in Childhood's end-- but I think he missed it, he imagined a sort of evolutionary next-step.

I think the next-step will be one of a global cultural revolution myself.

Are you familiar with the works of Marshall McLuhan?  If not, I highly recommend you look into his ideas. Your post resonates strongly with them.

Ten years ago, I would have probably agreed with you.  These days, I take a rather more pessimistic view (evidenced by various rants around here), and think we will not be around a Global Campfire, but in a Global Daycare.  We will be allowed to play, and occasionally to learn the approved lesson plan, but we will be under such wonderful scrutiny that if we step out of line we will be given a time out or maybe even smacked.

Undoubtedly we are in the midst of a global cultural shift, but I now think we are moving from the bottom-up days of the internet into one where it is controlled from the top down.  I hope the freedom of pseudonymity continues to exist for a long time, but even at this point we've lost not-for-profit user-created platforms as the dominant form of online interaction. We are being strung along by the pied pipers of social networking into a monopolized, commercialized, centrally controlled version of the Internet, one where we beg Big Brother to keep us under its watchful eye, lest we be socially excommunicated. 

That is why I feel - to the core of my being - that it is vital to start bringing back social connectivity in the public space, in real life, and in a semi-anonymous fashion. If we are to recover genuine human connection, it's my opinion that we need to embrace the antithesis of social networking.

The Monastery has captured that feeling. This place feels like a Global Campfire. I want to bring it to the world.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

McLuhan is/was an interesting character.

But I think the genie (internet) is well out of the bottle:  to quote Princess Leah?

"the more you tighten your grip, the more they slip through your fingers"

[Aggie]

But I think the genie (internet) is well out of the bottle:  to quote Princess Leah?

"the more you tighten your grip, the more they slip through your fingers"

Perhaps I need a little clarification on the above.


With regards to oppressed societies using these new forms of media to effect social change, I don't disagree, and they are a source of optimism.  However, I also feel strongly that these new forms of media have the potential to reduce the actual level of free speech in free societies.  I can see several mechanisms by which this could work, and not all of it is inherently sinister.  

I may be guilty of a solipsistic outlook, but I am one of those cowardly types who would refrain from openly participating in a protest lest the Powers that Be start a file on me. I have no illusions that I'm safe from identification using a pseudonym if a determined entity was trying to track me down, but I'm terrified with the relative ease of creating automated profiles on EVERYONE and bulk monitoring for red flags in an identified online society. If I was forced into that sort of situation, you certainly wouldn't see content like the OP from me, and my internet output would be reduced to inanities. I fear a culture of self-censorship as much as overt crackdowns. Braver folks would likely disagree.

[Opsa]

So Aggie, how would you like to bring a Global Campfire to the world?

[Griffin NoName]

I really do feel this is the source of the happiness paradox in modern society – past a certain point of financial stability, a richer society is often a less happy one.

This has been verified by research - I don't have the reference to hand, but it was in my "Well-Being" module of the MSc. Poverty is linked with lack of feelings of well-being, but increased wealth past the point of having enough to live on does not bring any increase in well-being.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I've been pondering the problem of meaning for a while, both in the abstract and personal, and while my view is for the most part existentialist, there is always the difficulty of finding that meaning.

For too long we have been defined by our struggle to survive, we wondered about meaning but it was a short lived exercise, because most of the time we were dealing with survival, and if life proved to be too overwhelming, death soon followed, no time for depression when predators abound regardless if those were primeval or social predators.

Still the questions remained and some tried to answer them through either myth, religion or philosophy: is the struggle worth the effort? And ironically the less we struggle the harder it becomes to justify it, the longer we have to ponder what is the meaning of all this, the questions about our fortune and/or misfortune, luck or plan, chance, synchronicity or deeper meaning. We have learned to control our environment but yet we have little control over our own lives, which again reinforces the search for meaning.

