WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE? WHY DO WE EXIST?

[Dubious]

Do you really think that this is the end of everything? The end of all complex life forever? Even if we were wiped everything out there'd be plenty of time for another intelligent species to evolve on our bones.

I don't believe in the end of everything. There's always something that remains. Archeology and DNA studies are among the prime methods of recreating the past...the dead past.

The question for me becomes how is the logic of our current situation going to play out. Are we working our way into a dead future and how long can that continue before it becomes unfixable? Too many of us feel impervious to a potential Armageddon as if it can't happen in spite of repeated warnings thinking technology is going to save us.

The importance and necessity of leaving Earth is so often mentioned. That would be a monumental story and achievement if our denigration of the planet didn't so soon become a factor in our travel plans. This is what disgusts me about humans. They soil and desecrate the planet for every reason expediency can devise knowing its habitability is seriously endangered and then make it essential to leave ASAP always searching for other worlds to colonize.

What's the definition of Hit & Run? Isn't that what cowards do? If humans destroy their own ship they deserve to go down with it. What would be the loss and who would be left to care? Those who only know themselves won't be remembered by anyone else! If conversely they wish to escape the time limits of the planet and constructively use the time made available in the interim THEN that' a very different story. Also it's extremely unlikely that if our DNA were wiped another intelligent species would evolve in it's place. It's more probable that this kind of event is a once-only!

[Belinda]

We are here because of historical sequences of events and facts of nature. We are still here as we have not quite yet used up the environment by which we subsist.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Christianity is just a conduit. It could be philosophy, art, music, sport, any activity or relationship. It could be a moment out in the country. Christianity is optional, not necessary.

True, but the purpose of Christianity is rebirth. Without it, Christianity becomes secularism. The practice of sport cannot lead to rebirth. Rebirth requires efforts towards rebirth and the recognition of egoistic psychological slavery to the human condition a person needs to be free of.

The fact is that most people wake up to some extent. What are they waking to? The fact that the world of their senses was a tiny sliver of reality. Personally the Christian approach would be completely useless for me, it's so utterly tainted by corruption, manipulativeness and superstition.

How is a person asleep in Plato’s cave understand what it means to be awake? A person can verify their ignorance as Socrates did. That is the first step towards awakening.

Do you believe that mathematics is useless because people make mistakes in addition? Of course not. The problem isn’t math it is people. It is the same with Christianity. Christianity degenerates into various sects of Christendom functioning in society and become manipulated just as in any other secular institution. This is why Simone Weil is loved as the Patron Saint of Outsiders. The outsiders know that something both necessary and genuine for the human essence has been corrupted and seek to feel the essence of Christianity.

The flaws in the Christian methodology were lain bare by the countless cases of molestation brought to light, kept hidden away by church leaders for decades, at least. If a philosophy or life approach cannot even provide the morality needed to simply allow children to enjoy their childhoods without laying selfish and unhealthy perversions on them, then it is at the very least not a cure-all. Too many have adopted the Christian faith and then behaved atrociously. Simply, in terms of being a conduit towards personal growth in the modern world it's weak medicine, rendered impotent by its ambiguities and subsequent ugly interpretations.

Again, you do not know what Christianity is and only aware of Christendom or man made Christianity. Christianity is not a philosophy of life but a means for rebirth. Of course the human condition both perverts the teaching and creates spirit killers who both intentionally and unintentionally seek to eliminate the teaching from the imagined security of Plato’s cave.

My great great granduncle was an archbishop and a member of the Mekhitarist congregation in Vienna; a group of intellectual Armenians. He was also friendly with Helena Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy. Do you think you would know what they were talking about when they discussed Jesus’ mission? No, you only are reacting against some natural results of Christendom.

I have rather more faith in nature and humanity than you. While we both see the current situation as fatally flawed, you see it as a need for mystical transformation and I see it as a lack of maturity.

I believe that water seeks its own level. Since we are as we are, everything is as it is. Nothing mystical about this. People always argue about what to do. Only a relative few have the need and courage to sincerely open to experience what the plurality of what they are. Without admitting the human condition and how we live in opposition to ourselves, nothing changes. We remain the old man and the potential for the new man is banished from the cave.

Reality has worked itself out better than we could have conceived thus far over 13.8b years, and I fully expect reality to continue operating far beyond our conceptions. We grasp the mere fringes of what's going on and then figure that we understand. Yet these are early days. The idea of humans understanding the universe is akin to babies understanding ethics and nuclear medicine. We simply don't have the capabilities, but they will grow.

