PDA

View Full Version : The Center of Existence


Iacchus
17th April 2004, 11:24 PM
So, the earth is not the Center of Existence (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61) huh? How so?

If the Universe is endless, then we must be in its center. In fact we always will be. Why? Because that's what existence is all about, being in the center of who we are ... If you told the bug under the rock that his little domain wasn't the center of the universe, do you think he'd get it? How could he? Else he'd have to concern himself with some other bug under some other rock in some other galaxy far far away, let alone the bug under a rock just two feet away! And do you think that would wash over? ;)

So, is it wrong to believe the earth is the center of the Universe then? Afterall, everything operates from within its center doesn't it? In fact if we understood this, we might understand that the Holy Land of all our mythologies is not someplace out there but, within us. :)

c4ts
17th April 2004, 11:42 PM
Because in the center of the universe there's a great big holy mana tree with a sword in it for some reason and a great big foot or a cigar shaped object with...



no.

Iacchus
18th April 2004, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by c4ts

Because in the center of the universe there's a great big holy mana tree with a sword in it for some reason and a great big foot or a cigar shaped object with...

no. But I am in the center of the Universe, because the Universe is endless right? Or, would that be a way of saying God embraces everything? Hmm ... ;)

Iacchus
18th April 2004, 01:13 AM
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. ~ Luke 17:21-22 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Luke+17)

Iacchus
18th April 2004, 02:11 AM
Excerpt from Joseph Campbell's, The Power of Myth ...


The vision of Black Elk ...

He says, "I saw myself on the central mountain of the world, the highest place, and I had a vision because I was seeing in the sacred manner of the world." And the sacred central mountain was Harney Peak in South Dakota. And then he says, "But the central mountain is everywhere."

That is a real mythological realization. It distinguishes between the local cult image, Harney Peak, and its connotation as the center of the world. The center of the world is the axis mundi, the central point, the pole around which all revolves. The central point of the world is the point where stillness and movement are together. Movement is time, but stillness is eternity. Realizing how this moment of your life is actually a moment of eternity, and experiencing the eternal aspect of what you're doing in the temporal experience -- this is the mythological experience.

metropolis_part_one
18th April 2004, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
But I am in the center of the Universe, because the Universe is endless right? Or, would that be a way of saying God embraces everything? Hmm ... ;)

who cares?

Iacchus
18th April 2004, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by metropolis_part_one

who cares? I do. At least that makes one of us right? ;)

RussDill
18th April 2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
So, the earth is not the Center of Existence (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61) huh? How so?

If the Universe is endless, then we must be in its center. In fact we always will be. Why? Because that's what existence is all about, being in the center of who we are ... If you told the bug under the rock that his little domain wasn't the center of the universe, do you think he'd get it? How could he? Else he'd have to concern himself with some other bug under some other rock in some other galaxy far far away, let alone the bug under a rock just two feet away! And do you think that would wash over? ;)

So, is it wrong to believe the earth is the center of the Universe then? Afterall, everything operates from within its center doesn't it? In fact if we understood this, we might understand that the Holy Land of all our mythologies is not someplace out there but, within us. :)


Please, define which meaning of "center of the universe" you are using

kuroyume0161
18th April 2004, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by RussDill



Please, define which meaning of "center of the universe" you are using

The one where he's the star, a big spotlight shining on him, and roses fill the stage. Or I could be delusional? :D

Kuroyume

epepke
19th April 2004, 01:35 AM
If you had any understanding of General Relativity, which alas you don't, you'd realize that any observer would view the universe as if he, she, and/or it were at the center.

RussDill
19th April 2004, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by epepke
If you had any understanding of General Relativity, which alas you don't, you'd realize that any observer would view the universe as if he, she, and/or it were at the center.

assuming that every observer would view the universe as symetrical.

