Elen1107 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) For myself, even if my life wouldn’t change outwardly one bit, things like where I live and what I do, what car I drive, etc.,… for myself having a sense of purpose still effects my sense of wellbeing and positive energy level and the general positive energy flow in myself and in life. Feeling like one counts for something, even in the simple little one person on this earth kind of way, can really add something positive to this life. What it changes is one’s perspective,… from it doesn’t matter what I do anyways so what does it matter how I treat people or take care for myself, or does it even matter if one drives safely or walks out into moving traffic, if it’s all the same anyways. If I feel like I count for something even if it’s just to “God”/a “Higher Spirit” and JC, well at least that’s two beings who care and know how to care, and it means something whether other people are being ok or smucky or whatever. It also makes me feel that the little kind, caring or helpful things that I can do during the course of a day can add up to something. They are just not gone into the darkness or into the void anyways, even if it sometimes kinda looks that way. It also tells me that we all count, and who am I to put down or stigmatize another person, like I have the judgment keys to heaven and hell or something. Yeah, right next to my mailbox key, between that and a local supermarket key tag,… nope, it ain’t me who’s got that key set, and I don’t really think that it ever will be. Furthermore I don’t want it. It’s enough responsibility to figure out my own little life, never mind having to do it for someone else. I don’t think that too many other people have that “key set” either. Edited October 27, 2014 by Elen1107 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveS55 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Hi Joseph, "Then i would propose you may think it has no purpose but you live your life as if it does because you must truly belief life has purpose. It seems to me, out of the heart comes our actions and not necessarily in agreement in what we think we believe.." What I think is that there is the fundamental fact of existence. Whether or not this constitutes "purpose", I don't know. If it does, then "purpose" must have always existed in its own right, without the acknowledgement of subjective experience. I have a bit of a problem with the belief in mental constructs having existed prior to a conscious mind thinking them. Our observations of "purpose" and assigning "purpose" to our own lives are still very subjective phenomena. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 Thanks Steve. Fair enough, Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Paul, said... "Believing that my existence is evidence of a universal purpose, is always going to be subjective. " Subjectivity is the nature of the beast. Things can only be subjectively experienced. It seems to me you will find that for 'self' there is no objective reality. I doubt that anyone, at least that i have met, operates on the premise that we do not exist. One can believe that what we call existence or even evolution has no purpose if they like. To me it certainly appears to have some order, is subjectively evolving and is real enough to believe it has a reason to be. I have used purpose and focus on purpose, all my life to take action and even accomplish things. I know of nothing that is accomplished without purpose so why should i believe there is no purpose in evolution or existence. Its being and evolving makes it enough evidence itself for me. To me, without purpose life ends. I cannot conceive of existence without purpose or meaning but we are free to really believe there is none yet i know of no 'benefit' in such a belief with the exception of despair and death.. Joseph Whilst most people don't 'operate' on the premise that we don't exist, there is a strong line of thought and many contemplate, whether we do in fact 'exist'. I might even say that it doesn't matter what we 'think', it will be what it will be. If we do exist then so be it. If we don't actually exist then so be it too. Whilst our existence appears to be evolving, have some order, and seems real enough to you, that doesn't mean that it is true. Have you seen The Matrix? Perhaps our 'existence' is like that, perhaps not. I think that to suggest purpose is to suggest some driving force. And of course man has been arguing since what we identify as the beginning of time, about what our purpose or this driving force may be. But if one can settle that there is some sort of driving force that created this 'purpose', then what created the purpose for the driving force. To me the question just goes around and around in circles until we stop at a point that we choose to settle on so that we are satisfied I guess. Currently I can't conceive of my existence having purpose, but that hardly drives me to despair and death. I feel like I exist whether I actually do or not. I will feel like I am living my life whether I actually I am or not. It's enough for me to rest in the understanding that quite possibly my existence has no purpose. It doesn't stop me from living though. Maybe I will find out the reality one day, maybe I won't. Edited October 27, 2014 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 27, 2014 Author Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Whilst our existence appears to be evolving, have some order, and seems real enough to you, that doesn't mean that it is true. Have you seen The Matrix? Perhaps our 'existence' is like that, perhaps not. I think that to suggest purpose is to suggest some driving force. And of course man has been arguing since what we identify as the beginning