There is no reason why conscious humanity cannot appreciate universal purpose. Man is a mini universe. If we can know thyself we can understand the great universe. If not, our potential for human consciousness becomes meaningless and people remain as animal “necessities.” Simone invites us to question what it means to be more than a necessity. The fact that most are unwilling doesn’t mean that it is impossible. Some actually are drawn to experience this pearl of great price.

“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

Who can answer the question - what kind of entities will be present in the universe in 50 or 100 billion years' time? Anyone who can't authoritatively know has barely a clue what's really going on with reality.

If we don’t know what we are now, how can we know what entities will be present in the distant future? The problem is that people with the need and courage necessary to know thyself are such a small minority that I doubt the majority will profit from human understanding and humanity will become the victim of whatever chance brings.

[Greta]

Who can answer the question - what kind of entities will be present in the universe in 50 or 100 billion years' time? Anyone who can't authoritatively know has barely a clue what's really going on with reality.

If we don’t know what we are now, how can we know what entities will be present in the distant future? The problem is that people with the need and courage necessary to know thyself are such a small minority that I doubt the majority will profit from human understanding and humanity will become the victim of whatever chance brings.

I'll address the rest of your post later, but the bulk of it can be covered simply. You have written many proud words, Nick, suggestive that you are part of a select few who are awake.

You also suggest that the ultimate purpose of existence is knowable because we are "universes in ourselves".

However, here you make clear that you have no more clue than anyone else what will transpire in the far future - what this journey will become - which rather diminishes your prior claims.

[Greta]

I have rather more faith in nature and humanity than you [Nick]. While we both see the current situation as fatally flawed, you see it as a need for mystical transformation and I see it as a lack of maturity.

Reality has worked itself out better than we could have conceived thus far over 13.8b years, and I fully expect reality to continue operating far beyond our conceptions. We grasp the mere fringes of what's going on and then figure that we understand. Yet these are early days. The idea of humans understanding the universe is akin to babies understanding ethics and nuclear medicine. We simply don't have the capabilities, but they will grow.

Who can answer the question - what kind of entities will be present in the universe in 50 or 100 billion years' time? Anyone who can't authoritatively know has barely a clue what's really going on with reality.

This pretty much covers it. And even the idea that we ever "understand" anything is somewhat questionable.

All that we call 'knowledge' and 'understanding' is us just copying what the universe does. Thanks to science we have been copying nature a whole lot faster in the last 2-300 years.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

If we don't copy the universe, what do we copy?

[Nick_A]

Who can answer the question - what kind of entities will be present in the universe in 50 or 100 billion years' time? Anyone who can't authoritatively know has barely a clue what's really going on with reality.

If we don’t know what we are now, how can we know what entities will be present in the distant future? The problem is that people with the need and courage necessary to know thyself are such a small minority that I doubt the majority will profit from human understanding and humanity will become the victim of whatever chance brings.

I'll address the rest of your post later, but the bulk of it can be covered simply. You have written many proud words, Nick, suggestive that you are part of a select few who are awake.

You also suggest that the ultimate purpose of existence is knowable because we are "universes in ourselves".

However, here you make clear that you have no more clue than anyone else what will transpire in the far future - what this journey will become - which rather diminishes your prior claims.

I am not part of a select few who are awake. I have experienced that i am not and have the humility to admit it. At the same time I can accept the great human value of awakening. I experienced what Ouspensky wrote of and that is my advantage,

When one realises one is asleep, at that moment one is already half-awake.
P.D. Ouspensky

[Greta]

Do you really think that this is the end of everything? The end of all complex life forever? Even if we were wiped everything out there'd be plenty of time for another intelligent species to evolve on our bones.

I don't believe in the end of everything. There's always something that remains. Archeology and DNA studies are among the prime methods of recreating the past...the dead past.

The question for me becomes how is the logic of our current situation going to play out. Are we working our way into a dead future and how long can that continue before it becomes unfixable? Too many of us feel impervious to a potential Armageddon as if it can't happen in spite of repeated warnings thinking technology is going to save us.

The importance and necessity of leaving Earth is so often mentioned. That would be a monumental story and achievement if our denigration of the planet didn't so soon become a factor in our travel plans. This is what disgusts me about humans. They soil and desecrate the planet for every reason expediency can devise knowing its habitability is seriously endangered and then make it essential to leave ASAP always searching for other worlds to colonize.