I reject religion as a source for meaning, but the overwhelming majority of our fellow human beings embrace it, and it is my belief that it is so because it's an easy answer, because it easy to think that someone already had all the answers and that following some arcane rituals we can reach them too. Searching for our own answers is hard and potentially painful as it makes us confront our reality, our choices and our prospects for the future.

In contrast when we have to fight for survival, survival is it's own goal, it's own meaning, I exist to exist, I defy the odds and survive and I firmly stick my tongue out to fate for as long as I can. Not surprisingly, science pretty much says that that is the meaning, to survive, to leave our imprint on the world in some form or another, be it in the form of genes or works or ideas, we exist and we want to leave something behind, and that applies even to the most fervent believer.
----
As a side note, I have some nits to pick about Aggie's argument, I see plenty of stories out there, I see books and songs, paintings and symphonies, movies, theatre, even blogs and electronic forms like video games. I don't think it is necessarily mindless entertainment, as someone who occasionally incurs in show business, I can see the passion of those doing it, the meaning of their work and how the struggle is transformed in a search for meaning and perfection. I do acknowledge that I am privileged, I use the tiny bit of talent I have to give meaning to my own life, and I rejoice when I can see others doing the same, more so if my son is among them. I bet Opas feels the same way in the theatre, despite the long hours and low pay. Still, not only artistic talents are a gateway for meaning, ideas are too and those can give enormous meaning to someone's life.

Can everybody enjoy those meanings? Perhaps not, but then again the simple minded are more likely dealing with the struggles of life, and they can find meaning in their work, their children or perhaps (and I'm very judgmental by saying it) in religion.

[Griffin NoName]

Someone on TV just said the only meaning is to pass one's genes on. Bad news for the childless. Personally, while I have passed my genes on, I am not sure how meaningful I find it, lying around at home all day alone never seeng the products except on Skype for ten minutes a week. Sorry, probably threadjack.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

To me, meaning for life is only as much (or as little) as one chooses to give it.

By that, I mean-- life has whatever meaning we choose to assign to it-- being self-aware, it is entirely up to us to make that choice (or not-- some folk do not choose to make any meaning of their lives; and that's a kind of Zen meaning all of it's own).

That being said?  I think it's silly to confine "meaning" to simple genetics-- for indeed, every human is cross linked with every other human on the planet.  We are, each one of us, the progeny of those who came before, and we are each related to those that come after; regardless if we had a direct hand in passing them on, or only assisted from the sidelines.

I always rejected the (to me) very silly idea that there was some sort of magical link in one's own genes; as if other people's kids' genes were not equally magical?   Possessing of equal value?

Who cares where the genes came from-- all that matters is that they are human, right?  Meaning they are related to yours anyway.

If we share 95%+ genes with chimpanzees?  What is the rate at which we share genes with our neighbors?  Our distant friends on another continent?  99%?   Higher?  Does it matter all that much?

I say, it doesn't --

-- for certainly there are plenty of people who clearly care not one whit about the fate of any genetic offspring they may have produced.  And that is offset, I say more than offset, by people who care deeply for all humankind, regardless of who's genes shuffled the deck to produce them.

What is the meaning of life?

To live, to laugh, to love, to wonder, to learn something new, to taste again, a favorite recipe, to drink a newly opened wine, to exchange ideas with distant (and near) friends.

I could go on in this theme, but I think the point is made:  to be a cooperative species; cooperating in a variety of ways.

Why needs there be more than that?   Isn't that enough?  Isn't this small corner of an amazing universe enough?*

I think .... it is.

____________

_{* credit for these last two lines to Tim Minchin's beat-poem, Storm}

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

okay, if you cannot find it, or am unfamiliar with it, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw

[youtube=425,350]V0W7Jbc_Vhw[/youtube]

[Opsa]

Oh my god, what an awesome poem! (Well, not god, but, you know.)

Thank you.

I don't suppose that there is any one correct answer to "what is the meaning of life?" or "why are we here?". I don't even know why we ask the question. I don't think any answer suits everyone, and that's why we keep asking.

