'Why anything?'

@wayne,

Wayne, I like your ideas immensely, especially this hypothetical machine that creates 'matter'. Very sci fi! Although, I have problems with the idea of competition in todays contemporary context. It was Carl Sagan that said 'An organism at war with itself is doomed' (considering this planet is that organism), and so this very idea that our evolution depends on this ability to compete with each other, is perhaps leading us to a future of unimaginable depravity (teleologically speaking, it probably wouldn't even matter). This modern age exemplifies the individual for competition and as a result we see the 'fakeness' of amity in our politicians; we see veiled enmity between countires merely for their economic situation. Is it right to stand by and say this is just evolution working? What I think is important to remember is how we can volunteer our time in creating awareness of peoples empathy and amity towards each other.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

We all like to dream of this utopia, but the fact is, it ain't so.
Our sun will eventually exhaust it's mass, at which point it will go nova expanding in size until, goodbye planet earth.
Human beings are life forms, subject to all the same rules as other life forms.
We aren't the center of the universe after all.
Most of us are so interested in the big picture, and our egos, that we miss the small show. It is a simple matter to make the world a better place, simply be a better person. The world and it's peoples are fine enough, when I quit excusing and justifying my own behaviors.
Kindness, tolerance, patience, forgiveness; especially when I can justify otherwise. We choose to have enemies in this world, and we're always more interested in how joe blow is acting than in our own actions.

2 Replies

@wayne,

Thanks wayne. I agree it is kind of pointless talking about this stuff knowing the inevitable; and it is obvious that we are not the centre of the universe. The ideas of the 'other', 'the big picture', can perhaps be non essential for mere living. I think your right to direct people back on thier own actions and thier own lives. Yet moods do play their part in percieving life and how some act. Sometimes people can't choose to have a bad day. (By the way, I f*#%$^@ hate the Jonses') Smile

0 Replies

@wayne,

Right, Wayne, we are not the centre of the Universe. The idea that we are is very narcissistic. As I see it, the reality is better: We ARE the Universe.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Yes indeed, although I am uncertain whether "we are the universe" is exactly right, I've been thinking "the universe is us" may be closer to truth.
I am presently thinking of us as an expression of the universe, we are the universe' own observer.
Our happiness and sense of purpose seems to hinge largely on our fulfillment of the role, Observer.
The universe needs us, our role is important.

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

My problem is perhaps shared and thought of by others and it concerns identity, purpose and the overall 'progression of the species'. It would seem our species is shooting for something that is considerably far into our future, yet I wonder on whose behalf and who are we all 'comfortably' riding the coat tails of? Those thinkers among you may perhaps have thought of an infinite inevitability which perhaps may find itself an end (God?), yet we can always think what is beyond.

So the problem that I have is that although there are meanings and points to life that we either make ourselves, that are given, or we are inspired by; I will argue that by mere switching of moods or disposition these meanings dissapear as everything may seem bleak or pointless. I honestly don't think that eradictaing peoples bad moods would help either for that maybe encroaching on the territory of population control (ideas that were perhaps intitiated by the Eugenics movement early 20th century which inspired Hitler's regime). And the concepts of 'self' are in a simmilar vein as ideas of the 'self' seemingly reinvent itself with time and could be considered no more than bundles of experiences, thoughts, memories etc.. any one time someone asks 'who are you?' So, considering these things, what then of the human identity and it's progression towards the future? What is the point if no one (I literally mean 'no one') can ever get to the bottom of the question 'Why anything?' without resorting to temporal fixes on life or actually being in contact with the 'creator' (which of course is highly dubious) when we should be answering these sorts of questions with a deep sense of bold curiousity for the future. Treat my line of questioning as a provocation to think deeper about ourselves and to arrive at ideas that can touch all bases within the confines of society (ie. spirituality, health, duty.. etc). Ultimately, will our species be better or worse off in the future?

I don't know "why" I am here, I only know that I am. I also have a problem with the word "why" because it tends to have a bit of a imposed reasoning which robs the question entirely. What is so bad about life begging life because that is what self replicating life does? Does there need to be a point or a reason? I am the ultimate expression of life being able to perceive and know itself. I honestly don't care about "why" I am here, but I am curious to "how" I came to be here. How is a much more meaningful question to me rather than a why question.