Navigator
19th April 2004, 02:28 AM
:p

Navigator
19th April 2004, 02:30 AM
Everthing which exist in this universe, must also be the center of the universe, since as you point out - the universe is (apparently) infinite.
If super intelligence permeates All That Is - then it might even regard itself as being in the center.
Thus all things intelligent to the point where they can regard such concepts, must also be in the center of the universe, and from this point of observation, would also (using the same intelligence) see all things as being center of the universe and ever expanding from that center.
The point of the big bang could be regarded as the center of the universe.
However, is this universe the center of the other universe?
(Why would there not be other universes?)
God is obviously The Scientist.
:)

Iacchus
19th April 2004, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by epepke

If you had any understanding of General Relativity, which alas you don't, you'd realize that any observer would view the universe as if he, she, and/or it were at the center. Exactly! And do you know what else? Life originates from within the center. Or else it wouldn't be alive.

LizardPeople
19th April 2004, 09:52 AM
I don't know about the center of existence or the the center of the universe, but I've been to the center of the world. It's in Felicity, CA. See here (http://www.felicityusa.com/center.html)

Iacchus
19th April 2004, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by LizardPeople

I don't know about the center of existence or the the center of the universe, but I've been to the center of the world. It's in Felicity, CA. See here (http://www.felicityusa.com/center.html) Speaking of the Dragon at the Center of the World (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0934003009/centoftheworlinc) (inside the link you provided), it brings up the Great Red Dragon in Revelation 12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+12), which gives rise to the Beast out of the Sea and the False Prophet in Revlevation 13 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+13). And we all know the number of the False Prophet don't we? What a coincidence (huh?) that your post count is about to turn to 666!

Hmm ... Maybe it gives rise to the Dragons of Evolution (Dinosaurs), to which some of us strictly adhere? belief-wise that is. ;)

Iacchus
19th April 2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus

What a coincidence (huh?) that your post count is about to turn to 666!And there you have it! ...

By the way, did you know that time and space comes together in the here and now? And, that no matter where you go, you're there? ;)

RussDill
19th April 2004, 11:50 PM
If we live in an infinate, but boundless universe, then the "big bang" would occur at the center of the universe, and since that means that the big point occured at everypoint in the universe, it would follow that every point is the center of the universe.

However, when spacetime and general relativity are applied, it no longer follows. With GR and spacetime, the universe was never "pointlike". The big bang occured in a region of spacetime.

I digress, it still comes down to it being pointless to say phoenix is the center of the earth simply because the surface of the earth is boundless.

Zep
19th April 2004, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
And there you have it! ...

By the way, did you know that time and space comes together in the here and now? And, that no matter where you go, you're there? ;) "Remember; no matter where you go, there you are."- B. Banzai

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by RussDill

If we live in an infinate, but boundless universe, then the "big bang" would occur at the center of the universe, and since that means that the big point occured at everypoint in the universe, it would follow that every point is the center of the universe.If it all began with the Big Bang, and everything continues to expand, what is it expanding into, besides boundlessness?

fishbob
20th April 2004, 01:38 AM
But I am in the center of the Universe, because the Universe is endless right? Or, would that be a way of saying God embraces everything? Hmm ...

Nope, I am the center of the Universe. You are somewhere off in left field. And that would not at all be a way of saying God embraces everything. If you want to say God embraces everything, repeat after me " G O D e m b r a c e s e v e r y t h i n g" Got it? OK.

Of course this is fiction, but it might make you feel better, out there in left field. Personally, I don't want anything churchy embracing anybody or anything around me. Ya just don't know where they have been lately. (see "Molesting for Spiritual Reasons" in the next thread over)

DangerousBeliefs
20th April 2004, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
If it all began with the Big Bang, and everything continues to expand, what is it expanding into, besides boundlessness?

Interesting question.... I believe the current theory based on all the data is that the Universe will expand forever, basically dying a big cold death.

This is opposed to collapsing into itself in the Big Squeeze.

But why get a little science mixed with this fantasy-island thread?

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

But why get a little science mixed with this fantasy-island thread? Why make such a big deal about Science when in fact we have all we need to sustain ourselves right here and now? It works for all the creatures on this planet, what makes us so special? ;)

DangerousBeliefs
20th April 2004, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Why make such a big deal about Science when in fact we have all we need to sustain ourselves right here and now? It works for all the creatures on this planet, what makes us so special? ;)

Are you sitting in a nice warm, insulated house? Got indoor running water and electricity? Using a sophisticated computer, hooked to a global network?

