Some interesting comments.

Some mysterious force vivifies everything we know of, from the atom to the universe. But it seems beyond our cognitive abilities. If Einstein actually said that the only place where some physical explanation or reason could be found for physically unexplainable phenomena was in the meta-physical ‘realm,’ then it seems so, to me.

Until we develop the means or machines that let us peep into the non-physical dimension or ‘plane’ that Einstein postulated and bring back the knowledge gained, we can but speculate. Even if were able to spy into that dimension, could we even describe it with our present vocabulary and understanding?

Why is it that so many humans want to grab this ‘unknown’ and package it into a box that they then call their deity? And with a range of ghastly human attributes appended! Worse, they then want to ram the whole confabulation down the throats of those who have not surrendered their powers of reason and common sense to their particular spook.

Whether one wants to call the beginning of the universe a god or a creator, who knows, and what's more, who cares. It is a question that remains unanswerable both now and in the future. Was there ever a big bang? Who knows. Answer Nobody in all honesty can answer it. However whatever brought about the very beginnings in my humble opinion, does not issue instruction as to how mankind should conducts himself. And religion of whatever structure
including Christianity (many Christians deny that they are a religion) is about control of others. Footnote for Christians. If your belief believes in a divine power then you are a religious person who follow a religion.

Albert stated that if one must have a God, then a God of harmony and order is where he could rest his hat... He did not believe in a "metaphysical" God...

Michio Kaku: "So perhaps God did not have a choice in making the universe, as Einstein suspected."

The key, in this summary, is that "Intent" can not be "known" using closed system "Reasoning" why the Universe "Developed"... Therefore, using the word "Created" is mis-representative of Albert's thoughts, per his writings... The Universe and even humanity may be alive, out of necessity... Not some metaphysically deliberate attempt by a metaphysical God to create some test-bed petri-dish where humanity must prove itself as worthy to continue in the process of life beyond this Natural reality...

On "metaphysical reality", or some duality of reality... it doesn't exist, and can not by definition "Ever" exist... As Natural life forces in this Universe, we perceive our Reality through our physical senses... "If" a metaphysical concept were to be Observed... It would "No Longer" be a metaphysical Concept... it would immediately transfer to the "Natural Reality", hence, the reason Albert was more a monist than a dualist...

To extend ones' imagination beyond Mother Nature, is obviously representative of someone who has an UnFilled Need, where their imagination takes them to a place where they feel comforted... Many people psychologically are attached to religion, not becuase of the Truth of the matter, but, because they don't see the "alternative" in society to bring about their peace and harmony... and instead of getting up and mentally taking charge to mold society to become a "fulfilling" place to exist, where people can gain peace and harmony, they are much more comfortable allowing "Other" leaders to tell them what to do, and how to think...

Whether our Universe was the product of a Mother who had to conceive this Natural reality, in "order" to continue into existence, or a Mother bore our Universe as part of an ongoing Natural process, devoid of necessity and "Intent", is irrelevant to the question of "existence"... There is but "one" existence, that we can truly have "Know"ledge of, and its a "Natural" existence... To make more out of it, requires personal "Intent", if one doesn't have a Personal Belief, then they follow the "Intent" of a religious belief system, which was constructed by another Natural mortal who had their own personal "Intent" or "Agenda"...

Many great scientists have attempted to found their theories on "Absolute" laws, however, some were a little more educated, and founded their premises on "Relativity", which has recently come under attack by the Catholic Pope, et al... So many mediocre minds running the masses, who do nothing but sit around wanting their every needs met, where their needs are nothing but a reflection of clever "Manufacturing"...

On "metaphysical reality", or some duality of reality... it doesn't exist, and can not by definition "Ever" exist...

Not all commentators agree with that. Here's an example I've seen:

No "Truths" in Science

"William Guillory, a professor of physical chemistry, has on many occasions flatly asserted that there are no "truths" in science. Science itself is a tautology. For example, consider life itself as a phenomenon. Consider further that at the moment of death, no physical quality has changed - not weight, not chemistry - yet life is gone. Life itself appears to be metaphysical. Our most basic presumptions are based upon principles that in and of themselves cannot be proven or explained except by observation."

That puts the notion of metaphysics in an intriguing perspective, because we can all 'see' what the professor is getting at!

hey

I know God

so i guess you could say i believe in him but that sounds silly its like saying you believe that the man next to you exists. oh well, life is silly.

"William Guillory, a professor of physical chemistry, has on many occasions flatly asserted that there are no "truths" in science. Science itself is a tautology."

"His most recent cutting-edge program explores the subject of "spirituality in the workplace."
http://www.innovint.com/about/leadership.asp

I suppose it would be a tautology to state the obvious, but... seems William Guillory has a vested interest in portraying science as a tautology... It requires the diminishment of natural science, in order to promote metaphysical spirituality seminars and books... Leveling the playing field... Its what any good marketer does...

William Guillory: "Consider further that at the moment of death, no physical quality has changed - not weight, not chemistry - yet life is gone."

I'm no harvard understudy... but there are "dramatic" changes that occur chemically when a person dies... for one thing, the brain stops functioning... its at this point, a person is proclaimed 'dead', and no longer "alive"... I am not going to get into Planck time, and quantum physics, but... it appears this guy is like many others of religion, who attempt to exploit the last few "Unknowns" of this Natural Universe, in order to postulate that something "beyond" this Physical reality exists... like... what happens at point "zero" when the brain stops functioning... As if some major transformation occurs... Its like looking at ones' watch, at 3:33:33 and expecting something revolutionary to occur, because of the symmetry...

"He has also created comprehensive programs on creativity and innovation, and quantum thinking."
http://www.innovint.com/about/leadership.asp

Its a bold assertion, to pose that "life" is "More" than biological response, because at a specific moment in time, Death-0 the person is biologically unchanged, but life is no longer existent... A person must "biologically" be proclaimed non-functioning in order to be declared "dead"... His very statement is a tautology... what he declares, adds no value to the observation of death... How about, the second the last neuron stops firing, is the very moment "life" no longer exists...

William Guillory: "Life itself appears to be metaphysical."

Life appears to be beyond physical measurement... Well, if Willie can "measure" the exact same time a person is no longer subconsciously alive, then we can place a time on "death"... Until then, "death" is in the mind of the beholder... and typically, they keep it to themselves on the way out the back door...

Metaphysical means, beyond-physical measurement... There must be a presupposition that "life" is more than biological response, in order to assert that one can Observe, and "perceive" something beyond this Physical universe... If someone is "observing" or using their "perception" to make claims, then they are doing so, in this natural reality... Although, the method of quantification, and the epistemological limits can be debated... the fact remains... postulated metaphysical objects, such as "life forces" can not be observed, except with natural means in this natural universe...

To say something "leaves" this natural universe, or something is "less" than it started with, places the burden of proof on the one making the metaphysical claim... This is a refreshing topic however, I at least think, when talking of science and metaphysics...

Here, let me postulate... What if... biological life forms are nothing more than the bacteria, cells, etc., working together in a synergistic manner to form a natural being... they create the vessel, and we become cognitively aware of our environment once a threshold of cells, etc., form... We would then be defined as the culmination of many sub-life forms working together to give us "life"... The day they revolt or they become damaged from our efforts or from the natural environment, we suffer from disease, etc... Eventually, like the slowing down of our macro cosmological natural universe, so do the micro-cells which appear to be nothing short of smaller galaxies themselves... decay... eventually, the slowing down of the cells, prevent blood flow, which in turn creates illness, disease, etc... and in time, "death" is upon us... the smaller organisms, have depleted their energy, and at some point, an observer using some heart monitor, etc., declares that in fact, our natural "energy" from our smaller life forms, have indeed left the building... When one burns a piece of "wood", they release the energy within that object, and so, perhaps it is with our physiological beings...

It would appear then, that the real question would be, do these smaller life forms communicate? Do they have Intent? Ah, such is the search for sub-quantum theory... Again, perhaps I am not too wise regarding the matters of the natural universe, but... it seems to me, that our Natural Universe, tends to be our host, and we happen to be the smaller life forms, losing energy...

Things we postulate and can't observe, or measure are purely hypothetical, and metaphysical... however, what used to be meatphysical a few years ago, is no longer metaphysical due to Natural science and measurement... Science is not just a tautology, it does provide a "reference" point, where multiple people can ground themselves, and test predictability of theory, etc...

A tautology, that doesn't provide a commutative anchor, for more than one person to ground themselves, is useless in the search for Universally understood knowledge... Perhaps, to "one" person, metaphysics has meaning, but... then that would boil down to a personal truth, and we all know what metaphysical subjectivism consist of...

"Metaphysical subjectivism is the theory that perception creates reality, and that there is no underlying, true, reality that exists independent of perception."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_subjectivism

If I had to place my views on a spectrum, I'd have to say, as an empiricist, that reality is indeed unique to the Individual, and thus, subject, to the environment with which one grows up, and according to the physiological nature of their being...

"Metaphysical objectivism is the theory that there is an underlying reality that exists independent of our perception and consciousness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_objectivism

Willie, appears to imply, that observation is the key to knowledge, and observing the time of death of a person and the lack of "animation", somehow gives credibility that this "animation" has transferred into a separate and Independent reality from Nature, that escapes our perception and consciousness...

I observed the sun rise this morning, I suppose when I go to sleep tonight, the sun will exist in a different reality, only observable in my minds' eye... or not...

Dave8: "It would appear then, that the real question would be, do these smaller life forms communicate? Do they have Intent?"

In regard to... my assertion, that our macro beings, may be nothing more than a culmination of smaller living organisms, working together... to give us a perception of "Life", in a "Body" sense...

"The conclusion that only highly evolved organisms have the ability to act collectively proved to be a stubborn prejudice, however. On several occasions, Nealson tried to publish a diagram in microbiology journals illustrating cell-to-cell signaling in V. fischeri, but peer reviewers rejected it. Bacteria just don't do this, the critics told him.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/quorum.html

Right, of course not... I mean, why smaller living organisms work together collectively...

For that matter, "Life" has the highest Value in my book, I wonder where I get that "Notion"... Perhaps, its the "white-blood" cells that attack foreign organisms that threaten my health... Hmmmm, my own molecular structure is built around the notion of survival, why wouldn't my collective, innate thought be of survival...

"The example often given is bioluminescence. Scientists noticed that once a population or colony of particular bacteria reached a certain size, the colony began to emit light. "Now many people realize that other important activities also depend upon a quorum, such as biofilm formation, releasing toxins, or becoming a virulent invader," said Rahul Kulkarni. While Kulkarni works with Vibrio cholerae as a model bacteria, quorum sensing appears to be a universal process in bacteria."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24337

Smaller individual Bacteria, act as a group once they reach a certain threshold, and they act in unison to provide what "some" people would term as "animation", i.e., light, Fluorescence... etc... William Guillory would suggest that bacteria that emit Fluorescent light, just before they die, obviously portray "Metaphysical" attributes... However, there may not necessarily be "Death", all it takes is for a decrease in the number of bacteria in the quorum, and light emission stops... the "Individual" bacteria are still "Living", they are just not part of the quorum, working together to produce "Life" like signs...

Well, enough ranting, obviously, Willie has to sell a book, to the religious and based on his science background, they are going to buy his books, seminars, etc., becuase, they are wanting to have "someone" on their side with science... Willie is suckering the religiously uneducated, by asserting that "life" just appears to be "Metaphysical" like "Soul" and "God", because chemically speaking, etc., a person doesn't appear to be changed, upon the proclamation of death, except through the loss of "animation"... Well, if the religious buy it, its their loss of money... I suppose, we will hear this argument for the next century... "well, it appears that life has left the body..." Why? "because the body is no longer moving..." Right, there must have been a ghost inside the body, making it move... Arrrrrghhhh, runs away screaming... The sad thing, is... that those who can't make a decent living in science, have to resort to feeding off of the ignorant in society... the religious, being the easiest to dupe...

Hello, Dave8

I was not aware that William Guillory was a peddler of
religion. That quote which I posted was already a quote
from another place. So it seems that it may have lost its
religious connections (or connotations), along the way.
(Thanks for widening my understanding, there)

Using observation and reason, I can go along with Willie's
notion. But attributing the animating force to his deity (or
any other) would turn me away, immediately. In another
post, recently, hereabouts, someone used the expression
"life force." I use that phrase, too. It fits better when trying
to appraise such matters. It's also 'neutral' in that it doesn't
include or exclude any religion or philosophy.

Observation tells me that life (when animated) at any
particular 'level' is finite. It can go up or down a level,
depending on one's perspective. The force that vivifies does
so at all levels. From soil to bacteria to worm to grass to
cattle to cabbage to steak to human to die to soil to
decompose to bacteria to . . . . .

Life is animated, functioning at each level. What is
observably apparent is that all 'life' forms are parasitic. The
form of the grass or cabbage or cattle or human is lost and it
is integrated into the form of that which consumes it. And if
matter and energy are finite, then it's quite some merry-go-
round cycle. One that implies some form of progression.

Nearly all the religions and philosophies I've looked at have
bits and pieces of this concept embedded. Was this what
was in mind in this quote? Jhn 12:24 Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and
die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit.

Or was it more of an attempt to say / reinforce the idea that
form was finite, but that which animates it at any given level
is timeless? Who's to know? Many of the older human
concepts of this life force (E.g. Great White Spirit) deal with
the matter of cycles and relationships of finite with
unknown infinite. Further, there was lucid recognition that
the 'higher' life form is always paced by the lower forms.

It's all quite a conundrum. I wonder if it is resolvable at all.

Perry: "Using observation and reason, I can go along with Willie's notion. But attributing the animating force to his deity (or any other) would turn me away, immediately."

Hey Perry, good topic... Well, it appears from the reading, that Willie's notion, is that there is more to "life" than "life" itself... and in that regard, I am sadly dichotomous in that perspective... Willie enters the words "Metaphysical" in regard to this Physical Reality... I tend to separate things between Metaphysical and Physical... and don't give much credit to Metaphyhsical hypothesizing... I am compelled to believe, there is this Natural Universe, and if there are forces (of which I concede), that are beyond our current measurement quantitatively, they are still ultimately Controlled by Nature and this Physical Reality... I am a strict empirical determinist, who believes reductionism is a cogent methodology for deducing truths within the known physical Universe... Willie disagrees with that notion also, as he believes Science itself is a tautology, and offers nothing of qualitative significance to what is apparently beyond our observations...

I get hung up, in the realm of reductionism and gods, hell, angels, etc... Reductionism is the attempt to break things down to its most basic natural attributes, in order to discover the most reducible underlying factors for this physical reality... it was an attempt by philosophers thousands of years ago, to find the Key Universal Absolute Truth in this Universe... if they were to extrapolate, using reductionist measures, a "physical" attribute that escaped and didn't suffer from "Change", they would be able to build a logical syllogism with an Absolute premise, for "all" things in life, we would all know Natures' "expectations" in life, as they would be defined according to the Universal Absolute Truth nature Provided...

At this time, Reductionists/physicists, have delved down into quantum matter, and it is still susceptible to Change... they are still digging, but at this time, have found Change to still be apparent as the Underlying Universal Absolute Truth, that our natural universe promotes... There have also been experiments, to use Vacuums to escape Change, to freeze matter and attempt to suspend it to deny Change, but, in the end, decay, or Change still occurs in those environments...

In regard to the Metaphysics, and the forces that are non-quantifiable in this Natural Universe, I see Intuition, as being one of those areas that just aren't quantifiable at this time, to any great extent... and so, what we get is qualitative analysis from a first person, non transferrable perspective, as opposed to quantifiable results that are more Universally understood... However, just because we can't "quantify" the Intuitive experience, doesn't default that the source of the Intuition is from some Metaphysically "Objective" Reality, seeping through in drips, and realized by each person in a Metaphysically Subjective manner...

Religions in general postulate that there is in "Fact", a Metaphysically Objective Reality, and Universal "Absolutes", call it Heaven, etc. where all of the Other Perfect "Metaphysical" objects, like God, Angels, etc., appear, and Escape "Change"...

Willie, connects the Metaphysically Objective Reality, with that of this Physical Reality, by asserting Natural Cause, and Metaphysical Effect... He believes there is an Underlying Metaphysical Objective Force, that propels life into animation... There is "no" evidence, at all... for a Metaphysically Objective Reality... which is required to animate life... Our Natural life force, is given by our parents, who hosted our embryonic development, to the point, that our physical bodies were capable of self-sustaining...

There are other reasons I don't believe in Metaphysically Objective Reality, but one more just to end on this topic, is that in a mathematical sense, if one wants to create an "Origin" on a three dimensional x,y, z, plane, and call that "Truth" with a capital "T", and Objective Reality, where a God resides, along with all of the Other Perfect, Unchanging Metaphysical "Objects", where objects are discretely different than fluid processes, such as math, then... it has to be "Anchored", at some fixed point in this Universe... or in at least "Everyones'" mind, in the same exact manner...

