Which Aspects of Life Cannot be Fully Explained or Known?

[Sy Borg]

I definitely agree that it is up to us to find meaning, even though people come from all kinds of different angles. It is true that the big questions existed before human beings were able to answer them.

I have never liked the pat answer, "It's up to us to find our own meaning". It's akin to children in a sandpit being told to find meaning by digging holes or mounds. "Off you go, children, go and play with your little distractions before you snuff it". Great. (BTW Jack, my acerbic tone is not for you or Sculptor - I like you both as people. It reflects my irritation at hearing that same line so many times).

When we ask about the meaning of life, "We make our own meaning" most times translates to the old standard answer - "To reproduce". That is, most times meaning largely stems from the bonds between spouses and their sprogs.

It seems to me that humans in 2021 asking about the meaning of life is akin to Neanderthals asking about calculus. We appear to be not yet advanced enough to meaningfully ask that question. What modern humans are ultimately good for is breeding and making technological advancements, so one might say that the old answers to the big questions still stand. Our nature is pushing us to "Go forth and create". Maybe children. Maybe relationships. Maybe art, tech or other objects.

So my answer to the meaning of life - speaking as just one more simpleton of the 21st century - is to create (or maintain). To create and maintain what? Anything or anyone. Fortunately, it's actually difficult, if not impossible, to go through life without creation. So no one need worry about how they are doing existentially; everyone is doing a jolly fine job as unique expressions of the Earth's surface.

In time, "post-humans" may advance further and perhaps find more satisfying and focused answers to the meaning of life, based on a better understanding of the broader systems and dynamics that contain us.

[Tegularius]

One can begin that story with life itself.

[PoeticUniverse]

So my answer to the meaning of life is to create (or maintain).

“Tis to create, and in creating live
A being more intense, that we endow
With form our fancy, gaining as we give
The life we image, even as I do now.
What am I? Nothing: but not so art thou,
Soul of my thought! with whom I traverse earth,
Invisible but gazing, as I glow
Mix'd with thy spirit, blended with thy birth,
And feeling still with thee in my crush'd feelings' dearth.”

― George Gordon Byron, Selected Poems

[stevie]

I definitely agree that it is up to us to find meaning, even though people come from all kinds of different angles. It is true that the big questions existed before human beings were able to answer them.

I have never liked the pat answer, "It's up to us to find our own meaning". ...

So my answer to the meaning of life - speaking as just one more simpleton of the 21st century - is to create (or maintain). To create and maintain what? Anything or anyone. ...

The concepts "It's up to us to find our own meaning" and "to create (or maintain)" appear to be in line with each other because 'finding meaning' and 'creating meaning' don't appear to be opposites.

[Sy Borg]

I definitely agree that it is up to us to find meaning, even though people come from all kinds of different angles. It is true that the big questions existed before human beings were able to answer them.

I have never liked the pat answer, "It's up to us to find our own meaning". ...

So my answer to the meaning of life - speaking as just one more simpleton of the 21st century - is to create (or maintain). To create and maintain what? Anything or anyone. ...

The concepts "It's up to us to find our own meaning" and "to create (or maintain)" appear to be in line with each other because 'finding meaning' and 'creating meaning' don't appear to be opposites.

I would describe the former as encouragement to create while the latter (probably not clearly explained by me) points out that we have no choice but to create; we routinely create and maintain in our everyday lives - everything from relationships to meals to even something as trivial as deciding what what to watch on TV. No matter what we do, we are active and creative participants in reality, like every other organism (and also volcanoes, crystals, planets, stars etc).

Perhaps more intelligent beings in the future will be more controlled, focused and considered in their creating, less subject to chance, emotions and biases.

[Pattern-chaser]

Generally, it may be that it is more of an unusual point for people to begin to quest for the truth beyond that of the ideas which they were socialised or educated to believe.

Yes, and it's less obvious in a philosophy forum because we are the unusual ones. This is no great praise that I shower upon us all, but only an empirical observation. Most people don't find any interest or benefit from serious thought, so many don't bother. Anyone who takes part in a philosophy forum clearly does find interest or benefit, and so we are the unusual ones. But we forget that most people can't be bothered with all this, and some few of us even look down on those who can't be bothered, as though they were/are deficient in some way because of what they (don't) do or think.

But yes, many don't bother to "quest for truth".

[Tom Butler]

Most people don't find any interest or benefit from serious thought, so many don't bother.

As I think I mentioned in previous threads, an important tool for personal growth is participation in a cooperative community. If we are honestly trying to share ideas, the act of considering something another person said requires examination of what we think is true. The process of composing a response also requires examination of what we think is true. In effect, conversations like this enables each of us to function as a student and a teacher. To me, the real "Golden Rule" as the highest morality is "Teach me as I teach you."

