Thanks for sharing.

As it happens, though, you are not just an insignificant speck, you are every insignificant speck, and every sentient being for all time. So make yourself comfortable, because you're going to be here a while.

I like to say, perspective is everything. Asking what is the point of anything sounds like more of an emotional than an intellectual response. The alternate perspective is to see yourself as an apex product of billions of years of evolution. In a not-insignificant sense you absolutely are this universe from which you at the moment feel so alienated. Explore that possibility....


:up:

niki wonto,

This is from a book I’m working on. Current draft copy available upon request.

Self-Transcendence
Suppose I am entirely physical. Suppose I am matter and only matter, matter that somehow is conscious and intelligent. Suppose my destiny as an individual is annihilation. When I die, I cease to exist. The biosphere absorbs my body’s atoms. My emotions, mind, and consciousness simply cease to be. This idea may seem unwelcome, threatening, and frightening. But considered deeply, it can lead to self-transcendence. And self-transcendence can be viewed as a type of salvation, salvation from fear of death.

As we’ve seen, if I’m merely matter, matter which lacks a soul, then it’s plain that I didn’t come into the universe; I came out of it. My body emerged from the universe. I emerged from the universe. I am not separate from the universe but a part of it. The universe gave me birth. It is my parent. Something which is ancient and vast beyond imagination has given me birth. I am a person on a planet with billions of other people, a planet that is a microscopic speck of dust in an almost infinite universe.

I am a small speck. Yet, I can contemplate the vast and ancient universe. I feel my small presence in the infinite universe and the feeling is an odd mixture: one part realizing my own smallness and insignificance; one part feeling a part of a vast, magnificent universe, no matter if only an infinitesimal small part. The universe has created me. I am not the universe but the universe is me, just as the wave is not the ocean but the ocean is the wave. Something ancient and vast has become me.

The God’s Script by Jorge Luis Borges tells the story of Tzinacán, an Aztec priest imprisoned and tortured by the Spaniards. After decades in prison, Tzinacán has a vision; he believes certain words of power will destroy his stone prison, evict the Spaniards, reconstruct his nation, and make him immortal. But he knows he never shall utter the words, because “Whoever has seen the universe, whoever has beheld the fiery designs of the universe, cannot think in terms of one man, or that man’s trivial fortunes or misfortunes, though he be that very man.”

Tzinacán has achieved salvation, salvation from ego concerns, a type unlike the ego salvation of Old Theology religions.

We live in an unimaginably vast and ancient universe. Yet, our concerns often revolve about ourselves. Ego issues dominate: “I want to go to heaven. I want to be reincarnated. I. Me. I.” Ego concerns are understandable; they help us survive. But the person who can self-transcend, who can rise above ego; the person who can say to the Real, “You exist. And that’s enough for me. What does it matter if this finite, flawed human being lives for eternity, or is snuffed out like a candle?”—that person has a faith and a love for God far above those who practice religion out of fear of hell, hope of heaven, or a better reincarnation.

A person who achieves that perspective while still in the body has achieved some degree of self-transcendence. That person finds their “I” in the Real rather than in the ego and its transitory selves. Mystic slogans such as “Die before you die” and “The art of dying” take on a real, literal meaning. Self-transcendence utterly defeats death. For if I die to my transitory selves before the death of my body, then there is nothing that death can take.

What's the meaning or purpose in doing anything at all? — niki wonoto

There isn't any! That's the beauty of it: no requirements to fulfill, no deadlines to meet, no justifications or excuses or alibis to concoct.
Unless you want to.

What, then, is the point of asking "What's the point?"?

A speck that views the universe as we do, is quite a mighty one, it seems to me.

As it happens, though, you are not just an insignificant speck, you are every insignificant speck, and every sentient being for all time. So make yourself comfortable, because you're going to be here a while. — unenlightened

Woe. Unenlightened gets neoplatonic. :up:

Because in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. — niki wonoto

Quite possibly true, but we don't live in the grand scheme of things. We biological beings come and go pretty quickly. In the petite scheme of things, trivial matters tax our ingenuity. Mostly we matter to us, and we find our small-scale doings quite interesting.

Colliding galaxies, super novi, massive black holes, and the heat-death of the universe is "grand scheme" stuff.