of time, about what our purpose or this driving force may be. But if one can settle that there is some sort of driving force that created this 'purpose', then what created the purpose for the driving force. To me the question just goes around and around in circles until we stop at a point that we choose to settle on so that we are satisfied I guess. Currently I can't conceive of my existence having purpose, but that hardly drives me to despair and death. I feel like I exist whether I actually do or not. I will feel like I am living my life whether I actually I am or not. It's enough for me to rest in the understanding that quite possibly my existence has no purpose. It doesn't stop me from living though. Maybe I will find out the reality one day, maybe I won't. Paul, Yes , i have the 10 disk set of the Matrix containing the trilogy and all the extras. Loved it. I think it makes many good points and raises questions. All i can speak of is by definition subjective and that certainly doesn't make it true. But that is all i have to speak of and one is free to believe or reject or just file away for a later date. That which is the source for all was not created and is beyond the duality of birth and death. It always was , is and shall be. There is no circle because it is beyond form yet innate in all form. It is innate in purpose but needs no purpose. How do i know. Can't say. I just know. Thats because you do really believe your existence has purpose. it drives you to work everyday. It causes you to care for your family. It drives you to discovery and new experiences. Without purpose , why would you do anything or even try? Joseph PS Also loved Avatar. Great Movie watched multiple times. Lots of what seems to me to be true spoken in the movie. Edited October 28, 2014 by JosephM PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Yes, I loved Avatar too! It makes no sense to me that our existence 'needs' purpose, yet 'the source for all' doesn't need purpose. If you can be satisfied this source doesn't need/have a purpose, why can't our existence have no purpose? If the source can be all that ever was, why can't a bunch of gases and then our existence instead be all that ever was? I know, you just know I do practice my life as if it has a purpose, probably because that's all I know. I drive to work because that's what I grew up understanding. I care for my family because that seems like the logical and emotional thing to do. Can I be certain though that it is not all illusion or program - No. But I think I would probably go insane thinking that was the case, because I don't have an alternate explanation, just wondering. We can't know what we don't know. We can only think/believe we know, but perhaps we are mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 It makes no sense to me that our existence 'needs' purpose, yet 'the source for all' doesn't need purpose. If you can be satisfied this source doesn't need/have a purpose, why can't our existence have no purpose? If the source can be all that ever was, why can't a bunch of gases and then our existence instead be all that ever was? I know, you just know I do practice my life as if it has a purpose, probably because that's all I know. I drive to work because that's what I grew up understanding. I care for my family because that seems like the logical and emotional thing to do. Can I be certain though that it is not all illusion or program - No. But I think I would probably go insane thinking that was the case, because I don't have an alternate explanation, just wondering. We can't know what we don't know. We can only think/believe we know, but perhaps we are mistaken. Paul, Because we are living in the physical world of duality . Duality is subjectivity and requires a subject and object by definition. It also seems to me it demands purpose for action . It is the nature of human consciousness . Action is in my view, always preceded by purpose. Now the creator is both creator and created or One and beyond all limitation and concepts. While God/Reality/the One can be known subjectively by us , to describe such an experience is beyond word and human understanding through labels. Why because subject and object disappear along with locallity and time and in that state? , all questions disappear there are no thoughts, only 'knowing' and everything appears as complete with nothing further needed. Sounds like on drugs i guess huh? If you think this might be an illusion, enjoy the illusion. joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I believe in purpose in exactly the same way I believe in the colour purple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 I think opposites are illusory and just an arbitrary point on a continuum placed by individual perception and judgement. I broadly agree with this statement ...that is why I dismiss relativism as a whole. So as to life and the inanimate, conscious and unconscious, sentient and non-sentient, purpose and purposelessness ... These divisions I find are illusory and dualistic ... but I am left trying to explain myself in a dualistic language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 Paul, Because we are living in the physical world of duality . Duality is subjectivity and requires a subject and object by definition. It also seems to me it demands purpose for action . It is the nature of human consciousness . Action is in my view, always preceded by purpose. Now the creator is both creator and created or One and beyond all limitation and concepts. While God/Reality/the One can be known subjectively by us , to describe such an experience is beyond word and human understanding through labels. Why because subject and object disappear along with locallity and time and in that state? , all