Factually speaking, we're just here and we're not all that important or unimportant. We're just a part of it all. If you love the universe, it should make you happy to know you belong to such an incredible set of random chances which includes toadfish and shooting stars and everything beautiful.

[Aggie]

okay, if you cannot find it, or am unfamiliar with it, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw

Oh, I liked that.

_{however.... and perhaps}  

...it's another example of the _{in my not-so-humble-opinion} bullshit black/white this-or-that divisive I-Have-The-Truthism I alluded to in the second paragraph of the OP.

[rant]I get screaming bloody frustrated (at least on the inside - I do try to maintain decorum) when I hear dismissals of science like those referenced in the poem. I FREAKING LOVE SCIENCE! It steams me up nearly as bad - actually, probably more - when I hear mangled bits of scientific fact mashed into 'theories' to support someone's pet fantasy*. Oh, I could rant here too about those that condemn the commercialism of the medical industry while naively thinking that any company peddling 'natural' medicine is doing it out of the kindness of their heart. Suckering those types is an even better game (albeit a smaller one) than peddling effective trial-based medicine, because the stuff doesn't even actually have to work on an empirical basis, and in most cases there's a much lower risk of serious side effects**.

<sub>*I am walking on thin ice here; due to my background, I tend to use fairly scientific language and rational thought-processes to explore my pet fantasies. Allow me the indulgence of continuing to think this is a different thing.  

**I do personally use herbs and foods as my first choice for dealing with minor complaints, the sort of stuff that one would use over-the-counter medication for. IMHO most of these cures are not nearly as effective at addressing acute symptoms compared to OTC drugs, but give you a bit of comfort while you're toughing out a minor complaint. In response to the poem's claim that natural medicine that works is called 'medicine' let me say: Natural medicine based on a single active component that can be extracted, tested in double-blind trials and effectively synthesized in a lab is called 'medicine'. Wholistic lifestyle-based approaches to health are called 'bunk', because they aren't as profitable as Doritos and getting people to park their ass in front of the TV, which coincidentally does rather increase the chances they'll need that good ol' modern medicine. Disclaimer: I'd be dead several times over without modern antibiotics.</sub>

However, I am also irked by the goddamned smugness of those so enamoured with and idolizing of Science that they cannot stand the thought that there may be other valid forms of knowing and knowledge available to humankind, and revel in belittling anyone that takes it upon themselves to seek for other forms. I have no doubt that scientific investigation, given an infinite amount of time, is capable of explaining the entire scope of the material universe. To think that the knowledge we currently have comes anywhere close to that is as foolish as stuffing faeries, gods and bugbears in to fill the gaps.  I also find ridiculous the starting premise that scientific exploration of the material, physical world can draw any conclusions whatsoever about the metaphysical. I would assume it's about as effective as using meditation as the main method of acquiring scientific knowledge.  [/rant]

(good to see I've at least placed the thread in the right area of the forum  )


Meta-physical....  beyond the physical...  something that by definition can't be addressed by physical exploration.  One of my personal guiding principals is that where the metaphysical and scientific principals disagree in describing the mechanisms of the physical world, the metaphysical explanation is overstepping it's application.  Automatic win for science. Metaphysical models aren't meant to be taken literally, IMHO. They are metaphors, methods of working with the limitations of the human mind to understand at a profound level what's going on behind the scenes of the physical mechanisms without the necessity of intimately understanding those mechanisms. It occurs to me that perhaps the reason that some of our most brilliant scientific minds (Dawkins or Hawking) strike out so strongly against the metaphysical is that they CAN grapple directly with the physical at a profound level. Not all of us can do so, even if we can follow along with their gracious explanations.  Exploring the metaphysical can offer surprisingly effective shortcuts to actually grokking the essence of aspects of our existence on a level that isn't reached (for me) by conceptually understanding the physical explanations.