Some days I love life, other days I don't. For all it's worth I am lucky and glad that I get to experience it, even if nothing happens after it ends. I couldn't care any less if there is an after life. I think it would only rob this life if there was. If this life is solely to appeal to some kind of "god" then I am sad to say that I lived it. My only purpose is to chose it or perish in torment and agony? What a pathetic god that would be and far less than worthy of any sort of praise on my part.

So I don't need to know why, nor care to know why but while I am aware I will experience it as I can both good and bad because that is what I am.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote

Quote:

I don't know "why" I am here, I only know that I am.
Some days I love life, other days I don't.

(emphasis mine)

G.I. Gurdjieff wrote

Quote:

Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says "I". Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small "I"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "I". And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Krumple wrote

Quote:
I don't know "why" I am here, I only know that I am.
Some days I love life, other days I don't.
(emphasis mine)

G.I. Gurdjieff wrote

Quote:
Man has no permanent and unchangeable I. Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says "I". Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small "I"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "I". And each time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.

It is true that the self is constantly changing and technically can not be compared with each other. For convenience of language and communication the use of "I" is necessary. Just like the waters of the river are never the same water, so are the I and self. So does it matter that I use the word I? Is it necessary to remove it's use? Would you be able to understand the conversation had it been removed?

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Thank you Krumple for your insights. You said 'How is a much more meaningful question to me rather than a why question.' I won't disagree that it may be more meaningful but consider that any form of question that implicitly tries to draw an answer or answers from the unknown is merely trying to open doors to new forms of knowledge, whether those new forms of knowledge are actually meaningful may be arbitrary. I think certain 'why' questions often get to the 'crux' of a 'truthful reason', yet know that if one were to keep asking why to anything, it seemingly never gets down to an actual 'crux' of things. Is it perhaps that there is a 'comfortable zone' with our meaningful knowledge and that knowing the what's, how's, where's, why's etc.. keeps us with a level of own self fulfilment that we are content with? Would you agree if I said that humans are curious creatures? (some more than others)

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

I think certain 'why' questions often get to the 'crux' of a 'truthful reason', yet know that if one were to keep asking why to anything, it seemingly never gets down to an actual 'crux' of things. Is it perhaps that there is a 'comfortable zone' with our meaningful knowledge and that knowing the what's, how's, where's, why's etc.. keeps us with a level of own self fulfilment that we are content with? Would you agree if I said that humans are curious creatures? (some more than others)

Well it is just my opinion that why questions tend not to actually go anywhere useful. Instead the hows are what tend to get answered and become useful. Why questions tend to beg the question and become misleading and are easily abused to impose some other motivation for asking them. Curiosity isn't a bad thing but the important thing is, how you go about being curious and how you ask the questions. If you misuse the method the results can be tainted with inaccuracies or just plain false conclusions.

So to return to it again. I really don't care why I am here or why there is anything. Instead I care about how I am here and how this all came to be. There is a settle difference and perhaps you can see where the fault can creep in if you are not careful.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

How indeed.. Thanks Krumple.

0 Replies

@wayne,

I totally agree with you wayne and JLNobody but could I also add this the idea of the infinitesimal into the mix. Kind of like a perpetual flowing ebb from the outside in or the inside out or perhaps the outside in and inside out at the same time..

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Sorry to reply twice, but something just occured to me. I totally agree that 'how' is more useful than 'why' but I've realised that when it concerns yourself, 'why' makes you have to become honest with yourself; in a way, it emboldens your reasons. It gives impetus to a purpose and asking 'how' gives that purpose meaning. I think they share a relationship. What do you think?

1 Reply

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

Sorry to reply twice, but something just occured to me. I totally agree that 'how' is more useful than 'why' but I've realised that when it concerns yourself, 'why' makes you have to become honest with yourself; in a way, it emboldens your reasons. It gives impetus to a purpose and asking 'how' gives that purpose meaning. I think they share a relationship. What do you think?

You bring up a good question, I will have to ponder it a little more.

I do want to add since you bring up purpose again. I do have objections to possible purpose. But I am also aware even if I don't like a possible purpose it doesn't mean it is less credible. The thing is, if there is a purpose it is not evident and blatantly obvious to me. Perhaps I am not intelligent enough to notice it, but it's not. Now I have had people impose a purpose onto me but when I ask how they came to the conclusion they can never give me a clear answer, they just keep repeating it as if it is absolute truth.

