The Dire Search for Meaning and Purpose in a Finite Life.

[MBM]

The search for a deeper meaning to life continues.

I think I'll have something more (and more serious) to say about this during my next attack of insomnia, but meanwhile, this reminds me of an exceprt from a Kurt Vonnegut novel I once read, Cats Cradle. It was a short poem:

Tiger gotta hunt,

Bird gotta fly,

Man gotta sit and wonder why, why, why.

Tiger gotta sleep,

Bird gotta land,

Man gotta tell himself he understand.

Now if thats not profound in its brevity, I don't know what is!

[Dragonfly]

That reminds me of a story by Feynman when he followed a philosophy class as a student. Feynman never could understand the professor who taught that class, as he was always mumbling ("wugga mugga mugga wugga wugga..."). Then one day the students have to make a theme about the course. Feynman hardly remembers anything of the course except the term "stream of consciousness", which leads him to write something about sleep experiments he performed, in which he tried to register what happened to his thoughts when he fell asleep (he observed for example that before he fell asleep his thoughts became less and less logically interconnected). Then Feynman continues:

After four weeks of sleeping all the time, I wrote my theme, and explained the observations I had made. At the end of the theme I pointed out that all of these observations were made while I was watching myself fall asleep, and I don't really know what it's like to fall asleep when I'm not watching myself. I concluded the theme with a little verse I made up, which pointed out this problem of introspection:

          I wonder why. I wonder why.

          I wonder why I wonder.

          I wonder why I wonder why

          I wonder why I wonder!

We hand in our themes, and the next time our class meets, the professor reads one of them: "Mum bum wugga mum bum..." I can't tell what the guy wrote.

He reads another theme: "Mugga wugga mum bum wugga wugga..." I don't know what that guy wrote either, but at the end of it he goes:

          Uh wugga wuh. Uh wugga wuh.

          Uh wugga wugga wugga.

          I wugga wuh uh wugga wuh

          Uh wugga wugga wugga.

"Aha!" I say. "That's my theme!" I honestly didn't recognize it until the end.

Richard P. Feynman, Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!

          

[CNA]

I'm a huge Rush fan and always will be. Since you guys are sharing your own little pieces, I wanted to put this up. Here's their lyrics from their song Tears that are very powerful for me. They have many songs that are deeply moving. But this one takes the cake for me. To get the full effect of it, it should really be listened to.

All of the seasons and all of the days

All of the reasons why I've felt this way

So long...

So long

Then lost in that feeling I looked in your eyes

I noticed emotion and that you had cried

For me,

I can see

What would touch me deeper...

Tears that fall from eyes that only cry?

Would it touch you deeper

Than tears that fall from eyes that know why?

A lifetime of questions, tears on your cheek

I tasted the answers and my body was weak

For you,

The truth.

What would touch me deeper...

Tears that fall from eyes that only cry?

Would it touch you deeper

Than tears that fall from eyes that know why?

[Victor Pross]

Angie: "Love Fest ?? OY...you guys are all killin' me and the boat is now 150 miles from shore and my ass is still left at the docks waving goodbye. Victor and I get along very well. He is a sweetheart, easy to talk with, a lot in common, etc. We've turned into being very good friends. But man, so way premature to be calling it love fest, etc.."

Well, how do you like that? Angie, just for that we're calling our love-child Moon-Unit!

Edited August 28, 2006 by Victor Pross

[CNA]

How about this, you get to name the first love-child and I get to name the second love-child. I can already smell the flowers and Rasta. Make sure you're either barefoot or wear your birks. Mine are well worn. Dreads a must and showers not allowed.

First love-child: Moon-Unit Pross

Second love-child: Dweezil Jigaboo Pross

Angie

The Flower Child

[Victor Pross]

The Beatles (Lennon/McCartney)

Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.

There's nothing you can do that can't be done.

Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.

Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game

It's easy.

There's nothing you can make that can't be made.

No one you can save that can't be saved.

Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time

It's easy.

All you need is love, all you need is love,

All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.

All you need is love, all you need is love,

All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

There's nothing you can know that isn't known.

Nothing you can see that isn't shown.

Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.

It's easy.

All you need is love, all you need is love,

All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

All you need is love (all together now)

All you need is love (everybody)

All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

[Victor Pross]

"Victor, to answer you in general. Read Ken Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Spirit - it's a quick read."

Rich, no insults from me, guy, but I saw nothing here that empresses upon me as anything different from that which I had rejected--long ago.

