It's a ugly world.

It is not meaningless per sey, but the hands are dealt unevenly.

The Sun's yellow is meaning, search for meaning therefore, it's not just a statement, but more of a logos.

Any such notion of a self with all its meanings set against a meaningless world is an archetypal expression of Cartesian thinking. This is one of the very important themes in Heidegger. — Janus

I don't know, it doesn't seem particularly dualistic to think that meaning exists in minds and not in shoeboxes. The same shoebox can have a wide variety of meanings for different minds. That doesn't mean that mind and matter are separable. Also, a mind can contrive meaning, or even a system of meaning as with religion.

I would not necessarily agree that "there is ALWAYS an out-group for the religious" — Janus

For this to not be the case, a religion would need to allow its tenets to be freely questioned and revised by any of its members. Do you know of any such religion?

Just look at our friend Wayfarer, who espouses the value of religion AND enthusiastically condemns the materialist infidels.

Just look at our friend Wayfarer, who espouses the value of religion AND enthusiastically condemns the materialist infidels. — praxis

I get that you hate religion. I'm not so much 'enthusiastic' about it, as wanting to retrieve from it what made it meaningful in the first place. It seems obvious to me that a good deal of modern nihilism is based on the lack of any sense of relatedness to the Cosmos.

I get that you hate religion. — Wayfarer

Observe, @Janus, if you're not with them then you're against (hate) them. :roll:

I basically believe that nothing has any meaning. — yupamiralda

You could use this observation to promote feeling. Feeling is undeniable.

Your view is too simplistic. What is lost in worldviews dominated by reductionist thinking is the sense of the sacred. Of course, religions themselves often reinforce this loss, and one way they may do this is by claiming certain places, objects, events or people as sacred in contrast to the rest as being ordinary, mechanical, fallen and so on. The sense that life itself, the universe and everything in it is sacred, divine, is both the result and expression of the meaning that is always and everywhere immanent . A view like this is probably closest to the kinds of animism that suffused the lives of hunter/ gatherers.

if you're not with them then you're against (hate) them. — praxis

It's not a general statement, but an observation based on what you say. OK, maybe 'hate' might be too strong a word but you generally express a very strong sense of hostility, scepticism, or something similar, against anything you deem 'religious'.

Just look at our friend Wayfarer, who espouses the value of religion AND enthusiastically condemns the materialist infidels. — praxis


I get that you hate religion. I'm not so much 'enthusiastic' about it, as wanting to retrieve from it what made it meaningful in the first place. It seems obvious to me that a good deal of modern nihilism is based on the lack of any sense of relatedness to the Cosmos. — Wayfarer

Observe, Janus, if you're not with them then you're against (hate) them. :roll: — praxis

I share something of Wayfarer's view. Religious feeling is native to us. When it comes to my own practice I have little time for organized religion though. People often think you can't do it on your own, you need a guru and so on. I think this is nonsense based on the misplaced idea that we are,existentially speaking, alone. This is the devaluation of life that consists in our notions of separation. But many people are caught in that and so organized, politicized religion, and I think that includes all institutionalized religions, may have positive value as well as negative dis-value. For example, on the most basic level, it may provide solace for many who would, due to their mindsets, otherwise find life intolerable.

But, organized religions also inevitably tend to create chauvinistic cultures, and the fact that they all disagree with one another regarding whatever positive claims they make about life and death contributes to that tendency. So, organized religions also foster the delusions of separation. In fact it is the Christian idea of separation, original sin and fallen mechanical nature, which sets the stage for the rise of science, technology and capitalism that together are destroying the natural world at an accelarating rate.

The part I share with Wayfarer is in thinking that there is a common religious impulse, which is based on feeling and the deep intuition that life is sacred. The part I don't share is in thinking that there are "higher truths" to do with some transcendent realm that enlightened individuals or the favored "instruments of God" have privileged access to.