What's the definition of Hit & Run? Isn't that what cowards do? If humans destroy their own ship they deserve to go down with it. What would be the loss and who would be left to care? Those who only know themselves won't be remembered by anyone else! If conversely they wish to escape the time limits of the planet and constructively use the time made available in the interim THEN that' a very different story. Also it's extremely unlikely that if our DNA were wiped another intelligent species would evolve in it's place. It's more probable that this kind of event is a once-only!

Humans aren't leaving Earth. We can't even spend a year in the ISS - within most of the Earth's protective influence - without suffering long term health problems.

It's not a matter of running. It's more akin to a plant reaching the end of its life. Will it be able to spread its seeds or not? This particular plot on Earth around Sol has seemingly proved to be mediocre - only capable of reproduction (maybe) but not becoming a higher form. Thus, things are chaotic.

I've wondered that perhaps life that forms around yellow dwarfs will always be limited by the star's relatively short lifespan. It may be that more influential events will occur around orange dwarfs, which live considerably longer than our star, allowing evolution more time to take effect. A slightly larger planet with more resources would not hurt either to allow more buffer before scarcities bite.

Then again, it may be that the time wasted in the dark ages and other retrograde periods made the difference. Perhaps if humans had managed to be a few hundred years' more advanced by this time, maybe our current wicked problems would be more manageable?

Given the Fermi Paradox, it's easy to imagine that Earth could be either a very early and primitive form of whatever life can become, or perhaps just a producer of seeds. But yes, as you suggest, no one is getting out of here alive.

BTW, it is almost certain that another intelligent species would take our place if we died out, not just possible. It took just 60 million years for the shrewlike monotreme-like mammals that survived the dinos' asteroid and supervolcanoes to evolve to today's mammalian line. After each extinction, recovery is exponentially faster because the existing DNA (even in simple organisms) is more developed. I expect that, if we died out, rats would start the next line leading to intelligence, and they would be far more intelligent and robust than the protothera. Thus the next emergences would occur much more quickly again.

[Greta]

If we don’t know what we are now, how can we know what entities will be present in the distant future? The problem is that people with the need and courage necessary to know thyself are such a small minority that I doubt the majority will profit from human understanding and humanity will become the victim of whatever chance brings.

I'll address the rest of your post later, but the bulk of it can be covered simply. You have written many proud words, Nick, suggestive that you are part of a select few who are awake.

You also suggest that the ultimate purpose of existence is knowable because we are "universes in ourselves".

However, here you make clear that you have no more clue than anyone else what will transpire in the far future - what this journey will become - which rather diminishes your prior claims.

I am not part of a select few who are awake. I have experienced that i am not and have the humility to admit it. At the same time I can accept the great human value of awakening. I experienced what Ouspensky wrote of and that is my advantage,

When one realises one is asleep, at that moment one is already half-awake.
P.D. Ouspensky

I'm familiar with Ouspensky and I personally see him as too caught up in ego to be reliable. He did not come across as a man at peace but a restless and determined soul, desperate for receipt of a great "manna from heaven" - some special, great knowledge or understanding that is probably unapproachable by almost all humans today.

Sure, a special few people do have extraordinary gifts, but they are rare, outliers. Most of us don't have those gifts and never will have them. While those with special capacities suggest to us what is possible, by the same token a dog suggests to us that higher frequencies exist but knowing that doesn't mean we'll ever hear them, no matter how hard we try.

[Nick_A]

Greta

I'm familiar with Ouspensky and I personally see him as too caught up in ego to be reliable. He did not come across as a man at peace but a restless and determined soul, desperate for receipt of a great "manna from heaven" - some special, great knowledge or understanding that is probably unapproachable by almost all humans today.

You are not Russian so do not understand the Russian soul and how it expresses itself. When it is deep it is very very deep. Ouspensky was like this. Even though he was brilliant and his brilliancy was admired after Tertium Organum was published he was still disappointed. The more he knew the more he realized he didn’t know but had a need to know arising from the depth of his being.

Are you disappointed enough to need truth at all cost? No, me neither. It is how we are. Yet those capable of becoming human have an overwhelming need for truth. Our difference is that as a spirit killer you support those who repress this need in the young while I encourage it.

Sure, a special few people do have extraordinary gifts, but they are rare, outliers. Most of us don't have those gifts and never will have them. While those with special capacities suggest to us what is possible, by the same token a dog suggests to us that higher frequencies exist but knowing that doesn't mean we'll ever hear them, no matter how hard we try.

