Death

[Bernard]

To say the universe is random because it appears so is bad thinking. The wods of a person speaking in a different language will sound like random noises, do we then say the person is an idiot? Of course the universe will appear random due to the fact we have very little understanding of its order and units of meaning.

[thedoc]

To say the universe is random because it appears so is bad thinking. The wods of a person speaking in a different language will sound like random noises, do we then say the person is an idiot? Of course the universe will appear random due to the fact we have very little understanding of its order and units of meaning.

Leo Buscaglia was born of Italian immigrants and in his home they spoke Italian. When he went to public school he spoke broken English so they labeled him as retarded and put him in 'special ed'. Later the school discovered their mistake and they put him back in the boring regular class room.

[Immanuel Can]

Is anybody actually going to try to answer the question I asked?

It was: Could anyone who holds to it [i.e. the second definition of "meaning"] explain to me how it [i.e. "meaning" type 2] differs from what we might call a "personally-satisfying delusion?"

[jackles]

the meaning that survives death would be and is the common denominator of meaning. it there for has indisinguishablity inside an outside the universe.ie the universe exists in a limitless meaning.which it the universe is an expression of.so therefor black hole centres are indistinguishable and together represent a single point of absolute factual nonlocalised meaning.

[Ginkgo]

Is anybody actually going to try to answer the question I asked?

It was: Could anyone who holds to it [i.e. the second definition of "meaning"] explain to me how it [i.e. "meaning" type 2] differs from what we might call a "personally-satisfying delusion?"

I think what you are getting at is the distinction between, "function" and "purpose". So when you say, "When I discovered medicine, I realized the reason for why I was in this world". This is very much a explanation in terms of purpose. Sometimes known as,"what is it?" explanations that are very much bound up in metaphysics. Not surprisingly, it also reflects Plato idea of knowledge in as much as we are born knowing certain things. It is just that we have forgotten them. For Plato education is not really an education process, it is a remembering what you already know process.

Opposed to this idea of purpose is,"function", also know as, "what shall we call it?" explanations. So yes, as far as your definition is relation to proposition number 2.- it is a construct of knowledge, making sense out of what seems random. This distinction also causes metaphysics and science to raise their ugly heads again.

I think this is what you are trying to get at.

[thedoc]

Is anybody actually going to try to answer the question I asked?

It was: Could anyone who holds to it [i.e. the second definition of "meaning"] explain to me how it [i.e. "meaning" type 2] differs from what we might call a "personally-satisfying delusion?"

Probably not, since definition 2. is pretty much the definition of a 'Personally satisfying delusion'. Most peoples delusions are created out of their own personal desires and beliefs about the universe, so they would be quite satisfying personally to each person. The problems arise when one persons delusions grate on another persons nerves, as often happens on forums like this. If each person could be happy with their own delusions, and let others be happy with theirs, there would be a lot less conflict. But some people insist that their delusions are the correct ones and insist that others believe as they do.

[Ginkgo]

Is anybody actually going to try to answer the question I asked?

It was: Could anyone who holds to it [i.e. the second definition of "meaning"] explain to me how it [i.e. "meaning" type 2] differs from what we might call a "personally-satisfying delusion?"

Probably not, since definition 2. is pretty much the definition of a 'Personally satisfying delusion'. Most peoples delusions are created out of their own personal desires and beliefs about the universe, so they would be quite satisfying personally to each person. The problems arise when one persons delusions grate on another persons nerves, as often happens on forums like this. If each person could be happy with their own delusions, and let others be happy with theirs, there would be a lot less conflict. But some people insist that their delusions are the correct ones and insist that others believe as they do.

Yes, I think Immanuel has painted definition 2. in terms of a subjectivist construct of knowledge, almost solipsism. This is why I restated proposition 2 again.

[jackles]

the solipism of love is nonlocality the common and indistinguishable one.

[Bernard]

[Bernard]

Why regard subjective experience as delusional? Isn't doing this what has weakened humans - turned us into salves of 'authority'.

[jackles]

have you noticed a certain herd instinct in the unbelievers then bernard.are you saying that there interllectual reactions are much as the mooing of cows is.ha ha

[Bernard]

Well I notice it in myself first of all, and 99% of the work exists right there. One has to be empty of beliefs and just believe - as a general mood, like serenity is a mood, a disposition. Is belief just trusting your own feelings in a cautious spirit of freedom - knowing that freedom may well have catastrophic implications: the unseating of cherished habits of thinking and ways of apprehending reality?

[Ginkgo]

Why regard subjective experience as delusional? Isn't doing this what has weakened humans - turned us into salves of 'authority'.

Subjective experience doesn't have to be delusional. Subjective idealism for example contains within it the seeds of empiricism. This is what I thought Immanuel Can was getting at in his proposition 2.

[Bernard]

Yes, true. My take on the two definitions is that a false dichotomy has been set up, wherein subjective reality is not a result of the environment, or pre-existent in the cosmos, but is entirely of the person, whilst objective reality is pre-existent. We could easily feel the same way of both. But because we have been hunters of the objective since time immemorial - gotta get that meat back to camp sort of thing - then we not so much as disqualify subjective experiences but ignore and deny it the focus it would need to make it, at least, as equally important as objective experience. Many people do just that, but they are not the CEOs of the world.

[jackles]

while the objective universe pre exists the brain.i do not believe it the objective universe pre existed consciousness.this would mean consciousness was not just a tempory thing amid other tempory things.