Science.

Isn't THAT obvious? Science allows you the LUXURY of philosophy. Otherwise, you'd be dressed in rags out in a mud field right now, planting potatoes.

This assumes you're under the age of 45...

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

Are you sitting in a nice warm, insulated house? Got indoor running water and electricity? Using a sophisticated computer, hooked to a global network?

Science.

Isn't THAT obvious? Science allows you the LUXURY of philosophy. Otherwise, you'd be dressed in rags out in a mud field right now, planting potatoes.

This assumes you're under the age of 45... But you didn't answer the question? What makes us so special? Especially if it's so hazardous to the environment?

None of this seemed to bother the Native Americans a whole lot did it?

DangerousBeliefs
20th April 2004, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
But you didn't answer the question? What makes us so special? Especially if it's so hazardous to the environment?

None of this seemed to bother the Native Americans a whole lot did it?

Who is "us"?

Special in what way?

What is hazardous to the environment?

What do the Native Americans have to do with science or the center of the Universe?

I'm sure someone has asked this before.... you do know what "science" means, right?

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

Who is "us"?

Special in what way?

What is hazardous to the environment?

What do the Native Americans have to do with science or the center of the Universe?

I'm sure someone has asked this before.... you do know what "science" means, right? Snug as a bug under the rug huh? That's amazing! :D

We are the planet ... the planet is us. But we sure don't behave that way now do we?

DangerousBeliefs
20th April 2004, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Snug as a bug under the rug huh? That's amazing! :D

We are the planet ... the planet is us. But we don't behave that way now do we?

So, if we remove humans from the planet... it, uh, disappears?

What behavior?

Are you afraid to answer any questions?

Leif Roar
20th April 2004, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Navigator
Everthing which exist in this universe, must also be the center of the universe, since as you point out - the universe is (apparently) infinite.


Actually, that's not correct. Just because there's an infinite distance in all directions, doesn't mean that the distance is equal in all directions. Some infinities can be said to be greater than others.

For instance, if I start at a point X and lay tiles in a north-south line through X. For every tile I lay to the north of X, I lay two tiles to the south. After a long day's work, I've put down an infinite number of tiles, and I go back to X to fetch my jacket. There's an infinitely long row of tiles stretching out through X, but X is not at the centre of the row: it lies an infinite distance north of the centre.

Sure, the length of the row to the north of X is infinite, as is the length of the row to the south of X, but we also know that the length of the row to the south of X is twice as great as the row to the north. The cardinality of the southern infinity is greater than the cardinality of the northern infinity, so we're not at the centre.

(Aren't infinities fun?)

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

So, if we remove humans from the planet... it, uh, disappears?No, it actually might reappear. ;)


What behavior?Externalized behavior.


Are you afraid to answer any questions? Well actually you caught me in the comfort zone for moment, however, that still doesn't change what we're doing to the planet. ;)

DangerousBeliefs
20th April 2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Well actually you caught me in the comfort zone for moment, however, that still doesn't change what we're doing to the planet. ;)

And what are "we" doing?

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

And what are "we" doing? Consuming, and devouring, as if there were no tomorrow. And why do we do that? ... because we're not satisfied.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill, right?

Even the apes seem happy dangling from the trees. What makes us so different then? Could it be that we have yet to discover happiness is an internal thing, as opposed to an external? It would sure save a lot of wear and tear on the planet if we weren't so greedy and materialistic about things wouldn't it?

DangerousBeliefs
20th April 2004, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Consuming, and devouring, as if there were no tomorrow. And why do we do that? ... because we're not satisfied.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill, right?

And we're not satisfied because.... we're the center of the Universe?

Nyarlathotep
20th April 2004, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
So, the earth is not the Center of Existence (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61) huh? How so?