Referencing the poem again...  it's those endless afternoons on Wiki-fucking-pedia, my ability to Google, to access this amazing, beautiful compilation of freely available information and Real. Solid. Fact. that we can now literally carry around like spare change in the pockets of our jeans that has to some degree devalued knowledge for me.  On a personal level, what the hell is the point of the acquisition of knowledge anymore? On a societal - no, a species level, the current availability and accessibility of knowledge makes further acquisition of knowledge via scientific investigation more important than ever - it's absolutely critical that we continue to accelerate our exploration now that we have the means to share and store this information.  However, for me as an individual, it seems largely pointless to learn anything more than I currently know unless it's in direct support of gaining a larger understanding of something I'm bending my mind to (hasn't yet stopped me from spending endless afternoons on Wiki-fucking-pedia to indulge my curiosity about everything and anything, but there's a growing sense of futility when I catch myself doing it). Knowing isn't understanding.  Not even close, sometimes. To me, it's the difference between studying a nicely illustrated recipe in a cookbook and sitting down to savour the smells, the taste, the mouthfeel and warmth of the prepared meal. Eating that meal, I might be able to guess what's in it or how it was prepared, but I certainly do not have the knowledge of it that someone who's studied the recipe does, but who has the greater understanding of what that meal is?


Isn't this enough? Just This World? Just this beautiful, complex wonderfully unfathomable, Natural World?


NO! I'm quite sorry, my dear Siblings, but for me this beautiful complex world is more than just a ticking clock to be stripped down to its gears and springs, to be laid out in careful figures, catalogued and categorized. Knowing how the clock fits together tells you little about the nature of time, and so it is with the world. This wonderful, natural world draws at me, calls to me, teases me and challenges me to open my eyes wider than I thought possible, to stare into those depths and seek to fathom the unfathomable, to see beyond the physical and to use any mode of perception I have or can create to align with it, find my place in it, and perchance to dream that by understanding it I may understand myself. Not to stuff it with monsters, not to take my wonder and awe as evidence that it was wished here by some bearded Sky-Father, not to shelter from the terror of the unknown in stories of eternal Paradise, but to embrace that wonder and awe and stride towards that terrible unknown with an open heart.

THAT is why I embrace the metaphysical. Your mileage may vary.
__________________________________________________________

_{I rather meant to address a few other posts, before launching into a three-hour rant.  I'll try to reply in the near future.}

[Opsa]

Aggie my dear, the poem was really good, and I really enjoyed it, but it was tremendously smug. At first I grimaced a bit when the word "vegetarian" was spat out as if all vegetarian opinion is to be disregarded as trash, but I also understood the whole thing to be tongue-in-cheek.

Here's a guy drunk at a dinner party going off like drunk guys at dinner parties will. They always think they know everything and wind up looking like dicks even when they think they are brilliant. My brother is one of these people. If he starts going off I immediately try to swerve the conversation, because no-one will win and he will wind up convinced he is right simply because he has a bunch of "factoids" (so help me, he really uses that word) that he got from whatever sources he believes to be the truth, and they cannot be refuted. By the way, my brother is an Xtian republican. If he had been at that dinner party there would have been nothing left of either of those guys. Wouldn't that be existentially ironic... _{now, how to arrange it?}

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is a [missing] balance thing there, yes, alternative medicine is called alternative because it hasn't been thoroughly proved and when it is positively proved it becomes conventional medicine, and certainly conventional drugs save and help billions of people, but drug companies do engage in profiteering and push habits to gain profit.

I think there is a distinction between been wishy-washy believing in the power of crystals or some other [mostly] non-sensical stuff, and looking for evidence in a number of non conventional places. On the same token, if someone starts talking filled with self righteousness about the power of crystals, etc, then they can IMNSHO chastised for selling BS. In the end what is bothersome is the self-righteousness regardless where it comes from, be it a right wing hawk, a hippie, a fundamentalist believer, and a radical atheist, it is the same: I am right, you are wrong and I am better than you because of it.
---
As for Aggie's point, is the natural world enough? For some it may be, for some clearly it isn't, and the main point is not being judgmental about it, because deeper meaning doesn't have to be metaphysical, but it can be and there shouldn't be a problem with either view.