On the other hand, I do believe that any person will be more or less open to the sense of the sacred and that being in the presence of one who is more open to that sense, which is really love, may, if you are somewhat open yourself, be helpful in opening yourself further to such intuitions and to love. I also think it is common enough for such "open" individuals, who often become spiritual "leaders" to believe all kinds of nonsense, due to their underdeveloped critical and self-critical, faculties. That said, considering the human part of nature it is indeed an imperfect world, and looked at in that context, there may not be too much harm in such 'nonsense' beliefs, as they may countervail against even more pernicious attitudes.

I think the most important element of religion lies in the feeling, not in elitist fantasies of enlightenment, of "priveleged", or "higher" esoteric "knowledge". So, the point is that all these fantasies and games played by the religious and the self-styled and so-called "masters of wisdom" are not unequivocally negative, because they may to some degree counteract other impulses which could be far worse for our common human life. The important point for me is that the emphasis is on commonality and love and not on hatred and separation, and religion, just like science or any other human cultural phenomenon, can just as easily contribute to the one as to the other.

Your view is too simplistic. What is lost in worldviews dominated by reductionist thinking is the sense of the sacred. Of course, religions themselves often reinforce this loss, and one way they may do this is by claiming certain places, objects, events or people as sacred in contrast to the rest as being ordinary, mechanical, fallen and so on. The sense that life itself, the universe and everything in it is sacred, divine, is both the result and expression of the meaning that is always and everywhere immanent . — Janus

Sure. Occams razor and I'm not using these poorly defined and loaded terms, like "spirituality", "sacred" and "divine". I asked for "spirituality" to be defined earlier and you and Wayfarer ignored it and instead engaged in using even more of these terms in your post. I'll glady take my simplistic view over some poorly defined view.

A view like this is probably closest to the kinds of animism that suffused the lives of hunter/ gatherers. — Janus

Exactly. Youre comparing your view with humans' preliminary explanation of the world and their place in it - when humans believed that they were the focus of creation. Religion has a tendency to inflate one's self importance which is just another form of delusion - delusions of grandeur.

The part I don't share is in thinking that there are "higher truths" to do with some transcendent realm that enlightened individuals or the favored "instruments of God" have privileged access to. — Janus

I get that. This is where the distinction between dharma and religion is useful. The two words have overlapping meanings but they're not exactly the same.

In Western culture and history, 'religion' is very strongly associated with authority and authoritarianism. I mean, you could argue that the Church created the template for later, political authoritarianism. So, a lot of modern culture is grounded in rejecting that authority, on thinking for yourself - as Praxis has stated more than once in this thread. So there's a perceived antinomy between conformist, authoritarian religious belief, and contrarian, creative individualism.

So I think that's why you rebel so strongly against any suggestion of religious authority, isn't it?

Whereas, the type of teacher associated with the more characteristically Eastern modes of understanding (i.e. dharma) does not necessarily represent authority in that sense (although he might). The model is different - more like the teacher empowering the student by guiding and imparting wisdom. That is more the Buddhist model. But it doesn't deny that there is something that 'the Buddha' understands or sees, which 'the ordinary worldling' does not. And I've come to accept that; even though every sentient being has the capacity for enlightenment, in reality, very few are enlightened. I guess that's why I now come across as being 'religious' although that wasn't at all the intention I set out with; that was to discover what this 'enlightenment' business was about. But as you travel along the path, your perspective changes. But I'm still resisting being 'a believer' - I still hope that there is a real wisdom that can be discerned, and not simply believed in.

The broader point is this. Much of great value in the Western philosophical tradition was incorporated by Christian theology over many centuries. And then with the dawn of 'this secular age', it was all bundled together and discarded. (Not by everyone of course.) Then you get these forlorn individuals signing up to philosophy forums and saying 'hey, nothing means anything any more.' And that's a cultural phenomenon, it's a sign of the times. Our culture doesn't imbue people with any sense of relatedness to the sacred, or to the Cosmos at large. Most kids, when you survey them, want either to be famous, or to be rich, or both.