If the Universe is endless, then we must be in its center. In fact we always will be. Why? Because that's what existence is all about, being in the center of who we are ... If you told the bug under the rock that his little domain wasn't the center of the universe, do you think he'd get it? How could he? Else he'd have to concern himself with some other bug under some other rock in some other galaxy far far away, let alone the bug under a rock just two feet away! And do you think that would wash over? ;)

For a change I think you are on to something. Wherever you are is going to seem like the center of the universe to you. Though I would file it under "mildly interesting observations" rather than "profound philosophical truths."

So, is it wrong to believe the earth is the center of the Universe then? Afterall, everything operates from within its center doesn't it? In fact if we understood this, we might understand that the Holy Land of all our mythologies is not someplace out there but, within us. :)

oops, now you lost it and veered straight into la-la land again. too bad.

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

For a change I think you are on to something. Wherever you are is going to seem like the center of the universe to you. Though I would file it under "mildly interesting observations" rather than "profound philosophical truths."

oops, now you lost it and veered straight into la-la land again. too bad. Did you read Joseph Campbell's take on Black Elk's vision above? ...


Originally posted by Iacchus

Excerpt from Joseph Campbell's, The Power of Myth ...

The vision of Black Elk ...

He says, "I saw myself on the central mountain of the world, the highest place, and I had a vision because I was seeing in the sacred manner of the world." And the sacred central mountain was Harney Peak in South Dakota. And then he says, "But the central mountain is everywhere."

That is a real mythological realization. It distinguishes between the local cult image, Harney Peak, and its connotation as the center of the world. The center of the world is the axis mundi, the central point, the pole around which all revolves. The central point of the world is the point where stillness and movement are together. Movement is time, but stillness is eternity. Realizing how this moment of your life is actually a moment of eternity, and experiencing the eternal aspect of what you're doing in the temporal experience -- this is the mythological experience. Now that's what I call profound.

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

And we're not satisfied because.... we're the center of the Universe? No, I'd say it's because we don't understand happiness is an internal thing, as opposed to an external.

Nyarlathotep
20th April 2004, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Did you read Joseph Campbell's take on Black Elk's vision above? ...


Now that's what I call profound.

I read it. I wasn't impressed, sorry to say. Jospeph Campbell has a knack, imo, for taking mildy interesting obsevations and trying to make deeply profound philosophical truths out of them. I have never gotten him, honestly.

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I read it. I wasn't impressed, sorry to say. Jospeph Campbell has a knack, imo, for taking mildy interesting obsevations and trying to make deeply profound philosophical truths out of them. I have never gotten him, honestly. Well, you can talk about chocolate ice cream until kingdom comes, but how would you know, unless you taste it for yourself?

However, that doesn't make it any less applealing conversation wise, once you have tasted it. ;)

Nyarlathotep
20th April 2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, you can talk about chocolate ice cream until kingdom comes, but how would you know, unless you taste it for yourself?

However, that doesn't make it any less applealing conversation wise, once you have tasted it. ;)

In my case it isn't a case of never having tasted it, it's a case of tasting it, going "eh" and wondering what all the fuss is over it.

daenku32
20th April 2004, 10:28 AM
It's not 'wrong' to believe us to be the center of a universe.

It's the minute you use that belief in scientific formalas that it becomes wrong.

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

In my case it isn't a case of never having tasted it, it's a case of tasting it, going "eh" and wondering what all the fuss is over it. Of course that isn't to say there's not a lot of stuff that tries to pass itself off as the real thing either. ;)

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by daenku32

It's not 'wrong' to believe us to be the center of a universe.

It's the minute you use that belief in scientific formalas that it becomes wrong. Yeah, but why should science be so focused on the furthest outreaches of the universe, when we can't even take care of the mess we've created on this planet?

uruk
20th April 2004, 11:26 AM
Even the apes seem happy dangling from the trees. What makes us so different then? Could it be that we have yet to discover happiness is an internal thing, as opposed to an external? It would sure save a lot of wear and tear on the planet if we weren't so greedy and materialistic about things wouldn't it?

well.. no fur to keep us warm. no claws or fangs. an immune system that has been systematicaly weaked by good hygeine. no heavy bone structure. a predilaction to believe in dieties.

