Life is benevolent, do you agree?

[Sushan]

That's an intriguing viewpoint, suggesting that nature operates with an inherent indifference and any benevolence we perceive is a human construct.

I can't regard it as intriguing or original. It simply amounts to a default where we and all else are nothing more than one event in time's domain however long or short its presence may be.

Could it be that our very capability to conceptualize benevolence, even if it's not a tangible quality of the universe, lends value to the discussion?

Very much so but only as a philosophic talking point on whether life, per se, is benevolent. The OP pertains to life, by inference all life, not merely human. From that perspective, benevolent is the one quality least applicable. Life could never be so infinitely variable or exist at all if nature were in any way benevolent. If it sometimes appears so, it's only as a necessary function within a process impervious to any kind of compassion or altruism, i.e., subject to the indifferent laws which allow existence to happen.

If life offers us a canvas, and we, through our consciousness, paint it with hues of benevolence or malevolence based on our perspectives, does that not make the concept worthy of philosophical exploration, irrespective of nature's indifference?

What you say is true to a point! Consciousness can never be an entity whose presentation can be depicted on a white canvass of indifference or process what it perceives to be real as if it were some unmodulated carrier wave. Consciousness is itself a reality whose function is to modify the REALITY in which it's contained.

One of the main defects of the human race - a very dangerous one - is that illusions often become our realities. In the extreme it may also manifest as toxic when perceptions are morphed into severe misconceptions with a limited ability to correct themselves. It's then that we need to rebalance our existence within an all-encompassing structure which has no affinity to how we think, imagine or what desire; in essence, which treats our existence as a spot or blemish that, as Shelley put it, stains the white radiance of eternity.

Indeed, as you've rightly pointed out, nature in its vast expanse operates with a profound indifference to our human-centric moralities and emotions. This impartiality of nature and the universe might make any human claim of intrinsic benevolence seem futile.

Your mention of consciousness as a reality that modifies the REALITY it's contained within is profoundly insightful. Our consciousness, or our ability to perceive and interpret, certainly molds and colors our experiences. But this also leads us to the very heart of the debate - while nature might be indifferent, our consciousness, with its inherent biases, predispositions, and interpretations, is anything but.

I concur with your observation that often our illusions morph into our realities. This is both the strength and the flaw of human consciousness. Our ability to create meaning, to project emotions, and to derive purpose, while giving richness to our lives, can also lead us astray. This delicate balance between perception and reality, between our internal interpretations and the external universe's indifference, is perhaps the essence of the human experience.

Drawing from the quote you mentioned from Shelley, while we might be but a brief, fleeting stain on the vast white canvas of eternity, our consciousness, our thoughts, and our emotions make that stain a vibrant splash of color, adding depth and texture to the grand tapestry of existence. Would you say, then, that while life might not be intrinsically benevolent, our human endeavor should be to find, create, or even project benevolence where we can, even if it's just a construct of our consciousness?

[Tegularius]

Drawing from the quote you mentioned from Shelley, while we might be but a brief, fleeting stain on the vast white canvas of eternity, our consciousness, our thoughts, and our emotions make that stain a vibrant splash of color, adding depth and texture to the grand tapestry of existence. Would you say, then, that while life might not be intrinsically benevolent, our human endeavor should be to find, create, or even project benevolence where we can, even if it's just a construct of our consciousness?

Benevolence as a generality has a plenitude of meanings whose specifics require contextualization; only in that way can it be meaningful. When generically applied it's always questionable in what it's referring to. Benevolence, as projected by human consciousness, remains distinctive and judgmental; it's the fictions we extract from reality which moves us more so than reality itself. A working lie in that sense can be much more potent in enforcing a unique destiny or fate than the one which applies to conscious life anywhere and everywhere. It's also a negative in the high probability of becoming irrational.

Metaphorically, it's the function of consciousness to contextualize reality on its own terms given the cosmic background of unconditional indifference which is of no consolation to a being demanding a concomitant meaning or purpose to its existence. Benevolence and all such qualia are not just constructs of our consciousness but modulations our psyches solicit as compromise vis-à-vis that which offers none.

[Sushan]

Drawing from the quote you mentioned from Shelley, while we might be but a brief, fleeting stain on the vast white canvas of eternity, our consciousness, our thoughts, and our emotions make that stain a vibrant splash of color, adding depth and texture to the grand tapestry of existence. Would you say, then, that while life might not be intrinsically benevolent, our human endeavor should be to find, create, or even project benevolence where we can, even if it's just a construct of our consciousness?