Therefore I tend to shy away when people start talking about purpose. I think life is far more beautiful to be allowed to give oneself one's own purpose rather than to be dictated to. If I have a purpose that I am not aware of, what good was the purpose then? It should be clear and evident if there is such a purpose. But since it is not clear and obvious, I am left considering that there is no such purpose except the freedom to chose one.

For some people that is not good enough, but for me it is plenty. I would rather draw my own picture rather than draw by numbers. Fate to me is a word that implies solidity and lacking freedom. I never liked the word and for that matter it can never be proven because you could never escape it to conclude that it exists. Purpose is the same way, too fixed, too unyielding, too tyrannical for me. I understand that there could very well be a purpose that I have missed, but I repeat, what good is it, if I am not aware of it?

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Reflecting on some of your posts recently... have you read 'Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism' by Chogyam Trungpa? If not I believe it might be worth a read... what are my motives for saying this? Mmmm.... I'm not sure... I'd say an impulse to say it... no more than that.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Reflecting on some of your posts recently... have you read 'Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism' by Chogyam Trungpa? If not I believe it might be worth a read... what are my motives for saying this? Mmmm.... I'm not sure... I'd say an impulse to say it... no more than that.

The name and title are vaguely familiar but I will check it out anyways. Never hurts to read the same book a second time if you have already. Thanks for the suggestion.

0 Replies

@Procrustes,

Procrustes wrote:

Thank you bait bludgeon for letting me know not to use so many questions in an opening thread. I didn't quite know the 'etiquette' in such forums.

In terms of this idea of 'better-ness', it does at first glance seemingly lend its hand to an ethical frame but I guess what I was trying to imply (something that I was not explicit about and perhaps should of been) is that with a world so 'switched on' (I'm talking to those with the technological opportunities to do so) is it that impossible to start talking and thinking about the future?

No, it is not impossible at all. In fact, man has always thought about his future. There is perfect evidence for this in agriculture, in finance, in physics, etc. Man is always concerned with his future and the way in which he can manipulate the world to yield benefits in favor of his future. But this, of course, does not involve technology in the sense of electrical gadgets or whatnot. Man has been using tools long before electrical gadgets arrived on the scene; furthermore, he has also been concerned with his future long before electrical gadgets arrived on the scene.

But what I would like to ask you in return is this: what would the answer to this question solve? I have already provided you with it, so of what benefit is it?

2 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Haven't you noticed. Procrustes (Google it) is here on a "stretching exercise". Wink

He reminds me a little of those interactive computer programs which keep throwing your own phrases back at you for further extrapolation.

IMO there are only two destinations for discussions of questions like "why anything". The first is the transcendent position in which "thing-ness" is a co-extension of "thingers" (i.e no Ding an Sich alas). The second is Wittgenstein's conclusion that meaning (of the word "goal" say) is dependent on contextual usage (so that the "goal" of a problem solver say bears little relationship with the "goals" of mankind). This is the deflationary or iconoclastic view of philosophy which Wittgenstein characterized as "language on holiday".

0 Replies

Well put, Wayne:
" I am uncertain whether "we are the universe" is exactly right, I've been thinking "the universe is us" may be closer to truth.
I am presently thinking of us as an expression of the universe, we are the universe' own observer. Our happiness and sense of purpose seems to hinge largely on our fulfillment of the role, Observer. The universe needs us, our role is important." Very good, my phraseology sounds a bit narcissistic.
This is how I interpret the Hindu's use of the "metaphors", Brahman and Atman. The latter (which includes our conscious awareness) serves Brahman (God if you like) as his Witness (observer) of Himself. My awareness, as well as yours, is God's mirror (in a sense, of course).

I must add that I identify with every contributor to this wonderful post so far. I gratefully feel a spiritual and intellectual kinship with all of you.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I like that, God's mirror, I don't know much about Hinduism but I have also interpreted a similar meaning within Christianity. It begins with being created in God's image, I see that as being God's mirror also.

There is no task for which we, in our common awareness, are so well equipped.
The fact that you identify with others speaks to this point, our purpose and identities are fulfilled in that shared observation of a sunrise, descriptions become unnecessary.
Another element of this image is our shared ability to create. We share a similar sense of Identity when we participate in the creation of something.
I don't, however, feel that we fulfill a role as creators. Rather, our creativity is a gift, for the purpose of identifying with the creator.

0 Replies

'Why anything?'

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know