To "Define" that Origin, is impossible, because of "Change"... First of all, spatially speaking, our Universe is Moving, and therefore, its impossible to "Relate" the "Metaphysically Objective" Origin to a specific "point" in this Moving Natural Universe (and much of this Universe is still unexplored)... Secondly, since the term "Metaphysical" is used, there is no definitive manner in which to connote a "Quantitative" Origin, as Meta means beyond physical measurement... So, notionally, according to qualitative analysis using observation of Space, and definitively using quantitative measures, there can be no Metaphysically Objective Reality... Bottom line, we only know this Natural Universe... Therefore, "Everything" we know, is Relative to what we have learned or experienced... We learn by "Associations" and Relationships to these "Knowns" of our Natural Universe, and Known most times Uniquely to Ourselves Only, unless there is quantifiable evidence to be shared Universally... Since, there is no "Natural" Anchor to be found, to assert a "Metaphysically Objective" Reality, we get Willie trying to take a Natural point of Origin, call it "Death", and make an Association to some "Metaphysically Objective" Reality... that can be passed off as a Universal Absolute Truth...

Willie may indeed see something, he is totally oblivious to, Quantitatively speaking, and indeed that "Unknown" may at this time be considered "Metaphysical", due to adequate standards of measurement of the Hypothesis... however, in the end, there is still, and never can be, a Metaphysically Objective Reality, unless one creates it as an "Origin" in their Own Minds... and then its Non-transferrable, and Non-Universal, its a Personal Truth... If it exists in this Natural Universe, its Natural, not SuperNatural, springing from some Metaphysically Objective Reality with some Absolute Origin... The gnostics took the easy way out, and said hell was below the flat earth, and heaven was above, creating their Metaphysically Objective Realities...

Perry: "In another
post, recently, hereabouts, someone used the expression
"life force." I use that phrase, too. It fits better when trying
to appraise such matters. It's also 'neutral' in that it doesn't
include or exclude any religion or philosophy."

I agree with you, life force is definitely my choice of words also... it doesn't incorporate a Metaphysically Objective Reality, perhaps at most, a Metaphysical event... However, I am willing to concede "Intuition" to the realm of Metaphysics, because I have experienced such, but I believe it to be tied to this Natural/Physical Universe... I have not Experienced, "Death", and thus, have no compelling need to think that "Something" exists beyond "Death", i.e., when someone is proclaimed biologically dead...

Someone has to "first", believe that there is something to "measure" beyond the biological death of a person, in order to say they can't Quantitatively measure it, and thus, create a Metaphysical placeholder, for further research...

I am open to at least believing that there is a depletion/release of energy associated with an organism, human, once death occurs... and although it may not be quantifiable, and at this time, Metaphysical, it is not "Anchored" to a Metaphysically Objective Reality...

The bacteria I provided as an example, show that there are synergistic benefits in a quorum that embrace and work together, luminescence occurs when specific bacteria reach a threshold... Perhaps, our physiological bodies comprised of all of those micro-organisms (which communicate together), create a field of synergistic energy, and we are capable of sensing that field of energy... Perhaps, its that synergism that allows our neurological mechanisms to tick, and primitively, we have a core memory of instincts, based on our molecular bonding... i.e., immune system naturally protects us, therefore, we have a "Survival" instinct, and although when we are children, and not able to talk, we instinctively attempt to "survive"... Its our Natures, and our beings, comprised of our sub-organisms which contribute to our most basic "understanding" of this Reality, and Our Selves...

Take a person apart biologically, and keep the limbs alive, does a "toe" have a life force, a "soul"... If not, what part of the body holds the "life force", or, is it the culmination of "all" of the working parts, to include the sub-organisms providing a synergistic affect, called "animation"...

Perry: "Observation tells me that life (when animated) at any
particular 'level' is finite."

Biologically speaking, I agree...

Perry: "It can go up or down a level, depending on one's perspective."

Okay, but all are still biologically finite...

Perry: "The force that vivifies does so at all levels. From soil to bacteria to worm to grass to
cattle to cabbage to steak to human to die to soil to
decompose to bacteria to . . . . .

Nature is definitely a source for energy, at all levels... for all biologically, and Naturally living organisms... However, at this juncture, I would assert that this "life force" from my perspective, wells from a Natural Spring, called the smallest living organisms, working together to form an animated being/organism, whether it be, a cattle, cabbage, person, bacteria, etc...

Perry: "Life is animated, functioning at each level. What is
observably apparent is that all 'life' forms are parasitic."

A natural eco-system, okay...

Perry: "The form of the grass or cabbage or cattle or human is lost and it is integrated into the form of that which consumes it."

We are what we eat, okay...

Perry: "And if matter and energy are finite, then it's quite some merry-go-round cycle."

I don't see "life" and matter and energy inclusively in the same context... Life to me, is the organization of matter, which can provide synergistic effects, such as animation, and thought... So, each individual biological "Life" may indeed be 'finite', matter and energy, need not be... Life is the result of matter and energy... I am a Naturalist, with Natural "Objectivist" views... where; Existence exists. Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification.

Perry: "One that implies some form of progression."

Our beings, comprised of our sub-organisms learning from a "Changing" environment, i.e., immune systems, etc... Okay, I can accept that... However, I prefer the term "Change", as opposed to "progression", progression seems to "lead" up to something that is more "Valuable" than what currently exists... Currently, I feel I am valuable... Where does progression fit in for my mortal being...

Perry: "Nearly all the religions and philosophies I've looked at have bits and pieces of this concept embedded."

There are bits and pieces, reincarnation among the thoughts, however, reincarnation requires a homogenous "life force"... The attraction and organization of matter, creates bilogical life, which in affect, creates life energy, in a synergistic manner... The composition and decomposition of matter, doesn't preclude me to believe that "life forces" are, "homogenous"... In short, a "life force" is the culmination of matter, according to its sub-organism configutation vivified by synergy...

Where you say there is the possibility of progression, one could easily assert that there is the possibility of regression... Our matter, may one day be part of the composition of cabbage...

The only explanation for a stable theory on "Progression", would come through humanity being seen as a growing organism ecologically in itself... where, environmental factors, are spread accross humanity bio-chemically... and our individual bodies adapt to the changes... Like influenza shots, we get them, our bodies adapt, and our immune systems can be said to have Progressed/Changed...

And of course, decomposed matter, of a dead body, feeds the worms, which feeds the birds, which feeds the human, which gives birth to a new baby who receives the benefit of a Progressive/Changed biological form... Of course, this is purely speaking of Natural Matter, not, "life force" as per the SuperNatural Metaphysical aspect...

Perry: "Was this what was in mind in this quote? Jhn 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit."

Hmmmm, well, it looks like the acorn if living, provides less joy, and Value, than the "Death" of the acorn... Perhaps, Death, is more Valuable according to this passage... it does seem to bring about "much fruit"...

Perry: "Or was it more of an attempt to say / reinforce the idea that form was finite, but that which animates it at any given level is timeless?"

I don't know Perry, I spoke towards' Willies' assertions, which I find unfounded, if linked to a SuperNatural/Metaphysically Objective Reality... If you do believe form is finite, one would have to call that an "Absolute", along with a "Universal Force" that appears, per your description to permeate this Universe... Since, I believe in "Change" as the only Absolute known at this time, "form" is not necessarily "finite", and "time" is Relative... but, perhaps the comment is rhetorical...

Perry: "Who's to know?"

I am not Absolutely sure...

Perry: "Many of the older human
concepts of this life force (E.g. Great White Spirit) deal with
the matter of cycles and relationships of finite with
unknown infinite."

I agree, nothing new under the sun so to speak... Willie is obviously providing us his tautology in life...

Perry: "Further, there was lucid recognition that the 'higher' life form is always paced by the lower forms."

Interesting, a reductionist view of ecology... I can see that as inspiring news... It seems that academia is just now catching on however, as many biologists have just started coming to the conclusion (or have been un-handcuffed to show) that these lower life forms actually communicate in order to support the higher life forms... Probably, something to do with religious bigotry... I mean, religion requires a cohesive connection between "Body" and "Spirit", what happens when our bodies are dissected into millions of smaller living "organisms" that communicate... Do we have a million little souls living inside our one body... A man wounded in his "stones" per the bible, couldn't hold the priesthood, I wonder if that is where the "soul" resides...

Perry: "It's all quite a conundrum. I wonder if it is resolvable at all."

Well, I am not Absolutely sure, but, I could wager a bet, that whatever is discovered will be in this Natural Universe, through Naturally occurring patterns, measurements, and tests... I am compelled to believe that nothing of a Metaphysical nature, will "ever" provide evidence for anything, per the term, Meta, meaning beyond Natural/Physical measurement to include, Observation... if it can be seen, it can be measured... I wonder if Willie ever Observed a ghost fly out of a dead persons' corpse... I should write the guy, and see what his reponse is...

Well, in the end, if Willie finds an answer, it won'd be classified as a Metaphysical concept, it will become a Natural/Physical concept once brought into this environment to be observed... Hence, the use of the word Metaphysical per Willie, provides nothing of use...

Other than to say, "I don't know... but I have a hypothesis... which can never be measured... and further, I believe that immeasurable concept, is tied to a Metaphysically Objective reality, that Transcends this Universe, where a Metaphysical God resides..." I'm holding out for the biologists to come up with the answers on this one... Willie, has already reached his conclusions on the animation of life, and Natural forces... he disagrees with Nature as the sole source for life, matter and energy... I believe Nature is "all" that exists... anything beyond, is pure speculation, where someone has taken naturally learned information, images, concepts, etc., and applied them to their imagination, where they generate an intrinsic spatial location for their Perfect Reality...

I liken my reality to... an Objectivist view...

"Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality, that individual human beings are in contact with this reality through sensory perception, that they gain knowledge by processing the data of perception using the method of reason or "non-contradictory identification,"

Mind-Independent, means, not conjured in the mind... means, Metaphysical concepts, to include Heaven, Hell, God, etc., all die away, once the Mind, goes bye bye, as per Willies' assertion... what remains, is Nature, and what we can Observe in this Universe, only...

Well, good discussion, the more I research, the more I progress ;-) If only I can figure out how to encode my DNA with knowledge, it would make raising children so much easier... :-) Take care...

Perry, just wanted to ensure, I don't get credit for adhering to the entire philosophy of Objectivism...

There are parts which I am opposed to... Objectivist Law of Causality is one of those, as it implies "Absolutes"... I do however, extend my belief in the Non-Existence of a Metaphysically Objective Reality... It's an "Absolute" unknown, by definition... that which can't be perceived through empirical senses, doesn't exist... Projecting ones' imagination to the moon, or picturing another person thousands of miles away, doesn't make them real or non-real, what makes them real is the "Confidence" one places in the source that provides the Projection... If a friend tells me they're sitting in a restaurant a thousand miles away, I have to Trust them, and have Confidence in their statement, still, I don't Know they are in the Restaurant they say they are... To Truly "Know" something, requires experience, and I haven't experienced anything that alludes to a Metaphysically Objective Reality which underpins the Universe... if I experience something, that makes me reflect on the matter, I chalk it up a Natural event, that I haven't yet, understood how the measure... I don't consider it metaphysical at that point, just non-fully understood... take care...

Some of what you say reminds me of the ancient
alchemists. Earth, air, fire and water were reductions.
Phlogiston was the missing metaphysical component, the
'thing' that assembled, dissembled and reassembled
atoms and molecules (yet undiscovered), the
philosopher's stone: life force; that which vivified form in
all it's manifestations. And which changed (form) from
one particular assemblage of molecules to another.

Modern stories seem to confine alchemists to the zone of
quackery, of mis-guided individuals trying to turn lead
into gold. And so on. I suspect that their investigations
were more profound than pecuniary.

Another 'dimension' that correlates to intuition is instinct.
More than a few scientists say they have the full genetic
code for many living organisms. I have asked a few local
scientists where - in the DNA sequences / strings -
instinct is coded (or carried). So far, they don't seem to
have an answer.

As for heaven, hell, purgatory and other religio-
mythological constructs, I suspect they allude to
dimensions that co-exist with the physical, but are at a
"different frequency," one beyond the scope of our
natural senses, or the instruments that we build to "see"
such things.

I'm not consumed with any interest in the structures that
Willie builds from his hypothesis, but I am interested in
the hypothesis itself. I can build something different from
the same foundation. As you remark, "Willie may indeed
see [revealed] something [that] he is totally oblivious to."

[quote]However, at this juncture, I would assert that this
"life force" from my perspective, wells from a Natural
Spring, called the smallest living organisms, working
together to form an animated being/organism, whether it
be, a cattle, cabbage, person, bacteria, etc...[/quote]

But where do the smallest living organisms get "it" to
start with? You mentioned separating a toe as an
example. The toe seems to perish. But the now
diminished organism (a human?) lives in. In some cases -
a bit of skin - regeneration occurs. But take away
something more systemically vital and senescence
follows.

You questioned progression and preferred "change."
Would change for the better suffice? And yes, the atoms
and molecules of our matter may well be one day a
cabbage. Or a worm. But that is form. That is matter.
When matter is assembled differently, the form differs.
The matter, the components, the atoms and molecules are
the same. E.g. The fruit juice we drink today may have
been (in part) the piss of a medieval knight of old.

My / the "reductionist view of ecology" isn't that
provocative. I have some experience in organic farming.
That's prompted me to observe biological phenomena
(and cycles) more closely than most. I can see that some
sunshine (fire), in conjunction with the earth, air and
water can produce all manner of different things: a
tomato, cabbage, corn, carrot, potato, egg plant, etc. Only
the coded seed differed. And the season. But life force
can depart from the seed and does, over time, causing
infertility and non-germination. Where did it go? Why?

When I receive a delivery of "day-old" chicks, (about 48
- 54 hours old when I get them), they have no fear of
humans. Or dogs. 24-36 hours later, they do. Why did
instinctive fear take that long to manifest? They already
"know" how to drink and eat. Within the next 48 hours, I
observe scratching. A few more days and I see dust-
bathing. This all happens in a chick that has never had
any parental contact. Never had an example shown.
Subsequent "behaviours' follow. Where did the template
come from? I know what instinct "is." I don't know
where it "comes from," nor how it is passed down the
generations. Scientists – so far – don't seem to know,
either. For the moment, I attribute the causative factor to
another dimension – meta-physical.

Dave8, I don't feel that I've done your reply full justice.
But it is a subject that is near and dear to me, the subject
of 30+ years of informal study and investigation. And
treks through an assortment of religions and philosophies,
exo- and esoteric. They all seem to have a part of the
'truth.' But only a part. (and an unwillingness to
appreciate that!)

Recapping on progression, momentarily. I have
'challenged' bible thumpers to open their religious book
at the break between the old and new testament. I then
say to them that on the left (presuming it's up the right
way) they have the animalistic, eye-for-eye, tooth-for-
tooth, do unto others as they do to you, etc. On the right is
forgive and forget, be kind, patient, love and be tolerant,
turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have
them do unto you, move on, etc. To me that not only
sums the mythological constructs the book embodies, it is
a description of explicit progress. I'm not absolutely sure
where to, though . . . .

[quote] Currently, I feel I am valuable... Where does
progression fit in for my mortal being . . .[/quote]

That does not exclude the possibility of progression to a
point that your assessment of yourself is more enhanced.
That you have grown in wisdom, patience, tolerance,
love, forbearance, knowledge, skill, etc. The notion that
we're 'scumbags' needing some sort of confidence trick
to 'redeem' us from our parlous state is a falsehood.
Organised religion, in peddling such nonsense, is the
single greatest and most enduring confidence trick in
human history.

G'night. I hope to catch up again, in the days ahead.

Hey Perry, sorry for the delayed post.

Perry: "Some of what you say reminds me of the ancient
alchemists. Earth, air, fire and water were reductions.
Phlogiston was the missing metaphysical component, the
'thing' that assembled, dissembled and reassembled
atoms and molecules (yet undiscovered), the
philosopher's stone: life force; that which vivified form in
all it's manifestations. And which changed (form) from
one particular assemblage of molecules to another."

I would consider myself, metaphorically speaking, as a type/kind of alchemist, yes... With the understanding, as you allude, more to the side of profound than pecuniary... The alchemists of old, were attempting to prove upon, ancient philosophical renderings/constructs...

Some alchemists back in the day, were trying to find the methods/key element(s) by which to "control" the one Universal Absolute known, "Change"... Many millenia ago, that would in fact seem sorcery, teetering on dark arts... because of the notion of manipulating metaphysical forces...

Those ancient metaphysical forces, thousands of years ago, are quite commonly understood today, and are no longer considered metaphysical forces... They were always part of the Natural Universe, just unobservable...

In high-school, not so many years ago, I told my chemistry teacher that metals can in fact be changed/transmuted to form more precious metals, she laughed at me... and then, I pointed out ratioactive decay among the heavy elements, which "Change" over time to produce entirely new elements, i.e., Uranium 238 to Lead for instance, which is at the end of the alpha emission depletion chain...

"Uranium occurs in rocks, sea and fresh water and in the human body (see Table 3.1). Uranium (U) is a naturally occurring element with an average abundance in the Earth’s
crust of about 2 mg per kg (range 0.1 to 20 mg per kg). It is more abundant than silver
or gold. For example Alloway, (1995) has quoted an average concentration and range in
typical crustal rocks of 2.5 mg/kg and 0.05 mg/kg to 5 mg/kg, respectively, although
higher concentrations commonly exist in some mineralized environments.
http://www.grip.org/bdg/pdf/g1861.pdf

The Alchemists, were attempting to "control" this Change, even if searching for a fountain of youth, suspending the decaying affects on our biological processes, which modern medicine appears to continue to do... Modern day scientists, are masters of "Change" control and manipulation, that would have indeed garnered them the title Alchemist a little further back in history...

