I think it's a provable error that anything can be reduced to the experiences inside the Me -- let alone the meaning of life.
From where does this notion of the Me stem? Our grasping after an inner ground -- consciousness of the Me -- is an autopoietic effect of the structural coupling with our social and natural surroundings. Consciousness developed in the primitive ages. The transition from apes to humans was driven by two distinct developments: the helplessness of prematurely born infants, which required supportive families and communities, and the freedom of the hands to make and use the tools, which stimulated brain growth and may have contributed to the evolution of language. The crucial role of language was not to exchange ideas, but to promote cooperation for survival. But as the diversity of this linguistic process increased, the inner world of individuals became more developed and attained a level that unhook itself from the cooperative, natural practice of their tribes. It overshot the communication that was necessary for the practical survival and became an inner dialog: consciousness. Language, art, thought -- culture in general -- unfolded accordingly. Gradually, this evolution of the inner mind became more abstract and lost touch with the condition of natural life from which it originated. Ever more fragmented personalities arose: the tension between body and soul, nature and mind -- which has been identified as the essence of the "human condition" by classic philosophy -- became stronger and stronger. Among all the species, we are the only ones that kill their own kind in pursuit of religion, patriotism or any other inner ideas that stem from the inner dialogue.
But this grasping has no answer, knows no satisfaction. It's become the deep human source of frustration and anxiety, the crux of the human condition. We are self-aware of our individual identity -- and yet, when we look for an independent self within our world of experiences we cannot find any such entity. The origin of our dilemma lies in our tendency to create the abstractions of separate objects, including a separate Me, and then believe that they belong to an objective, independently existing natural reality. There is no reality in this, let alone a meaningful ethic.
To overcome the anxiety that accompanies this, we need to learn to think systematically, shifting our conceptual focus from objects to relationships. Only then can we realize that identity, individuality and autonomy do not imply separateness and independence from the universe, but are intrinsically connected and influenced by reality. This is no plea for communism or for the return of hippie tribalism, but a plea for the recognition of the natural dependence we live in.
As long as we maintain this distinction between our inner world (our Me) and nature, we will continue to build up frustration after frustration and make social and environmental mistakes -- the power of abstract thinking has led us to treat life as if it consisted of separate parts to be exploited by different interest groups.
Moreover, we have extended this fragmented view to our society, dividing it into different nations, races, religious and political groups. The belief that all these fragments are really separate has alienated us from our fellow human beings. To regain our full humanity, we have to regain our experience of connectedness with the natural condition. Scientifically, independence has no grounds. Independence is a political, not a scientific term.
I've alluded to this before when evoking the quantum sea of energy we are all composed of. The basic principle of nature is interdependence. All members of a planetary community are interconnected in a vast and intricate network of relationships. They derive their essential properties and their very existence from their relationships to other things. The behavior of every living member of the system depends on the behavior of many others, therefore the success of the whole community depends on the success of its individual members, while the success of each member depends on the success of the community as a whole. A sustainable human society is aware of the multiple relationships among its members. Nourishing the community means nourishing these relationships.
The fact that the basic pattern of life is a network pattern means that the relationships among the members of an ecological community are nonlinear, involving multiple feedback loops. Linear chains of cause exist very rarely in ecosystems. Thus a disturbance will not be limited to a single effect but is likely to spread out in ever-widening patterns. It may even be amplified by interdependent feedback loops, which may completely obscure the original source of the disturbance. The lesson here for human communities is obvious. A major clash between economics and ecology derives from the fact that nature is cyclical, whereas our industrial systems are linear. Our businesses take resources, transform them into products plus waste, and sell the products to consumers, who discard more waste when they have consmued the products. Sustainable patterns of production and consumption need to be cyclical, limitating the waste. If the community is aware of the interdependence of all its members, diversity will enrich all the relationships and thus enrich the community as a whole, as well as each individual member. In such a community, information and ideas float freely through the network, and the diversity of learning and making mistakes enriches the whole community.
In conclusion, the abstraction of the Me and the problems created by our Western culture are intrinsically the same.
(Based on Fritjof Capra's The Web of Life)
The concept of "me" has an interesting evolution; when we are in our very early years, between about 2 yrs old to about 5, suddenly the concepts of relationships float into view, and where others have been largely objects in our sensory environment, a new species "them" becomes separated from "me". Where everything external appeared to be a "service" to the "me", we become aware, for the first time, that the other beings we experience, also have expectations to be afforded a "relationship" (treated in a certain way) by us.
This "scary" concept grows, depending on its nurture by caregivers, and one's interpretation of "life" experiences, into either a "shared" view of the world, or a "conflict with others for dominance" view, perhaps the more "natural" (based on biology), and common view.