What, then, is the point of asking "What's the point?"? — Ciceronianus

:fire:

:up:

:up:

Everything we do still means nothing at all, because we're all still just an insignificant speck of dust in the universe. It all means nothing. — niki wonoto

In many respects this is what makes me celebrate life even more. It's a brief flickering light in the infinite darkness, then it isn't. How marvelous it is that some of us are able to enjoy it and do things between the nothingness before we were born and the nothingness after we die.

You write 'insignificant spec' - but that is too emotive. Sounds like this has been influenced, perhaps unwittingly, by Christian thinking, where only transcendence can make a poor, earthly life meaningful. I call bullshit on that model.

Meaning? Humans are meaning making animals. There's more than enough variety of meaning out there to occupy a million lifetimes.

That's even worse. Now I have to choose! :D

:up:

Because in the grand scheme of things, nothing matters. Everything that we do, all that we do, just seems so minuscule & insignificant, when seen from the bigger picture of everything. — niki wonoto

I want to ask you a very simple question. "Meaningless to who?" You see, there's an implicit undercurrent in your statement. You're looking to some sentience that will clarify meaning for you. Lets say your mother tells you she had you so you can mow the lawn. So you get up everyday and mow the lawn, knowing that is your purpose in life. But that's your purpose in life to your mother, not to yourself.

So the question is, why do you feel you need to have a purpose for someone other than yourself? Barring that, there are people in your life who see purpose in you by associating with you. Why do you feel that that's not meaningful? When you save an insect in your house by putting it outside instead of stomping it, you've created meaning to that insect. Same as if you terrify and stomp it.

Lets say something told you your meaning was something that you hated and seemed purposeless to your personally. For example, mow your mother's lawn. Would you feel satisfied? Likely not. Perhaps because what you really aren't looking for is meaning, but a feeling that you've somehow associated with the word "meaning".

Perhaps what you're looking for is finding a feeling for yourself that gives you a feeling of satisfaction when you accomplish something. Let me tell you, its out there. Maybe its your job, your family, or even questioning the meaning of life on a philosophy board. The feeling of being satisfied for accomplishing something is rarely going to be handed out by someone else, but must be found from within. Explore your interests. Take risks. Take chances on things you've wanted to do if you can. Your every attempt won't always find it, but keep at it and you'll find success.

Meaningless to who — Philosophim

Meaningless to whom" because 'whom' is the object of the preposition. 'Who' is subjective. In the vast meaningless mess of the cosmos, grammar rules abide.

As for your post, it rates :100:

Alas, meaning is use, I understood it -- grammar is post hoc. (thereby confirming the meaningless mess of the cosmos)

Meaning might be use, but we have to agree on how use means what. That where grammar comes in. Otherwise use is useless in this monstrous meaningless mire in which we wallow. Speaking of which, Shawn hasn't been active for 19 days, I hope he's OK.

Everything that we do, all that we do, just seems so minuscule & insignificant, when seen from the bigger picture of everything. — niki wonoto

That 'bigger picture' is something that only h.sapiens can be made aware of, as far as we know. So you're scaring yourself.

Meaningless to whom" because 'whom' is the object of the preposition. 'Who' is subjective. In the vast meaningless mess of the cosmos, grammar rules abide. — BC

Grammar evolves. 'Whom' is largely outdated at this point when speaking colloquially. If you're going to be dumb and nitpick someone's grammar instead of the content of their post, at least be smart about it.

Edit: Saw you edit in a compliment to the post after I mentioned this, thanks.

The only thing with intelligence in the entire galaxy is humanity. Humans, you being one of them, decide what happens to all those 100 billion stars and planets. They could be turned into ANYTHING.

The only thing with intelligence in the entire galaxy is humanity. — Leftist

That's a huge assumption that only illustrates the limitations of human knowledge. It originates from an core orientation of philosophical pessimism which in itself has no basis. One can just as easily adopt an original philosophical optimism, one that recognizes even in our tiny little speck of existence a huge spectrum of intelligence. This leads to the conclusion that, not only are there probably other intelligences, there are probably other intelligences far more advanced than our own.

This leads to the conclusion that, not only are there probably other intelligences, there are probably other intelligences far more advanced than our own. — Pantagruel

Yes, when you have about 100-200 billion galaxies in the universe and now something about probabilities.

And if we want to remind how fleeing our time is along the OP of this thread, we can observe our sent radio waves travelling the speed of light haven't made far in our galaxy:

(Ought to resemble a 105 000 light year diameter galaxy with a 200 diameter range)


And in addition, anybody with the capable technology to interact with us, the range for that interaction is half of that.

This leads to the conclusion that, not only are there probably other intelligences, there are probably other intelligences far more advanced than our own. — Pantagruel

:up:

Do we really decide what happens next, or... does the environment the one which decides on us? Because it seems that it is the latter that establishes the natural principles of life and sustainability.

Interesting.

I have always wondered if there is someone out there capable of interacting with us. I believe that there are, but it hasn't come the proper time yet. We have to just wait and see who would be the first to interact. Will it be they or us?

Will it be they or us? — javi2541997

Or the question is, in line with @niki wonoto's gloomy OP, will we live to see that day? I'd have high hopes if I would live for 105 000 years. (Or would it be 210 000?)

will we live to see that day? I'd have high hopes if I would live for 105 000 years. (Or would it be 210 000?) — ssu

:up:

Another line: will it be worthy at all? What if the ones who contact us want to conquer and destroy us?
This debate opens up different dilemmas.

specks of dust do things. Thats the reason for doing anything.

Everything in existence has properties, characteristics or in a sentient sense - agency or behaviour.

Being human means you can act in the scope of all actionable by humans. Anything from avolition, feeling pointless and sedentary, giving up and committing suicide to being highly motivated, having a strong sense of purpose and doing productive/constructive things as long as you're alive.

That is the freedom of being human.

It is true that perhaps nothing we do is ever important if we are all just going to become dust again. But because life is a continuity with overlap between lives, legacy and impact on others has inherent continuity of purpose. How you influence those younger and healthier than you goes beyond your own mortality. This is what is known as legacy.

So to answer your question, legacy is something that can be immortalised. Just as we are still enjoying Shakespeare many centuries after his work was created, and we are still referencing plato and Socrates. An even more extreme example of immortalised legacy.

So the point of doing anything is to do it for the collective with the opportunity to influence said collective far beyond your living years.

A purpose that goes beyond yourself in cause and effect is essentially your consciousness and conscious productivity permeating society and becoming something of value even if the contributor doesn't know it because they're dead.

Another source of purpose is belief in an afterlife or karmic rebirth. In those cases the point of doing things now is because they will influence the trajectory of your essence or soul or whatever when you pass on to the next instance of existence after human death. Not all people ascribe to this belief so of course it only holds value for a few. Again entirely within your freedom of belief

So the point of doing anything is to do it for the collective with the opportunity to influence said collective far beyond your living years. — Benj96

Why?

because if pointlessness and impotency of your actions is what you want to avoid (as it generally feels disatisfactory) then the aim of a life well lived is to extend the influence of your actions as long as possible through sentient existence.

The "point" of anything is what it does and for how long is it not? Things that are short lived are usually for yourself whilst things that are high impact and long lasting are usually those that influence others because our lifespan is ultimately limited.

To shape the future for generations of people arguably has more "point" than to indulge in a night or personal pleasures that impacts no one else.

our lifespan is ultimately limited — Benj96

Like our legacies.

But the longer and bigger the better, is that it? If I were @niki wonoto, I don’t think I’d be reassured.

Like our legacies.

But the longer and bigger the better, is that it? — Jamal

Well it depends on your personal values. Some people have no interest in legacy. Because they're fulfilled by their own individual life.

And theres nothing wrong with that. They are a source of their own enjoyment and general contentedness. The key is that they are fulfilled. They have a "point", a "purpose" according to them and thats all that matters when it comes to mood/satisfaction and happiness.

For others, they're more ambitious. They desire more potency and power and influence. Perhaps they have high self esteem and believe theyre very capable and talented. And perhaps they are. Often the two come hand in hand.

So establishing a point to existence is going to be inherently more challenging for such a person. Big dreams hold big accountability and responsibility and greater vulnerability to dissatisfaction, pointlessness and unworthiness if it doesn't work out because the goal is so high and anything that doesn't reach it is failure.

For those people, legacy is important as it is what gives value and purpose to their life.

So the key for satisfaction in that case is to either lower your expectations or amplify your capabilities. Both are entirely possible.

We dictate what we value. And what we value dictates whether we achieve it or not. Some people are super happy with daily achievements and others are never satisfied by any achievement. It's a balancing act.