What makes you think the apes are happy? no doctors, any diesease is often fatal. lots of predators. always living in fear of predators. no laws to protect the weak. if your weak or sickly your bullied around or will die. sounds like paradise to me.

If they are happy I assume its because they do have a belife in a god that threatens them with eternal damnation or forces them to go to war over silly ideas like "my god is the only true god" or some other idiotic ulterior motive.

We aren't the only creatures on this earth that consumes resource and bespoils the earth ya know. all animals do it.

oh yea. the native american indians employed technology too ya know.
what do you think tee pees and bows and arrows are? The idea of the "noble savage" is false. try reading up on how native american truly were. this is even from their own verbal and writen history. it's not the ecological pardise you think it is.

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by uruk

well.. no fur to keep us warm. no claws or fangs. an immune system that has been systematicaly weaked by good hygeine. no heavy bone structure. a predilaction to believe in dieties.You know what's funny, is if we were supposed to appear after the Ice Ages, why didn't we appear hairy and all that, like the wooly mammoth? ;)

Yeah, and who told us we were naked?


What makes you think the apes are happy? no doctors, any diesease is often fatal. lots of predators. always living in fear of predators. no laws to protect the weak. if your weak or sickly your bullied around or will die. sounds like paradise to me.They sure look happy to me, swinging and howling up in the trees. By the way, ever see a monkey psychiatrist? And no, I don't mean humans here. ;) What do they need them for? The only time would probably be when they get too close to humans and/or get locked up in cages.


If they are happy I assume its because they do have a belife in a god that threatens them with eternal damnation or forces them to go to war over silly ideas like "my god is the only true god" or some other idiotic ulterior motive.No, it's because they don't have to reach for anything other than what's natural for them to reach for.


We aren't the only creatures on this earth that consumes resource and bespoils the earth ya know. all animals do it.All animals do it, but all animals aren't aware that they do it. What makes us so special then? And why are we so much better at it than all the rest of the animals put together?


oh yea. the native american indians employed technology too ya know.
what do you think tee pees and bows and arrows are? The idea of the "noble savage" is false. try reading up on how native american truly were. this is even from their own verbal and writen history. it's not the ecological pardise you think it is. Who said there was something wrong with technology? Did I say there was something wrong with technology? The only problem with technology is that we become over reliant on it, just like any other crutch. And thus sustains what we're inevitably going to have to face up to one day.

uruk
20th April 2004, 02:55 PM
You know what's funny, is if we were supposed to appear after the Ice Ages, why didn't we appear hairy and all that, like the wooly mammoth?

That's why we don't need fur, claws, or bony plates. Our brain provides with all that. Our bodies are ill equipent to withstand the elements. It's our technology that allows us to live in relative comfort. By the way humans aren't the only animals that use technology. Apes, otters, beavers, insects, and birds use and alter the resources around them for thier benefit.

They sure look happy to me, swinging and howling up in the trees. By the way, ever see a monkey psychiatrist? And no, I don't mean humans here. What do they need them for? The only time would probably be when they get too close to humans and/or get locked up in cages.
How do you know their happy? Happy is a human term. Have you asked an ape if their doing fine? looks can be decieving.

No, it's because they don't have to reach for anything other than what's natural for them to reach for
So your saying we are doing things that are un-natural for us. What are the unatural things we do and why is it un-natural? By what criteria are you comparing that to?

Who said there was something wrong with technology? Did I say there was something wrong with technology? The only problem with technology is that we become over reliant on it, just like any other crutch. And thus sustains what we're inevitably going to have to face up to one day.

Technology is not a crutch. It is what allows us to survive in this world. you may call it being over reliant, but we are just doing what comes natural to us.

The thing that seprates us from other animals is religion. I have yet to see an ape priest or clergy or a church for that matter.
I have not heard of the great babbon messiah that was nailed to a tree and rose again on the third day to absolve all ape kind of original sin. If you use nature to decide what is natural and unnatural. religion would be unnatural.

uruk
20th April 2004, 03:06 PM
For some reason my reply posted three times.
Can a moderator fix this?
Gotcha covered.