Benevolence as a generality has a plenitude of meanings whose specifics require contextualization; only in that way can it be meaningful. When generically applied it's always questionable in what it's referring to. Benevolence, as projected by human consciousness, remains distinctive and judgmental; it's the fictions we extract from reality which moves us more so than reality itself. A working lie in that sense can be much more potent in enforcing a unique destiny or fate than the one which applies to conscious life anywhere and everywhere. It's also a negative in the high probability of becoming irrational.

Metaphorically, it's the function of consciousness to contextualize reality on its own terms given the cosmic background of unconditional indifference which is of no consolation to a being demanding a concomitant meaning or purpose to its existence. Benevolence and all such qualia are not just constructs of our consciousness but modulations our psyches solicit as compromise vis-à-vis that which offers none.

Your perspective offers a deep dive into the complexities of benevolence, especially when perceived through the lens of human consciousness. Benevolence, as you've illustrated, can indeed be multifaceted and, when decontextualized, loses its tangible essence. It’s enlightening to think of benevolence not as an intrinsic quality of life but as a projection of human consciousness, shaped by our unique perceptions, biases, and experiences.

You've touched upon a fundamental truth: that our consciousness often leans on constructs, like benevolence, to find meaning amidst the vast indifference of the cosmos. This attempt to extract meaning from the seemingly indifferent universe is a testament to the resilience of human spirit and our ceaseless pursuit of purpose. As you astutely pointed out, these constructs, while providing solace, can also be a double-edged sword, guiding or misguiding our understanding of existence based on their alignment or misalignment with reality.

Your mention of qualia as modulations that our psyche seeks in the face of an indifferent cosmos further deepens the discussion. In the grand tapestry of existence, where our experiences are but fleeting moments, these qualia add depth and dimension to our understanding of life. They form the bridge between the raw experiences of life and the meanings we ascribe to them.

Drawing from our conversation, would you then say that while life in its essence might not be inherently benevolent, it's our responsibility as conscious beings to navigate and negotiate with this indifference, finding pockets of benevolence, or any other qualia for that matter, to enrich our existence and bring purpose to our brief sojourn in the universe?

[Tegularius]

Drawing from our conversation, would you then say that while life in its essence might not be inherently benevolent, it's our responsibility as conscious beings to navigate and negotiate with this indifference, finding pockets of benevolence, or any other qualia for that matter, to enrich our existence and bring purpose to our brief sojourn in the universe?

I don't think so. No one has ever truly enriched their existence by striving to impose some purpose on it without losing themselves in the process. I could never comprehend these pretensions and yearning for purpose in a universe that offers none except that which a conscious being can on their own come up with due to their existence. It's the impassiveness of the universe which creates and highlights all the differences especially where MIND is concerned. It needs to be thoroughly quiescent as to purpose in order to create that what is meant to create meaning by its very existence.

I do think there can be a simulacrum of meaning in blending one's own existence within a diapason of everything known and unknown and feeling its vibrations, that is, contextualizing one's individuality beyond being encapsulated as a mere portrait into a considerably enhanced panoramic canvass.

[Sushan]

Drawing from our conversation, would you then say that while life in its essence might not be inherently benevolent, it's our responsibility as conscious beings to navigate and negotiate with this indifference, finding pockets of benevolence, or any other qualia for that matter, to enrich our existence and bring purpose to our brief sojourn in the universe?

I don't think so. No one has ever truly enriched their existence by striving to impose some purpose on it without losing themselves in the process. I could never comprehend these pretensions and yearning for purpose in a universe that offers none except that which a conscious being can on their own come up with due to their existence. It's the impassiveness of the universe which creates and highlights all the differences especially where MIND is concerned. It needs to be thoroughly quiescent as to purpose in order to create that what is meant to create meaning by its very existence.

I do think there can be a simulacrum of meaning in blending one's own existence within a diapason of everything known and unknown and feeling its vibrations, that is, contextualizing one's individuality beyond being encapsulated as a mere portrait into a considerably enhanced panoramic canvass.

Your point resonates with the idea that seeking external validation or purpose might lead one astray from authentic self-realization. Indeed, the vastness and indifference of the universe can render our human-centric quests for meaning somewhat insignificant. However, the beauty of consciousness, as you've pointed out, is in its ability to create meaning in the face of this vast indifference.