Exactly. Youre comparing your view with humans' preliminary explanation of the world and their place in it - when humans believed that they were the focus of creation. — Harry Hindu

In the kinds of animistic worldviews found in hunter/ gatherer cultures humans are not the focus of creation. That idea came later, most notably with the Abrahamic religions, and most especially Christianity.

So there's a perceived antinomy between conformist, authoritarian religious belief, and contrarian, creative individualism.

So I think that's why you rebel so strongly against any suggestion of religious authority, isn't it? — Wayfarer

I agree there is such an "antinomy", but that is only because the two are inherently very different. By using the word "contrarian" you seem to introduce an underlying suggestion that people reject authority only out of a kind of perversity. I don't see it that way. People question authority when they become able to think for themselves, it may take quite a lot for someone indoctrinated with, for example, Catholic belief, to free themselves from its thrall. (I have several friends who were devout in their teens, but being highly intelligent and brave souls, eventually came to reject the influence of the Church. And they are all good, loving, supportive people, or at least in those regards certainly a cut above the average).

If people fail to question their indoctrination then they are and will remain merely blind followers (which may be fine for some who are not inclined to think much about their lives). Once an individual becomes able to question it they may or may not become reconciled to their faith, and if they do they will no longer be the blind follower they previously were. They may still believe for mostly emotional reasons, but ideally they will have achieved the degree of self-knowledge necessary to know that is what they are doing; otherwise they will have merely reached a different stage of blindness.

Whereas, the type of teacher associated with the more characteristically Eastern modes of understanding (i.e. dharma) does not necessarily represent authority in that sense (although he might). The model is different - more like the teacher empowering the student by guiding and imparting wisdom. — Wayfarer

I have observed many, and been personally involved in a few, Buddhist and other "spiritual" organizations, and I would say that the teacher always becomes an authority figure. This may not be the fault of the teacher; the same kind of thing may happen with celebrities or prominent intellectual and scientific figures; it's on account of human life and nature at its most unexamined. If the teacher has the right feeling, a genuine feeling of love, then they may impart that feeling; that is the important influence. There is no "wisdom" in the form of some "hidden" or "higher" esoteric knowledge to be imparted above and beyond that feeling of love and unity. That there is such a "higher wisdom" is merely a kind of infantile fantasy in my view. But there may be, nonetheless an altered state of consciousness, experience and feeling; I believe that is very real, albeit rare.

if you're not with them then you're against (hate) them.
— praxis

It's not a general statement, but an observation based on what you say. OK, maybe 'hate' might be too strong a word but you generally express a very strong sense of hostility, scepticism, or something similar, against anything you deem 'religious'. — Wayfarer

This is false. In fact, I know that you’ve “observed” me sing the praises of Meido Zentetsu Roshi, if no other thing deemed religious.

How can you be so fucking blind? In a word: tribalism. Tribal life is so deliciously meaningful.

This is false. — praxis

Well, that was my interpretation of the kinds of things you say, such as

Because the foundation (spiritual authorities) have been proven to be frauds, for the vast majority anyway. — praxis

Perhaps I misunderstood?

That there is such a "higher wisdom" is merely a kind of infantile fantasy in my view. — Janus

You make that abundantly clear at every possible opportunity, which can be tiresome, but I guess I'm asking for it. :sad:

More challenging than tiresome, I'll warrant!

I keep making it clear in the hope that it will eventually become clear to you. Anyway, I'm just expressing my opinion, which is all anyone of us do on here really, isn't it? At least I am giving my reasons for that opinion, and they stand open to challenge!

If someone wants to convince me that there is such a "higher knowledge" (beyond the altered consciousness and emotional responses that I have acknowledged to be real) then thy will need to provide a convincing argument for believing such a thing. I have never seen anything even approaching such an argument, so why should I believe? You might say you know there is higher knowledge from your own experience, but I don't believe it is possible to know such a thing, since all experiences are interpreted.