In the Objectivist world-view, there is the fallacy identified as "rationalism”—and I can imagine you know this. This is not to be confused with being rational — rather rationalism refers to the habit of divorcing rationality from reality and proceeding to "reason" on the basis of floating abstractions--which can be internally self-consistent, but whose starting point has no correlation to the real world.

Religionists [of whichever variety] are rationalists in that they begin with a ‘floating abstraction’, God, for example—and which has no referent in reality...and other construct “helium balloon” ideas. Ironically, the lure of rationalism is one to which some Objectivists have been unremittingly susceptible, even while grasping the error of it in theory. That's odd.

Oh, well! B)

Edited August 29, 2006 by Victor Pross

[vanvlietart]

I'm a huge Rush fan and always will be.

I first discover RUSH from an objectivist's bio in NYC. I remembered RUSH from HS and bought Chronicles just to understand his praise for them. Glad I did. Now I play it loud as a pick me up anytime I can. The best inspirational music I have ever heard.

[Guest Damage Inc.]

I wrote:

Rich's so-called "spiritual conversion" cannot be squared with Objectivism. The epistemological/ethical implications of his "experience" are a definite threat to human life.

Michael replied:

I wonder how on earth you can know this since you cannot climb into his head and observe what goes on in there. Also, that "threat to human life" thing needs a bit of work. From what I see, the human race is one of the most successful biological species on the planet. Should I believe your prophesy of doom or should I believe my own eyes? .

Religious fanatics flying planes into skyscrapers isn't enough evidence for you? Pry your face away from the bark of a tree, Michael, and look at the forest for a second. Rich, on an allegedly Objectivist forum, is claiming access to an experience outside the boundaries of reason. How is his claim different - in principle - from irrationalism? Muslim fanatics have their spiritual experiences too.

About Rich, I have had some experiences similar to what he describes, but I do not categorize them in the language he uses. I know that the internal state he speaks of exists - and, as he mentioned in his article, it can and has been measured with brain scans and so forth. You may not like the idea, but scientific corroboration is being developed. .

You've had the same experiences? For the sake of argument, what specifically, are you talking about? Enough with the obfuscation! You have no business telling us about your so-called experience if you're not going to clearly communicate this alleged experience. Otherwise, you mock the very philosophy you claim to represent.

I also know that the experience is repeatable. I don't know what to do with it. Rich decided he does. He groups with others. I don't. I reflect and wait to see if more understanding comes with time and more science. I think it is extremely important to discuss this in rational terms, though. It certainly will not go away because a person reads Atlas Shrugged or makes a snarky comment. .

Until you're prepared to bring us into this experience you've insulted us advocates of reason.

One thing I do not do (or tolerate) with Rich is characterize him as a liar. He is not. He is a good man and has more integrity in his little finger than I have seen exhibited by many so-called "correct" Objectivists with whom I have interacted. I have seen this in action on both sides.

If he had integrity he would leave Objectivist websites and join the numerous websites devoted to mysticism. By showing such hostility to Objectivist values what are you revealing about yourself?

On the Muslim thing, I was once married into a mixed Muslim/Catholic family (tribe) in Brazil for five years. I have had close contact with that culture. The way this culture is being portrayed by anti-Islamists has no correspondence whatsoever with what I experienced. Five years is a lot of looking.

The hysteria and collectivism I see running rampant in those accusing all Islamic practitioners as evil is a mentality I personally abhor. It is just as easy to be an irrational Objectivist fanatic as it is to be an irrational Islamic fanatic. What is missing in both is independence of thought, but they both have a strong willingness to give their lives over to serving a leader.

I make a distinction between those in the Muslim faith that take their religion seriously from those that don't. I like Jason Pappas approach: nominal Muslim, vs true Muslim (or Jihadist, or Muslim fanatic, etc). Most "Muslims" - even the ones that pray and seem devoted - are probably compromising with modernity. It is disingenuous and insulting of you to equate the position of many Objectivists with that of Islamic fanatics. I once again ask: What does this reveal about you?

You mentioned that the fanatical sell of Objectivism is the proper one, since the "soft sell" doesn't work according to the so-called expert you cited. Could you please let me know of any Muslims who have been convinced of rational ideas using the "hard sell" system or by that particular expert?

The hard sell expert was Ayn Rand. I've personally met former Muslims who are now Objectivists and support ARI.

Btw, thanks for welcome.