Because it is part of our cognizance "pre-filter," Worldview tends to change only incrementally. The way others respond to our comments gives us a sense of the reasonableness of what we think is true. That feedback is vital for the personal growth of a discerning person because it helps guide that incremental change more toward correct understanding and less toward instinct-driven choices.

The trick is to find a cooperative community. The average person is guided by the need to assure an advantageous position in the social pecking order. That usually means in conversation that the average person is busy thinking of a self-serving response rather than considering what is being said. I like this forum because there are sometimes profound comments and sometimes meaningful responses. It is a cooperative community.

I speak of choice guided by instincts and choices guided by discerning intellect. The difference is often easy to see. There appears to be a clear threshold between the two extremes. Lines 1-III-7 through Lines 1-III-11 describes this better than me. See the essay The Razor’s Edge – Katha Upanishad at https://ethericstudies.org/razors-edge/ In essence, the 4,000 year-old instruction is from the God of Death to a seeker concerning how to escape the cycles of reincarnation by developing greater discernment.

But there remains the question of what makes a person sufficiently self-aware to realize that choices have "pleasurable"-discerning options. IQ does not predict such self-awareness. Nor does education. As you suggested Pattern-chaser, there is a kind of natural selection that brings some people to a board like this and not others. If we took a survey of people here, would we see a pattern that describes this selection?

[PoeticUniverse]

The thing is that some people see reality as involving some kind of transcendental reality.

This has always been all talk and no show; no one sees any darn thing.

Besides the evidence in my other post, it would be that proposing distinct realms turns out to mean that the physical realm can only understand action from the physical, and not from a realm that is non physical, plus the physical cannot react back to the non physical. This means that there couldn't be any interaction anyway.

This would also apply to Decartes' notion of distinct mental and physical for the mind and the brain, which is what doomed it. Conscious content is always sequential to its neural correlates, and matches.

All is of the myth-take of wanting lessers to be made from greaters, the ultimate infinite regress.

[JackDaydream]

@Sy Borg
In thinking about the way human beings seek meaning, it may be more about finding it rather than creating it in the sense that each person is so unique and has an individual path in life. So, in that way has what Joseph Campbell describes as a mythical quest. It may also be about coping in difficult circumstances as Victor Frankl describes the way people managed to find some meaningful ways of coping even while being in a concentration camp. So, the whole way in which life is understood may involve the existential realities faced within life experiences and some have harsher ones to face than others.

[JackDaydream]

@PoeticUniverse
When you speak of the division between the mental and physical of Descartes, there may be some differences between Cartesian thought and Descartes' actual perspective. His writings make it a lot more complex and one unusual bit which gets ignored is how he thinks that the point where mind and body connect is the pineal gland, often known as the third eye in 'new age' thinking. Many people may dismiss the idea of the pineal gland but it is known to be involved in the production of Melatonin which is important in rhythms in the body, especially sleep. Perhaps, sleep and dreams are a distinct aspect where the conscious ego goes into a different mode, into the realm of fantasy beyond the immediacy of the senses and the physical world.

[Pattern-chaser]

Most people don't find any interest or benefit from serious thought, so many don't bother.

As I think I mentioned in previous threads, an important tool for personal growth is participation in a cooperative community. If we are honestly trying to share ideas, the act of considering something another person said requires examination of what we think is true. The process of composing a response also requires examination of what we think is true. In effect, conversations like this enables each of us to function as a student and a teacher. To me, the real "Golden Rule" as the highest morality is "Teach me as I teach you."

Many people would agree that examining what we think is true offers value, but it is not "required". There are so very many people, though, who don't bother examining their own truths, they just speak them, that I think it could be foolhardy just to ignore them. Maybe they are the ones who have it right, and we are the ones wasting our time with pointless mentation instead of getting on with life? It's too easy, I think, just to assume that our chosen path is the optimum path...?

[Tom Butler]

Many people would agree that examining what we think is true offers value, but it is not "required". There are so very many people, though, who don't bother examining their own truths, they just speak them, that I think it could be foolhardy just to ignore them. Maybe they are the ones who have it right, and we are the ones wasting our time with pointless mentation instead of getting on with life? It's too easy, I think, just to assume that our chosen path is the optimum path...?

As the story goes, the Tarot was composed around 1600 (I think) as a "textbook" for students of the Hermetic wisdom. At the same time, they made a second deck that looked a lot like our modern playing card. Because of the church, it was forbidden to study the occult back then, so with the cards, students could study the Tarot while appearing to be playing. My point is that the teachers understood that there was a personal path and a public one. The principle of "The higher, the fewer" (seeker-non-seeker) has always be part of the ancient wisdom.

