Philosophy Now Forum

If we look at all of life as an atomic accumulation,
swirling, bouncing, floating thru the cosmos,
all upon one planet amongst millions of others,
it can cause wonder of why, out of all the planets
do we, life as one, serve any purpose within this
infinite mass of swirling, burning rocks, flying,
dying ice, stacked to the heavens, cloud masses.

We, the questioners of Life, spokespersons for Life,
have no one to ask but ourselves, "why are we here?"
and so to answer this, we must believe ourselves, for
there is nobody else in our stellar neighborhood
to commensurate with, to find these answers,
as we become further enmeshed within ourselves...
biologically living off ourselves, recycling our
selves, in a quiet desperation to understand "why?"

This eternal question loses its impact in attainment
of what has been called 'enlightenment', for it is
thru this 'cosmic consciousness' that we no longer ponder
these mysteries, but rejoice in the unknown... the journey
of discovery is the meaning... beyond intellect we find
pure intelligence, we find pure knowledge, we find one within all,
we find the stimulation of mystery to be our sole purpose...
that which brings comfort to our lonely souls.
Simplicity of acceptance, to dance in celebration of life,
the gift from a greater mystery.

mtmynd1

There is only individual consciousness, as I've explained elsewhere. As to some universal, cosmic consciousness, I've explained this also, and what it would be like, had it ever existed. It's a good explanation, so I'll post it again, here.

'Let me explain what a universal consciousness would be like, should it have existed: Everything is delimited by the speed of light, no less thought. So, for arguments sake, we have the big bang, and the universe begins expanding. At maximum size, roughly 13 billion years later, light would have traversed it how many times? Once. Which would mean that the universe is the slowest, most stupid, dullest consciousness possible, only capable of communicating one thought across it's expanse in 13 billion years; it's lifetime. The average retard is a genius in comparison.'

Now that I've cleared that up, I will also say that life is not a gift, but an imposition put upon us by our creators (parents) without consent, when it never needed to be. Do you love every 'gift' you've gotten? It's my prerogative as the recipient to say it sucks cock. And many do. Especially when it all ends bad. And many lives do. And not only at the end. You toil for years just to whither and die. Most of your day is lived for others, save your lunch break, and a crappy, tired dinner in front of the telly, watching other crappy lives do the same.

I could go on, but I'm tired, myself, and doubt you'll get anything from this post anyways, so just fuck off.

Dalek Prime wrote:"... so just fuck off."

Thank you for the engaging conversation, DP. Fascinating as usual.

mtmynd1 wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:"... so just fuck off."

Thank you for the engaging conversation, DP. Fascinating as usual.

No problem. Did you bother reading the rest?

Dalek Prime wrote: Did you bother reading the rest?

I struggled my way thru it, yes.

mtmynd1 wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Did you bother reading the rest?

I struggled my way thru it, yes.

I knew you couldn't appreciate a solid explanation, hence I told you to fuck off. So, why complain about it?

Nobody is buying "atomic accumulation".

Cogito ergo sum.

yiostheoy wrote:Nobody is buying "atomic accumulation".

You exaggerate. Nobody is all inclusive meaning not one of the 7.428 + Billions people currently feeding off this planet. I'd do more research and poll taking if I were you in order to verify that claim.

If you are because you think, make sure what you think is what *you* are and not the consensus of others. Ego has a way of distorting fact from truth.

mtmynd1 wrote:

yiostheoy wrote:Nobody is buying "atomic accumulation".

You exaggerate. Nobody is all inclusive meaning not one of the 7.428 + Billions people currently feeding off this planet. I'd do more research and poll taking if I were you in order to verify that claim.

If you are because you think, make sure what you think is what *you* are and not the consensus of others. Ego has a way of distorting fact from truth.

Nobody with any brains who has read and studied any Philosophy.

yiostheoy wrote: Nobody with any brains who has read and studied any Philosophy.

You sound like many on these boards who are bogged down by too much wishful intellect and not nearly enough imagination.

The OP strikes me as musing over the Fermi paradox.

Consider a star. Why is it the most massive and intensely dynamic object for many light years? All around it is space with some planets, moons and other objects that are nothing by comparison in terms of mass and dynamics. Reality always configures itself into areas of relatively concentration and relative voids. The Earth just happens to be a mass that is information dense.

Being part of a zone with the highest information concentration for trillions of kilometres is a tough job but someone's got to be it.

Greta wrote:The OP strikes me as musing over the Fermi paradox.

Consider a star. Why is it the most massive and intensely dynamic object for many light years? All around it is space with some planets, moons and other objects that are nothing by comparison in terms of mass and dynamics. Reality always configures itself into areas of relatively concentration and relative voids. The Earth just happens to be a mass that is information dense.

Being part of a zone with the highest information concentration for trillions of kilometres is a tough job but someone's got to be it.

That's astrophysics not Philosophy.

yiostheoy wrote: That's astrophysics not Philosophy.

You have a very narrow definition of philosophy.

yiostheoy wrote: Nobody with any brains who has read and studied any Philosophy.

And that would be a very small percentage of the human population.

yiostheoy wrote:

Greta wrote:The OP strikes me as musing over the Fermi paradox.

Consider a star. Why is it the most massive and intensely dynamic object for many light years? All around it is space with some planets, moons and other objects that are nothing by comparison in terms of mass and dynamics. Reality always configures itself into areas of relatively concentration and relative voids. The Earth just happens to be a mass that is information dense.

Being part of a zone with the highest information concentration for trillions of kilometres is a tough job but someone's got to be it.

That's astrophysics not Philosophy.

Since when is a scientific perspective disallowed in a philosophic one to endorse the latter's conclusion? As an existential statement it remains wholly philosophical. Your version of philosophy is one which gives it claustrophobia.