[Opsa]

*rumble* on what Zone said!

Being well aware that I don't know it all, I try to keep my mind open to the unknown. I have been put down for being wishy-washy about things only because I try very hard not to say that I know certain things as undeniable facts. To me it's not being wishy-washy at all. It's being truthful. I really don't know, and I really don't think they do, either, no matter how much they spout that they know the facts. I know darned well that much of what people claim as fact is only theory. Theory is only what might be true.

I do not feel confused when I smile at the universe, and accept the theory that I'm a teensy part of it. I feel happy. I do feel bad when blowhards ruin a good buzz, though.

But I do love a good humorous poem, beautifully performed!

[Aggie]

It was also a piece of comedy, and I did find it rather amusing.  Really, the poem did not spark the rant, but did provide several very nice points of inspiration to jump off from.

I'm not trying to be persuasive with these rants, but apparently I still feel the need to justify my position. I suppose it's my atheist past raising an eyebrow at me.  I feel comfortable to do so here.  Thank you, dear Siblings, for allowing me to rant. To allow me to develop and share ideas, and have ideas brought to me in return.



--------

As a side note, I have some nits to pick about Aggie's argument, I see plenty of stories out there, I see books and songs, paintings and symphonies, movies, theatre, even blogs and electronic forms like video games. I don't think it is necessarily mindless entertainment, as someone who occasionally incurs in show business, I can see the passion of those doing it, the meaning of their work and how the struggle is transformed in a search for meaning and perfection. I do acknowledge that I am privileged, I use the tiny bit of talent I have to give meaning to my own life, and I rejoice when I can see others doing the same, more so if my son is among them. I bet Opas feels the same way in the theatre, despite the long hours and low pay. Still, not only artistic talents are a gateway for meaning, ideas are too and those can give enormous meaning to someone's life.

The arts have enormous potential for finding meaning.  The one aspects of the arts that somewhat dismays me (and I genuinely do not mean this to be critical of the arts community) is how it is too often held separate and is not subject to general consumption.  I do not mean to point fingers at why this is; I just regret that it's the current state of affairs.  

You are right that there are valid shared narratives in the myriad forms of storytelling (despite not being much of a gamer, I'll quite readily concede that some games have deeply profound story-lines; I'm thinking back to even the early Squaresoft RPGs). I may feel a little disconnected from the shared experience of some of these as I've voluntarily removed myself as a consumer of most TV and films. Where we connect over these narratives, they can bring a sense of shared meaning.

What is the meaning of life?

To live, to laugh, to love, to wonder, to learn something new, to taste again, a favorite recipe, to drink a newly opened wine, to exchange ideas with distant (and near) friends.

I could go on in this theme, but I think the point is made:  to be a cooperative species; cooperating in a variety of ways.

So Aggie, how would you like to bring a Global Campfire to the world?

Where I think we are starting to lose the plot is in genuine, face-to-face participatory experience. I think Bob's bang-on here; there is great meaning in all the things he mentions above. To share these things with friends brings even more meaning.  The meaning one gets from these things isn't something that can be put into words; for me, I don't think "what is the meaning of life?" is a question that can be answered by a string of words. However, I don't think it necessarily needs to consist solely of a string of experiences, either.  I would like to think it's possible to find a big-picture composite meaning based on one's experiences, thoughts, dreams and ideas, all of a piece. With shared experience, I think perhaps the meaning of one's life starts to creep outward and become larger than just my meaning or your meaning. The more we can share experience, the more pieces of the puzzle start to come together, and the bigger the picture gets.  I feel that over the last year or two, I've started to live more in a continuous stream of meaning and experience life less as a fairly meaningless background punctuated by small flashes of meaning (warning: it's addictive  ).

There's great potential, IMHO, for finding meaning in shared group experiences. These type of experiences DO currently exist, most notably as sporting events and large concerts.  This type of experience is powerful at the individual level, and the most epic events of this type can create a shared bond of meaning and experience between people that weren't even actually in attendance - Woodstock being a notable example of this.