You may have a sense of direct knowing, I have had many such experiences myself, in fact I have them every day, but ask yourself 'What is it exactly that I know when I have such experiences? What exactly could it be that I know?' or 'Could it be any kind of communicable, discursive knowledge about anything?'. I think if you are honest with yourself you will admit that it couldn't be any such kind of knowledge. Does something qualify as knowledge if I cannot say clearly and unequivocally what it is, or is it not rather an intuitive sense, or feeling, of knowing something which cannot be expressed in words?

And please note, I am by no means denigrating that kind of experience; it is the most important kind of experience there is, and it is the basis for all kinds of practical wisdom and creative ability. I am just trying to show you that it is not knowledge in the kind of sense that you seem to think it is, that you can't get it from anyone else and that you don't need anyone else to guide you; in fact quite the opposite; you just need to learn to think less dualistically, more holistically and to trust your innate wisdom. I can't see any reason to believe that others who are may be more open than you to this capacity we all have can act as anything more than inspiring examples, they should never be thought of as infallible and any actual claims they make should be taken with a grain of salt. What they "know" will never be what you "know" because you are uniquely different individuals.

I say the idea of "higher knowledge" is an "infantile fantasy" because the child naturally looks to the adult for "higher" guidance; which is inevitable as long as the child is unschooled in the ways of the world. I understand that you will have an emotional resistance to accepting what I am saying, and I predict that you will do the politician's thing of evading trying to come up with a straight answer to the questions posed, or misinterpreting what I am saying and responding to the misinterpretation, because not to do either of those would lead you to see for yourself how there is no real ground upon which you are standing, and experience the vertigo that realization will bring. Maybe one day you'll be ready for it; I hope so..

I basically believe that nothing has any meaning.

Part of me agrees with you. But I think the problem of nihilism is that if we embrace it, we will have to believe that anything that gives an illusion of value is more deceitful than things that frankly denote meaninglessness since the meaninglessness of the world should be the only truth for us. In a world void of meaning, the more meaningless a thing is, the more clearly it reflects the truth.
Provided that everything is meaningless at its core, what is then the most meaningless thing in the world? Food, clothes, houses, money, books–they still seem to have some meaning. Love has also meaning, even if it's an illusion, because it unites men and women and thus contributes to our biological reproduction. Happiness, pleasure, hope, hatred–actually, to find something completely meaningless is as difficult as to find something completely meaningful: when we wanted the world full of meaning, everything seemed meaningless, but once we are prepared to accept the meaninglessness of the world, the world, every phenomenon of it, suddenly reveals itself to be full of petty meaning. So if we deny everything that gives us the illusion of meaningfulness as the shadows on the wall and try to find something that is completely void of any meaning, I think what our mind conceives to be the most meaningless thing in the world cannot be but God. I call this the negative God.
It cannot be the Devil, obviously, because unlike the Devil, which must be deceitful, it reveals the truth to us, that is to say, it's the only thing in the world that reveals absolutely nothing at all. And since everything is meaningless and anything of value is nothing but a shadow on the wall, we can see the glory of this negative God everywhere. It's completely non-existent, does no miracle, says nothing and has no meaning. It's pure and clean.
And this divine non-being is what connects us all since we human beings are made of dreams. We do meaningless things, think about meaningless things, and shed meaningless tears for meaningless affairs, knowing a gust of wind will wipe out all the traces of our existence some day. Our existence is fleeting, but our absence will be eternal. We will be one with the negative God when we all are dead.
And since the whole universe is devoid of meaning, this negative God, the purest form of meaninglessness, may be considered, in a reversed way, omnipresent. Now that we are nihilists, we find the glory of the negative God where the saints of old found the glory of the Christian God. And we cannot escape from the hand of the negative God as long as we live in a meaningless world.