The need for truth isn’t a special gift. It is normal for human being. The human condition has corrupted it to such a degree that society prefers to live by the lie. Only certain individuals have the sufficient need to experience the truth of the human condition as it exists in them. Since their need threatens social culture they must be hated for it along with the deep philosophical ideas which encourage efforts to “know thyself.”

There are those like Simone Weil with the need and the courage to annoy the Great Beast in pursuit of truth. Even though the world will attack them, they will make progress. Albert Camus called Simone Weil the only great mind of the times. If she had become normal the world would have loved her. Instead she receives the love and respect from the minority who gain by being aware of her exceptional spirit.

It isn't that Simone was super exceptional. It is that we lack the need and courage to experience the human condition in ourselves and prefer arguing over our attachments to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

[TimeSeeker]

If we don't copy the universe, what do we copy?

There is always imagination, but the universe's stuff is tried and tested...

[Greta]

If we don't copy the universe, what do we copy?

There is always imagination, but the universe's stuff is tried and tested...

On what is imagination based?

[Greta]

Greta

I'm familiar with Ouspensky and I personally see him as too caught up in ego to be reliable. He did not come across as a man at peace but a restless and determined soul, desperate for receipt of a great "manna from heaven" - some special, great knowledge or understanding that is probably unapproachable by almost all humans today.

You are not Russian so do not understand the Russian soul and how it expresses itself. When it is deep it is very very deep. Ouspensky was like this. Even though he was brilliant and his brilliancy was admired after Tertium Organum was published he was still disappointed. The more he knew the more he realized he didn’t know but had a need to know arising from the depth of his being.

Are you disappointed enough to need truth at all cost? No, me neither. It is how we are. Yet those capable of becoming human have an overwhelming need for truth. Our difference is that as a spirit killer you support those who repress this need in the young while I encourage it.

Why do you spoil the conversation with such pointless abusiveness at the end? Do you see a point in falsely labelling the nonreligious "spirit killers"? Maybe get the mud to stick? Do you see how melodramatic and dishonest this is? I'd appreciate it if you could converse without being a dickhead, thanks.

The problem for Ouspensky IMO is he was obsessed with being better than "the herd". He wanted to be elevated. Superior. I don't think that level of egotism is helpful. Instead of aiming to be better than others (as per his own criteria of "better") he could have simply focused on improving himself personally - being a better man than he was last year. Once people start speaking of the masses in terms of the "common herd" and suchlike, as some lower beings, then you know they have become like Narcissus, frozen in the progress as they appreciate the beauty of their own reflections.

I have also seen this level of self-elevation and other-denigration in the literature of Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses, and it jarred then too.

Sure, a special few people do have extraordinary gifts, but they are rare, outliers. Most of us don't have those gifts and never will have them. While those with special capacities suggest to us what is possible, by the same token a dog suggests to us that higher frequencies exist but knowing that doesn't mean we'll ever hear them, no matter how hard we try.

The need for truth isn’t a special gift. It is normal for human being. The human condition has corrupted it to such a degree that society prefers to live by the lie. Only certain individuals have the sufficient need to experience the truth of the human condition as it exists in them. Since their need threatens social culture they must be hated for it along with the deep philosophical ideas which encourage efforts to “know thyself.”

There are those like Simone Weil with the need and the courage to annoy the Great Beast in pursuit of truth. Even though the world will attack them, they will make progress. Albert Camus called Simone Weil the only great mind of the times. If she had become normal the world would have loved her. Instead she receives the love and respect from the minority who gain by being aware of her exceptional spirit.

It isn't that Simone was super exceptional. It is that we lack the need and courage to experience the human condition in ourselves and prefer arguing over our attachments to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave.

Gee that's a jaundiced interpretation of events. Here's an alternative take:

Humans want to know what is true, what can be replied upon. However, we are not evolved to perceive reality; our traits are optimised for survival and reproduction. Our senses and brain filter out the vast majority of their inputs because we simply don't have the sufficient processing power. So mother nature rationalised. Not all brains and filters are equal, though. Some are capable of experiencing reality more richly, either by circumstance or attributes, some the opposite.

Today, the problems with the human condition blamed above on secularism are in fact a function of overpopulation and resource scarcity leading us ever closer to the phenomenon made famous by Golding's Lord of the Flies. As the stakes rise, and dirty dealers abound, ethics and morality are increasingly treated as luxury items rather than necessities.