Perry: "Modern stories seem to confine alchemists to the zone of
quackery, of mis-guided individuals trying to turn lead
into gold. And so on. I suspect that their investigations
were more profound than pecuniary."

And, Pb can be turned into Au, with enough control measures... ;-)

Perry: "Another 'dimension' that correlates to intuition is instinct."

Definitely a correlation, as a determinst, however, I feel everything must tie together, as we learn by making associations via our perceptions of this Natural reality... Everything, "is" Relative to Nature... its where we start in this life...

Regarding the proximity/strength of the correlation, I would have to enter my hypothesis as follows; instinct is intrinsic and the sole product of a beings' molecularly controlled survival mechanisms, where intuition to me is the influence Nature imposes/influences our intrinsic being, via "x"... Molecular biologists indeed know much about our instincts, for instance, to maintain physiological homeostasis, our "fight or flight" mechanisms engage, as the following paragraph deduces, we are at our most basic being, instinctive animals...

"There is a good reason why the first discovered hormone (1894) was Adrenaline (Epinephrine in the US). Produced and secreted by the adrenal gland (that all its hormones are known as 'stress hormones'), adrenaline is secreted as a direct reaction to stressful situations, and its powerful effects are similar to those of the sympathetic branch of the ANS (such as increasing heartbeats, blood pressure, sugar-levels, muscle activity etc..

Besides its hormonal functions, adrenaline is also an excitatory neurotransmitter in the CNS (indirectly controlling its own production). It is involved both in neural and hormonal processes and its effects as a neurotransmitter are further reinforced by its hormonal function (a positive feedback loop)."
http://www.health-concern.com/Articles/introduction_to_the_physiology_of_stress.htm

These instinctive processes are intrinsically controlled... However, they can be Intuitively affected...

Intuition is based on our ability to perceive our Natural environment, on differing levels... From the most subtle, to the most expository... The more subtle, the less quantifiable, the more compelling the need to use inference...

Perry: "More than a few scientists say they have the full genetic code for many living organisms. I have asked a few local scientists where - in the DNA sequences / strings -
instinct is coded (or carried). So far, they don't seem to
have an answer."

Neuroendocrinology... As stated, the body is the culmination of a mutually benefitting physiological process, where sub-organisms contribute synergistically to create a self-sustaining, living being... Remove some of the key components of the system, and "life", as defined by willie, no longer thrives... Looking at a bicycle wheel, and exclaiming that it doesn't provide stand-alone evidence for a transportation device, doesn't remove the fact, that the wheel coupled with a system of parts, can't be used to created a transportation vehicle...

This kicks off an entirely different discussion, one that I wouldn't mind delving into, if you want... The topic would be that of Synergy... In a strictly materialistic sense, without external influence, there doesn't exist synergy, two ball bearings in a motor, will facilitate for example, an "x" number of rotations of a cylinder... If one of the two ball bearings were removed, and a different one placed in the motor, the same number of rotations, with a small degree of error, will occur, there is no synergy of effort... there is no mechanism to make the two materialistic ball bearings produce more output, than they would as individuals...

However, inorganic systems aside, there can be synergy of effort, with organic systems... There can be greater efficiencies realized through synergistic effects... and these benefits are the result of "communication"... I could be working a project, and be producing an "x" number for work output, and my colleague, may indeed be Individually working and accomplishing their "x" work output... Individually, we together may produce for example 10 on a numeric scale for work output...

If me and my colleague, come together, and communicate, sharing information that allows us to naturally mold our environment to attain a more efficient means to achieve a higher output, there can be synergy of effort, for the long term...

In the short term, however, there may indeed be a gap of downtime, an initial lull in the process, call it dormancy... where we learn of eachothers' beneficial knowledge/attributes... The dormant process of interacting organic elements may produce little to nothing initially, however, a connection where two elements find mutual benefit, can easily spin up, connect, and start kicking off work output, to not only catch up to a separate parallel working system of similar Individual elements, but to far surpass the work effort of two similar Individually working elements...

Communication facilitates growth, on all levels, its a center of gravity studied by many... it happens to be a field I currently work in... I suppose once humans, know, everything there is to know of the Natural Universe, and the number of possible beneficial combinations to be made inorganically/organically, will there be a lull in our growth... notwithstanding, religion continuing to place barriers to gaining further knowledge, by twisting derived knowledge to its purposes, or totally manipulating it to render it doubtful/unusable...

Religion aside, Nature and organic systems, in many systems, seeks beneficial rewards... both Universal/macro and micro/planetary/species/bacteria/atomic/quantum/etc...

There could be an argument, for the communication of inorganic systems, I suppose, they do in fact follow the laws of action and reaction, the difference is that inorganic systems don't happen to have the capability to store "knowledge", "perceive themselves as part of the whole", and "manipulate the environment"...

A slightly deeper subject, I may ponder this tangent later...

Perry: "As for heaven, hell, purgatory and other religio-
mythological constructs, I suspect they allude to dimensions that co-exist with the physical, but are at a "different frequency," one beyond the scope of our natural senses, or the instruments that we build to "see" such things."

This goes back to the heart of inorganic and organic systems... I don't see the weaving or permeating of frequencies between differing Realities, that religions label as "Duality", or, Dual Reality... There is in fact, metaphysical phenomena, such as how this Universe and ourselves communicate within the "whole", however, Abrahamic religions, don't "just" perceive the interworkings of this Universe as metaphysical, they typically ascribe an "origin" in some "Metaphysically Objective Reality", which generates this "frequency/force", etc...

I am more compelled to believe we are monistically a "part" of the inseparable larger Universe, which consists of layering of elemental attrubutes, from the lowest sub-quantum unknown to the largest inorganic/organic macro knowns, where there is consistent interaction between these layers, i.e., organic layers, riding over inorganic layers, riding over "x", etc., etc.

I tend to have reservations, that this Universe is in fact by Abrahamic religion standards, "Separable", where this Universe and its layers, are subservient to an "alternate" reality... where one day, after we leave this Natural Reality, we will go to join Metaphysical Objects, i.e., god(s), heaven, hell, etc., in a Transcendent Metaphysical Objective Reality...

Perry: "I'm not consumed with any interest in the structures that
Willie builds from his hypothesis, but I am interested in
the hypothesis itself. I can build something different from
the same foundation. As you remark, "Willie may indeed
see [revealed] something [that] he is totally oblivious to."

Agreed. The observations Willie has made, is indeed worthy of thought, for instance, the observation has sparked a discussion, where communication has allowed us to beneficially ingest knowledge, that may serve us in our lives, and the quality of our lives... Willie, just seems to have taken away more from his observation, than Willie has foundation for, and that's Willie's right, but... he's written academic checks that he can't cash...

Perry: "But where do the smallest living organisms get "it" to start with? You mentioned separating a toe as an example. The toe seems to perish. But the now diminished organism (a human?) lives in. In some cases - a bit of skin - regeneration occurs. But take away
something more systemically vital and senescence follows."

The chemical root, to class organic life, is based on carbon compounds... The Universe from a macro view, could be considered a living entity, based on the fact, that "organic life", we humans, exist as part of its makeup... Much like, a person who has major portions of their body fitted with prosthetics, as still being considered a "living" and "organic" entity...

To ask, where "it", the "genesis" of life, stems from, in that macro sense, begs the question, where did the living "Universe" get "it", "us", to make the Universe a living host, and us the quorum of bacteria, that generates "light", when clustered together in cities, with city lights... and observable, by anyone inspecting from a distance in space...

Perhaps, life, is nothing more than give-take inertia created between smaller living organisms, inclusive of both inorganic and organic compounds... Where did the smallest living organisms, get "it" from, the vivifying process, whereby, inorganic matter, joined with carbon based compounds to manifest "new life"... Not sure... However, this does go back to cosmological origins, for me, the most I can "Know" is what appears to me, in my lifetime based on "first" hand experience, that means, inorganic matter has always existed in my lifetime, and always has, to include "life"...

To search for a "Purpose", for "life", and inorganic matters' existence, seems to be a little more thought provoking, as it enters an "irrational" variable into the equation... its like trying to guess the "intent" of a vast Universe, which hosts our living beings... I liken it to a cell in our bodies, with their limited ability to communicate, trying to guess what we cognitively think, and what our "intentions" are, on a day to day basis... as our "thoughts", and "intentions" change, with our environment...

To postulate answers on the "intentions" and cosmological purpose, to me is folly... it places me as an equal to not only "knowing" the Universe (as a living host), but to "know" everything beyond, if possible, the living Universe... I suppose I am content being the cell, who is at least "aware" of its existence within the larger host, where my purpose, is like that of bacteria to a great macro degree... which is, to process and organize matter, with a limited linguistic system to communicate with the remainder of humanity..., based on words and structure, where a "word" per Nietsche, is "The image of a nerve stimulus in sounds." We all, have different images, because we have all been exposed differently to this Natural universe, and our environment, further we are physiologically different on certain levels, the physical neural paths for instance... therefore, a "word" may recall a different image for each of us... the word "god" for instance...

I also, am compelled to believe, that mankind is fully controlled by the Universe, and not vice versa, we just learn how to work more efficiently within the Universe by passing on experiential knowledge, gained from previous trial-error events... which is "not" the most efficient manner of propelling a civilization/species forward... using symbolic systems (Mathematics) as frameworks to process our "nerve impulse results" through, does create an environment where "standardization" and transferrence of information becomes more efficient, consistent, and meaningful... the same can be construed with verbal language or written language, however, misinterpretation potentials increase based on human factors... probably, why literature is considered an "art", and math is considered a "science"... math, to a great extent removes the potential for human factor errors...

Referring to the vital organs, and how one can negatively impact the homeostasis of our living being to affect senescence, I would assert that removal of a systems' part, would in fact diminish the whole... Its why, I believe the Universe to be one functioning "whole", and me just a part of it, my job is to find and seek purpose...

If purpose, is to act according to our natures, we just need to know our "True" natures... Religion robs that of people, a "Purpose" is provided them, and they are instructed on how to perform according to the purposes set forth in doctrine... I have been tested, and have a gift for strategy, which means, depending on the field I study, I can assimilate information to create systems, theoretical and applied...

I don't naturally function in inefficient systems, I am easily perturbed... Psychology, is the area that would allow someone to map their cognitive skills, traits, etc... there is a lot of research in this area of psychology in the past few decades... On a physiological level, we are born with systems, that religions attempt to "control", the reproductive system for instance, I don't feel "anyone" I have known in religion is qualified to mentor "anyone" professionally on sexual homeostasis... The denial of marriage services for couples who are not both virgins is one of those "controlling" factors, and the "denial" is supposed to set the standard, to prevent future "Natural Acts" from occurring by its members...

Anyway, purpose, we are the slaves to our Nature, again, Nature is master with its governing dynamics, and they will continue to exist, no matter what a public speaker shouts behind the pulpit... the only ones who are duped into believing in the words so easily, are the ones, who are so lost regarding their own Natural being, that they need to be "told" their Purpose, and "how" to live their life... and that wouldn't seem terrible, but its the same organizations who bitterly oppose science, and the ability to "provide" that education to people, so they "can" live a peaceful and Natural life... sorry for the rant...

Perry: "You questioned progression and referred "change."
Would change for the better suffice? And yes, the atoms and molecules of our matter may well be one day a cabbage. Or a worm. But that is form. That is matter.
When matter is assembled differently, the form differs. The matter, the components, the atoms and molecules are the same. E.g. The fruit juice we drink today may have been (in part) the piss of a medieval knight of old."

Agree ;-)

Perry: "But life force
can depart from the seed and does, over time, causing infertility and non-germination. Where did it go? Why?"

As stated earlier, my view of the Universe is abstract, I see it in shifting layers, for instance, at the origin of a seed, in space, there exists multiple layers, thermal temperature, inorganic composition i.e., H20, etc, organic carbon compounds i.e., CO2, etc, atmospheric pressure, inertial decay, length of time exposed to non-facilitative environments conducive to fertile seeds, etc., etc... In short, the dimensions of Time, Space, and Energy, and the effects they have on the Natural fulfillment of the "seeds" potential... Sort of like... Us... I'd say... perhaps, one could surmize coddling the "seed" is like acting in a "god" like capacity, ensuring the environmental "factors" are favorable for the seed to eventually vivify... but, of course, we would only be demi-gods ;-), as, we are "given" these Dimensions via Nature, and do nothing more than accept the clues that allow us to run around trying to Get Each element/attribute/being to reach its true Potential...

Perry: "When I receive a delivery of "day-old" chicks, (about 48
- 54 hours old when I get them), they have no fear of humans. Or dogs. 24-36 hours later, they do."

Intuition... the interaction of environmental factors with the instinct of the chicks to survive begin to conflict... Animals have personalities also... if the chicks are part of a ranch, they know their own kind intuitively also, and know, when there are major episodes involving survival and presence...

I have walked into houses, and known intuitively that someone had died in that house recently, and my basic instinct typically is to leave the premises... What is the environmental factor that allows us to "sense" Other human beings, I am not sure, but, it exists in my experience...

Perry: "Why did instinctive fear take that long to manifest? They already "know" how to drink and eat."

It took them that long to become more "In-tune", Intuitive, with their changing environment...

Perry: "Within the next 48 hours, I observe scratching. A few more days and I see dust-bathing. This all happens in a chick that has never had any parental contact. Never had an example shown.
Subsequent "behaviours' follow. Where did the template come from? I know what instinct "is." I don't know where it "comes from," nor how it is passed down the generations. Scientists – so far – don't seem to know, either. For the moment, I attribute the causative factor to another dimension – meta-physical."

If a human didn't have endocrine glands, to push adrenaline into our bodies to create a hyper-defensive effect, and alertness (keener sense of perception) our species may well have died off many years ago... We all have Intuition at differing levels of sensitivity, based upon our experiences both Physically using "empirical senses", and, in some "more subtle" manner, which triggers our instincts... which is intrinsic, we perform according to our functional processes once triggered... I still don't see the instinctive as esoteric, as removal of the endocrine glands, will "show" us, that a person will not "act" instinctively to previously triggering intuitive factors/thoght..., its a quantifiable delta, using comparison analysis, pre and post endocrine gland operation...

Our perception, and intuition are key areas of study in the areas of neuro/cognitive psychology, perhaps, taking a holistic approach to the field will render greater benefits in teh future...

Our perception of reality, using senses at all levels, triggers our natural systems to engage according to their function... To postulate how our mechanisms became structured in the manner they have, goes into survival of the fittest, etc., discussion... there are many examples of changes... and how some are kept, and others discarded over time... one of those, use it or lose it concepts... and even, it its non-useful, if its not negatively affecting "homeostasis", it will probably just stick around...

We are what we do, we do, because we are... we do more, when we know who we are...

Perry: "Dave8, I don't feel that I've done your reply full justice.
But it is a subject that is near and dear to me, the subject of 30+ years of informal study and investigation. And treks through an assortment of religions and philosophies, exo- and esoteric. They all seem to have a part of the 'truth.' But only a part. (and an unwillingness to appreciate that!)"

Well, humbly, I have only treked for about a year now, I have been in a very restrictive environment most of my life, at times, restrictive to enhance survivability... After, being released from the environmental conditions that have restricted me, I have started to explore, so I am at the early stages of my journey so to speak... However, when I said, we are what we do... I do, naturally process information 24 hours a day, even while sleeping if I didn't know better ;-) So, in that aspect, I have chalked up, many hours in the past year myself, and feel I am fulfilling my purpose by allowing myself to Naturally process information freely, and holistically...

Its been quite easy once I dropped a dual reality concept, I now look for everything to have direct associations or relations, if the relationships aren't apparent, I chalk it up to my ignorance of the Natural Universe... as so many have in the past few thousand years, hoping that thinkers, and scientists uncover the underlying truths to the clues in time... There are many knowns at this time, they are just Relative, and fluctuating with the environment...

I agree, there is a little truth in many things, the ones who inject a little truth to create an UnNatural environment to allow people to reach their Natural Potentials are the ones I typically have problems with... Nature is in charge, nothing has been peachy king when an institution comes out, and proclaims it has Greater authority than Nature, based on some ideaology... when one, goes against their Nature, there is "conflict", usually mentally, which affects a persons homeostasis, and even physical health if left uncorrected over time... conflict causes stress, stress reduces our life spans...

These topics being discussed, are topics I enjoy also, they broaden my view of reality... Your reply has done more than justice to the topic at hand, "life" and the underlying mechanisms... causes, whether it be "god" or some naturally occuring unmeasurable metaphysical force...

Perry: "Recapping on progression, momentarily. I have 'challenged' bible thumpers to open their religious book at the break between the old and new testament. I then say to them that on the left (presuming it's up the right
way) they have the animalistic, eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, do unto others as they do to you, etc. On the right is forgive and forget, be kind, patient, love and be tolerant, turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have
them do unto you, move on, etc. To me that not only sums the mythological constructs the book embodies, it is a description of explicit progress. I'm not absolutely sure where to, though . . . ."