Wayne Simmons

Edited August 29, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[gary williams]

Rich's so-called "spiritual conversion" cannot be squared with Objectivism. The epistemological/ethical implications of his "experience" are a definite threat to human life.

Michael replied:

I wonder how on earth you can know this since you cannot climb into his head and observe what goes on in there. Also, that "threat to human life" thing needs a bit of work. From what I see, the human race is one of the most successful biological species on the planet. Should I believe your prophesy of doom or should I believe my own eyes? .

Religious fanatics flying planes into skyscrapers isn't enough evidence for you? Pry your face away from the bark of a tree, Michael, and look at the forest for a second. Rich, on an allegedly Objectivist forum, is claiming access to an experience outside the boundaries of reason. How is his claim different - in principle - from irrationalism? Muslim fanatics have their spiritual experiences too.

I guess the love fest is over!

Hi Wayne!

Fuck seems to be your favorite word so here goes -

Fuck you! How in the fuck do you equate Rich Engle with the fucking fucks who flew fucking planes into the fucking World Trade Center, fucking Pentegon et al?

Thats fucking bullshit! Fuck, I know Rich is fucking relgious but adding his fucking name to those fucking cocksuckers is utterly fucking stupid.

It's fucking equivalent to saying that a lot of serial killers have the fucking name Wayne!

I am sorry, have I said "fuck you!" lately? I don't want to be rude. I want you to feel at fucking home!

FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! Golly! So shocking! I feel so important now! I can say FUCK and bad mouth good people!

Guess what Fuck Stick?

I want to know what Rich has to say!

Guess what Fuck Stick?

Don't care what you have to say about it!

Damage Inc.?

Howdy! My name is "Don't give a fuck!"

Nice to fucking meet you!

Fucking gw

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

You seem to have a misconception about what OL is. We do like entertainment, but we encourage talent. Our show is not flame wars based on Objectivist jargon and standard put-downs. (btw - Your manner of put-down is not real moral judgment. It is more like bossiness and insults. )

I personally see very little entertainment in watching someone get ticked off because another said he was disgusting or was mocking the philosophy or whatever. (Edit: I just saw Gary's post. Do you highly value getting people angry like that? Is that your entertainment?)

I do love seeing talent bloom and high-quality things being created. Do you create?

One thing we are - with a great deal of pride - we are a group of people, each who thinks for himself/herself. Your particular rhetoric is more geared toward religious doctrine, tribes and collectivist institutions. For instance, you tell me what I have no business doing, what rules I should be following instead (according to your notions, of course), that Rich is equal to one of the suicidal maniacs who perpetrated 9/11, what he should be doing (if he had integrity - according to your notions, of course), that I mock the philosophy, yada yada yada. You seem to have great affection for the word "should" when you talk about others. Do you also point your finger for emphasis when you talk in person? How about when you talk about yourself?

Your the newbie dude. Rudeness is not a value here. Please read our guidelines. By posting here, the presumption is that you agree with them. So please act accordingly (private property and all). For the record, at the present, you are not doing so.

On the topic that was being discussed, please let me know if you understand induction, or if you need an explanation, and if you are really interested in a civil conversation about the issue. You are free to disagree, but frankly, I have no interest in trading insults. There are other websites you can go to for that.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Yikes. What's happening here at Wood Stock? Hey Angie…let’s bring back the love here: You are lovely girl, you are magnificent! You are wonderful! I love talking to you! You are super groovy, man! You beautiful devil-angel!

Edited August 29, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Fuck you! How in the fuck do you equate Rich Engle with the fucking fucks who flew fucking planes into the fucking World Trade Center, fucking Pentegon et al?

Thats fucking bullshit! Fuck, I know Rich is fucking relgious but adding his fucking name to those fucking cocksuckers is utterly fucking stupid.

Y' know, Gary, you should really take time to think before you act and hit reply. It's self evident from reading my posts that I don't consistently swear. The signature line (now changed to another part of a favorite Metallica song) was just some fun I was having. I don't care if you don't get it.

As for Rich Engle. There's a definite difference of degree between Rich and the Jihadists - but not of kind, and that is what's important. The logical consequence of Rich's endorsement of irrationalism is all the extreme implementations of irrationalism you can imagine. Perhaps, you're new to Objectivism? My suggestion: keep reading.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Damage Inc.

[gary williams]

My suggestion: Keep walking.

By the way, I don't use Ayn Rand as a crutch. I don't need her.

My suggestion: Think for yourself.

gw

[Michael Russell]

Wayne, why the hostility? You ask some valid questions, but your tone is a turn off. Do you want an honest exchange of ideas, or are you just an asshole?