RussDill
20th April 2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
But you didn't answer the question? What makes us so special? Especially if it's so hazardous to the environment?

None of this seemed to bother the Native Americans a whole lot did it?

Depends on if you consider more than half of all children dying before adulthood a problem. (among other things)

RussDill
20th April 2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Consuming, and devouring, as if there were no tomorrow. And why do we do that? ... because we're not satisfied.


All animals consume and devour. However, we also create and destroy.

RussDill
20th April 2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
If it all began with the Big Bang, and everything continues to expand, what is it expanding into, besides boundlessness?

It doesn't make sense to say "expand into". The universe doesn't expand into anything nor need anything to expand into.

RussDill
20th April 2004, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Now that's what I call profound.

No, it's just meaningless dribble.

T'ai Chi
20th April 2004, 08:48 PM
Originally posted by RussDill


It doesn't make sense to say "expand into". The universe doesn't expand into anything nor need anything to expand into.

Of things that grow can you name anything that expands without expanding into anything?

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by RussDill

It doesn't make sense to say "expand into". The universe doesn't expand into anything nor need anything to expand into. Are you saying it's not expanding then?

Iacchus
20th April 2004, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by RussDill

No, it's just meaningless dribble. That's because meaning doesn't exist, right? But then again how can we have "meaningless" without something "meaningful" to contrast it against? Do you believe that meaning exists?

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by RussDill

Depends on if you consider more than half of all children dying before adulthood a problem. (among other things) Oh that's nothing compared to the guantlet the young of most creatures have to face. Do you realize how many little turtles have to cough it up (sob) in order for one turtle to grow to adulthood? An extremely high percentage.

Navigator
21st April 2004, 12:51 AM
Source Reality The Hub Of Hologram Dimensions Individuals

uruk
21st April 2004, 11:23 AM
Oh that's nothing compared to the guantlet the young of most creatures have to face. Do you realize how many little turtles have to cough it up (sob) in order for one turtle to grow to adulthood? An extremely high percentage.
So your saying turtles are more important than humans?
If it wasn't for our tecnology our young would have to face the same gauntlet. Damn us for being a successful species!

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by uruk

So your saying turtles are more important than humans?
If it wasn't for our tecnology our young would have to face the same gauntlet. Damn us for being a successful species! Yeah, so much so that we may wind up wiping out all the other species out just to prove it! ;)

And then what?

Nyarlathotep
21st April 2004, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
That's because meaning doesn't exist, right? But then again how can we have "meaningless" without something "meaningful" to contrast it against? Do you believe that meaning exists?

When you are talkinga bout whether meaning exists, you seem to be talking about it in some grand philosphical sense and you cannot possibly be so dense as to think that what Russ meant when he said that your passage from Campbell was "meaningless", he ws using "meaning" in that same sense. He very obviously meant that it was meaningless in the same sense that the following sentence is meaningless "Glop derp zeep, floggle fliggle floo". It has precisely jack squat to do with whether or not there exists meaning in the philosophical sense of some grand paln to the universe.

uruk
21st April 2004, 12:00 PM
Yeah, so much so that we may wind up wiping out all the other species out just to prove it!
I don't think it's about proving anything. It's about finding room and resorces to house and feed all those humans that are being poped out by the thousands each day. You can save your turtles when you find a way to effectively control the global birthrate.
untill then people are going to have "us-or-them" mentality.

And then what?
The same people who claim that we should preserve biodiversity because the animals we save may have a cure for a disease are the same people who protest against animals being used for that purpose.

Religion is the source of our mindset that we are superior over nature. Remember what it says in genisis. Science reminds us that we are a part of nature. Religion says we are special and separate from nature. So when you ask the question "what makes us so special" read the bible.