Nietzsche would say, progress towards global morality, it just started a while back, in the conquoring empires... Nations are postured against eachother, presupposing they are moral and the other nations are immoral, with armies to back up their claims... Where Nature seems to be herding us, is towards figuring out how to more resourcefully use our environment, to better facilitate survival of the species... If all humans didn't have the capability to wage war in mortal combat, there would be a global dictatorship/government at this time...

Its the blooming of our Natures' being that compels us to remove ourselves from restrictive environments, communist countries are much less restrictive than they appear on paper many times, entire revolutions have resulted in the proclamation that freedom is an inalienable right (Naturally), and if man-kind can't find an environment that allows their Nature to bloom, they will indeed seek out alternatives... some not so good, in my opinion, the restrictive and mis-conditioned beings who lose touch through desentization of their Natural purpose, are the ones who end up becoming criminal in society... with the understanding that the laws of the society are Naturally just...

Perry: "That does not exclude the possibility of progression to a
point that your assessment of yourself is more enhanced. That you have grown in wisdom, patience, tolerance, love, forbearance, knowledge, skill, etc. The notion that we're 'scumbags' needing some sort of confidence trick to 'redeem' us from our parlous state is a falsehood. Organised religion, in peddling such nonsense, is the
single greatest and most enduring confidence trick in human history."

Progression of me as an Individual, is based on my ability to become self-actualized, and follow my Nature... In that regard I do feel I am progressing, as I learn more about myself, and how I can best fit into my environment...

In a macro sense, civilization in theory is supposedly progressing, but, I am not sure the institutions in place at the moment, are vying for the "best fit" practice, matching neurological strengths with available work in our global environment...

Many are still being predisposed to working in whatever is available... which can in fact, impede ones' personal growth... I understand the saying... don't ask what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country, and there are times when one must sacrifice of the self, for the better of the whole, however, that mentality has been flowing for many, many years now...

I don't think the philosophy has changed, many people expose themselves to sacrifices that allow them to live until the next day, and for them, I don't see progress... and because of their value as part of the whole of humanity, I don't see synergistic progress... When humanity as a "Whole", and not as Individuals come together for a "Greater Purpose", will there be true progress...

However, seems religions etc, can't even come together for a common purpose... and they're supposed to be the moral majority... probably has to do with their, presuppositions regarding Nature, and their fundamental Values... I have very few presuppositions to my simple philosophy of life, and one is... "Life" is Valuable, "Liberty" and freedom to become Self-Actualized has Value, and Ultimately, the blooming of my Nature will garner realized Purpose in my life and provide "happiness"... I suppose I could add, "I Exist" for all those who may read this, and want to pander to ontological argument, but, I'll wait for the peanut gallery if they show up... take care...

Dave8

Some of what you say is beyond me. I can follow it,
reasonably well, but I lack knowledge of some aspects that
you describe. So you'll have to forgive me if I seem to
ignore some of what you say. Allowing ignorance as my
excuse for an incomplete response.

Dave8: Hey Perry, sorry for the delayed post.

I need to do other things, like pack eggs, so a day's respite is
welcome!

Dave8: Those ancient metaphysical forces, thousands of
years ago, are quite commonly understood today, and are no
longer considered metaphysical forces... They were always
part of the Natural Universe, just unobservable...

Much of modern scientific knowledge endorses that.
Fortunately, the church persecution of Copernicus, Galileo
et al did not suppress the truth indefinitely. But there's still
some speculation. E.g. atoms.

Step a bit lower - a lot lower - down the chain and we have
atoms and molecules. I find it ironic that electrons can't be
seen by an electron microscope. That the structure of an
atom is a working hypothesis, "proved out" by mathematics.
But science (and me) accept the unseeable as 'real,' for the
moment. What keeps electrons orbiting in their shells? What
keeps the planets circling in their orbits? Is it the same
thing?

We know what electricity is; or how it behaves, at least, as
we can't see electrons flowing along a conductor. We can
see lines of magnetic force with the aid of a few iron filings.
But we don't know why electricity or magnetism "IS." We
can't seem to fathom its inherent nature. What we know
about it is simple observation and trial and error.

Dave8: To search for a "Purpose", for "life", and inorganic
matters' existence, seems to be a little more thought
provoking, as it enters an "irrational" variable into the
equation... its like trying to guess the "intent" of a vast
Universe, which hosts our living beings... I liken it to a cell
in our bodies, with their limited ability to communicate,
trying to guess what we cognitively think, and what our
"intentions" are, on a day to day basis... as our "thoughts",
and "intentions" change, with our environment... To
postulate answers on the "intentions" and cosmological
purpose, to me is folly...

So, as the cell is to us, we are to the wider form of the solar
system, the galaxy, etc? How much of a stretch would it be
to conceive that there is "life" to whom an atom is home?
And to whom a human body is a galaxy? Akin to the
relationship between us humans and the solar system.

When you look at humanity now and reflect on its status of
a millennia or two ago, do you hold the view that we have
improved, progressed? What criteria do you evaluate in
arriving at an opinion/answer?

Dave8: Referring to the vital organs, and how one can
negatively impact the homeostasis of our living being to
affect senescence, I would assert that removal of a systems'
part, would in fact diminish the whole... Its why, I believe
the Universe to be one functioning "whole", and me just a
part of it, my job is to find and seek purpose...

But diminishment of the whole does not invariably lead to
senescence of the whole. The loss of function of a vital
organ can do that. A virus can do it. Or a drop of poison.

Dave8: Anyway, purpose, we are the slaves to our Nature,
again, Nature is master with its governing dynamics, and
they will continue to exist, no matter what a public speaker
shouts behind the pulpit...

But what is Nature, but your name for gawd (of no name or
denomination)?

I think I badly expressed my seed question. "Fresh" seed is
viable in that it is capable of germination. All that's needed
is some suitable disposition of earth, air, fire and water! But
seed can become non-viable, after a period of time. Some in
a very short time (e.g. parsnip). Some 'hold' their viability
for much longer (e.g. wheat). This loss of viability is
nominally akin to Willies observation. Physically and
chemically, the seed is the same, biologically, it has 'died.'
If it's put in the soil, it will rot, not germinate. It's physical
form (and chemical constituents) will suffer normal
oxidation/reduction that occurs in soil as it returns to the
cycling of matter. Not quite the "bring forth much fruit"
proposition.

Dave8: It took them that long to become more "In-tune",
Intuitive, with their changing environment...

The problem with that hypothesis is that – here - there is no
change in their environment for about 10 days. The dilemma
with words like 'intrinsic' or 'inherent' is there seems to be
no code in the chromosomes except physio-biological data.
Similar sentiments can be accorded to Nature as a primary,
causative (or responsible) factor. Or "in charge" as you put
it. (Also as in Everything, "is" Relative to Nature... its where
we start in this life...
And Nature and organic systems, in many systems, seeks
beneficial rewards... )

Dave8: In a macro sense, civilization in theory is
supposedly progressing, but, I am not sure the institutions in
place at the moment, are vying for the "best fit" practice,
matching neurological strengths with available work in our
global environment... Many are still being predisposed to
working in whatever is available... which can in fact,
impede ones' personal growth...

If I grasp what you say correctly, I'd agree, exponentially.
Any form of socialism, (of which vicarious atonement, per
religiosity of most all forms is a great example) interferes
with both individual and collective growth and
development.

Do you have a way of expanding on "Self-Actualized"
that's somewhat more expansive?

A friend of mine, a female artist, a generation younger, have
discussed the topic at some length and come up with our
"position statement" of the moment. It goes something like
this, but is dynamic and subject to change, without notice,
as we each expand our "system of considerations" (which is
our expression for "belief system").

1) There is only one sin - separateness, belief in it and acting
accordingly.
2) All form (yes, including us) is evolving (changing, if you
prefer) and Nature/gawd/Life Force is evolving through us.

We found our position statement hypothesis somewhat
scary, but have yet to find a more viable alternative that fits
the observations.

As for synergy, yet there is time . . .

Hey Perry, hope the eggs are a done deal, I was employed by a priory/abbey not so many years ago, and of course, the major income source was poultry and egg sales also... it was rewarding for me... In regard to your well thought out philosophy;

Perry:
"1) There is only one sin - separateness, belief in it and acting accordingly.
2) All form (yes, including us) is evolving (changing, if you
prefer) and Nature/gawd/Life Force is evolving through us.

A life philosophy in my humble opinion, must cover certain aspects... Being, Reality, and Knoweldge... this of course is the start of ones journey... Values, beliefs, and even the way we dress is based on what we subconsciously hold to be truths in our life, whether subconsious or conscious... I don't believe anyone does anything in life without knowing their actions on some level of awareness, I do however believe people do things many times in life, without knowing "why" they behave, decide and act in certain ways... the path to becoming Self-Actualized, is the journey to find out ones' own "being", through all of the maslonian layers, from the most basic humble acceptance on the physiological level, that we are born genetically disposed to "function" according to our makeup, i.e., we have a brain to reason, etc., therefore, we should probably not forego the use of our ability to reason... it moves us away from the natural functions that have allowed us and our species to survive, for who knows "what" purpose...

The following is a few of the aspects one need become familiar with, and come to terms with in life...

Ontology - In philosophy, ontology is the most fundamental branch of metaphysics. It studies being or existence as well as the basic categories thereof—trying to find out what entities and what types of entities exist. Ontology has strong implications for the conceptions of reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Epistemology - Epistemology, from the Greek words episteme (knowledge) and logos (word/speech) is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge. Historically, it has been one of the most investigated and most debated of all philosophical subjects. Much of this debate has focused on analysing the nature and variety of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth and belief. Much of this discussion concerns the justification of knowledge claims.

Not surprisingly, the way that knowledge claims are justified both leads to and depends on the general approach to philosophy one adopts. Thus, philosophers have developed a range of epistemological theories to accompany their general philosophical positions. More recent studies have re-written centuries-old assumptions, and the field of epistemology continues to be vibrant and dynamic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Even, the nature of epistemology has been "Changed" in the recent years... Laws of Relativity have replaced scientific hypotheticals founded on absolute laws, or terms...

I alluded earlier that "intent" is the end result of much philosophical discussion, in some of the areas of philophy... Again, "being" what is it, urges us to think about our physiological makeup, and how we have developed and survived to the point in time we live today...

This is important, I believe, because at the very foundation of "being" requires us to seek "intent" or "purpose" in life, to even start to create our presuppositions of our philosophy...

Some of the Ontological questions are:

-What is existence?

-What are physical objects?

-What are the essential, as opposed to merely accidental, attributes of a given object?

-What constitutes the Identity of an object?

-Can one give an account of what it means to say that a physical object exists?

-What are an object's properties or relations and how are they related to the object itself?

-Is existence a property?

-When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely changing?

-Why does something exist rather than nothing?

The very observations you have made engage these questions, i.e., we can't see atoms, etc., but we "exist"... the next question could be, "why" and "for what purpose"... This is where much of religion has darted away from those who don't feel the need to extent presuppositions beyond their levels of "knowledge", based on their "epistemological" premises...

Ockhams' razor is a philosophical principle used to increase the founded syllogistic arguments...

William of Ockham - William of A pioneer of nominalism, some consider him the father of modern epistemology and modern philosophy in general, because of his strongly argued position that only individuals exist, rather than supra-individual universals, essences, or forms, and that universals are the products of abstraction from individuals by the human mind and have no extra-mental existence. Ockham is sometimes considered an advocate of conceptualism rather than nominalism, for whereas nominalists held that universals were merely names, i.e. words rather than existing realities, conceptualists held that they were mental concepts, i.e. the names were names of concepts, which do exist, although only in the mind.

Ockham is also considered one of the greatest logicians of all time. One important contribution that he made to modern science and modern intellectual culture was through the principle of parsimony in explanation and theory building that came to be known as Ockham's razor, which states that one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham

In logic, when building logical syllogisms, many accept that there are no "Absolutes" except change... In syllogistic creation one states a premise, and builds on the argument, as follows;

No geese are felines.
Some birds are geese.
Therefore, Some birds are not felines.

The above syllogism, is stronger than a syllogism, of most religions, because it only relies on three statements... "No geese are felines", is definitely true, based on a "definition" or categorical perspective... and the remainder of this categorical syllogism has merit, but is totally validated on "our" perspective of our "existence" and premise of "Knowledge" or epistemological views...

When getting to the "ontological" arguments, religions build, upon, and build upon themselves to end with "Therefore, you needed salvation by grace, by the murder of a gods' child"...

Ockham, was a Fransiscan friar, and was called upon by the Pope, because his philosophy reduced the "value" of religious argument... Hence, he fled... In short, when someone continues to come up with "excuses" oops, I mean, flowing and unending syllogistic "statements" to support their belief, the more "invalid" the argument becomes... Anything that starts with "All", seems to reach beyond the spectrum of "known" for me, unless its categorical by "definition", or "Change"...

Since everything "Changes", each syllogistic statement added suffers from the "Change" presupposition, and becomes increasingly invalid, in the search for predictable truths...

Science, is based on predictability, also, and logic... When one can't see an "atom" then, one must presuppose that "Change" affects it, therefore, like you stated, the "form" of the "atom" never seen at its subatomic parts is "unknown", but must be considered a "Changing" form, just as our human bodies, and everything else in life... In physics, entropy is considered a measure of the amount of disorder in a system.

Thermodynamics, etc... It appears one must philosophically presuppose that there is a "resting" state of our Universe, or a state where objects are "exactly" as they should be, based on some model or design in "Perfect Harmony" and everything in the Universe has a tendency to become disordered from its original "form"... However, who says a bunny rabbit is exactly as its supposed to be, it begs "intent" of the "Natural Universe", or causes us to speculate on what is Normal, Organized, and dare I use the word "Designed" as it should be...

Design? Science says, solids, liquids and gases have different properties based on density, but who's to say at a sub quantum level, that there is "no" difference between "any" substance we know of in this Natural Universe... is science a tautology? I suppose to a certain degree, but so is everything in life, and just as much so as each of our conscious or subconscious philosophical foundations we use to interact with our environment...

As stated earlier, I notionally explain the universe in modelling via layered approaches, that doesn't mean, I don't believe in a reductionist view, that the collection of quantum matter, which bond to build/form larger substances, call it atoms, which bond/form to build molecules, which bond/form to create the next layer of complex matter, to what we know as our beings...

Our lives, and perceptions, in my humble opinion, is nothing more that "cause-effect" speculation... Science is based on it, and we live according to the results... Perhaps, we may not see atoms, but we define the "effects", and "name" the "Causes", each cause in physical science given "element" names, law names, etc... Science is the study of predictability, based on testing...

Religion? Pray to God(s), and no response, "ever", leads to zero predictability, test after test... Anyone, who requires some measure of "predictability" in their lives, which of course is a "Natural" state of mind, can not be satisfied and reach peace and mental harmony... We are creatures who try to "form" matter to our needs, for purposes of our "design", and purposes to carry out our natural tendencies...

We label Causes, and take notice of their effects, however, at the smaller levels of the universe, we can't possibly know "all" of the effects, we see the ripple effects once the actions reach a visible state in matter large enough for us to observe/sense with raw senses or instruments...

Your philosophy seems straight forward, and not lengthy giving strength to the argument... I would agree that everything I can "know" is based on "Cause-Effect", even the most ridiculous religious beliefs, provide proof that "everything" is at some level, "inter-related" and "inter-active"... as people respond to the most absurd of stimulus/sound/words, no matter how meaningless, we are compelled to seek the use of our senses, unless we shut them off... another reason me and religion don't get along, their requirement to shut off reasoning, and knowledge which is a natural cognitive process, in order to "elevate" the value of the "unknown" epistemologically...

Separateness, can not exist unless someone can somehow prove they have "knowledge", that can allow them to "escape" this "known" Natural reality... Its why I posted a comment regarding my belief that "reality" is Mind-Independent, in an objectivist sense... "escaping" into ones' own intrinsic mind, doesn't induce their "physical" separation of this Natural Universe...

In a layered model sense, just as I alluded matter might not be "differentiated", by sub quantum particles, as there could just be free floating, vibrating, particles of different measurements than appears to be known at this time, which attract other particles, etc., to form the building blocks of the Universe... perhaps what has been "named" the theory of the "big bang", is nothing but the sub-atomic explosion via an implosion based on an incomprehenible sub quantum attraction... and it appears the Natural Universe, appears to be gathering its strength back, slowly, to pull itself back together again... what's left, when the basic sub quantum particles pull back together... Nothing? As the Universe slows down, in a more macro molecular sense, and matter as we can measure becomes less "attractive" based on "motion", it could just take a small centric attraction to start pulling matter back together... purely speculation of course, based on modeling...

You alluded that Nature/gawd/Life Force is evolving through our bodies, which are subject to "Changes"... I am compelled to believe that Nature/gawd/Life Force is us... Slight subtlety, but "through" us, to me means an extra or eso- "separate" force is effervescing metaphysically through our larger molecular bodies, which undoes the original philosophical statement on "separation"...

I hope I'm doing justice to your modelling of the universe, which to me, refers to a necessary backdrop upon which all matter, substance, and reality sits upon, bubbling from the lowest depths, and living "through" us, kind of like a philosophy based on modern bosonic string theory... Perhaps, I am still antiquated in my modelling of particle universe...