As for the Great Beast, your old whipping post. We are living in it right now and there is bugger all we can do about it - we can join up, move to the fringes and try to slip under the radar, or become a martyr. I like Plan B. I don't want fights, just to be left alone. You seem to like plan C, hence your idolising of SW.

It seems that if you put enough humans together, organisations start taking on a life of their own - self interested lives that care nothing for the actual humans that comprise them. Good luck with defeating the corporations, governments and religions of the world, Nick.

[Nick_A]

Greta

Humans want to know what is true, what can be replied upon. However, we are not evolved to perceive reality; our traits are optimised for survival and reproduction. Our senses and brain filter out the vast majority of their inputs because we simply don't have the sufficient processing power. So mother nature rationalised. Not all brains and filters are equal, though. Some are capable of experiencing reality more richly, either by circumstance or attributes, some the opposite.

Today, the problems with the human condition blamed above on secularism are in fact a function of overpopulation and resource scarcity leading us ever closer to the phenomenon made famous by Golding's Lord of the Flies. As the stakes rise, and dirty dealers abound, ethics and morality are increasingly treated as luxury items rather than necessities.

If humanity as a whole lives in a state of psychological hypnotic sleep in Plato's cave, by definition there is no search for truth. There is only the search for a state of imagination which makes society within the cave tolerable. The search for truth requires the need and courage to make conscious efforts to "know thyself"

“There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him.” ~ G. I. Gurdjieff

This is ancient knowledge that is hated in modern times. If we don't know what we are how can we speak of truth? The lack of human consciousness resulting from the human condition assures that any desire for truth must begin with self knowledge to verify that we are not conscious.

As for the Great Beast, your old whipping post. We are living in it right now and there is bugger all we can do about it - we can join up, move to the fringes and try to slip under the radar, or become a martyr. I like Plan B. I don't want fights, just to be left alone. You seem to like plan C, hence your idolising of SW.

You are unaware the state of hypnotic sleep and its cause. This is why you have faith in solutions. What kind of solutions are possible with the same mindset which creates them? Einstein said the same. The need to awaken must be absurd to you if you haven't witnessed your own hypocrisy. Yet to Ouspensky the world situation was obviously absurd and he witnessed the same tendencies in himself. He wanted to awaken in order to acquire a human perspective as opposed to a habitual conditioned perspective. Your problem is that you don't know what you are and are unwilling to witness it.

It seems that if you put enough humans together, organisations start taking on a life of their own - self interested lives that care nothing for the actual humans that comprise them. Good luck with defeating the corporations, governments and religions of the world, Nick.

The world is the world. Water seeks its own level. No BS will change it. Yet individuals can change. They can acquire a human perspective. I have the greatest admiration for Simone Weil. How many have such a need for truth that they live their philosophy? Simone's life seems absurd until a person considers the value of awakening. But all those who Nietzsche called proponents of "wretched contentment" will always oppose awakening. It disturbs our sleep so it should be avoided and condemned as foolish nonsense.

[Greta]

Humans want to know what is true, what can be replied upon. However, we are not evolved to perceive reality; our traits are optimised for survival and reproduction. Our senses and brain filter out the vast majority of their inputs because we simply don't have the sufficient processing power. So mother nature rationalised. Not all brains and filters are equal, though. Some are capable of experiencing reality more richly, either by circumstance or attributes, some the opposite.

Today, the problems with the human condition blamed above on secularism are in fact a function of overpopulation and resource scarcity leading us ever closer to the phenomenon made famous by Golding's Lord of the Flies. As the stakes rise, and dirty dealers abound, ethics and morality are increasingly treated as luxury items rather than necessities.

If humanity as a whole lives in a state of psychological hypnotic sleep in Plato's cave, by definition there is no search for truth. There is only the search for a state of imagination which makes society within the cave tolerable. The search for truth requires the need and courage to make conscious efforts to "know thyself"

The idea of knowing "thyself" is to appreciate your biases and blind spots so that you may better appreciate reality, less sullied by base subjectivism. The idea (for me, anyway) is to get a better handle on reality per se, and that logically can't just be restricted to self focus, because reality extends rather a long way beyond the self. Why do I want to know? Curiosity, nothing grand.

“There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him.” ~ G. I. Gurdjieff

However, if everyone was so focused on themselves, what kind of world would it be? Nothing would get done. We'd have no mod cons so we'd be spending so much time trying to survive that we'd not have time to focus on ourselves any more. Some people need to work, others need to think and hopefully the benefits of each will be passed around.

