The flawed concepts of meaning and purpose in human existence

I was aware of the pantheistic/holistic/ we are God... aspects of Spinoza's concept. The "self who is God" is merely a statement from the point of view of "self" in the role of a hypothetical meta -observer who conceives of an "enclosed whole". As for the dissipated self of "transcendental" reference, this is associated with ineffable formless timeless quiescence.

So that's a "no" then.

BTW Hardly "innovative". Check out some of the pantheists on the "Science a Gogo" forum (e.g. Revlgking). You could do some mutual back slapping there !

"So that's a "no" then. "

This is exactly the infantile "point proving" stance that saddens me.

Dear, dear...is it lonely on the soap box then?
( ..but see my later edit for a contact who might wipe away your sadness ).

Most likely the reason why this discourse is flying over these critics heads is because they are so obsessed with having an "answer" for everything.

This discourse cuts to the core of that issue, by showing the flaws of meaning and purpose in the light of Art. Which also throws out having "answers".

Well these pseudo-intellects can't have that!! The MUST have an answer and retort for everything.

ugh

Dear, dear...is it lonely on the soap box then?

road less traveled my friend.

Only a hypocrite would start with the nebulous axiom of "the Divine" and then accuse others of seeking "answers". Wake up ! "Creativity" (artistic or otherwise) is meaningless without structure, and that structure, like "God", is anthropocentrically defined.

You left out the main word which is "ARTISTRY". So no its not hypocritical to say that Artistry wether Divine or not needs an answer. Again that is the whole point of the discourse.

"Creativity" (artistic or otherwise) is meaningless without structure,"

So what? Who needs meaning? again that is what is argued in this discourse.

Whoah, fresco, this thread may not be the appropriate place to do it, but i have to ask: Is it your contention that all meaning-structures are necessarily anthropocentric? Even in the religious sphere that statement would seem hyperbolic.

All questions which start with a premise of a "conscious self" seeking "the purpose of its existence" are necessarily anthropocentric, since we can assume "self-hood" is peculiar to homo-sapiens and appears to be a function of language use (Dennett). Since language is the set of socially acquired spectacles though which we "selves" segment "the world" there is indeed a case that the majority of "meaning-structures" are anthropocentric.

However there may be minority routes out of that dilemma, for example, the analysis of "languaging activity" in humans and other species by systems biologists like Maturana is one attempt to sidestep or transcend anthropocentricity. Ethnolinguistic analysis in the spirit of Kuhn's paradigms may be another, with which we can also associate the thoughts of Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Foucault regarding the ontologically a priori status of language.

...So why is it that you refuse the small step from mind to information by extending the same principle to Nature itself ? just look to DNA Fresco...

..because from the "systems viewpoint" the living organism is informationally closed. The concept of "information" to confined to a (verbal) observer realm in which prediction and control are paramount. To get a handle on ontology this realm must be transcended. (I gave you the reference which you claimed to have understood).

Honestly I can't make heads or tails from what you said just there...To assume that there is a system view point it is not to say that we can incarnate it...what we can't know with certainty does not instantiate what there is, and yet to doubt it is to assume it...even if only to describe it by pattern reduction, through us...

Someone said and correctly in my opinion that modern Philosophy suffers from a bipolar disorder when it concerns mind matter dispute over Reality...one in which each side imposes an all or nothing stance with no conceptions to the other side...

It may well be that Truth lye's somewhere between with fundamental substance incorporating in several layers aspects which now are solely attributed to mind...language as an interaction of functions in an holistic set brings the impression of mind being everywhere with a progressive expressiveness.

...it should read concessions...(apologies)

Maturana is a bit tough (though you may be able to read him in Spanish). Try chapter 2 of this Goudsmit paper if you want to know what I'm talking about.
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/ppsw/1998/a.l.goudsmit/thesis.pdf

...now I can see what you meant with system...I was referring instead into a System as a Whole, well you know...

Now, how is this any different from Piaget´s accommodation for instance ?
...there´s nothing substantially new there...and there are several obvious critiques that one can do upon such view.

if it is the case that there are perturbations which provoke a inner reaction in the subject then one fails to understand how these two systems interact if to be considered real closed...I find hard to try and build a transcendent relation process between to systems that actually can interact with no pattern relation in between...remember Leibniz and its monads...even if it was the case that we all live in "black holes" that alone would n´t proof anything...

My view is that given our specificity, our locality, our circumstance, we do indeed have different perspectives upon the world around us, as I do accept that our inner condition plays a part on how we perceive it...nevertheless there is a correlation between my view, someone close to me, and someone further apart or more distant in the social chain...there is a progressive closeness in perspective and description of reality to those with whom I share my world daily...and that alone if not to go further instantiates the presence of justified correlations between the interacting agents through pattern recognition and function assembly...language itself is the best example of this...

One can go further in deepening the problem and ask, how is it that Maturana explains inner interactions of mind itself ? We end up with the same problem either way...there is a need for a non transcendent function relational system which refers itself as a whole call it mind or substance, that is of no importance...there (in whatever place that is) it must be an actual state of affairs which is the one we can refer as Truth independently of the scope of this truth being enlarged beyond human condition and also of course having nothing to do with the epistemic problem...that is, if all Truth were to be just human experience in nature we would still need to understand how mind alone assembles itself and how does it bring functional interaction between its components in order to form complex conceptual systems...so what is in mind that relates ? what are the rules ? what makes it true ?
On close inspection one can then perceive that there´s no substantial change from rationalism to empiricism...

I come to conclude that either mind is the condition of all substances or all substances have the property´s of relational mind functionality in a progressive layer of complexity...not matter what end you peak first, it means and refers the same...

(My original reply to you seems to have disappeared. I will get back to you tomorrow).

OK thanks Fresco. See you around tomorrow !

It all boils down to a concept of "satisfactory explanation". Maturana assigns our predisposition to "predict and control" to the realm of the "observer" and these are normal aspects of the word "satisfactory". But he basically argues that "life processes" themselves cannot be approached by this linear (causal chain) paradigm. According to him it is futile to ask (e.g,) how "the mind" relates to "the body" or "the world". For him, those three "words" are merely shifting nodes of resonance between two organisms engaged in "structural coupling".

So what, you may ask, is he saying "of significance"? For me, he encapsulates the open endedness of epistemology and ontology. Living "systems" both contain and are contained in other "systems" , the mathematical modelling of which implies the possibility of infinite nesting. It also reflects Godels incompleteness theorem. The hitherto "independent observer" must recognize the his consciousness is part of such "systems" which are technically "at the mercy" of the nuances of models such as chaos theory.

In this respect, Maturana, like Wittgenstein, assigns philosophy to the function of "therapy". He eliminates "problems of consciousness" by deflating "consciousness" by delimiting its usage within "languaging".
And by talking about "languaging activity" rather than "what language conveys" he takes a step away from anthropocentricity towards a more general set of principles.

And why should we accept such iconoclasm ? Maturana suggests such acceptance is visceral !