[Guest Damage Inc.]

My suggestion: Keep walking.

By the way, I don't use Ayn Rand as a crutch. I don't need her.

My suggestion: Think for yourself.

gw

My suggestion: Learn how to think first; then you can "think for yourself".

[Victor Pross]

All this? Even after I posted that Beatle song?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wayne,

As for Rich Engle. There's a definite difference of degree between Rich and the Jihadists - but not of kind, and that is what's important.

Boy, are you mistaken. In spades. Quite simply put, you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Are you really interested in all this, or are you just trying to entertain with denunciation? Stir up stuff. Seriously.

I don't want to try to explain red to a color-blind person who rants that colors don't exist, or worse, that light exists to a person who keeps his eyes shut on purpose.

Parts of the experience are quite rational, verifiable, and they can be discussed as scientific phenomena.

If, on the other hand, you want to teach us all differently (that the evidence of the senses does not exist, for instance) according your wisdom, feel free. Please keep it civil.

Incidentally, Gary does know how to think. Let's cool it.

Michael

[gary williams]

"My suggestion: Learn how to think first; then you can "think for yourself"."

Wow! How profound!

And were exactly did you learn to think? I mean you are the one who came up with the logic of comparing jihadist murderers to a very nice Unitarian Universalist from Cleveland named Rich.

Hmmmm?

Mighty fine thinking there indeed!

Why did you remove your 'fuck' signature so quick? Did Ayn tell you to get rid of it?

gw

[gary williams]

Sorry Victor!

But I am a Stones man!

"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste.......... "

;)

gw

[CNA]

Has anyone here ever thought so far that this is what Damage is looking for? He has a massive audience right now. He's enjoying this.

My recommendation is put all the books down, draw your own conclusions based on your own knowledge and observations, your own Question and Answers either introspectively or extrospectively, look for evidence, live it, use your own experiences, look at your own life as to WHAT you do and WHY you do it. This is what Gary does. Gary is an independent thinker, he thinks for himself.

On the other hand, how can you own your own mind when someone else's explanations have filled your head? You can't. How can you own your own mind when you pile yourself in books looking for answers you will never find, including Ayn Rand books? You can't. Ayn Rand owns a piece of your mind. The institution you abide by owns a piece of your mind. We are all individuals. Each person has their own reasons for doing what they do and why they do it. You have to discover it for yourself. You're definitely not going to find it in some book.

Great Job, Gary, you think for yourself.

Once again, Damage has a huge audience right now. This is what he is looking for. The more everyone posts the more it is going to erupt. The more it will add fuel to the fire. This whole fiasco is not beneficial to anyone in anyway. It will become a vicious cycle; ie, the vacuous state and will continue.

Angie

[Guest Damage Inc.]

Wayne, why the hostility? You ask some valid questions, but your tone is a turn off. Do you want an honest exchange of ideas, or are you just an asshole?

Michael Russell, your approach seems to be that you talk about my insulting tone and then insult me. Hmmm, interesting hypocrisy.

Consider the context of knowledge of those I'm replying to. They ought to know better. What's more, they do know better.

Wayne Simmons

[gary williams]

Firecracker said we should leave now!

So I am out of here.

Night Firecracker!

Night Victor!

Night Amigo!

Night Rich the Terrorist from Cleveland!

Night Michael!

Night Fuck Stick!

Night John Boy!

gw

[Guest Damage Inc.]

You have to discover it for yourself. You're definitely not going to find it in some book....

Angie

Y' know, I read that once.

Oohhhh, Angie. You're such a kidder. A true comedian. Angie, in all seriousness, you miss the point. Rand's Objectivism gives you important tools for how to think correctly. Although I have my differences with David Kelley, he did write a good logic textbook: "The Art Of Reasoning".

"Dedicated to Ayn Rand..." Where's that coming from? I must be mad.

Wayne Simmons

[CNA]

I guess I shouldn't have spoken to soon. ;) as it is me who is posting.

The books can be used as a guide but that's it. These are values that cannot be handed to you on a silver platter. It has to be discovered on your own. You have to work for these values on your own. I will have you know these are values I came to on my own without ever knowing Ayn Rand or her philosophy. I discovered it at a young age of 16 and have lived by it ever since. Before you make a judgment on me, get to know my mind, who I am, the road I have walked to get to where I am at today. Then you can pass your judgment. I do not know who Kelley is, although I have heard of him.