As for the Great Beast, your old whipping post. We are living in it right now and there is bugger all we can do about it - we can join up, move to the fringes and try to slip under the radar, or become a martyr. I like Plan B. I don't want fights, just to be left alone. You seem to like plan C, hence your idolising of SW.

You are unaware the state of hypnotic sleep and its cause. This is why you have faith in solutions. What kind of solutions are possible with the same mindset which creates them? Einstein said the same. The need to awaken must be absurd to you if you haven't witnessed your own hypocrisy. Yet to Ouspensky the world situation was obviously absurd and he witnessed the same tendencies in himself. He wanted to awaken in order to acquire a human perspective as opposed to a habitual conditioned perspective. Your problem is that you don't know what you are and are unwilling to witness it.

Patronising. After reading Ouspensky and Gurdjeiff for years decades ago and hearing you banging on endlessly about it, I'm more than aware of the notion of "waking sleep".

Also, who said I had faith in solutions? That's just nonsense. Please provide quotes to justify your claim that I have "faith in solutions". Weird thing to say to someone who's always banging on about "wicked problems".

It seems that if you put enough humans together, organisations start taking on a life of their own - self interested lives that care nothing for the actual humans that comprise them. Good luck with defeating the corporations, governments and religions of the world, Nick.

The world is the world. Water seeks its own level. No BS will change it. Yet individuals can change. They can acquire a human perspective. I have the greatest admiration for Simone Weil. How many have such a need for truth that they live their philosophy? Simone's life seems absurd until a person considers the value of awakening. But all those who Nietzsche called proponents of "wretched contentment" will always oppose awakening. It disturbs our sleep so it should be avoided and condemned as foolish nonsense.

I'll give you this, you pretend to aim high - as if you are on the path to grasp the golden ticket of enlightenment and "wokeness" to grant you admission to the Übermensch club. I think that, given the extent of your spiritual ambition, perhaps it would be best for you to stop dicking about on forums and get into some serious study and practice? Do you think that stuff is so easy and life so long that you can afford to waste time on such frivolities?

As for sleepy ole me, I don't have your soaring ambition to be some kind of spiritual master (spiritual mistress?). These days I am quite comfortable with my mediocrity, past and present, despite decades of denial and wishing that it wasn't so. In my denial I strove for the stars at times - I wanted to be deep, to be awake etc, but rather than stars I got dusty old asteroids. Over time one gets the hint.

So now I'm just curious about the nature of reality and find it all interesting and fun, but there are some disappointing aspects of the world today, but such entropy has to hit some generation - why not mine?

[Age]

I have rather more faith in nature and humanity than you. While we both see the current situation as fatally flawed, you see it as a need for mystical transformation and I see it as a lack of maturity.

Reality has worked itself out better than we could have conceived thus far over 13.8b years, and I fully expect reality to continue operating far beyond our conceptions. We grasp the mere fringes of what's going on and then figure that we understand. Yet these are early days. The idea of humans understanding the universe is akin to babies understanding ethics and nuclear medicine. We simply don't have the capabilities, but they will grow.

Who can answer the question - what kind of entities will be present in the universe in 50 or 100 billion years' time? Anyone who can't authoritatively know has barely a clue what's really going on with reality.

I do not see how your answer follows your question.

Why do you propose that if one can not authoritatively know what entities will be present in the Universe in 50 or 100 billion years time, how they would also not have barely a clue about what is really going on with reality?

A human being could have already worked our what is really going on with reality, but not necessarily KNOW, from your perspective of 'authoritatively knowing', what kind of entities will be present in some future time. How are you defining 'entities' here?

This pretty much covers it. And even the idea that we ever "understand" anything is somewhat questionable.

You do not come across as one who is even able to be questioned in regards to what you say you "understand".

You come across as what you say you "understand" is absolutely true, right, and correct.

All that we call 'knowledge' and 'understanding' is us just copying what the universe does. Thanks to science we have been copying nature a whole lot faster in the last 2-300 years.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

You come across as 'science' being some magical thing that has allowed human beings to copy or replicate Nature.

How are you defining the word 'science' here?

How can a natural thing, like a human being, copy Nature, Itself?

Human beings are not outside of Nature, as to be able to copy Nature implies that one was outside of It. Human beings are a part of Nature and what they do is equally just a part of Nature also. If, of course, you can demonstrate an unnatural act that you human beings do do outside of Nature, and how you can copy Nature from outside of Nature, Itself, then that would be sufficient.