And either "the battle", or amazement that others can be so "unaware", continues.
Economics is an arena, with relation to "the meaning of existence", that really baffles me.
It is based upon two concepts; the war over resources (refered to as "supply and demand"), and the deification of "growth" as the measure of success. If we are to have our incomes increase constantly, throughout our life times, independent of our increase in merit to our employer/field of endeavour, where will it all end? And with pricing growth to match production/labour costs, where is the benefit; what's the point?
Whereas, to me, a doctrine of steady state pricing and sales, based on sharing resources in the most efficient manner, a concept I refer to as "Share Economics" would seem to be the fairest, and most equitable.
Do we live to consume, and participate in the lunacy?
wolf, You brought out many interesting points which supports evolution; that all the cultures were able to develop complex language is one of them. We can just imagine how each language may have developed to what we are familiar with today. It may have started form grunts and waving of the arms to contemporary sciences that have developed from languages. c.i.
truth
Bravo, guys. Wolf your second paragraph should dampen much of our tendency to reify the concepts we are dealing in our many philosophical debates, to take our language matches too seriously. BoGoWo, I strongly endorse your sane and just economic perspective. C.I., the evolutionary concept of language you refer to is similar to Nietzsche's philological model of investigation of values, morals and ideas. It has all evolved from very practical functions (having to do with physical survival, as Wolf notes) to a kind of cynical utilitarianism in which concepts are used ideologically to facilitate and justify the coercion or control of others.
Meanings are derived from needs which, in time, escalate into wants, balanced by fears. Thanks for all the fish.
don't let my avatar fool you, I am not as smart as i look..
Thanks, Dys, for putting this all into perspective; a nice cool breeze is always wonderful following a lot of hot air :wink:
:wink: !
sc, Some of it is cold air, but who's taking notice? c.i.
Bogowo and JLNobody: yes! Indeed, all true.
c.i., the development of language for survival morphed into the abstraction of the Me -- a ghostly, divisive mistake, upon which we modern Westerners thrive endlessly out of a search for meaning... in vain.
This does not mean there are no individuals; we have unique physical structures, we are made up of separate frameworks, but our actions and our information exchanges are all interwoven and interdependent. Because of this, except in our fingerprints, there really is no such thing as 'Me'.
...
That was the short version, maybe to quieten your impostorish remarks
.
In other words, when our species were more primitive, there was a "me."
Correct.
You Jane.
I'm not obliging you to take this serious, but please try.
You're no wolf. You're a chicken. You're not obligated to take this seriously, but please try. c.i.
Wolf; within "your" "web of life", there is the problem of "lowest common denominator".
For a mass interdependent structure to be viable, the individual links need to be of approximately equal strength (or quality, or rigidity, or flexibility) so that there are not sizeable variances in the homogeneity of the whole.
Translating this into cultural terms, this means that the society, as a whole must conform to a largely agreed upon set of standards, and constraints.
Thus the level of culture in a society is stagnated by the "vision" of its component individuals, and the "level" of development, retarded by the least able of members to sustain change.
This can be clearly seen in the animal kingdom, where species interactions remain as they have been for thousands of years, being fixed in the "lifestyle" profile that has been successful over time.
(And we are a part of this "kingdom"!)
However in human society, the whole stratifies into a hierarchy of agendas, the more "avant guard" of which, while generally thought to be "Bohemian", "sinful", and even dangerous for their disregard of the "acceptable" limits, always eventually leads the "dinosaur" into a new world.
For those who would expand the meaning and opportunities of life, it is essential to maintain an open minded approach to potential changes that harbinger the future, while, at the same time cautiously assessing the possible fallacies which could lead us to our collective doom!
C'est exact...
I think you're right. But I think the problem is not really a fundamental one, rather a logical effect within any interconnected system -- such as a planet. The network strength indeed depends on the way its points are communicating. This pattern bounces back. Problems, therefore, can only be overcome in a peaceful, diplomatic and respectful way. In a network, agression and self-centeredness always come back to haunt you.
truth
I'm truly amazed by the sophistication of the above comments. My wife asked me the other day why I waste my time in discussion with "internet types"--given that I'm a retired professor of graduate as well as undergraduate studies. I smiled, assuring her that the level of discussion usually warrants my efforts (often it is well ABOVE me). In this thread my statement to her is more than confirmed.
Especially cicerone imposter really goes to the heart of the issue
Good thread, folks.
Let's see where it ends.
Hey, sorry jlN; we'll have to try to keep our comments "down" to your level!
truth
B0G0W0, cool! But don't get me wrong, not all of them, just those with big words and compound sentences, and--by all means--multiple layers of meaning.
c.i.