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

When you are talkinga bout whether meaning exists, you seem to be talking about it in some grand philosphical sense and you cannot possibly be so dense as to think that what Russ meant when he said that your passage from Campbell was "meaningless", he ws using "meaning" in that same sense. He very obviously meant that it was meaningless in the same sense that the following sentence is meaningless "Glop derp zeep, floggle fliggle floo". It has precisely jack squat to do with whether or not there exists meaning in the philosophical sense of some grand paln to the universe. I understand that there's no ultimate meaning in life. So ulitimately we don't exist. ;)

Nyarlathotep
21st April 2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
I understand that there's no ultimate meaning in life. So ulitimately we don't exist. ;)

The second statment in no way derives from the first. It is like saying "I like chocolate. Therefore it is windy outside"

uruk
21st April 2004, 02:56 PM
Oh that's nothing compared to the guantlet the young of most creatures have to face. Do you realize how many little turtles have to cough it up (sob) in order for one turtle to grow to adulthood? An extremely high percentage.

BUt turtles are prodeced by the thousands. thats how nature ensures that some turtles make it by others getting eaten up by predaters. If all the turtles made it they would over populate their ecosystem and starvation and extinction would follow. kinda like people now.
It's the circle of life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

evildave
21st April 2004, 04:44 PM
Of course I'm the center of how I perceive the universe.

You are the center of how you perceive the universe.

Wherever you go, there you are. (Movie quote!)

Anyway, stand in a wide open space where you can see the horizon all around. You are clearly and obviously at the center of what you can see, hear, feel, etc.

The problem comes from agreeing on common frames of reference.

"I am where I am" is all fine and dandy, but it's hardly going to get you from one place to another, if you have no external reference to go by. Neither will it help you to give directions to someone else.

I simply have to assume that the 'talking bear' statue at the traffic light in Oakhurst is real, and will be there for you to turn right at. It's worked every single time I've ever used it in directions, therefore, it's probably there.

Still nobody has shown where assuming things are NOT real gains anyone anything. Wastes a lot of time with silly "what if" scenarios that have never, ever come to be.

"If the road exists for you to 41, take Hwy 41 North, assuming 41 and North exist for you, to Oakhurst. At the second light in Oakhurst, (assuming 41, oahurst and light exist for you) at the talking bear (assuming 41, oahurst, light and talking bear exist for you), turn right, assuming right exists, and that you exist as soon as you leave my immediate presence, and that 41, oahurst, light, talking bear, right turn, etc. exist ...."

Awfully cumbersome barriers to communication, all of that.

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

The second statment in no way derives from the first. It is like saying "I like chocolate. Therefore it is windy outside" Dust in the wind dude! ;)

Yes, there can be no meaning in life, because ultimately we don't exist.

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by evildave

"If the road exists for you to 41, take Hwy 41 North, assuming 41 and North exist for you, to Oakhurst. At the second light in Oakhurst, (assuming 41, oahurst and light exist for you) at the talking bear (assuming 41, oahurst, light and talking bear exist for you), turn right, assuming right exists, and that you exist as soon as you leave my immediate presence, and that 41, oahurst, light, talking bear, right turn, etc. exist ...."

Awfully cumbersome barriers to communication, all of that. Of course if you weren't there right at that moment to do all these things, how would you ever get there? :D

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by uruk

BUt turtles are prodeced by the thousands. thats how nature ensures that some turtles make it by others getting eaten up by predaters. If all the turtles made it they would over populate their ecosystem and starvation and extinction would follow. kinda like people now.
It's the circle of life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course if we don't blow ourselves up first, maybe a virus will wipe us out?

RussDill
21st April 2004, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Of things that grow can you name anything that expands without expanding into anything?

any closed finite non-euclidian space.

RussDill
21st April 2004, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
That's because meaning doesn't exist, right? But then again how can we have "meaningless" without something "meaningful" to contrast it against? Do you believe that meaning exists?

no, because he used a bunch of words that have a specific meaning in a purely medaphorical sense, thus causing the words to lose most of the meaning they had. If you want to say something specific and meaningful, you can't speak in medaphors because your message becomes vague.

RussDill
21st April 2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh that's nothing compared to the guantlet the young of most creatures have to face. Do you realize how many little turtles have to cough it up (sob) in order for one turtle to grow to adulthood? An extremely high percentage.