Superstring theory is currently not falsifiable, and therefore, doesn't have the capacity to show cause-effect relationship, and thus, can only be a 'hypothesis'... I am still hanging on the cause-affect relationship of falsifiable and accepted theory of particle fields, such as atomic shells, etc., even though I have never seen one...

Religion, intelligent design, etc., all rest upon hypothesis', and would have equal grounding with a superstring theory in that accord... from that perspective, I don't open myself up to unknowns to base decisions in life upon with no cause-effect relationships, as, it becomes a "slippery slope", that I don't tread upon very often...

I suppose, I am extremely in the mold of an empirical, determinist, who sees only cause-effect, how my causes, effects my life, and the environment to include other people... in a utilitarian manner, where the most basic molecular genetic information compells me to act accordingly...

"Utilitarianism (from the Latin utilis, useful) is a theory of ethics based on quantitative maximization of some good for society or humanity. It is a form of consequentialism. This good is often happiness or pleasure, though some utilitarian theories might seek to maximize other consequences. Utilitarianism is sometimes summarized as "The greatest happiness for the greatest number."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian

The consequences, I wish to affect, are more embedded into my genetic code, which compels me to survive... and further, to sacrifice if necessary for the survival of the species which is to me, the greater good... If I can't find an "effect" for a cause, then... I can't use it in "any" capacity, and therefore, is useless in my "life"...

Learning increases Causal power, where the greater the knowledge, the better the potential to effect society... Religions typically shun Causal power, as it elevates man-kind to their horror, to that of the gods of yester-year...

Just like the smallest particles in our Universe that we can measure through cause-effect, and their attraction(s)... so it appears, that there is an attraction of our social beings to others of likeness... Nature has always been the smartest, and truest tutor of reality... and, in an abstract manner, I don't see my gawd as Nature, I see me as Nature and part of the whole... I haven't experienced a cause-effect relationship that has validated "more" than the "whole" of the Universe...

In a mathematical sense, I don't see a one way flow of "existence" coming from an underlying dimension, and flowing through me, I see more of a, I "make" Nature live, as Nature makes me "live"... Its a two way street... Anyway, sorry for the discourse, but hopefully the soliloquy has provided a little more substance to the theory of this thread of "God" belief, and how I at least perceive reality...

I don't have all the answers, and the answsers I have today, may indeed Change tomorrow, but... I "live", and as long as I "live", so does Nature... hopefully, my gawd isn't looking to commit suicide... like so many other 'younger' gods have chosen... Perhaps, my gawd will just choose to employ me by different means as I Change according to its will... Take care...

Hello, Dave8

I still struggle to follow you through the labyrinth of the cascades of thoughts in your extensive expositions. But that’s my dilemma, of course. One difficulty I have with your recent post is it’s separateness from the daily reality that most people have to face - me included. Why do you and I ask ourselves these questions? Why do we seek answers? Why do we present the fallacies of religiosity as the absurdities of superficiality that they are? Why do those fallacies of religiosity have the emotional appeal to the wider population - that beast of muddied brain?

You ask: I hope I'm doing justice to your modelling of the universe. I didn’t think of our two tenets as quite such a grand design. (Perhaps Ockham's razor at work?) Just a working hypothesis from which our reasoning might progress. Then Katherine decided to change her mind and bear a child. Our creative discourse is sadly in suspense, meantime, under pressure of the demands of motherhood. She has (much earlier in life, she said) several times attempted suicide, so her ‘relationship’ with Albert Camus’ question is altogether too close for comfort. I am most glad she failed on each attempt. I (and the world) would be the poorer for it, otherwise.

One person she introduced me to was Joseph Campbell. His discourses of mythology and human advancement are thought-provoking. Although rather more second-hand, another recent philosophical discourse that I considered presented a couple of interesting pronouncements.

What future purpose or goal would make this life worth living? (For religionists, it is abandoning reason to obtain eternal life. [Only joking. Sorry - couldn’t resist that one]) The problem with this position was identified thousands of years ago by Aristotle. His point was that we do many things for the sake of something else. We eat to live, work to pay the mortgage, study to pass exams and so on. But unless at least one thing is done for its own sake, there is no point in us doing anything. Every act cannot be a means to an end: there must be ends which are valuable in their own right.

So if living must at some stage be valuable in itself if it is to be worthwhile, why not here and now? To put it bluntly, it’s what Albert Camus claimed was the only serious philosophical problem: why shouldn't we kill ourselves? Why should we think that this life, with all its problems and pressures, really is valuable in itself? I found that very thought provoking. But, on reflection, I have struggled to invalidate the postulate.

Everyone that is here, now, is incarnate, is in this “here and now.” Everyone is faced with a today and a tomorrow that requires a decision or two, and a compromise or three.
What can be done to help people (including you and me?) understand their personal “here & now?” What can be done to provide answers to those essential (to some) burning questions? To me that’s the essence of it. (Perhaps I’m unfair in including you?)

I need a signpost, a map, some pointers - ANYTHING (but religion) - that helps me put things in perspective. That gives my life and the lives I influence (interact with) some rationale, some reason for being. That’s where “evolving through us” comes in. I don’t see any dichotomy between my chosen expression (for that) and yours. It seems to me to be a synonymous way of expressing the same thing. As you comment - a slight subtlety.

To me, the suicidal gawd concept is another portrayal of the OT versus NT postulate of mine. Eastern philosophy has it more evident. The sublimation of our animal instincts to that of a greater good. Whatever exactly that may be!! In other words, getting our minds above our waistlines. Embodied in the change from: me first and you take your chances, to: women and children first. (It’s surprising how recent that dictum is).

Dave8: I don't have all the answers, and the answers I have today, may indeed change tomorrow, but... I "live", and as long as I "live", so does Nature.

Well said. Except that Nature can get along without you and I. And quite well, at that, I suspect. Knowledge may well be described as “a dynamic.” It’s not that I think what’s “there” changes. We move observation and information to assimilated knowledge. Then temper it with wisdom, if we’re lucky. And act accordingly. It’s us that changes. Or our perception and comprehension of what’s been there, all along.

The eggs - as you know, of course - are not a done deal. Hens do not observe religious festivals or statutory holidays. I have earnestly suggested to them that a weekly sabbatical may be of mutual benefit. From the continued daily supply of eggs (and concomitant demand for food and water) I take it that they didn’t grasp what I was suggesting. Such - it seems - is life.

Perry: "I still struggle to follow you through the labyrinth of the cascades of thoughts in your extensive expositions. But that’s my dilemma, of course. One difficulty I have with your recent post is it’s separateness from the daily reality that most people have to face - me included."

Hello Perry, well took a break for a few days to let the thoughts settle. I do think in terms of everything being linked together, in a systems process, deterministically in the Universe. You're not the first person to charge that when I start getting into the more theoretical applications/models that I appear to jump around. I will try to keep anchored more often, however, when talking of metaphysical structures/models its often hard to "ground" or "anchor" on a stable attribute, but I suppose that's the point of the discussion, and its just a challenge to make the connections more clear...

Perry: "Why do you and I ask ourselves these questions?"

Why do I ask myself questions, which require in depth analysis... short answer... I'm neurologically mapped that way, its natural for an INTJ (Myers Briggs Type Indicator) personality type like me...

"INTJs are perfectionists, with a seemingly endless capacity for improving upon anything that takes their interest. What prevents them from becoming chronically bogged down in this pursuit of perfection is the pragmatism so characteristic of the type: INTJs apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything from their own research efforts to the prevailing social norms. This in turn produces an unusual independence of mind, freeing the INTJ from the constraints of authority, convention, or sentiment for its own sake.

INTJs are known as the "Systems Builders" of the types, perhaps in part because they possess the unusual trait combination of imagination and reliability."

My personality type is the most likely to "not" believe in a supernatural being in the U.S. out of the 16 personality types. Probably, because of the "does it work?" issue, religion is broken, and illogical... system builders, typcially find it much easier, to scrap a system, and start fresh, from the "ground" level up...

Perry: "Why do we seek answers?"

I naturally ask questions, and am driven to find answers, I'd much rather know what I don't know, and my limits of knowledge, than to make decisions based on information that has no foundation with unpredictable results...

Perry: "Why do we present the fallacies of religiosity as the absurdities of superficiality that they are?"

Previously explained, personality typing has a lot to do with it... Along with the personality, and how a person thinks, they research and gain knowledge, which allows them to build a sound belief system... once a valid premise or base statements are created, anything that challenges those basic foundations, is "stringently" scrutinized for validity, hence, why I enjoy deconstructing unfounded comments that challenge my basic philosophical foundations...

Perry: "Why do those fallacies of religiosity have the emotional appeal to the wider population - that beast of muddied brain?"

Some personality types are more prone to religion, especially the emotionally driven types... religion can't be provable, its based on "trust", and many learn "trust" as a companion to "care", which in-turn is linked to "emotion"... Someone "showing" care, for some, gives them the key of "trust", and once in the door, they accept whatever they are told... We are all like this as children, however, our personalities will facilitate the path we take in regard to filtering information, and accepting information...

Perry: "You ask: I hope I'm doing justice to your modelling of the universe. I didn’t think of our two tenets as quite such a grand design. (Perhaps Ockham's razor at work?)"

Interesting concept, not getting into theoretical modeling, but in my sense, anything "known" appears simple, and that which isn't known, with at a minimum, cause-effect relationships, is considered "complex"... I'd wager there are many "complex" things however, posited as hypotheticals that have "no validity" in this universe beyond imaginary speculation... perhaps, the complexity resides, in not knowing "which" hypotheticals hold a tangent of truth, and which ones don't... probably why I just chuck out hypotheticals, until there is enough evidence to support the claim, in that sense, I suppose I "devolve" this Universe, to only what I can know, which may not necessarily be giving it total justice...

Perry: "Just a working hypothesis from which our reasoning might progress. Then Katherine decided to change her mind and bear a child. Our creative discourse is sadly in suspense, meantime, under pressure of the demands of motherhood. She has (much earlier in life, she said) several times attempted suicide, so her ‘relationship’ with Albert Camus’ question is altogether too close for comfort."

I understand, we bond, and gain comfort from others... I would grieve if my wife passed away as well... Those whom I have met, which have been challenged with lifes' difficulties, often wonder what "purpose" they serve, and when they lose perspective of "purpose", anything becomes possible... I typically tell those whom I care for, how much of a "purpose" they provide me, in my life, and to my peace... It goes against my "grain", as I believe everyone should be self-dependent and have a self-driven purpose, but we all think differently and have different personality temperaments, and so, I catch myself most times, and don't project my personality, and just accept people are different, and care for them, according to their natural makeup... However, I don't give much slack to a "like" personality type INTJ...

Perry: "I am most glad she failed on each attempt. I (and the world) would be the poorer for it, otherwise."

Seems you are definitely a beneficiary of her presence in your life, and that you value the time you spend together... Perhaps, at the most basic level, we see ourselves in others, and hence don't like to acknowledge, that what effects them, in some indirect and "complex" manner, effects ourselves...

Perry: "One person she introduced me to was Joseph Campbell. His discourses of mythology and human advancement are thought-provoking. Although rather more second-hand, another recent philosophical discourse that I considered presented a couple of interesting pronouncements."

I haven't been acquianted with Joseph Campbell's writings, I'll have to remember to locate some online discourse to read.

Perry: "What future purpose or goal would make this life worth living? (For religionists, it is abandoning reason to obtain eternal life. [Only joking. Sorry - couldn’t resist that one]) The problem with this position was identified thousands of years ago by Aristotle. His point was that we do many things for the sake of something else. We eat to live, work to pay the mortgage, study to pass exams and so on. But unless at least one thing is done for its own sake, there is no point in us doing anything. Every act cannot be a means to an end: there must be ends which are valuable in their own right."

Not oversimplifying Aristotle, but, in systems, there are co-dependent actions and independent actions... As a determinist, I am inclined to believe we are influenced by our environment, and are slaves to the effects of our environment since birth... I don't want to go down a labyrinth, so, just consider that in life, like chess, there are "forced" moves, and "unforced" moves... Nature moved, first, and we have been trying to get the upper hand since birth to finally remove ourselves from a "forced" move game... always on the defense, and losing life, every minuscule move we physically take in our lives...

Perry: "So if living must at some stage be valuable in itself if it is to be worthwhile, why not here and now?"

Nature, determines how we each perceive "Value"... from our physiological attributes, to our environmental factors... The Value of life, as we see it, is based on how much "rope" nature gave us, to "recognize" value... and... we recognize value, based on "cause-effect", and how it affects our "natural" being... To say, man-kind can define a grander purpose, removes man-kind from the link of Nature... A person, can convince themselves that heaven exists, and they are living in a valuable and blissful existence, however, nature will "cause" its value to be known...

Perry: "To put it bluntly, it’s what Albert Camus claimed was the only serious philosophical problem: why shouldn't we kill ourselves? Why should we think that this life, with all its problems and pressures, really is valuable in itself?"

One persons' problems and pressures, is another persons' playground... Some people hate thinking in theoretical models, however, I live there... what may give one person the pressure to "off" themselves, may give another person the "thread" to hang onto... Not wanting to oversimplify the profound, however... I don't perceive any "value" in our being, before birth, we "learn" what is valuable based on caregivers and the environment, before the end of the second tri-mester of pregnancy, we are neurologically mapped, with 34 categorical areas to "filter" environmental inputs, I was born an INTJ, and have "filtered" all information according to my cognitive wiring, therefore, my "value" of life, and what "makes" life valuable is much different than many others... Someone, may enjoy being in an environment where they are constantly "needed" to provide empathy, I couldn't survive in that environment, it would be torture for me... when my health and peace becomes more painful than the peace death offers, perhaps one may consider the alternatives in death...

Perry: "I found that very thought provoking. But, on reflection, I have struggled to invalidate the postulate."

why shouldn't we kill ourselves? Because, we have learned from birth, that even though we can't "change" our natural beings, in a peaceful and harmonic manner, we can, in fact, change our environments, its just a matter of choice... Why should we think that this life, with all its problems and pressures, really is valuable in itself? Its valuable, because we can "mold" life and matter to a great degree to give us the perceptions that provide us comfort...

The deeper question is, why is this wrong for those who seem the need to manipulate reality, and create a nice home in the nether worlds... If one can't "mold" their immediate environment, why shouldn't they find alternative means to find value in an alternate reality... its where the OT Jews started, believing in a messiah to remove them from their pain and suffering... To me, there is nothing wrong with an imagination, it helps me architect, however, I don't make life impacting decisions in the "physical" world, based on my "imagination"... between my "imagination" and thought processes that sort through images at my cognitive whim to form abstract thoughts, and this Physical Reality, this Physical Reality wins, every time... Such is not the case for those of religion, who allow their imaginations to become "integrated" in their every day decision making process, I prefer to think, that the higher the percentage of imagination allowed to blend into the mix ratio for imagination & experiential knowledge, the more prone to the pitfalls of this physical life, and prone to the manipulation of others...

Perry: "Everyone that is here, now, is incarnate, is in this “here and now." Everyone is faced with a today and a tomorrow that requires a decision or two, and a compromise or three.
What can be done to help people (including you and me?) understand their personal “here & now?” What can be done to provide answers to those essential (to some) burning questions? To me that’s the essence of it. (Perhaps I’m unfair in including you?)"

We question, because we exist, and we exist to question... the manner in which we question, is based on our natural cognitive makeup... Socrates, stated that its not the fact that there is an epistemological limit to understanding this reality that's important, what's important is, the "Quest"ion... little children naturally run around asking "why" about everything, what causes them to stop? Could it be the religion, that tells them that "god" has all the answers... Could it be public education, where teachers were taught to stop asking questions when they were children...

Perry: "I need a signpost, a map, some pointers - ANYTHING (but religion) - that helps me put things in perspective. That gives my life and the lives I influence (interact with) some rationale, some reason for being. That’s where “evolving through us” comes in. I don’t see any dichotomy between my chosen expression (for that) and yours. It seems to me to be a synonymous way of expressing the same thing. As you comment - a slight subtlety."

Our signposts are given to us in the form of Values as children, over time we paint our own signs, well, if we are lucky enough to break away and naturally think and Quest...

Perry: "To me, the suicidal gawd concept is another portrayal of the OT versus NT postulate of mine. Eastern philosophy has it more evident. The sublimation of our animal instincts to that of a greater good. Whatever exactly that may be!! In other words, getting our minds above our waistlines. Embodied in the change from: me first and you take your chances, to: women and children first. (It’s surprising how recent that dictum is)."

I agree, however, the Value of the "other" gender as seen from opposite genders has always existed, I believe, perhaps its transferred from a means of survival of the species to, pleasure, where children are more times than not, unplanned events, and unfortunately at times considered a bad ending to a great one night stand...

Dave8: I don't have all the answers, and the answers I have today, may indeed change tomorrow, but... I "live", and as long as I "live", so does Nature.

Perry: "Well said. Except that Nature can get along without you and I. And quite well, at that, I suspect. Knowledge may well be described as “a dynamic.” It’s not that I think what’s “there” changes. We move observation and information to assimilated knowledge. Then temper it with wisdom, if we’re lucky. And act accordingly. It’s us that changes. Or our perception and comprehension of what’s been there, all along."

I agree, good way to put it.

