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

[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.