I don't care. That isn't what we are comparing.

RussDill
21st April 2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you saying it's not expanding then?

no

evildave
21st April 2004, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course if you weren't there right at that moment to do all these things, how would you ever get there? :D

That's nothing! Then there's the 'reality' problems of all of this, too.

I mean, just the fact that left is right and up is down if I'm talking to an Aussie, and you have some concept of all the issues we have to leave aside just to talk.

You see, to confuse matters with real issues, it might be pointed out that we're on a globe that's spinning on its axis such that its surface is moving 1000 miles an hour (cue 'Galaxy song' music and wrap up by asking for your liver....)

So, if we used a fixed coordinate system based on an arbitrary 'center of the universe', we'd have to make allowances for what time it was, and give different directions according to time of day, time of year, etc.

What a pain.

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by RussDill

no, because he used a bunch of words that have a specific meaning in a purely medaphorical sense, thus causing the words to lose most of the meaning they had. If you want to say something specific and meaningful, you can't speak in medaphors because your message becomes vague. Meant something to me. ;)

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by evildave

So, if we used a fixed coordinate system based on an arbitrary 'center of the universe', we'd have to make allowances for what time it was, and give different directions according to time of day, time of year, etc.

What a pain. It's all relative though isn't it? :D Isn't this afterall what the theory of relativity is supposed to explain to us?

Iacchus
21st April 2004, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by RussDill

I don't care. That isn't what we are comparing. Is man not a part of nature or, do we choose to separate him? If so, then why?

evildave
22nd April 2004, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
It's all relative though isn't it? :D Isn't this afterall what the theory of relativity is supposed to explain to us?

The Einstein or the Alabama theory?

Iacchus
22nd April 2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by evildave

The Einstein or the Alabama theory? I didn't know there were two theories ... Has this got anything to do with bigotry?

LucyR
22nd April 2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
It's all relative though isn't it? :D Isn't this afterall what the theory of relativity is supposed to explain to us?

What do you think the theory of relativity is actually all about?

Just curious.

Iacchus
22nd April 2004, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by LucyR

What do you think the theory of relativity is actually all about?

Just curious. That everything is relative to the observer? ... besides something about the distortion of time and space.

LucyR
22nd April 2004, 12:45 AM
Swing and a miss.

Iacchus
22nd April 2004, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by LucyR

Swing and a miss. What was that that Einstein said, "That time goes by much more quickly when you're sitting on a hot stove as opposed to when you're making love to your girlfriend?" ;)

Donks
22nd April 2004, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by Iacchus
What was that that Einstein said, "That time goes by much more quickly when you're sitting on a hot stove as opposed to when you're making love to your girlfriend?" ;)

When quoting someone, it helps to get the actual quote right. Makes it seem less like you're just pulling stuff out of your rear end.

"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity."

Source (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001AA08-864C-1D49-90FB809EC5880000&sc=I100322)

Iacchus
22nd April 2004, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Donks

When quoting someone, it helps to get the actual quote right. Makes it seem less like you're just pulling stuff out of your rear end.

"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity."

Source (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001AA08-864C-1D49-90FB809EC5880000&sc=I100322) Works for me. Thanks! ;)

So the greatest of the great knit-picks has just stepped up to the plate and this is the best you could do huh? By the way, I was referring to what someone else had told me over 20 years ago, and I'm surprised I got as close as I did. The only reason I said time goes by quickly on a hot stove is because I wouldn't be sitting on a hot stove for any length of time. As for making love to your girlfriend, that's something you would want to make last don't you think?

Thanks for the correction though. And I agree, Einstein put it much more eloquently.

uruk
22nd April 2004, 11:14 AM
Of course if we don't blow ourselves up first, maybe a virus will wipe us out?

we can only hope!

Is man not a part of nature or, do we choose to separate him? If so, then why?

Like I said, read the bible. It's religion that says we are different and special and separate from nature.

evildave
22nd April 2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Iacchus
I didn't know there were two theories ... Has this got anything to do with bigotry?

Well, yes, but it's mostly about incest.