Thanks for taking the time to make such a detailed reply. I note also on DharmaWheel where I am a mod, that there’s often an indifferent response to mention of ‘higher knowledge’, even though there’s a Sanskrit word that means exactly that (abhijna, अभिज्ञा ). I think it goes against the grain of modern thought.

But it’s not something that I personally want to convince you or anyone of, it’s more that in the absence of something like that, then what purpose does philosophy serve? As I’ve said before, I think It corresponds to the vertical axis along which quality or virtue is measured. That is even in keeping with the Aristotelian notion of wisdom, as I understand it. (Of course there’s also the Wittgensteinian parable of discarding the ladder after you use it, but it still assumes the need for a ladder.)

Look at science. Science is a way of ‘higher knowledge’ in a sense - in fact, that’s where it started, back before science, philosophy and religion were all thought of as separate. But the point about science is to arrive at a knowledge of causes and principles that couldn’t be gained without the methodical and systematic approach of science, and without building on the accumulated knowledge of the tradition (‘standing on the shoulders of giants’). The issue is that science, as you already noted, assumes a stance of ‘man and nature’ or ‘observer and observed’ which imposes a particular kind of mentality at the outset. Whereas the ‘scientia sacra’ (sacred sciences) of the perennial traditions are conducted within a different context, where the subject of the science is oneself, or rather, being qua being (with oneself as an epitome.)

(There was a really good and important Aeon article in January, The Blind Spot - Science as the Neglect of Lived Experience. It goes into this whole notion of the stance of ‘otherness’ that underwrites modern science and its limitations. And one of the contributors is Evan Thomson, whose most recent book Waking, Dreaming, Being is grounded in science, phenomenology, and Buddhist Abhidharma. This is also the kind of philosophy that Josh here talks about.)

But I disagree that these kinds of insights are only personal or private. In fact that seems to be our principle disagreement - that you recognise the importance of such experiential realisation, but you say that it is only ever first-person, can’t be communicated, and so on. Whereas I believe that a key part of the role of philosophy is in communicating that kind of understanding - otherwise, again, why philosophy? If nobody has wisdom, or if wisdom is what everyone already has, then what is the point of the discipline? Understanding the need for a vertical axis or dimension is fundamental to that as far as I’m concerned, so let’s just agree to disagree on that point.

This is false.
— praxis

Well, that was my interpretation of the kinds of things you say, such as

Because the foundation (spiritual authorities) have been proven to be frauds, for the vast majority anyway.
— praxis

Perhaps I misunderstood? — Wayfarer

Granted that God has not been proven to be dead. A meaningless God, however, is for all intents and purposes, dead.

But I disagree that these kinds of insights are only personal or private. — Wayfarer

I am not actually saying that they are. I think they are essentially human insights; insights which belong to the human as surely as instinct does to the animal. In fact, I don't believe they are inherently different to instinct; they manifest the immanent "wisdom" of the Cosmos, so to speak, the wisdom that explains how animals know what to do, and even know things, the knowing of which seems inexplicable to us. Not everything about wisdom can be explained and its conclusions or principles cannot be strictly warranted by evidence and argument.

I do agree with you that philosophy (in one of its guises at least) deals with wisdom. But since it consists in communicable ideas, anything that purports to be wisdom should be communicable as such in everyday terms; things such as the golden rule or the idea that harming another harms the self, for example. Communicable but not necessarily demonstrable! Philosophy cannot give us knowledge about what happens after death, or whether karma is real, or whether there is a God, and so on. What it can give us knowledge of, in its critical mode, is what we could possibly have good reason to believe and what we definitely, at least at the moment, do not. So, I believe that the discursive dialectical practice of philosophy is essentially an exercise in skepticism, in learning to withhold judgement in matters which cannot by their very nature, or at least currently, yield sufficient evidence to support any conclusions.