Your mention of blending one's existence within the broader spectrum of all that is known and unknown is profound. It suggests that rather than rigidly defining our place or purpose in the universe, we should seek harmony with the cosmos, feeling its vibrations and resonating with its cadence. This "panoramic canvas" perspective is a reminder that true understanding and fulfillment might come not from imposing meaning, but from seamlessly integrating our existence within the grandeur of the cosmos, thereby finding our unique rhythm within the larger symphony of existence.

In light of this, would you suggest that true enlightenment or fulfillment might not necessarily lie in the pursuit of purpose, but in the experience of unity with the cosmos, thereby embracing its vastness and marveling at the myriad manifestations of existence?

[Tegularius]

Drawing from our conversation, would you then say that while life in its essence might not be inherently benevolent, it's our responsibility as conscious beings to navigate and negotiate with this indifference, finding pockets of benevolence, or any other qualia for that matter, to enrich our existence and bring purpose to our brief sojourn in the universe?

I don't think so. No one has ever truly enriched their existence by striving to impose some purpose on it without losing themselves in the process. I could never comprehend these pretensions and yearning for purpose in a universe that offers none except that which a conscious being can on their own come up with due to their existence. It's the impassiveness of the universe which creates and highlights all the differences especially where MIND is concerned. It needs to be thoroughly quiescent as to purpose in order to create that what is meant to create meaning by its very existence.

I do think there can be a simulacrum of meaning in blending one's own existence within a diapason of everything known and unknown and feeling its vibrations, that is, contextualizing one's individuality beyond being encapsulated as a mere portrait into a considerably enhanced panoramic canvass.

Your point resonates with the idea that seeking external validation or purpose might lead one astray from authentic self-realization. Indeed, the vastness and indifference of the universe can render our human-centric quests for meaning somewhat insignificant. However, the beauty of consciousness, as you've pointed out, is in its ability to create meaning in the face of this vast indifference.

Your mention of blending one's existence within the broader spectrum of all that is known and unknown is profound. It suggests that rather than rigidly defining our place or purpose in the universe, we should seek harmony with the cosmos, feeling its vibrations and resonating with its cadence. This "panoramic canvas" perspective is a reminder that true understanding and fulfillment might come not from imposing meaning, but from seamlessly integrating our existence within the grandeur of the cosmos, thereby finding our unique rhythm within the larger symphony of existence.

Nicely expressed, according to which nothing I wrote would seem to be foreign or incomprehensible.

In light of this, would you suggest that true enlightenment or fulfillment might not necessarily lie in the pursuit of purpose, but in the experience of unity with the cosmos, thereby embracing its vastness and marveling at the myriad manifestations of existence?

I'll let Goethe answer that...

1. PARABASIS
Joyful many years ago
Did the Spirit use his powers
To examine and to know
How creative nature flowers.
'Tis the eternal One and All,
Variously revealed, I find :
Small the great and great the small,
Each according to its kind;
Given to change, and then duration,
Near and far, and far and near,
Shaping form, then transformation-
'Tis for wonderment I'm here.

2. EPIRRHEMA
Students of nature, make this your goal:
Heed the specimen, heed the Whole.
Nothing is inside or out,
What's within must outward sprout.
So without delay one sees
Sacred open mysteries.
Truth in semblance never shun,
Solemn sport uphold,
What's alive cannot be One,
It's always manifold.

...of course, as expected, the original far exceeds the translation in power, beauty and meaning! Nevertheless, the message, I think, is clear!

Enlightenment is never whole
It always comes in bits and pieces
And only then becomes a goal
In a journey which never ceases.

[popeye1945]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

[Tegularius]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Tennyson actually.

[Sy Borg]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Tennyson actually.

Still, the sentiment is spot on. Almost 70% of species are carnivorous and plenty of vegetarian animals occasionally dabble in meat. That doesn't count the damage done by vegetarian animals on each other when competing for mates or territory.

Life has a significant element of chaos that results in frequent brutality. However, life today is more civilised, reasoning and peaceful that life in the past. Ever more species are intelligent enough to avoid fights with display behaviour; those who avoid fighting are more likely to reproduce. We technological simians have done the same as we patter on keyboards in abstract conversation as opposed to whacking each other on the head with clubs.

The need to eat other living things is the reason why life cannot be benevolent. However, post-life - be it sentient AI, digitised consciousness, or extreme technological enhancements - will not need to exploit life forms to the same extent, if at all. Thus, they could potentially be benevolent. Maybe life is a difficult and painful phase of matter before becoming something more solid and stable?

[Tegularius]

So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Considered from every angle it's obvious that life is not benevolent. The ironic part here is when viewed from a biological perspective, life in consuming itself also constantly recreates itself into millions of different forms. If there were benevolence in the process, nothing that emerged or existed would ever have occurred without being planned. It's brutality, in effect, is mostly creative, opposite to ours. Taken from a more philosophical or cosmic perspective, whether any DNA exists on this or any other planet is not merely a matter of indifference as if some kind of judgement were involved in deciding that 1-1=0, there is nothing in the universe to make it cognizant that any life exists in the first place and yet life exists in a blind process in which life is the cause of life.

[Sushan]

Drawing from our conversation, would you then say that while life in its essence might not be inherently benevolent, it's our responsibility as conscious beings to navigate and negotiate with this indifference, finding pockets of benevolence, or any other qualia for that matter, to enrich our existence and bring purpose to our brief sojourn in the universe?

I don't think so. No one has ever truly enriched their existence by striving to impose some purpose on it without losing themselves in the process. I could never comprehend these pretensions and yearning for purpose in a universe that offers none except that which a conscious being can on their own come up with due to their existence. It's the impassiveness of the universe which creates and highlights all the differences especially where MIND is concerned. It needs to be thoroughly quiescent as to purpose in order to create that what is meant to create meaning by its very existence.

I do think there can be a simulacrum of meaning in blending one's own existence within a diapason of everything known and unknown and feeling its vibrations, that is, contextualizing one's individuality beyond being encapsulated as a mere portrait into a considerably enhanced panoramic canvass.

Your point resonates with the idea that seeking external validation or purpose might lead one astray from authentic self-realization. Indeed, the vastness and indifference of the universe can render our human-centric quests for meaning somewhat insignificant. However, the beauty of consciousness, as you've pointed out, is in its ability to create meaning in the face of this vast indifference.

Your mention of blending one's existence within the broader spectrum of all that is known and unknown is profound. It suggests that rather than rigidly defining our place or purpose in the universe, we should seek harmony with the cosmos, feeling its vibrations and resonating with its cadence. This "panoramic canvas" perspective is a reminder that true understanding and fulfillment might come not from imposing meaning, but from seamlessly integrating our existence within the grandeur of the cosmos, thereby finding our unique rhythm within the larger symphony of existence.

Nicely expressed, according to which nothing I wrote would seem to be foreign or incomprehensible.

In light of this, would you suggest that true enlightenment or fulfillment might not necessarily lie in the pursuit of purpose, but in the experience of unity with the cosmos, thereby embracing its vastness and marveling at the myriad manifestations of existence?

I'll let Goethe answer that...

1. PARABASIS
Joyful many years ago
Did the Spirit use his powers
To examine and to know
How creative nature flowers.
'Tis the eternal One and All,
Variously revealed, I find :
Small the great and great the small,
Each according to its kind;
Given to change, and then duration,
Near and far, and far and near,
Shaping form, then transformation-
'Tis for wonderment I'm here.

2. EPIRRHEMA
Students of nature, make this your goal:
Heed the specimen, heed the Whole.
Nothing is inside or out,
What's within must outward sprout.
So without delay one sees
Sacred open mysteries.
Truth in semblance never shun,
Solemn sport uphold,
What's alive cannot be One,
It's always manifold.

...of course, as expected, the original far exceeds the translation in power, beauty and meaning! Nevertheless, the message, I think, is clear!

Enlightenment is never whole
It always comes in bits and pieces
And only then becomes a goal
In a journey which never ceases.

Thank you for introducing Goethe's words into our discussion; his works have always held a mirror to the profound intricacies of existence. The verses you shared beautifully encapsulate the dynamic interplay between the micro and macro, the individual and the whole. This duality, where one sees themselves as both the part and the observer of the grand mosaic of life, brings about profound introspection.

Goethe's emphasis on recognizing both the "specimen" and the "Whole" resonates deeply. Life, as a vast continuum, cannot be understood merely by its parts or by isolating instances; it's the collective sum and the intricate interconnections that lend it true meaning.

Your closing lines - "Enlightenment is never whole...In a journey which never ceases" - are a poignant reminder of the ongoing quest for understanding and realization. Much like the ever-evolving nature of life, enlightenment too is a journey, not a destination. The path to understanding is paved with fragmented insights, revelations, and moments of clarity that together weave the tapestry of wisdom.

Would you agree that in this never-ending pursuit, it's the journey itself, with its highs and lows, its revelations and mysteries, that truly enriches our existence, rather than any perceived endpoint or ultimate understanding?

[Sushan]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Your perspective, leaning on Schopenhauer, paints a stark contrast to the optimism found in Rob White's words. Schopenhauer did indeed have a more pessimistic view on the nature of life, emphasizing suffering and the relentless will-to-live. However, to correct one point: the phrase "Nature red in tooth and claw" is attributed to Tennyson in his poem "In Memoriam A.H.H.", not Byron.

While nature's processes might seem indifferent or even cruel, the concept of benevolence, as I see it, is inherently human. We've constructed this idea based on our unique human experiences and consciousness. Life, in its vast expanse, might not have inherent moralities, but humans have the capacity to perceive, interpret, and act with kindness and compassion.

It's intriguing how different philosophical outlooks can shape one's understanding of life's nature. While the indifferent mechanics of the natural world, like the food chain, are evident, humans have also carved spaces of compassion, empathy, and altruism amidst this. Thus, while life's processes may not be inherently benevolent, can we not argue that our conscious efforts to inject benevolence into our experiences and interactions hold significant value?

[Sushan]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Tennyson actually.

Yes, you are correct.

[Sushan]

Schopenhauer: "Life is something which should never have been." Think about it, life lives upon life, big fish eats little fish, one cannot say life is indifferent for that would be anthropomorphic, Nature which constitutes all life forms, cares not for the individual, just can't stay away from the anthropomorphic, but only for the species in its cold process of natural selection. The world is cause to all its reactionary creatures, as we in turn are cause to the physical world, in that our existence affects change in its constitution, where again it is cause to us. Nature red in tooth and claw, Byron, I think? So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Tennyson actually.

Still, the sentiment is spot on. Almost 70% of species are carnivorous and plenty of vegetarian animals occasionally dabble in meat. That doesn't count the damage done by vegetarian animals on each other when competing for mates or territory.

Life has a significant element of chaos that results in frequent brutality. However, life today is more civilised, reasoning and peaceful that life in the past. Ever more species are intelligent enough to avoid fights with display behaviour; those who avoid fighting are more likely to reproduce. We technological simians have done the same as we patter on keyboards in abstract conversation as opposed to whacking each other on the head with clubs.

The need to eat other living things is the reason why life cannot be benevolent. However, post-life - be it sentient AI, digitised consciousness, or extreme technological enhancements - will not need to exploit life forms to the same extent, if at all. Thus, they could potentially be benevolent. Maybe life is a difficult and painful phase of matter before becoming something more solid and stable?

You've introduced a fascinating notion. If life's evolutionary trajectory is leading towards more sophisticated forms of existence, such as sentient AI or digitized consciousness, it may indeed transcend some of the primal brutalities intrinsic to organic life. Could this mean that the trajectory of evolution is towards increasing benevolence, even if the starting point was indifferent or even cruel?

While Rob White's assertion may not align perfectly with the observable realities of nature, perhaps it can be seen as aspirational. As thinking, feeling beings, we have the power to influence the course of our personal and collective futures. So while life, as a broad, natural process, may not inherently be benevolent, the conscious choices we make can infuse it with a greater sense of purpose, kindness, and yes, benevolence. The question then becomes, how do we choose to interpret and shape our reality amidst the vast, indifferent backdrop of nature?

[Sushan]

So, no life is not benevolent, it is merciless in consuming itself.

Considered from every angle it's obvious that life is not benevolent. The ironic part here is when viewed from a biological perspective, life in consuming itself also constantly recreates itself into millions of different forms. If there were benevolence in the process, nothing that emerged or existed would ever have occurred without being planned. It's brutality, in effect, is mostly creative, opposite to ours. Taken from a more philosophical or cosmic perspective, whether any DNA exists on this or any other planet is not merely a matter of indifference as if some kind of judgement were involved in deciding that 1-1=0, there is nothing in the universe to make it cognizant that any life exists in the first place and yet life exists in a blind process in which life is the cause of life.

I appreciate your perspective. Indeed, the cycle of life consuming and recreating itself could be seen as neither benevolent nor malevolent, but rather a manifestation of nature's intricate processes. The point you raise about life being the cause of life and the indifferent universe offers a profound backdrop to our discussions. If the universe doesn't recognize or is indifferent to life, it's our consciousness that bestows meaning and assigns value to concepts like benevolence. In this vast cosmic theater, it's our human experiences and interpretations that shape our understanding of concepts like kindness, malevolence, or benevolence. It's intriguing to think about how our human-centric perspectives mold our interpretation of the broader universe and its inherent nature. Would you say that our search for benevolence is, in essence, a search for understanding and meaning within this grand indifferent cosmos?