questions disappear there are no thoughts, only 'knowing' and everything appears as complete with nothing further needed. Sounds like on drugs i guess huh? If you think this might be an illusion, enjoy the illusion. joseph I am very happy to continue with what could possibly be an illusion, because it is all I know (i.e. think) without the certainty that is as you have said above because I simply can't be certain. Does that matter? No, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 28, 2014 Author Share Posted October 28, 2014 Paul, No worries mate. Not too many certainties in life for anyone but I guess it's real enough... You know what they say here on the farm..... "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." Joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 28, 2014 Share Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) A purple duck ? ? Edited October 28, 2014 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." Of course it could be a duck hunter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Love it, Rom ??? Edited October 29, 2014 by PaulS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 This from 'Revolution' by Russell Brand that I am currently reading (well listening to in the car via Audible.com) concerning the Big Bang: ....the spontaneous appearance of all matter, energy, phenomena, consciousness, and rules, in a single instant, which is preceded by and is surrounded by......Nothingness. Brand goes on to say his belief is that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery. He believes the mechanical model for understanding nature is a metaphor that science has got stuck on. This prevailing idea that humans are machines, biological robots with computer-like brains. This belief will, to the advanced species that we're evolving into, seem as absurd as the flat earth theories that we scoff at now. Those flat earth folk weren't just pretending they though the earth was flat - they genuinely believed it. They looked down at the flat ground, at its flat appearance, and took that as empirical evidence of its flatness. They could not conceive of another way of seeing it. I do wonder if that is where we are at as humans when we consider universal purpose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Paul, It does seem our understanding of things is progressing and the way we look at universal purpose will most likely change as we evolve. Perhaps we may find that this life and its drama is just entertainment like a video game that we get so involved and immersed in that we forget about what is real and what is not. Either way, the universe is unfolding and we are part of it. joseph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't think there is a universal purpose, but it is very difficult as a human being where everyone talks about their purpose. Being does not mean doing or doing nothing because for me to be in the being state I have to flow with the energy around me. It might mean to confront or withdraw, but if one is in the zone may it be sports, comedy, music or a sunset one is being. It does not matter if the purpose was to win or entertain the being in the present action is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 Brand goes on to say his belief is that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery. Paul ... when people talk about the frequency of consciousness, I have no idea what they are on about. Worse still, I suspect neither do they. This prevailing idea that humans are machines, biological robots with computer-like brains. This belief will, to the advanced species that we're evolving into, seem as absurd as the flat earth theories that we scoff at now. If we take away the so called machinery, what is left? Certainly not any pontification or arm waving. Brand seems to be going back to some magical interpretation. While it is true we don't understand everything about this universe, in fact it is likely we understand very little, but we do have an understanding of biochemistry and physics. I am pretty certain without my biological robots (this is obviously a metaphor) we will have little understanding (whatever that is) in general. The little bit of Brand's thoughts sounds like a hail Mary to the end zone, in the US vernacular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 (edited) Back more on topic of Universal Purpose ... This sort of implies: 1) Some entity's purpose for the universe and its contents. 2) The universe has a purpose for its contents 3) The contents bestow a purpose on the universe or the supposed entity's purpose for the universe. I am having trouble getting my mind around any of the three. As the universe unfolds saying that the purpose of the universe is to unfold is in effect a tautology for me. Edited November 1, 2014 by romansh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Brand goes on to say his belief is that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery. Paul ... when people talk about the frequency of consciousness, I have no idea what they are on about. Worse still, I suspect neither do they. This prevailing idea that humans are machines, biological robots with computer-like brains. This belief will, to the advanced species that we're evolving into, seem as absurd as the flat earth theories that we scoff at now. If we take away the so called machinery, what is left? Certainly not any pontification or arm waving. Brand seems to be going back to some magical interpretation. While it is true we don't understand everything about this universe, in fact it is likely we understand very little, but we do have an understanding of biochemistry and physics. I am pretty certain without my biological robots (this is obviously a metaphor) we will have little understanding (whatever that is) in general. The little bit of Brand's thoughts sounds like a hail Mary to the end zone, in the US vernacular. I read 'frequency of consciousness' to mean our way of thinking. Just like the flat earthers could only conceive the world as being flat, so to, on our current frequency of consciousness, humans can only conceive of our beginnings and the universe in certain ways. I think Brand is proposng of a different mindset that once we possess it, new avenues of thought and understanding will open up. As for the machinery of our brains, I don't think Brand means the machinery or mechanics of the brain shouldn't be there but rather that there is more to our mechanics and thinking than we currently understand. I don't know if Brand means things like ESP, psychic perception, telepathy, etc, but I'm interpreting what he's saying as there is probably more to the mechanics of our brain and bodies than we currently understand. He may be wrong - if we can look back in several thousand years and can see we didn't develop any currently unknown powers of our minds. But I don't think I could say right now that we know absolutely everything there is to know about how and why our brains work like they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) I think Brand is proposing of a different mindset that once we possess it, new avenues of thought and understanding will open up. If he is suggesting new data/evidence will crop up that might create new models of our existence? Then he is likely quite right. If he is suggesting alternatives to reason and evidenced based logic then I am dubious. We are finding out more about our brains all the time ... for example there is a mechanical component to our brain's function other than just electrobiochemical we observe. This did not change my word view. I must admit I am a bit of materialist ... if we do discover some new mysterious force, energy, vibration etc ... then the materialist in me will just adsorb the new reality into my world view. Is Brand suggesting there is a purpose to the universe? If so what is his evidence? Edited November 2, 2014 by romansh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 3, 2014 Share Posted November 3, 2014 Rom, Perhaps I should point out that Brand's book isn't about any spiritual purpose so to speak (he does say he believes in God but doesn't discuss what sort of God he envisages, although I get the picture it's not God in the traditional fundy sense). His book is definitely about the here and now and is a critique of the oppressive and unfair nature of the systems that our societies generally operate according to. I think he is suggesting 'new data' in the sense that once we start seeing things in a new light, that will trigger further thought around the subject mater and perhaps it will create a domino effect. Perhaps much like ancient Greek speculation and consideration lead to complete understanding that the earth was indeed round and not flat as was the accepted knowledge of the day. As far as 'purpose' to the universe, Brand hasn't really touched on it. He did ask the question about where did the energy come from to create the ingredients that led to the big bang, but provides no opinion on the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) Paul I would argue this is seeing things is an new light as such ... It is very definitely taking logic and evidence/data and seeing where it leads us. So I am not sure how seeing things in this new light can lead us to there being a universal purpose. He did ask the question about where did the energy come from to create the ingredients that led to the big bang, Lawrence Kraus has an answer here to that question ... http://www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=1203 Now is Kraus right? It is a new light to see things in. Edited November 7, 2014 by romansh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 Rom, I would agree with you that Brand's belief "that we do not currently operate on a frequency of consciousness that is capable of interpreting the information required to understand the great mystery" could also be phrased as "seeing things in a new light" - it just doesn't have the same flair I think the whole point about seeing things in a new light though, points to the fact that things do often get seen as they never were once before. So my point would be who knows what we don't know about universal purpose. Perhaps there is no universal purpose. However, couldn't it also be possible that there is some universal purpose which we haven't yet seen in the right light? Can we say for certain, beyond all doubt, that universal purpose doesn't exist, or can we only say (as I would suggest) that based on what we know and the light in which we currently see things (i.e. using our current understanding of logic and evidence/data) there doesn't appear to be a universal purpose (putting aside individual beliefs that others might argue against)? Those video links do look interesting (but long) so I hope to get to them soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 You are talking to a devout agnostic here Paul ... Yes I agree more evidence/data may come along ... and change our view of universal purpose. Some no doubt claim it is already here. But the question becomes after being able to see things in a new light, another Brand will come along and suggest another new light ... and so it goes. The question becomes OK, so what do we do now with our interpretations of the evidence regarding universal purpose we already have? The interesting thing we all have the identical evidence (the universe); it is our perspectives that differ. just 'do' the first video link ... a universe from nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.