I totally disagree with the idea that a "vertical axis" can be made philosophically coherent without relying on unwarranted assumptions, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about that. :smile:

Dead to those for whom it has no meaning, to be sure. :grin:

:up:

No doubt, it will come up again. ;-)

modern culture is grounded in rejecting that authority, on thinking for yourself - as Praxis has stated more than once in this thread. So there's a perceived antinomy between conformist, authoritarian religious belief, and contrarian, creative individualism. — Wayfarer

Modern culture is more individualistic, but we nevertheless share all sorts of fictions and ideologies, as well as willingly follow worthy leaders.

I generally agree with what you share.

Subjective meaning clearly exists but the position that there is no objective meaning is correct. You have taken up an interpretation surrounding the importance of biology and evolutionary purpose, this is also lacking any truth, beyond the truth it has to you as a compelling idea.

Criticism and insults won't free you; merely chain you up somewhere else.
All things wax and wane, and in time you'll shed this notion off when it becomes burdensome.

As it is, you're already shedding - having given yourself, your thinking and your offspring, some meaning.
If things were truly meaningless to you, you would not care for either of these, let alone write about them.

An absolutely meaningless world, is an absolutely meaningful world.
Being nothing in particular, it can be and so it is - everything.
Absurd ideas may become common and common ideas may become absurd.
Don't dwell on the steps, just dance the dance.

since it consists in communicable ideas, anything that purports to be wisdom should be communicable as such in everyday terms — Janus

noted.

The important point for me is that the emphasis is on commonality and love and not on hatred and separation, — Janus

I'd say it's important to realize that making distinctions, noting differences, etc. doesn't equate to separation in the sense that it seems you're using that term (which seems to have value connotations related to isolation, inability to interact, loneliness, despair, etc.), and it certainly doesn't equate to hatred. It's important to be cognizant of distinctions and differences, otherwise you might put your socks in the toaster--and wind up burning down your house, or you might search for your lost car keys in the forest even though you haven't been in the forest since you last had your keys. Noting that meaning isn't everywhere, that it's only in/of minds, that minds aren't everywhere, etc. is simply making the same sorts of distinctions that we make between bread and socks, between one being in the pantry and the other in a dresser, etc.

In the kinds of animistic worldviews found in hunter/ gatherer cultures humans are not the focus of creation. That idea came later, most notably with the Abrahamic religions, and most especially Christianity. — Janus

Around and around we go.

Animism is the religious belief that objects, places and creatures all possess a distinct spiritual essence. — Wikipedia

Again I ask, what is "spiritual"? How is this any different than the Christian belief that God is everywhere and in everything? How is it not an anthropomorphic projection of one's mind onto the universe? How is that not

You are projecting to the general what applies only to the particular: what applies to you — Janus

?

Maybe I just don't understand my own position. I basically believe that nothing has any meaning. When asking myself what I should do under this condition, I decided I didn't believe in anything more strongly than that I was a biological organism, and my thinking should revolve around the idea of being a successful biological organism (and doing what I can to ensure my offspring's success). I know my ideas are troubling, or absurd, or whatever. But they all follow, somehow, from that. I'm here because I don't totally trust my own thinking and I want criticism, even insults. — yupamiralda

Your ideas are not absurd, you're merely now facing the absurd as, hopefully, we all do eventually. Whatever lead to your disillusionment, your only choice is to find meaning for yourself, or to live in 'bad faith'. Clearly, being a "successful biological organism" is rather devoid of meaning.

There are two basic approaches to dealing with the absurd that I've found to be successful. One is to simply fulfill our natural desire for meaning as well as possible. This is actually simple and straightforward, and a decent guide could probably be found in any self-help book section. The other approach is to transcend the absurd via spiritual practice or contemplation. A desire for meaning is strongly tied to self-identity, and contemplative practice can mediate the conflicts generated by our sense of self.

Have faith and be an absurd hero. :razz: