2001 was rubbish when I first saw it at around 15 years of age but I began to appreciate it as I got older. — universeness

This experience is common. 2001 is a very complex film. The first time I saw it I didn't understand anything... it took some years and a lot of readings in internet to get a basic sense on the film!

Stone age folks had better imagination than Stanley Kubrick - the more relatable a form aliens assume, the easier it is to deliver the message (supposing there is one). — Agent Smith

What!? :scream:

Is a rectangular, black, 10 feet tall monilith in any way something that would be familiar to pre-sapiens? Very unllikely, and to that extent it's a bad idea. — Agent Smith

I don't think it is a bad idea at all. Monolithic symbolism is pretty interesting. We can have a large debate on the significance. What I intended to start in this thread was the search for answers of what Kubrick was thinking when he decided to put a monolith in a sci-fi film.

Thank you so much for your reply. You provided a lot of good arguments. I like how you explain it as a "dawn" for human's knowledge and development.
Nonetheless, it is interesting to point out that many people interpreted the scene as "scary" due to the randomness and the way of hominids acted on the monolith. But as you noticed, we also have to keep our eyes on the hominid who throws a bone in the sky. To be honest with you, the first time I saw the scene I interpreted as a "violent" specie surviving in the chaos.
But the way you explained it changed my view a little bit. It is true that we consider it as symbol of creation and not destruction.

I am remembering now that the monolith appears in other scenes during the film. But my memories are vague, I think I should watch it again.

I didn't sequel of 2010! Wow, thanks for sharing the video. Now, I see the alien theory gains more rigidity.
I see (as you explained) the monolith had duplicates. To be honest, I don't like that representation. An only, unique, solitary monolith is what makes a lot of debate.
When you see a lot of them you feel outrageous :lol:

To me, it always signified the Christian stone tablets (commandments) but this had nothing written on it.
So, all the hominids stared at its smooth, designed, cuboid shape and knew none of their kind could have created it so ........ gods?

Interesting view! I never gave it a religious significance. It even takes a while until I have a clear idea of what the monolith means. It is true that we should see the movements and expressions of the hominids. I remember that whenever they approach to the monolith they feel hesitated...
Probably they feel that way because of the unknown?

I respect Kubrick's answers in the interview. But I guess he just replied in an artistic experience not philosophical one.

Facts are independent of intelligence (knower unnecessary) while knowledge requires an intelligence (knower necessary) — Agent Smith

:up: :100:

given your recent posts extolling the life of a samurai, I wondered whether you would agree with that but received no reply. — Amity

Sorry, Amity, I forgot to reply to your quote but here is my answer:

Absolutely. You are right in the fact that seppuku doesn't survive through the centuries. It is another way of suicide and is seen pretty among Japanese society (well, in the Western culture too indeed).
But I only wanted to share my opinion of how interesting it was in Middle Age Japan the way of samurais acted in terms of loyalty, honour, righteousness, etc... whenever one samurai didn't accomplish any of these requirements he decided to commit seppuku because it was more painful the dishonour than killing oneself.
Nevertheless, it is true that the period of samurai times was so much different from nowadays. They were used to clan wars and a lot of blood. We evolved in to a complex society where we resolve the disputes with words and debates (a new habit which was born during the XIX century...?

Yet, it is so drastic seppuku act, we should never forget it. It is an important piece of history that is pretty interesting to consider about. It was an Ancient Ritual and we have to respect it.

what would the point of a personal ritual be?

The search of a personal journey. I am agree that most of the rituals are social because that's the clue. But in the other hand I wanted to argue some examples where some rituals can be committed individually. Another example could be asceticism. This ritual may withdraw from the world for their practices, but typically adopt a frugal lifestyle, characterised by the renunciation of material possessions and physical pleasures, and also spend time fasting while concentrating on the practice of religion or reflection upon spiritual matters.
Ascetic lifestyle is associated particularly with monks, nuns, and fakirs in Abrahamic religions, and bhikkhus, munis, sannyasis, vairagis, goswamis, and yogis in Indian religion

Don't worry! It is ok, friend. I like your answer and I really appreciate the time you take to read my posts.
To be honest, I don't even know why I wrote "human morals" :lol: I guess it was a reflex action or something similar!

(BTW, why do you say "human" ... Are there morals other than human?) — Alkis Piskas

The title of the OP says "human morals" so I didn't want get off from the topic :yum:

To be honest, I personally think it needs to be learned. There is an important concept inside Buddhism that is called "moral merit" which means the way of learn how to act appropriately towards life and others. Once we have learned morality we are more connected to Nirvana world or we pick up good results from "Cosmic justice" as "good Karma" etc...
So yes I think Human Morals need to be taught and it is not inherent to us.

You mean seppuku can be committed alone. That I understood as obvious.
For the individual it is clearly and hopefully a one-off act; it is only a ritual in the socio-cultural sense.
I was looking at the broader framework; it is/was a Japanese Ritual and then some. — Amity

We are both agree in the same point then! :up: :100:

I am agree with you about kaishakunin. In most of the rituals this specific person helped the samurai to perform the ritual without pain. But kaishakunin would not be in all the rituals. They only appeared when the samurai asked for his help.
A good example is Oda Nobunaga. He committed seppuku in the loneliness when he perceived that his samurai clan was been destroying.

Even when such an act is performed, it's part of a socio-cultural code.
It is telling a story. In this case, the Japanese ritual is mainly about restoring honour for themselves and their families. But there are more aspects or approaches to explore... — Amity

Completely agree. But what I intended to argue is that seppuku doesn't need "cooperation" to be performed. It is not like... a Christmas dinner for example. Where is the clue of a Christmas dinner if you're alone in your house? (Or in a birthday party)
Well seppuku is different. The social-cultural code can be committed without the implications of others.

And to be clear, I think a ritual may necessarily be social in nature.

Not necessarily. Seppuku was a samurai ritual used when someone committed a big act of dishonour or disrespect. The act itself was accomplished in the pure loneliness. Most of the people found out what happened whenever they discovered the corpse.

"What motivates the neo-Luddite worldview?"

Staying out of the masses. If you really want to be yourself you need to prevent the use of big social media apps (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc...) where the critical thinking doesn't exist and those are filled by fake news or hate speech.
To be honest, I never heard of neo-Luddite until today. It looks so interesting. I will look forward on this topic.

Marriage ceremonies, graduation ceremonies, inauguration ceremonies, award ceremonies, funeral traditions, birthday and holiday rituals

All of these examples were always been religious rituals... (except award ceremonies, good example).

What about non-religious ‘rituals’? — I like sushi

True. But I don't know any example of them.

My own thoughts:

Ritual: it depends on religious and sacred practices during centuries. Their cause is profess a doctrine which can pass through generations.
For example: when Islam prayers go to the Mecca during the Hajj pilgrimage.

Habit: it comes from experience and doesn't depend on religious or pagan doctrines but life actions. Habits can help us to elaborate a progress in our lives to do it better.
For example: the habit of having a healthy diet to keep a balanced body or weight.

Gödel? If it is consistent, it is incomplete; if it is complete, it is inconsistent. — Agent Smith

Good quote and reference! :up:

It remembers me about shûnya (empty) on Buddhist metaphysics.

Relative Existence or No Self Nature: Nothing has a essence, nature, or character by itself. Things in isolation are , shûnya, "empty." The nature of things only exists in relation to everything else that exists. Existence as we know it is thus completely relative and conditioned by everything else.

Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists have a lot more in common with Catholics and Orthodox than most people realize. — Dermot Griffin

Well, it supposed to be, right? They are connected to the same belief: God's existence.
I respect all your points and arguments and they are so interesting, indeed. Nevertheless, I see all of those "doctrines" as political "groups" or "conclaves" because they fought each other for the rule of power over the years.
Lutherans and Anglicans were so critical against Pope and Catholic church due to the political power of the latter. They wanted to be more "independent" from Vatican and Pope.
We can be agree here that literally all of them believe in God but... who is the responsible to profess it? I guess that's when the wars started out.

Also, some might be of the view that God is the universe, end of story — Agent Smith

Both end and beginning of the story :sparkle:

what are we dealing with here? — Agent Smith

We deal with the pursuit of equilibrium in our minds. Fulled by those products of union.

Sure, I would put an example related to Buddhism.

You already know that there were been different schools around the pursue of Siddhârtha Gautama. I.e Tendai Shû the important Chinese T'ien T'ai School, founded by Chih I in 575 AD.
Tendai became the institutionally and politically dominant form of Japanese Buddhism when Saichô began what later turned into a vast establishment of temples and hermitages (the "Three Pagodas and Sixteen Valleys") on the sacred mountain, Mt. Hiei. Most of the Kamakura schools were essentially spinoffs from Tendai, which emphasized Nirvâṇa in this life, the power of the Lotus Sutra.

But how they put it on practice?

Tendai practice on Mt. Hiei was Lotus Sutra in the morning, Pure Land in the evening. This was vividly formalized by the Abbot Ryôgen in 936, when corresponding adjacent halls for Lotus and Pure Land practice were joined by a covered walkway -- creating a , Japanese Ninaidô, or "carrying hall," (i.e. by analogy to the two buckets at the ends of a carrying pole).
This duality is expressed in the saying Asa Daimoku, Yû Nembutsu. "Morning Daimoku/Evening Nembutsu."

How do they interact and what's the end result of this interaction? — Agent Smith

I think they both interact with the practice of faith and doctrines. At least, these are one of the main basic principles of theism, the pursue of developing the witness of God.
So, the result of this interaction could be the construction of "arguments" which root for God's existence.

That metaphysics could be seen as a destructive threat for positivism... (?)
I am lost, sorry...

Metaphysics only interprets physics, therefore it is not "science".

Philosophy, and in particular metaphysics, has been killed off again and again, day after day, the deed done by a variety of assassins: eighteenth-century empiricists, Hegel, Marx, positivists of every hue, Wittgenstein, and so on. But behold, after all these massacres the poor thing rises from the grave, oblivious to the fact that it is supposed to be dead, and starts walking. Where it is going it admittedly does not know, and nor does anyone else, but that is a different question. - Leszek Kołakowski, "Our Merry Apocalypse," Is God Happy? :death: :yikes:

Nothing is absolutely created or destroyed, it only changes form.

When a star explodes, its atoms continue, and their trajectory reflects and continues that of the star, including the added effects from the event of its demise. In fact, if you view the star as a gravitational phenomenon from far enough away, it has a very similar profile before it has actually ignited and after it explodes.

:up: :100:

but I remain concerned about the samurai tradition of obedience to superiors without question. You know such authority can become utterly corrupt, just like some of the politicians you mention. — universeness

I am agree that Bushido has some failures in the practice of the doctrine. But to be honest, I really think the problem is not in the samurai's part but in the authority.
It is heartbreaking to see how some superiors do not respect and consider the loyalty of samurais.
Then, the problem is not of Bushido (doctrine) but the vicious politicians and superiors (actors)

I understand and respect your point. I didn't like war (even Mishima was rejected by Japanese army...) but I really respect the Samurai/Bushido thought to fight against despair and dishonour. I think the problem are politicians not the theories.
I want to live as a samurai because I believe in loyalty, friendship, sacrifice as a way of life. I don't see it as a mechanism to put on a battle. I just want to get it right in my life. If I ever acted as a traitor or a malicious man, please kill me or I would commit seppuku.

BANZAI! — universeness

BANZAI! Brother :sparkle: :fire:

Exactly. It is very complex to get into Nirvana and Buddhism because it is a very deep content. Understand the history of India is pretty important too though.
I have learned in the past months that there are even different schools about Buddhism. So I imagine how complex is to have a clear vision inside Buddhism.

with expectation (worst) and hope (best).

:100:

Karma as you can see is a fully-automated system that replaces God.

Probably you are interested in reading this: THE BASIC TEACHINGS OF BUDDHISM

Because there is no substance or duration in Buddhism, the Buddhist view of karma is different from that in Hinduism or Jainism. Karma is only causation, without the mediation of any substance (apûrva, causal body, etc.). Reincarnation thus consists in our being caused by something in the past, and our karma is simply the effect now of past actions.

In the history of Buddhist philosophy, these doctrines created some difficulties. If there is no self, then what is it that attains enlightenment or Nirvâṇa? It is not me, for I am already gone in an instant; and if it is not me, then why bother? Also, if there is no enduring self, then the rewards and punishments of karma are visited on different beings than those who merited them. Why do I, instead of someone else, deserve the karma of some past existence? The Buddha himself probably would have been irritated with the doctrines that created these difficulties, since he rejected theorizing (it did not "tend to edification"), and he would have expected no less than that such theories would lead to tangled and merely theoretical disputes.

The future, however, can be radically different - like how bioluminiscence has delinked light from heat, we maybe able to do the same with suffering, decouple the detection of injury from the unpleasantness associated with it.

Agreed :up:

I only want to add a brief comment on your argument: The suffering or act of suffering caused by uncertainty. We never really know what would happen in the next months or even the next year. If we are positive we would say the things would be better but if we are negative we would say it would be "a bad period of time" again.
To be honest... I think that the only way to face future is attitude and maturity. Keep fighting against the obstacles! :fire:

I CAN CHOOSE to experience that hour as a curse, or I can struggle against such with the intent to defeat it

Amazing quote, friend. If you do not mind I will keep it with me. I feel it so motivational :up:

This is the thread I was thinking of yesterday.

Whenever I received the message: unsuitable I thought my life is a completely disaster. I came across to think that suffering from failures doesn't help anyone. It is a very complex task to accept how we are and how we can better persons both professional and personal.
I don't even know why I am optimist right know... I guess is thanks to Greek mythology or Japanese way of Bushido.
Anyway, I feel better whenever I share my thoughts and problems around here. It is better to just keep it them only with myself.

Broken English, it's called — Agent Smith

I thought "Broken English" referred to someone whose English skills are bad not only for grammar issues.

Any thoughts on that semi-ramble? — I like sushi

(note: ‘thinking’ is not necessarily something that involved ‘words’). — I like sushi

Just to add some more comments to your arguments, I would like to share a good work called How to Do Things With Words by J.L. Austin.
According to this philopher: A statement is performative when nothing is stated or described but an act is performed. The performative is subjected to conditions of "happiness", depending on a situational (or circumstantial) context.

Therefore, it elaborates a taxonomy of the different ways we can have of “doing” something when saying something, divided into three categories: the locutionary act (saying something is doing something), the illocutionary act (when saying something we are doing something) and the perlocutionary act (because we say something we are doing something). It recognizes in the illocutionary act the essential act of the word, therefore it tries to establish a taxonomy of the different values ​​that the verbs of an illocutionary act can adopt.

just looked up the Greek word "mythos" (= myth) in my dictionary of Ancient Greek Language --a huge one!. Both meanings are included, but with a slightly different description. The first meaning refers to speech, narration, story, independently of being true or false. — Alkis Piskas

Thanks for sharing. It is very helpful for this thread! :up:

I want to try and figure out what definitions and explanations you have of the term ‘myth’? — I like sushi

You are right. I should had started with a basic definition of mythology.
The paper I read a few days ago contains a brief definition of what we can consider as mythos or mythology: "Mythopoeic" means "making" (ποιεῖν, poieîn, from which the word "poet" is derived) "myth" (μῦθος, mûthos, means report, tale, story”)