Today, the "secret" is in the form of "for those who have eyes to see." While we are all using the same public games, we still have "secret" and public facing knowledge. It is as if there is a new revelation ... something like what Willis Harmon described in his Global Mind change booklet. https://www.getabstract.com/en/summary/ ... hange/1196. The new teaching is in the form of consciousness and Psi function research, and the phenomena of Instrumental TransCommunication (ITC). Of course, now the school is the Internet and the teacher is the ability to test assumptions without.

My intention in writing Your Immortal Self, and virtually all of my writing since, was to describe a way to look at our human potential that is more contemporary and may be beneficial to personal growth. I arrived at that different view based on the evidence of Psi phenomena research and ITC practices. More and more people are aware of the results of psychic functioning and want to be a psychic or medium. Ghost hunting is not just a hobby. Like the fascination of Tarot, Ouija Boards and mediumship, ghost hunting is something of an entry-level to the study of things paranormal. Since Lisa and I helped Universal Studios sell White Noise, just about every town and city has one or more ghost hunting club.

I think this is a time of awakening to the etheric nature of our existence. It is not an esoteric path with secret wisdom, teachers and endless initiations. It is one of self-education (aka realization) about actionable principles that can lead to a more effective way of living. The first step on the path is to realize there is an etheric aspect of self. Yes, there will probably always be those who will not attempt to balance their human's nature. But I accept the idea of thresholds in evolution (punctuated gradualism). More self-aware people beget more self-aware people. At some point, the paranormal will become normal and the dominant paradigm will begin to shift from Physicalism to Dualism.

Now I feel like I have stars in my eyes.

[Sy Borg]

@Sy Borg
In thinking about the way human beings seek meaning, it may be more about finding it rather than creating it in the sense that each person is so unique and has an individual path in life. So, in that way has what Joseph Campbell describes as a mythical quest. It may also be about coping in difficult circumstances as Victor Frankl describes the way people managed to find some meaningful ways of coping even while being in a concentration camp. So, the whole way in which life is understood may involve the existential realities faced within life experiences and some have harsher ones to face than others.

What were the main perspectives that Frankl used to find meaning in a situation that many (including me) might consider hopeless?

It seems to me that life's meaning is intrinsic, as participants in the biosphere. All of our lives all have some small meaning that aggregates to larger meanings that are melded into the stuff of reality. This happens whether we are "important" or not, and whether we realise it or not. When we feel life is meaningless we are experiencing a disconnect between our reality and our perception.

This happens all the time, hence the many questions about life's meaning, often in the wake of a difficult loss. When life evokes curiosity and is generally going fairly smoothly, people don't tend to question life's meaning. Those with passionate hobbies, deep relationships and compelling projects don't tend to question life's meaning.

Then again, the meaning of life and explanations of mysteries are not always the same thing, aside from questions around death and the afterlife. Personally, I'd love to know how life began, what's inside black holes, and what other planets and life forms exist far from our small "pale blue dot" on which "important" people do "important" things :)

[stevie]

I definitely agree that it is up to us to find meaning, even though people come from all kinds of different angles. It is true that the big questions existed before human beings were able to answer them.

I have never liked the pat answer, "It's up to us to find our own meaning". ...

So my answer to the meaning of life - speaking as just one more simpleton of the 21st century - is to create (or maintain). To create and maintain what? Anything or anyone. ...

The concepts "It's up to us to find our own meaning" and "to create (or maintain)" appear to be in line with each other because 'finding meaning' and 'creating meaning' don't appear to be opposites.

I would describe the former as encouragement to create while the latter (probably not clearly explained by me) points out that we have no choice but to create; we routinely create and maintain in our everyday lives - everything from relationships to meals to even something as trivial as deciding what what to watch on TV. No matter what we do, we are active and creative participants in reality, like every other organism (and also volcanoes, crystals, planets, stars etc).

Perhaps more intelligent beings in the future will be more controlled, focused and considered in their creating, less subject to chance, emotions and biases.

If " 'we' (?) have no choice but to create" then this might question the agency implied by "... we are active and creative participants in reality" (if such an agency is implied by you at all by this statement ...?) because 'having no choice but' implies lack of free will. In this case a "creation" (without controlling creator) turns out to be a mere non-personal process.

[Terrapin Station]

The idea of "fully knowing" anything doesn't even make any sense. To know something is to have a justified, true belief about it. It doesn't make any sense to say that one has the "full justified, true beliefs" about something. That would suggest that there's a set number of justified, true beliefs that exist somehow, and then it's just a matter of whether one has "collected all of them," a la collecting all of someone's discography or something.