I do feel the need to start finding ways to bring shared experience back into the public space. Where I would like to start bringing a Global Campfire to the world - starting with baby steps! - is in my own sleepy little town. I intend to start busking this spring / summer, and encouraging others to do the same, in order to start bringing music and spectacle back to the streets. This seems to me to be the best place to start, as it demands virtually nothing _{(other than enduring my rather, erm, interesting singing voice  )} from the passerby.  No admission fee, no requirement to plan their schedule or take time to sit and take in a concert, just a bit of something in their day that they wouldn't expect, but that they will end up having in common with anyone else who happened to wander by.  The weather's good here, and it's not inconceivable that, with enough time and enthusiasm, the spring and summer season could see a multitude of performers present in the downtown core on any given day (we're a tourist town, so most of downtown is quite pleasant to wander around, pretty clean, with wide sidewalks and the like). A small step, but a significant one, I think.

-------

I think there is a distinction between been wishy-washy believing in the power of crystals or some other [mostly] non-sensical stuff, and looking for evidence in a number of non conventional places. On the same token, if someone starts talking filled with self righteousness about the power of crystals, etc, then they can IMNSHO chastised for selling BS. In the end what is bothersome is the self-righteousness regardless where it comes from, be it a right wing hawk, a hippie, a fundamentalist believer, and a radical atheist, it is the same: I am right, you are wrong and I am better than you because of it.

*rumble*  

You're quite right - it's not the ideology or the belief system that makes an individual a little hard to take, it's the way they approach others with those ideas. There's a whole range of approaches, but self-righteousness is terrible indeed. There's also the flip side - how receptive we are to perspectives that bear they type of red flags that make us shut our ears. I think the reason I feel quite vulnerable in my position - keeping essentially a rationalist thought-process, but willing to use metaphysical tools and processes to assist where needed - is that some of what I dally with DOES contain these red flags.  I would not be unwilling to use crystals or whatever _{(I've used self-made 'charms' in the past, and have actually picked up a few crystals out of curiosity - don't do much for me personally)}, with the mindset that these things are tools and ways of focusing my mind, not magic beans that have mystical powers in and of themselves.

Foaming-at-the-mouth insistence that a given object or method has real empirical value independent of the user, OTOH, is what really sets off my back-away-o-meter. It smacks way too much of dogma and of 'secret knowledge', and there's a bad tendency to progress towards self-righteousness whenever that crops up. Anyone who thinks that they are sitting with knowledge of The Truth, and that the rest of the world is deluded, will be very, very strongly tempted to look down on people that don't share that perspective. That goes as much for idolization of Science as anything else. I find it more helpful to try to discuss not what a person believes, but how they are using that set of beliefs in their own life and in the world around them. Therein lies the truest indication of whether a belief system or perspective is self-improving or self-harming. Over-attachment to objects or symbols, a written text, or an idolized set of rules and principles is very often maladaptive, and to me signals a need to look deeper at why one is drawn so strongly to those things. Looking behind the focus-points of belief systems and seeing moneymaking or power/control interests at play also raises red flags for me.

As for Aggie's point, is the natural world enough? For some it may be, for some clearly it isn't, and the main point is not being judgmental about it, because deeper meaning doesn't have to be metaphysical, but it can be and there shouldn't be a problem with either view.

Very valid point.  Thank you.

I was discussing this with a (quite twinkie) friend yesterday.  We both share the feeling that simply moving through life passively is not enough for us and would be maladaptive.  We also both feel that there is a fairly significant part of the population that are moving through life passively simply because they don't know or aren't able to consider other ways of living and are experiencing some level of distress because of it.

However, we also conceded that there is likely some percentage of people that are perfectly happy and fulfilled by moving through life passively, following the same routine, never learning or growing or experiencing the things that us more restless types are driven to chase. What business do we have trying to convince such people that their way of being is somehow wrong? It's a great conceit of the self-righteous that the people unaware of their Great Truth are somehow in deep misery and need to be woken from their slumber. I'm willing to offer my perspectives to those who ask them _{(or are forum-bound to endure them )} but my perspectives and modes of understanding are deeply personal and wouldn't make much sense to most people.

I am actually a little in awe of my dear Siblings that can take a full measure of comfort from Just This. It seems y'all are better adapted than I am.  Please be patient with the restless souls who drive themselves to great lengths trying to find ways to rest in the simple understanding that seems easy to you.  

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Still taking it all in--

-- and, as I hope I made clear, I have no beef at all with anyone who wishes to look for more than the material-- go for it.

I truly hope they find what they are looking for -- or at least something similar--  as the Rolling Stones quipped:  you can't always get what you want, but sometimes, you get what you need...



It's just that, for me, the amazing complexity of the universe at large is more than enough-- the more I dig into the popular-press bits about where quantum physics is taking us, with the in-depth discussion of whats in a vacuum (answer:  not nothing, for sure) to the notion that sub-atomic particles is only another step on a seemingly ever-descending path to the minuscule .. to other amazing things...

... is more than enough to make meaning out of life.

So long as I am able to continue to learn?  What else do I need?

[Aggie]

 

I've been a little... profuse lately. It might actually take less time to just sit down and watch My Dinner with Andre than read all that.  Same discussion, essentially. 

[Opsa]

  My siblings are wonderfully taddy, and it occurs to me that, if anything, I wish we could share this taddiness with the rest of the world. But, as Aggie indicates, not everyone wishes to operate this way. I just wonder how we can go about finding those that do.

I have told my Xtian Right brother that people tend to not be receptive when they are invited to a conversation with terms equivalent to "Look Here, You Big, Stupid Idiot", or "Any Pinhead Knows", but that's how he tends to phrase things. Then he wonders why they don't listen.  I might like to be educated as to his point of view, but it's hard to do when he puts it like that.

We're trying to avoid that, here. It is a pleasure to read any rant here, especially when it's from a trusted sibling, because I know that we are dedicated to trying to hear each other out. It occurs to me that it's easier because we can go on at length without being interrupted. It would be interesting to see how we would do in a live situation.

I think that in some ways science is equivalent to The Great Whatever, but culture gets in the way of people being able to accept that. If one person believes that all non-Atheists believe in the Old-Man-in-the-Sky theory, that would be inaccurate. It's a way of blocking opposing information, as my brother does, through the putting-down of the other guy. If another person assumes that all Atheists are against his/her religion, that is inaccurate, too. 

There seems to be a slight apples to oranges problem with comparing science to metaphysics. Science has to do with trial and error theories and metaphysics has to do with philosophy. Are they the same, or only similar?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

...

There seems to be a slight apples to oranges problem with comparing science to metaphysics. Science has to do with trial and error theories and metaphysics has to do with philosophy. Are they the same, or only similar?

I think they are two sides of the human condition-coin.   But that's just me.

The sciencey side looks at the mechanisms behind how stuff works:  what was the first living thing like (on earth)?  How did it get from that to the diversity we see today?  What mechanisms were involved?  And so on.

Or to put it even plainer:  science explains how to make bread from wheat, and how to slice the bread into slices, and how to place slices into a toaster, and how the toaster turns that bread slice into toast.

A lovely, heavenly, perfect slice of toast.

Philosophy, on the other hand?   Seeks to explain not only why life began, but why the eating of that perfect piece of buttered toast with that oh-so-perfect layer of your gran'ma's secret recipe of black current jam, makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside and gives you not only the willingness to face the day, but the desire to do so too.

Science is like Popular Mechanics or The Myth Busters.

Philosophy is more like Opra or Thomas Jefferson's Bible or Monty Python's Flying Circus' the Meaning of Life or why we will go back inside a burning house to rescue the family photo album-- the one with the baby pictures and the lost family dog innit.

Science does it's best to explain how the fire started and why the building is continuing to burn in spite of the best efforts to put it out.

Philosophy attempts to explain why the entire neighborhood turned out to volunteer in the bucket-brigade, and why the firepeople-- total strangers to anyone inside-- risked their lives not once, not twice, but multiple times going back inside to be absolutely certain no one is left inside-- not even the family cat.

Science can demonstrate how the blood flow in the brain changes under the effects of various emotional states, and can unravel the chemical triggers that happen under each of these conditions.

Philosophy attempts to explain why we call some emotional states "love" and others "hate", even though the brain-scan images, and chemical traces are quite similar.   Moreover, philosophy attempts to explain why we do these things (emotional states) willingly, over and over, in spite of the risks and dangers of each.

Science is a textbook.

Philosophy is a collection of poetry.  Written on organic, vegetarian-crafted near-vellum, just because.  With a quill pen, for the effect.  By moonlight.   Bound in free-range hemp fibers, because the author knows how sensitive the reader is with regards to these things.  And just because... again.  And presented with great fan-fare, on not just any old day, but on a particular anniversary.  But... for no reason other than... just because yet again.

Science says, "Look at a typical human baby.  Measurements of the head with respect to the body, indicate  a much larger ratio than for an adult.  Also the ratio of the size of the eyes with respect to the infant nose is remarkable, when contrasted with an adult's eye diameters, and nose sizes.  Note also, the mouth is typically larger on an infants, than on a similar sized adult's face."

Philosophy says, "Awwwww.  it's a baby.   Ain't it cute?"

[Aggie]

There seems to be a slight apples to oranges problem with comparing science to metaphysics. Science has to do with trial and error theories and metaphysics has to do with philosophy. Are they the same, or only similar?

I don't think it's comparing apples to oranges so much as apples to fluffy pink kittens.

Oop, I see that Bob's posted first.  All I can say is:   

*RUMBLE*


Myself? I don't see how any of this metaphysical stuff is a threat to or in conflict with scientific principles, or vice versa. I've never seen any indication of it.  I may admit to having a slight itch to take a very taddy clue-by-four to the head of those who insist that such a conflict exists, from any position on the spectrum.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Fluffy pink kittehs...

... yes!

Philosophy is fluffy pink kittehs... an' teh puppehs... an' teh cuteses little birdehs.... yes!

Philosophy is why certain sub-atomic particles have the property labeled "charm"¹....




_______________

_{¹ instead of "two" as was the initial suggestion....}

[Aggie]

Keeping a few fluffy pink kittehs around the lab is what keeps science from being merely a tool to destroy the earth and all the species on it as efficiently and profitably as possible. Thankfully, much of scientist-culture (and here I'm talking about the academics) involves much silliness, humour and absurdity.  I think that's a prerequisite to keep sane when dealing with Very Serious Matters.  I wish that could be said for more of the world's current crop of religionists. Those dealing exclusively in fluffy pink kittehs have a bad habit of trying to shave them, paint them black and make them sit very, very still. Kind of defeats the point, no?

Long live the kittehs!



I've mulled what label I'd choose if I was forced to find a label to sum up my metaphysical stance _{(when one occasionally sits in on discussions with three ladies who call themselves the Medium, the Witch and the Shaman, one thinks of such things)}. The closest I can come up with is 'philosopher-mystic'. I can't say I'm very brilliant at either aspect  , but that's my mode of operation. Long, rational* ponderings combined with brief intuitive leaps.

_{*in terms of process, not necessarily content!}

[pieces o nine]

Ye not-gods, Bob!   

Yer a twinkie-spewin' poet!   

[Opsa]

So, what we're saying here is that there is a place for apples and fluffy pink kittehs and long live both of them.

Apples are good for my body because they provide some needed nutrients, moisture and fiber, and fluffy pink kittehs are good for my soul because the thought of them makes living more wonderful.

[Aggie]

Ye not-gods, Bob!   

Yer a twinkie-spewin' poet!   

Ayuh, he groks.