Perry: "The eggs - as you know, of course - are not a done deal. Hens do not observe religious festivals or statutory holidays. I have earnestly suggested to them that a weekly sabbatical may be of mutual benefit. From the continued daily supply of eggs (and concomitant demand for food and water) I take it that they didn’t grasp what I was suggesting. Such - it seems - is life."

No ;-) The hens didn't grasp the concept of a holiday, they were iron clad workers, no unions for them necessary... The abbey, was the most peaceful place I have ever worked, nothing like working around those who have taken a vow of silence, well, except the quarter master and the hens :-)... take care...

Dave8: well took a break for a few days to let the thoughts settle.

Nice to hear back from you. I was not intending or implying that you “jump around.” Rather, because of your comments about determinism, etc., that resolving some of the dilemmas people face needs to start with the here and now. Almost like a critical path analysis. Where am I (what is my present situation/circumstances)? How did I get to this point? Where do I want to get to, from here?

I’m not sure what personalty type I am. I do know that I can’t see any latency in my early life that might explain my subsequent philosophically inquiring state-of-mind. The only correlation I can ‘connect’ together is that I strongly disliked meat as a juvenile. My mother almost beat it out of me – metaphorically speaking. Then, once the nest was flown and a few years had passed, I became a vegetarian. That was nearly 40 years ago. I now have a veggie daughter and grand daughter (17) so some change has endured the generations. Considering your comment about being a slave to one’s environment, that’s one shackle that I’ve shaken off.

So it’s hard from me to see any predisposition, any genetic mapping. But perhaps I’m similar to an INTJ in that I’m a very “does it work” oriented person. Perry’s Beatitude, on the wall in my office, goes: “Blessed are the practical, for they shall give substance to the visions of the dreamers.” (In truth, we need both types!)

Dave8: I naturally ask questions, and am driven to find answers, I'd much rather know what I don't know, and my limits of knowledge, than to make decisions based on information that has no foundation with unpredictable results. In that sense, I suppose I "devolve" this Universe, to only what I can know, which may not necessarily be giving it total justice...

As you’ve observed, there are many things that are now within the fund of human knowledge, that were fantasy or worse, in yesteryear. And I suspect that all of those discoveries came from a working hypothesis from which the progress to knowledge and understanding was achieved.

Dave8: It goes against my "grain", as I believe everyone should be self-dependent and have a self-driven purpose, but we all think differently and have different personality temperaments, and so . . .

That sounds like the Sociology degree at work. It is difficult being “an island.” Perhaps one in the midst of, but comfortably far enough away from the other islands in the archipelago. Which may be a contributing reason to why I live in the country, ten minutes or so from the city.

Dave8: seems you are definitely a beneficiary of her presence in your life.

I think that’s a fair comment. What bothers me slightly is that of my fairly small circle of fellow-travellers, friends and acquaintances, the philosophically-inclined among them are numerically dominated by the female gender. Makes get-togethers potentially awkward, the way the world is, these days.

Kate and I have abandoned the phrase: “belief system” in favour of “system of considerations.” This allows things to come and go, to be accepted, discarded, held over for further inquiry, etc. It also disposes of the word ‘belief’ which, like ‘faith’ doesn’t work well for either of us.

Getting some insights into Joseph Campbell may be well done through the Mystic Fire video or DVD set. These were broadcast on public TV in USA, several years ago, I understand, and prompted quite a storm. I unreservedly recommend them to you.

There is a web site with his name: http://www.jcf.org/index2.php which might give some insights. (jcf = Joseph Campbell Foundation)

Dave8: I don't want to go down a labyrinth, so, just consider that in life, like chess, there are "forced" moves, and "unforced" moves... Nature moved, first, and we have been trying to get the upper hand since birth to finally remove ourselves from a "forced" move game... always on the defence, and losing life, every minuscule move we physically take in our lives...

That may not be a labyrinth - it’s more like an abyss! A chasm. Give me some easy examples of what you see as forced and unforced moves in life, please.

Dave8: To say man-kind can define a grander purpose, removes man-kind from the link of Nature.

Not necessarily. My mention of the change from: me first and you take your chances, to: women and children first was intended to illustrate the matter of self-sacrifice. Of a nobler mindset. Irrespective of gender. Is that not a form of grander purpose?

Similarly, my reference to Albert Camus’ philosophical problem was more to show the alternative to what was being discussed. I.e. there must be something each person does, without thought of reward or gain. Joseph Campbell says that he told his students to “follow their bliss” in making choices. Mainly vocational, I think. But the premise seemed to be that such a determination method would work well for most people grappling with a career choice. “Take a job you enjoy and you’ll never work a day in your life,” is a analogous aphorism.

I concur with the notion that letting faith and belief be the determining factor in important life decisions is plainly inane, mindless. “God told me that I should study to be a defence analyst.” “Really” I answer? “So beating swords into ploughshares has been postponed indefinitely, has it?”

Dave8: We question, because we exist, and we exist to question.

Careful now - you’re starting to sound like a religious cleric. But yes, some innate curiosity and inquiring is essential for sanity. Or is it? Is that what’s so attractive about religion? It’s a no-brainer in that no brains are required? And with the promise of non-death thrown in.

Dave8: I don't want to go down a labyrinth, so, just consider that in life, like chess, there are "forced" moves, and "unforced" moves... Nature moved, first, and we have been trying to get the upper hand since birth to finally remove ourselves from a "forced" move game... always on the defence, and losing life, every minuscule move we physically take in our lives...

Perry: "That may not be a labyrinth - it’s more like an abyss! A chasm. Give me some easy examples of what you see as forced and unforced moves in life, please."

In chess, the player with the white pieces, gets to move first in strategical concepts, the one who moves first, has the advantage... The one who moves next, must make choices based on options available, the greater the number of options, the better one has to maneuver to position themselves in a position to obtain their goal... in chess, there is a common goal between opponents, and that is to take out the king, the figurehead of the game...

In the game of "existence", we don't seem to know Natures' Objective, for that matter, we didn't have a choice on whether to "enter" into the game... Nature made a move, i.e., fertilization of an egg occurred (Causation), and from that point forward, we have been forced into the game of life (Determinism), where the rules of this Universe are the framework/chess board... we are merely pawns thrown upon the game of "existence", and from the earliest embryonic days we are the recipients of "forced" moves... for instance, our Parents, in the middle of "their" game, were making decisions, and so, our parents which were part of our biological "pre-existence" and quite beyond our natural beings' comprehension while an embryo, were making moves, and forever altering the biological tools we would use in life, to help us make our "moves"...

The "tools" we inherit, are based on parents and their chemical intake, lifestyle, and even genetic coding... A child born with birth defects, may not have the ability to cognitively become aware of their own existence, which in psychology is termed meta-cognition...

It would be easy to blame a lot on the parents, however, they were part of the same game, and the product of their parents, all the way back in time... There are few burning questions for me, in regard to forced moves, as a determinist, things are pretty clear cut... The area that makes me look up when mentioned, is more of a cosmic nature, i.e., where did the "first" humans come from, and what is the Objective in the game of "existence"...

For me, the beginning of the human race is a matter of "Nature", and tracing biological processes, we see babies born every day, no big insight there, why would we need to believe there is more to life, than that... Now, regarding the cosmological arguments in the game of "existence", religion/theologians try to prove that there is an "Objective" in the game of "existence"...

They typically, don't just state that there is an "Objective", but that they know the objective, because they have a book of words that tells them what "existence" wants from us, where their term for "existence" is nothing short of "God", most Christians I have met, have no idea of the underlying philosophical concepts for their belief, when they say "God is All", they are indeed, referring to "existence"...

The religious typically impress upon humanity that we "must" know the "Objective" while in the game of "existence"... Do we? It is what drives Purpose... I mean, once someone feels they "know" the Objective of 'existences' game, we can then enter the game wielding a "strategy", some call it their "belief" system, however, as you have chosen, “system of considerations.”

A belief system, to me, restricts the "options" and move capability for the player, however, I do admire the "system of considerations" factor, as it leaves the door wide open, to pick the "best" move available, based on the level of knowledge one holds, and within the framework/chess board "existence" has offered via Nature... I consider Nature and Existence synonymous, a monist view, not accepted by many religious...

Anyway, it seems that to "search" and "Quest" for the "Objective" for "existence" has been an ongoing struggle for thousands of years... This is slightly abstract, but... those who attempt to figure out the "Objective" of "existences'" game, do so, in an effort to find a strategy to "win" the game... For instance, we die, however, if we knew the "Objective" of "existence" was to kill off humanity, then we could attempt to "overcome" or "defend" ourselves when Nature moves against us by making moves to counter "Nature"... For instance, hanging charms around the bedpost, to sending entire naval fleets and adventurors around the world looking for the fountain of youth... why not just launch a few spaceships in the effort, oh, sorry, we're already there...

Many have already chosen to "guess" what the "Objective" of "existences'" game is, and live their lives accordingly, making decisions to "counter" the perceived moves based on much "guesswork", either consciously or subconsciously... I suppose I am not presumptious enough to believe I can "beat" the game, to "outmaneuver" the opponent of "existence" and prevent it from meeting its Objective... like others who have "opted" to instantiate a belief system with a "fail safe", a "trump card" if you will indulge me... call it "heaven", for lack of a better term...

I supose, in my humble statements, that we are indeed in a forced game scencario, from birth, and have always been, religion has taken that understanding and "painted" it to appeal to the culture and era, with sin, angels, heaven, hell, etc... Religion being no more than a "popularity" contest, where the masses get to choose which "belief system" provides the best "counter moves", and flexibility, to give them the "upper" hand, in the forced game of "existence". of course, totally based on their "perception"...

Perception is easily manipulated, by those who are clever... our biological needs come first, over psychological, just gandering at the Maslow pyramid, and thus, those who control the bottom layers, can easily shift people and their perceptions... Religions understand this, thus, is why they are competitors in the "need" market, and have been for thousands of years... they give the promise that they can provide support for each of the Maslonian layers, from physiological bottom layer to self-actualization at the top of the pyramid, and boast that the gov't can't provide that for citizens...

In recent years, there have been proposed models where "transcendence" has been placed on top of the Maslow pyramid, to denote yet more of what a religion can offer... Gov'ts of course, then compete, by placing psychologists, educators, jobs, etc., in society so citizens have alternative measures to obtain the "needs" of the Maslow pyramid... It would seem beneficial in society, to have professionals who provided those needs, however, the professionals many times, have undertones of religious bias in their application of "care"...

There needs to be more professionals in society who have "answers" to the needs of citizens, which don't feel the need to employ "god", as the "underlying" answer for all "unknowns"... Unfortunately, there are many biased professionals in the U.S. who set up their private practice around a Christian core belief, and "not" on science...

I only bring "needs" up in the game of "existence", because even though we are playing in a Natural framework/chess board with limitations, and totally based on "forced" moves, from the beginning, there is "perception"... where non-forced moves are thought to exist...

I suppose I have an easy answer to the conundrum in the most "Complex" (per religion) game of "existence"... I just choose to accept that "existence" is not an "opponent", to be beaten... Existence, in my experience hasn't shown itself to be per religion, evil... Death thousands of years ago was "demonized", and thought to be "evil" per my opinion, and a game was created, with two opponents, "existence", and humanity... and all kinds of objects, ideas, etc., were thrown into that framework to create a myriad of different religions...

All roads lead to Rome, I suppose, as this thought leads me back to your comment, if we are all just bio-chemical organisms without a need for purpose, what is the restriction that prevents humanity from just up and committing suicide... well, in short, it appears the game is "existence", and... since, I don't see "existence" as an opponent to be outmaneuvered, by guessing on cosmic Objectives, I just choose to act according to my Natural "senses", which allow me to Perceive "existence"... the game exists, only because I can "sense" the game, it would still exist as you have alluded quite well with us or without us, however, "today", I must perceive and act in this reality based on what "existence" has given me...

I use my senses to "experience" existence, I use metaphysical thought to "describe" the "experience" of "existence"... When metaphysical thought, is used to "describe" ideas, that have not been "founded" on sense experience, its nothing more than the "outmaneuvering" attempt of our "existence"... at times, it can "urge" us to "act" in manners that are personally beneficial, and beneficial in society... that is... if "we" own and control that portion of our "reasoning"...

Religions assert that "metaphsyical thought" is the "sign" of "god" and is tied directly to a "metaphysical objective" reality... they twist and color the part of a persons' metaphysical imagination to give a person the allusion that they are in fact "winning" the game of "existence"... because "existences'" Objective is Death, and that is "evil", as evil as the spiritual death incurred by Adam and Eve...

I stated earlier, that there are forced moves, and un-forced moves in my "existence" analogy... Biologically speaking, we live in a totally "forced" move system, with no choices as we can't even biologically process information to think... We develop into beings' that can "think", and presume to believe that we can take 'actions' without being "forced", and thus, we can preempt and make a move, in an un-forced manner... Its not what I believe, however, it is what religion teaches, and thus, I have to throw the concept out in the open to make the distinction...

Again, I am not inclined to see "existence" as an opponent, where I am looking for an advantage, even in the form of an unforced move in my metaphysical thoughts... I see me as part of the game of "existence", and move "with" the tugs and pulls... no intelligent and "complex" designer necessary... metaphysical thought, only allows me to ponder my sensual experiences, and project my next move, but, I still "exist" in this Natural Universe, and having the capability to symbolically represent my environment to a humble degree so that I may inefficiently communicate at best with others of humanity, I am still just one form of "life" on this planet who are also members in the game of "existence"...

We are here, because of "existence", and for no other reason, as far as I can tell..., I have yet to see Existence move in a manner that suggests itself to be making decisions, as that would lead me to see "intent" involved, and thus, "asymmetric" activity in this Universe, i.e., sometimes people are spared from Natural death if there are mitigating circumstances... if anything, existence has always been consistent as far as humanity can measure, even at the lowest levels of matter... Its this "consistency" that compells me to believe that "Existence" has always been around, if one could show an example of Non-Existence, then there could exist the possibility for doubt...

If I were forced to "give" a purpose for my "life", I would resolve to stating that the game of "Existence" has shown me such a small window of the overall "Objective"... but what has been shown to me, is "consistency" of "existence", in an "ever" changing "measurable/observable" environment... And, no matter how many "changes" occur, I can always rely on the "consistency" of "existence", from a monist perspective...

Purpose, then becomes a "choice", on how I want to "experience", "Existence", although I trust what "Existence" has shown me in its unwavering "consistency", I still have some "doubt", based on my humble years I have lived and the age of the Universe in contrast... Therefore, I purposely choose to "live", in the "form" that "existence" has given me, even if in a biologically changing form...

I must admit, that if "Existence" was truly understood at the lowest underlying levels, and was determined to be nothing but one homogenous and harmonic particle dance, and this is the "default" state of all "existence", then, there may indeed be many more suicides... as the alternative to a life of pressures and pain...

Good thing, we aren't able to process that level of information until we are nearly teens, and driven by hormones to reproduce... or this species could possibly be in for a rude awakening... It appears purpose in the earliest years of our lives, is not so... complex... and thought provoking... Perhaps, Purpose, becomes more of an issue, when we lose our biological purpose of procreation, in later life... as Purpose moves away from a "forced" biological reproduction move system, to a "forced" biological regression system, and decisions will be made based on that understanding... in the end, we will close our biological eyes to "Existence", and Purpose, will become non-existent...


Dave8: To say man-kind can define a grander purpose, removes man-kind from the link of Nature.

Perry: "Not necessarily. My mention of the change from: me first and you take your chances, to: women and children first was intended to illustrate the matter of self-sacrifice. Of a nobler mindset. Irrespective of gender. Is that not a form of grander purpose?"

Purpose, seems to be what we are Naturally compelled to "accomplish" in this life, its the underlying "reason" for our biological being... An embryo to small child, can't fathom purpose or understand reason besides behavior that increases chance of survival, Purpose at this stage in life is based on "forced move" reasoning and survival... there is no "you or me", its just "me, me, me, me"...

I stated earlier, that "Existence" from my perspective has always been consistent... Its the ever lasting backdrop to our view of reality, and based on our unique cognitive filters and senses... It then becomes the "Ultimate" Purpose, we exist, its the "Ultimate" Reason, we can communicate at this moment...

To suggest that there are varying levels of "Purpose", once we get past the, me, me, me, stage in life, becomes a matter of "taught" values, for the majority of our lives, we don't Quest,ion the values we hold, there is rarely ever a need... unless they are so far off of the social norm, that they become noticeable...

I suspect that the women and children first, didn't happen over night, it was a cultural shift where values were changed over time, slowly, to arrive at the culturally accepted value... However, does that make a previous value less noble? I don't like what if, scenarios, because I know there is always an exception to a rule... but, what if a man gave his life up, for one woman while the ship was sinking, knowing, that when the woman reaches shore, she will be raped, beaten, and murdered, is the sacrifice still noble?

If the premise is to save the prosperity of the species, then of course you go with the sacrifice, knowing the end result will be the death of the species, but... if the premise is to 'maintain' life, then the decision to sacrifice everyone doesn't seem to meet the requirement...

To sacrifice oneself for those who can't protect themselves, has found its way into many stories over history, either fictional or non-fictional... since the beginninf of warfare...

Shakespear "Henry V" 1599;
"He that shall live this day and see old age will yearly on the vigil, feast his friends and say: "Tomorrow is Saint Crispin's Day." Then he will strip his sleeve and show his scars and say: "These wounds I had on Crispin's Day." And gentlemen in England, now abed, shall think themselves accursed they were not there. And hold their manhood cheap, when any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's Day."

Woman and child first, for the need of protection, has always seemed to be part of the male line of thought... However, Jesus seemed to tell a mob who wanted to stone a women in a tavern he was in, that they could if they had never committed sin, hmmmm, where's the manhood... some would call this an act of cowardice, I mean, the woman could have been shredded with stones... however, his gamble with her life seemed to pay off per the story... I suppose we can find "other" stories where men came before woman and child, but... point is, that males, even in pack herds, tend to protect the species...

Perry: "Similarly, my reference to Albert Camus’ philosophical problem was more to show the alternative to what was being discussed. I.e. there must be something each person does, without thought of reward or gain."

Altruism... I will have to assume without thought of reward or gain to the person committing a selfless act... However, one who commits such an act if it is indeed sincere, will receive an "intrinsic" benefit/reward, again, I am a strict determinist, for every action, there is a reaction, relative to the situation... If the intent is to express, the lack of need for an "extrinsic" reward or gain, such as a candy bar, I can see that... However, when a male gives up their life to save a woman or child, they are in fact per their value system, giving benefit to the species... and again, the benefit, may not be realized by the male who sacrifices in an "extrinsic" form, but, its believed that the one sacrificing is doing so, in order for "others" to receive an "extrinsic" benefit... and thus, they are receiving again, an "intrinsic" reward, based on their value system, even if just peace of mind...

There are always benefits to acts, I can't think of one in a positive manner, that doesn't provide an "intrinsic" benefit... the only way, for a person to commit to an act that wasn't for an "intrinsic" benefit, would be someone committing an act and feeling wrong about the act... in that case, the person is sacrificing their "values" to aid someone else... I am not sure, losing integrity to ones' values in order to commit to an act to show selflessness is personally honest... I value life, if I donated blood, I'd have to say, that at some level, I felt better about myself for upholding my values, and therefore, I would feel some level of "intrinsic" benefit...


Perry: "Joseph Campbell says that he told his students to “follow their bliss” in making choices. Mainly vocational, I think. But the premise seemed to be that such a determination method would work well for most people grappling with a career choice. “Take a job you enjoy and you’ll never work a day in your life,” is a analogous aphorism."

Do something that aligns with ones' value system, and they won't receive conflict which eventually leads to burn out... There is wisdom to doing what one is; I am a personality type INTJ, and although I can work anywhere, I could not be happy flipping burgers, as a matter of fact, I wouldn't be happy as a therapist, not that I can't, but... that I wouldn't be happy... Unfortunately, economics seem to persuade many people to work in jobs that aren't necessarily fulfilling... Also, there is a balance factor, too much of anything can cause one to burn out, I used to play the piano for many hours of a day, over time, it got to be more of a job than an artful expression...

Perry: "I concur with the notion that letting faith and belief be the determining factor in important life decisions is plainly inane, mindless. “God told me that I should study to be a defence analyst.” “Really” I answer? “So beating swords into ploughshares has been postponed indefinitely, has it?”"

Agree... however, I am still making plowshares, need I say that I am not working according to my true vocational ability... perhaps, this is the selfless act I commit to, for the good of the whole... where I do receive some intrinsic benefit...

Dave8: We question, because we exist, and we exist to question.

Perry: "Careful now - you’re starting to sound like a religious cleric. But yes, some innate curiosity and inquiring is essential for sanity. Or is it? Is that what’s so attractive about religion? It’s a no-brainer in that no brains are required? And with the promise of non-death thrown in."

Well, hopefully my earlier explanation of "existence" from a monist stance clears up the religious clergy vocation awaiting me... Existence came first, not me, therefore, I Quest,ion only because I exist... And, our sheer "existence" once realized, seems to cause us to Quest,ion... everything, to include "Existence"... Hopefully that made sense, and is non circular...

Perry: "So it’s hard from me to see any predisposition, any genetic mapping. But perhaps I’m similar to an INTJ in that I’m a very “does it work” oriented person. Perry’s Beatitude, on the wall in my office, goes: “Blessed are the practical, for they shall give substance to the visions of the dreamers.” (In truth, we need both types!)"

True, we need both of the artist and the scientist, one who can mold a vision using knowledge, while one quantifies the process, for universal gain... The old mantra, think outside the box... I live outside the box, its almost impossible to stay in the box for very long or I start getting restless... I do think a lot into theoretical aspects, however, I try and find ways to incorporate my theory in life... for instance, death for me, isn't full of fear... I am currently attached to everything in Nature in some aspect, based on the flat plane of "existence", and I like the interaction it provides, purpose... Perhaps, along with the material eco-system of which we are a part, there is a feeling of accomplishment to add to the knowledge-system which gets churned constantly by inquiring minds... both systems seem to be rewarding...

Perry: "I think that’s a fair comment. What bothers me slightly is that of my fairly small circle of fellow-travellers, friends and acquaintances, the philosophically-inclined among them are numerically dominated by the female gender. Makes get-togethers potentially awkward, the way the world is, these days."

I am not exposed to many of the opposite gender, in mass quantity, one here or there, and almost never into a deep discussion, my wife's personality type, is such that she is a great listener, which is complimentary to my desire to explain the Universe down to the molecular level... Here is a link if you want to take the Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator... its pretty painless... Personality type tests reflect the manner in which we think, and if answered naturally, then its how we naturally perceive the world...

http://www.humanmetrics.com/index.htm#intro

You want to take the Jung Topology Test... Well, I'd better get some sleep, all this talk of Existence, I want to test the theory one more time that it'll still be here for me, when I return from sleep... and build more "credibility" on the state of "Consistency" ;-) take care...

Dave8: Most Christians I have met, have no idea of the underlying philosophical concepts for their belief, when they say "God is All", they are indeed, referring to "existence"...

Sounds like the opening few verses in the Book of John. The other matter is that when the expression ‘god’ is used, there’s a missing dimension. Which one? Vishnu? Ahura Mazda, Allah, Yahweh? There’s no shortage to choose from. Something that seems to escape most religionists because their world is so narrow, so insular.

Dave8: The religious typically impress upon humanity that we "must" know the "Objective" while in the game of "existence"... Do we? It is what drives Purpose... I mean, once someone feels they "know" the Objective of 'existences' game, we can then enter the game wielding a "strategy".

But how can one have a purpose towards nothing? Or no purpose towards something? It’s akin to having a plan to go nowhere. Many people set goals/targets/objectives, if not in their personal lives, then in business. Then a strategy is formulated and tactics conceived to abet achievement. Without that, life is almost worse than a series of forced moves, it’s just a series of reactions to people, events and circumstances. But, perhaps I’m splitting hairs? Perhaps that’s the synthesis of forced moves? I.e. being shoved, pushed and blown about, rather than initiating an informed move of any sort.

Dave8: A belief system, to me, restricts the "options" and move capability for the player, however, I do admire the "system of considerations" factor, as it leaves the door wide open, to pick the "best" move available, based on the level of knowledge one holds, and within the framework/chess board "existence" has offered via Nature.

Which is why we are favourably inclined towards such a concept.

Dave8: This is slightly abstract, but... those who attempt to figure out the "Objective" of "existences'" game, do so, in an effort to find a strategy to "win" the game.

Perhaps one wins simply by playing? But knowingly, wittingly. And, if so, then knowing the rules of the game will make the play more meaningful. In that situation it could be more a matter of the way, the conduct, the how the game was played, rather than who won or lost? If that’s an acceptable hypothesis, then what are the rules? Nature’s rules appear to be “waistline-down driven,” i.e. the survival of the fittest. There seems little scope for altruism or self-sacrifice except sometimes in defence of progeny. (But then you see that as “selfish” in a sense, as well). Humans appear (lots of exclusions, I know) to have the ability to rise above that, to employ mind, brain and heart. Is this the “stuff’ of Maslow’s pyramid?

I have no quarrel with religion in the sense that I now know (have known for a long time) it’s a confidence trick and I see it for what it is and can (largely) ignore its vain and hollow sophistries. I have once or twice attacked religiosity (on it’s own grounds) when I have observed a severe disadvantage being created upon someone by the mis-applied or false tenets of some dogma.

Dave8: We are here, because of "existence", and for no other reason, as far as I can tell..., I have yet to see Existence move in a manner that suggests itself to be making decisions, as that would lead me to see "intent" involved, and thus, "asymmetric" activity in this Universe.

What criteria are you using in your evaluation? The one that has you determining an absence of motive, goal or intent on the part of Nature? Our speculative hypothesis is as I described earlier. We are a part of the global ecology and economy. Nature, in the pursuit of betterment, of evolutionary advancement, is utilising all the forms and forces it has available. Some of which appear to us to be rather chaotic and dis-organised, to say the least.

Interesting that you should quote the adulterous woman and the mob. It’s one of my favourites. What was JC doodling on the ground? I’ve asked hot-line-to-heaveners and no one has any idea. But that story, like the rich young ruler, the prescription about divorce and hardness of hearts, turn the other cheek, lend to those that seek to borrow, love one another, and so on all seem to tie in with a fundamental change from animalistic behaviour to something more noble: my perceived shift in human nature from Old Testament to New.

On altruism, I suppose from a strictly Newtonian standpoint, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, perhaps then it’s the motive that must be weighed? The intent? To get down to the determinist level that you describe, where even the feeling (no matter how fleeting) of doing some good to someone is reckoned as a reward and thereby in some way invalidates the altruistic intent seems a very harsh assessment. Even though you accord it to yourself in your view of your vocational choice.

The Way & Wayfarer

And one of the judges stood forth and said, speak to us of crime and punishment.
And he answered, saying, frequently I’ve heard you speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a stranger in your midst, an intruder upon your world.
But I say that like a procession, you walk together. You are the way and the wayfarers.
And when one of you falls down he falls for those behind, a caution against the stumbling stone.
Aye, and he falls for those ahead, who, though faster and surer of foot, did not remove the stumbling stone.
And this also - though the word lie heavy upon your hearts:
The murdered is not unaccountable for his murder and the robbed is not blameless in being robbed.
The guilty is often the victim of the injured and still more often the condemned is the burden bearer for the guiltless and unblamed.
You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked; for they stand together before the face of the sun.
If any of you would bring to judgement the unfaithful husband, let him also weigh the heart of his wife.
And you judges who would be just, what judgement do you pronounce upon him who, though honest in flesh is yet a thief in spirit?
And how shall you punish those whose remorse is already greater than their misdeeds?
Is not remorse the justice which is administered by the very law you seek to serve?
Yet you cannot lay remorse upon the innocent nor lift it from the heart of the guilty. Unbidden shall it call in the night...
And you who would understand justice, how shall you unless you look upon all deeds in the fullness of light?
Only then shall you know the erect and the fallen are but one man standing in twilight between night and the day...
And that the corner stone of the temple is not higher than the lowest stone in its foundation.

From The Prophet, Kahlil Gibran; Pan publishers

Dave8: I am not exposed to many of the opposite gender, in mass quantity, one here or there, and almost never into a deep discussion.

I’m not sure how I conveyed the impression of any quantity of significance. I speak of less than a handful. Right - I’ve been there and done that: INTJ it is. With exceptions: I like an audience - I’m a very competent public speaker. But didn’t you say that INTJ in others created a problem for you?

Some people say they pinch themselves in the morning. I suggest that it’s better done at night, before bed. That way, I know I’ve got through another day.

If you feel so disposed, I could e-mail you (off-list) an unfinished piece on Mentalism, by Peter Cross. (18 pages, two column, RTF format). I did exchange a few e-mails with Peter, some years ago, but have lost track of him [mea culpa], since then. Peter’s dissertation might intrigue you more than Joseph Campbell. If SPAM’s a concern, start here: spillerpATfreeDOTnetDOTnz and you’ll get my real e-mail address with the attachment on Mentalism, when I send it.

Again, I have this lingering feeling that my response is superficial, given the scope of your discourse. I hope it doesn’t appear to be too much like that. I’m always learning.

Dave8
One of Joseph Campbell's oft-pointed out aspects of mythology is that of the "hero motif." Perhaps there's something of that in many people? Here's a local example that seems to defy the reward rationale that you suggest motivates altruism:

Pair Rescued Before Car Explodes
12.12.2005

A Waipukurau(a New Zealand town) farmer raced against time to pull two Australians from a crashed car near Dannevirke(a New Zealand town) early yesterday, minutes before the vehicle exploded into a fireball.

Police said the couple would have burned to death were it not for Colin Russell.

The car crashed on State Highway 2 near the Oringi freezing works about 8am after the male driver lost control, swerving across the path of the man who was about to become his rescuer.

Mr Russell was driving in the opposite direction with his daughter, Lisa.

The Australians' car careered through a fence, across a paddock and into a tree.

A fire broke out beneath the bonnet, and Mr Russell worked quickly to pull the unconscious female passenger from the vehicle as his daughter rang emergency services.

He then worked on freeing the driver, who was coherent but had broken bones.

"I don't want to make a big deal about it," Mr Russell said.

"I did it to save the people's lives.

"It was just common sense. We did nothing we wouldn't expect someone else to do for us in the same situation."

The car was well ablaze by the time emergency services were alerted.

"We could see a big plume of black smoke up in the sky as we left Dannevirke," said Constable Wayne Churchouse.

"If it wasn't for those first people on the scene, the vehicle would have burst into flames and the couple in it would have died."

Police said Dannevirke bank worker David Curtis had also played a role in the rescue, but he was unable to be contacted yesterday.

The 31-year-old woman passenger suffered head injuries. The Square Trust rescue helicopter flew her to Palmerston North Hospital, where she remained critically ill last night.

The driver was taken to the same hospital by ambulance, with moderate injuries, including a fractured leg.

Mr Churchouse said it was understood the couple were originally from New Zealand but now lived in Australia.
[newspaper story ends]

I think it would be quite a stretch to say that the comment:

"It was just common sense. We did nothing we wouldn't expect someone else to do for us in the same situation." was one that expressed or implied motive or thought of reward. After all, Colin Russell has no guarantees that someone else, somewhere else, sometime else, will "return the favour."

Does his heroic rescue not furnish an example of a selfless act?

Perry, I will engage this one a little further, but initially heroic actions, occur in animals also, there have been more than "one" or two seeing eye dogs who push their owners out of the way of danger, and there have been more than a few that have pulled their owners out of "firey" situations, and still even more that have saved owners from drowning...

The question would then push us to look at the difference between the "motive" and heroic "intent", of animalia... what makes us believe we as humans have more nobility than animals who don't seem to "overthink" their natures, who don't seem to "justify" our beings' as having more "worth" than a "cocker spaniel"... it appears that we as humans can't outmaneuver "existence" and "existences'" Objective and underlying rules, therefore, it almost appears "thinking" in the most innate sense, does more to "cloud" the natural intuition that we have to live a peaceful life in harmony with "existence", and those animals that that don't suffer from thinking seem to be more clear of their natural senses and living in harmony, but even they must live in a cause-effect environment... Animals mourn when they lose close friends, they have personalities per cognitive research, what makes an animal less heroic or noble in nature... Perhaps, a dog saving another life, is more "noble", as I have yet to hear a dog looking around to save other animals in an effort to be in the headlines, (not per the story you provided, but, there have been many I have known to chase accidents in order to be recognized), animals seem to be more humble, when saving lives...

I will try and get that writing you suggested, just give me a few days... Also, INTJ's don't necessarily have a problem not liking public speaking or crowds, however, they must be in an environment where they know the people or the type people they interact with... I stated that I don't have a quarry of females running around, to present a contrast to your quarry, I stated that I don't have a group of females that I normally interact with in the capacity you suggested, which was philosophical in nature...

The larger the population, the more opportunity it would appear that one could find a philosophically deep conversation with a woman, regarding ontology, epistemology, etc., etc... I stated that my wife if a "great" listener, however, she doesn't generate deep discussion it's not part of her personality, but she does have a knack for leading a conversation once its started, and holding her own... Just enough to keep up an intelligent conversation, but not too complex theoretically, which is at times, where I start from...

I liked your article, it does show us that there are values being learned in our environment that are beneficial to the survival of the species, and I connect because I have the same values, I may even use the term "noble" or "heroic", to discern between my values and the values of others who may not have taken action to save the lives of those people...

Regarding Khalil Gibran, my great grandfather was born and lived in the area he grew up, but instead of joining a culture in New York, my great grandfather moved into the mountains of Tennessee, as it was more like "home"... small world... I haven't read Gibran's works in general, but I'll take the time to look over a few writings, and see where he is coming from philosophically... and take the time, to see the art of his prose... sometimes, writings are more witty, than sound, based on the writers' purpose...

The elevation of our species, to "progress" to something beyond our current existence, seems to be academic... I still think below the waiste, because I am still driven by hormones, I have control over my emotions, but that is based on chemical regulation in my body... Anyway, the oldest writings seem to denote laws, actions, and even the old sumerian cuneiform with the flood stories were abound... I'll look up some more information, until the next, take care...

Perry, I have another minute, I'm sneaking breaks while studying... anyway, going back to Willie, what would compel Willie to differentiate between an animal at death and a living animal... He stated that at death, everything is still the same, but... obviously no longer alive... Okay, what makes a dog or a fish different upon death... is Willie the type that seems to say "souls" are in every living organism? It seems to be where we're headed again, at least with nobility and intent...

Oh, and I meant to say Gibran ended up in South End Boston, but, my great grandfather didn't, even though there were large cultures in New York and Boston at the time...

http://leb.net/gibran/

It appears that Gibran's writings in fact do portray, many stories where altruism is displayed... still, I see self-sacrifice as living by natural laws, perhaps, that is inherent in us... the "progression" seems to be a little harder to tackle, as our recorded history seems to only go back about 5,ooo years, but even then, there were stories of altruism... The values that human life and connectedness are so strong in many people, that they in fact see others as "themselves", helping another, is akin to helping themselves... and again, it appears to be psychologically driven...

Again, it appears "balance" within the framework of "existences'" game resides in some form, if "balance" is lost, entropy, and Nature will persuade, living beings, etc,. to concede to harmony, one way or another...

Monastic practices taken to an extreme, bring people out of ballance with nature, and in the past there have been more than "one" monastic culture, fade away into the night of history...

From embryonic development, there are neural explosions occuring like massive atomic weapons, this "explosion" gives life "energy" and "animation", its the "creation" of these cells which keep us animated throughout life... We have the same type explosions that occur throughout our physiological processes, to replace dead tissue, to inclue integument (skin), bones (etc)... our bodies rebuild themselves over and over again in this life, its this "living" process started from one "egg" and one "sperm" that generate this biological combustion that gives rise to our animated being... when these cells lose cellular "efficiency", they slow, and eventually physiological animation stops...

It appears that entropy in any closed system is eventually overcome through "existences'" persistence to find balance... even the entropy of living organisms... Anyway, as stated, just wanted to put this out here, and I will provide a more adequate response to your previous post, take care...

Perry, had a minute, and another few thoughts...

Research has shown that Pet owners, live longer, i.e., other living organisms seem to have the potential to directly affect another living organisms energy levels and life span... Seems that other living organisms can be a recipe for stabilizing the decrease/entropy in our biological beings...

The female menstral cycle is affected by the lunar gravitation pull, per research... Two women living together, will eventually have their menstral cycles sync up, as biorhythms sense an equilibrium...

I say this to say, balance seems to be a "key" component to "existences'" Objective... And that balance, seems to be at the lowest levels perceivable in our environment, all the way to sensing bio-rhythms...

Also, I performed as a member of a university concert band, choir, and piano performance ensemble... Although, I felt much satisfaction in letting artistic expression fly, as an individual on the piano, nothing seemed to compare to the overwhelming sense created when fifty people with different instruments, played a musical piece, in perfect rhythm, harmony and dynamic, in short... perfectly balanced, where every person "contributed" to the whole, in "balance"... it was... as if, the group became one, as bio-rhythms, stimulated via senses, i.e., sound... became symmetric even for the short musical piece... and... giving of ones' artistic ability, to 'sync' up with others, is nothing short of bonding...

Biorhythms are a controversial topic among scientists because the mathematical support isn't defined for concrete predictability... However, through cause-effect scenarios its pretty apparent that patterns form between living people, and organisms... A more accepted topic in this area, is Bioelectromagnetism, however, it leaves out the areas of the neural-network where emotion and/or intellect reside...

"A biorhythm (or biological rhythm) is a hypothetical cyclic pattern of alterations in physiology, emotions, and/or intellect. "Bio" pertains to life and "rhythm" pertains to the flow with regular movement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biorhythm

When I say that there is peace in my life, or that I sync up with "other" living organisms to bring me to a state of "balance", I am more likely talking of biorhythmic syncing... and I feel much peace and joy in that state of being... Balance can be found individually, however, its apparent that when one is out of balance, they need to find a counter to bring them back to their state of peace biorhythmically, i.e., physiologically it can be medicine, chemicals, etc., and emotionally/neurologically perhaps it can be those things that stimulate our neural centers through visual, and other senses...

Well, just thought I'd throw that out, I think I can postulate at this time, that "balance" is one of those factors we can focus on... Watching someone die, brings one out of their state of balance as they are biorhythmically affected by the scene, that is, if they are neurologically stable, and capable of sensing others... typically, those who have desensitized themselves in order to not become attached, are considered mentally ill, and the mentally ill have a much shorter life span, as their systems malfunction and become more inefficient...

"The World Health Organisation estimated that in the year 2000, one million people world-wide committed suicide and those numbers are rising."
http://www.health24.com/mind/Mental_health_in_SA/1284-1301,18052.asp

That article is describing the affects of poverty, depression, and suicide... depression, is not well understood, it is most times explained physiologically, and biorhythmically, and neural anomalies are overlooked, especially in areas where no medical facilites exist to do that type research...

Leaving theoretics alone for a second, perhaps, purpose is nothing more than acting according to nature, which is in itself a self-beneficial system... if every cause has an effect, and "existences'" rules seem to require "balance", at all levels, from the most observable and quantifiable to the lowest unobservable levels for all we know... then, trying to achieve that "balance" would be a noble purpose...

Back to theoretics, it seems that animals already live in some form of "balance", as they follow their instincts, and don't seem to be too affected by the emotional/neurological blending we humans have... when the full moon comes out, animals creep out from everywhere as they're affected, in my opinion biorhythmically/bioelectrically... its a fact that crime rates increase during full moons, as people are cognitively affected by electromagnetic field disturbances...

Purpose, is to seek and find balance in life, according to "existences'" rules... I don't see the Objective for "Existence", and furthermore, don't feel compelled to search for ways to delve into cosmological argument, to include religion... However, "Existences'", expectations, do appear to be affirmed through observable cause-effect interactions in this universe... Therefore, Purpose can only be garnered through, maintaining balance(s), and its our jobs to find those balances... Anyone, who is leading a non-balanced life, isn't living in peace/homeostasis...

Anyway, just another thought, I'll jump back later...

Well, I forgot a part of my last thought... which was... Suicide, and if there were no purpose why wouldn't people just end the misery in life... and my answer, is that we all innately understand some form of 'balance', its required to live, we "negotiate" our early years as infants in order to survive, and we learn that concept, and as long as people have "confidence" in their ability to negotiate their challenges/barriers in their way to find "balance", they will do so, as this has been reinforced since childhood...

However, some people lose their confidence that they can negotiate barriers in their life, to find peace/harmony, and in the midst of pain and suffering... I don't hand out advice to anyone to commit suicide as the solution to their problems... However, I can understand why some people commit suicide, as I have had to deal with people who have mentally lost balance... and, there are the rare occasions where I can think suicide a plausible solution to a given problem... terminally ill patients who are in agony 24hrs a day, for the rest of their life, with no hope of recovery... one must ask, how balance can be achieved... if not with short temporal adjustments as we all make from day to day... then more permanent ones, when it becomes necessary... Unfortunately, when many get in those type situations, they aren't physically capable of releasing their own pain... If Purpose is "balance", and some balance requires peace and freedom from excruciating pain, then it appears that suicide can in fact be an option... it appears to be a growing option for impoverished countries all over the world as of late... Again, I don't advise people to seek this remedy, however... as an intellectual with a working belief system, I can "understand" and "respect" another persons' desire to remove themselves from agony... I suppose, per my connectedness, I would intervene and do everything I could to assist someone to reach a balance in their life, still we all have our limitations in life, even the most learned physicians...

Dave8: Most Christians I have met, have no idea of the underlying philosophical concepts for their belief, when they say "God is All", they are indeed, referring to "existence"...

Perry: "Sounds like the opening few verses in the Book of John. The other matter is that when the expression ‘god’ is used, there’s a missing dimension. Which one? Vishnu? Ahura Mazda, Allah, Yahweh? There’s no shortage to choose from. Something that seems to escape most religionists because their world is so narrow, so insular."

Well, I think "existence" is all, I'm not sure the author of John would have agreed, as an entirely "new" reality was created in a metaphysically objective reality, per religionist belief... I agree with the insularity of religion though, as they attempt to prevent the adventure of learning more about our "existence" by attributing unknowns, and hopes, to an 'unknown', with a label "god"... the bible is nothing but a magniloquent soliloquoy...

Dave8: The religious typically impress upon humanity that we "must" know the "Objective" while in the game of "existence"... Do we? It is what drives Purpose... I mean, once someone feels they "know" the Objective of 'existences' game, we can then enter the game wielding a "strategy".

Perry: "But how can one have a purpose towards nothing? Or no purpose towards something? It’s akin to having a plan to go nowhere. Many people set goals/targets/objectives, if not in their personal lives, then in business. Then a strategy is formulated and tactics conceived to abet achievement. Without that, life is almost worse than a series of forced moves, it’s just a series of reactions to people, events and circumstances. But, perhaps I’m splitting hairs? Perhaps that’s the synthesis of forced moves? I.e. being shoved, pushed and blown about, rather than initiating an informed move of any sort.

Metacognition: "Refers to thinking about cognition (memory, perception, calculation, association, etc.) itself. Metacognition can be divided into two types of knowledge: explicit, conscious, factual knowledge; and implicit, unconscious, procedural knowledge. The ability to think about thinking is unique to sentient species and indeed is one of the definitions of sentience."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition

"Sentience: Is the capacity for basic consciousness — the ability to feel or perceive, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connotate knowledge, higher consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different meanings in English. (One can easily distinguish the two by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".)"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Purpose with a capital "P" in my rhethoric illustrated a Universal Purpose, equal to "all" in the Universe, where "existences'" Objective(s) reside... However, for a "personal" purpose, its dependent on a persons' capacity for metacognition, self-awareness (maslow modelled), unique physiological factors, and the "information", to include images, sense memory, etc.

Dave8: This is slightly abstract, but... those who attempt to figure out the "Objective" of "existences'" game, do so, in an effort to find a strategy to "win" the game.

Perry: "Perhaps one wins simply by playing? But knowingly, wittingly. And, if so, then knowing the rules of the game will make the play more meaningful."

One must define the Universal "P", and play according to its established rules, however, how doesn one confirm "existences'" Objective in order to derive "P"... Further, what gives a person who hasn't become "self-aware", metacognitively a lower "p"...

For those who appear to use combinations, and piece together matter sufficiently, people are capable of biological growth, change, etc., and in a sense, manipulating "nature's" time intensive process of biological enhancement/change...

Perry: "In that situation it could be more a matter of the way, the conduct, the how the game was played, rather than who won or lost?"

Who do we owe these answers to... one persons' belief that another person lived a noble life, may not necessarily be another persons' belief... in an effort to ascertain the delta for "p", a comparitive analysis would have to be conducted, based on "P"... It appears there has to be a standard first...

Perry: "If that’s an acceptable hypothesis, then what are the rules? Nature’s rules appear to be “waistline-down driven,” i.e. the survival of the fittest. There seems little scope for altruism or self-sacrifice except sometimes in defence of progeny. (But then you see that as “selfish” in a sense, as well)."

"Monism: The doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Perry: "Humans appear (lots of exclusions, I know) to have the ability to rise above that, to employ mind, brain and heart. Is this the “stuff’ of Maslow’s pyramid?"

Maslows' model, shows dependenceis in a persons life, that impede one from reaching self-awareness at the highest levels, based on the dependence of metacognition... Not "all" humans have the ability to "rise" above the waiste-line and become more than a primate, sure, most have the "tools" necessary to drive the car, however, I have known some to not realize how to use the tools... Self-Actualization per the Maslow pyramid, is a notional model to show how to achieven ones' "p"...

However, there could be a debate on whether a pre-cognition trigger is required for "metacognition" that allows one to bloom... and one could take that argument below the waisteline, and say its biologcially dependent on bio-chemical processes...

Dave8: We are here, because of "existence", and for no other reason, as far as I can tell..., I have yet to see Existence move in a manner that suggests itself to be making decisions, as that would lead me to see "intent" involved, and thus, "asymmetric" activity in this Universe.

Perry: "What criteria are you using in your evaluation? The one that has you determining an absence of motive, goal or intent on the part of Nature?"

The criteria, that "no one" I know, nor myself, have epistemological validation of a Universal "Absolute" Purpose... Therefore, the sheer fact that there has been no Absolute found, all that is left if "existence" as a constant, and "change"... "Existence" seems to be more of a product or element, to build a personal purpose upon, and not necessarily use "Existence" to derive a Universal Absolute from...

Perry: "Our speculative hypothesis is as I described earlier. We are a part of the global ecology and economy. Nature, in the pursuit of betterment, of evolutionary advancement, is utilising all the forms and forces it has available. Some of which appear to us to be rather chaotic and dis-organised, to say the least."

I agree, we are part of the global ecology and economy. I go a little further and believe that we are connected to "Existence", which supports ecology and economy...

Perry: "Interesting that you should quote the adulterous woman and the mob. It’s one of my favourites. What was JC doodling on the ground?"

I don't know, perhaps it was his half of the Christian fish symbol :-)

Perry: "I’ve asked hot-line-to-heaveners and no one has any idea. But that story, like the rich young ruler, the prescription about divorce and hardness of hearts, turn the other cheek, lend to those that seek to borrow, love one another, and so on all seem to tie in with a fundamental change from animalistic behaviour to something more noble: my perceived shift in human nature from Old Testament to New."

One could assert with some historical reference, that the younger generation in any given era, has suffered from hormonal drives, tending to give the appearance of primitive behavior... one could assert that even today, intercourse seen from an ascetic perspective itself seems primitive...

Perry: "On altruism, I suppose from a strictly Newtonian standpoint, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, perhaps then it’s the motive that must be weighed? The intent? To get down to the determinist level that you describe, where even the feeling (no matter how fleeting) of doing some good to someone is reckoned as a reward and thereby in some way invalidates the altruistic intent seems a very harsh assessment. Even though you accord it to yourself in your view of your vocational choice."

Forgive me, if I haven't expressed my monist view of reality in detail... In a personal sense, not a Universal Absolute sense, I am attached to this "Existence", and so is everything I can possibly "know"... Therefore, keeping harmony and balance in this "Existence", of which, we are all apart, appears to be a worthwhile effort, but yes, still... it benefits me and my well-being as I receive peace from helping others... in any capacity to bring them closer to their personal state of peace...

Dave8: I am not exposed to many of the opposite gender, in mass quantity, one here or there, and almost never into a deep discussion.

Perry: "I’m not sure how I conveyed the impression of any quantity of significance. I speak of less than a handful. Right - I’ve been there and done that: INTJ it is. With exceptions: I like an audience - I’m a very competent public speaker. But didn’t you say that INTJ in others created a problem for you?"

Actually, INTJ's are by definition of the first initial "Introvertive", not to the point that its debilitating, but that one doesn't draw energy from being around large crowds of strangers as the center of attention... INTJ's are perfectly compatible with other INTJ's, actually those that are anathema to INTJs are the Extroverts, and Feelers... I give speeches to large groups of strangers, however, I don't "seek" moments to speak in front of large audiences, I get paid to speak to people in large audiences, its a job for me...

I excel in many other areas, beyond public speaking, naturally... if I wasn't looking to excel based on my psychological makeup, and only looking for money, then I suppose I could make the tradeoff, of working in a job where I will not excel in order to make a living, as long as the benefits include, working toward a more peaceful state for global peace... There is little "economy", in regard to people and their natural gray/white matter makeup, and innate strengths of cognition and the "job" a person has, many times... We don't teach our children based on their cognitive strengths, the U.S. wants "well-rounded" children, and so do businesses, and even university's in short...

For example; Albert Einsten, "In 1895, he sat the entrance examinations to get into the prestigious Federal Polytechnic School (or Academy) in Zurich, Switzerland. He was 16, two years younger than his fellow applicants. He did outstandingly well in physics and mathematics, but failed the non-science subjects, doing especially badly in French - so he was not accepted."
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1115185.htm

Through perserverance, he found his way to another university, however, his greatest accomplishments weren't based on his "mandatory" cultural education, i.e., French, etc... He was made to study against his grain, for years, and in the end... his cognitive strengths prevailed through personal perseverance...

Perry: "Some people say they pinch themselves in the morning. I suggest that it’s better done at night, before bed. That way, I know I’ve got through another day."

In either pinching scenario, there was a "p" for the act... however, it appears that "p" is slightly different between you and me, but, we both are "right" in regard to our understanding of unique "p" based on our supporting thoughts...

Perry: "If you feel so disposed, I could e-mail you (off-list) an unfinished piece on Mentalism, by Peter Cross. (18 pages, two column, RTF format). I did exchange a few e-mails with Peter, some years ago, but have lost track of him [mea culpa], since then. Peter’s dissertation might intrigue you more than Joseph Campbell. If SPAM’s a concern, start here: spillerpATfreeDOTnetDOTnz and you’ll get my real e-mail address with the attachment on Mentalism, when I send it."

I sent you my e-mail address... regarding mentalism, and spatial cognition... where perception is reality, and reality/existence therefore, exists in cognition... It appears that mentalism therefore, takes the stance that the origin of "Existence" resides only in a persons' mind and that reality is just orbiting around ones' mental state of awareness... this would definitely do away for a need for "P", in a Universal sense, or the need to seek "any" other Universal Absolute Truth... I can appreciate that thought process, it does remove non-absolutes from the equation... However, it each one of us accepted mentalism and our minds as the center of our Universe/Existence then each person walking has their own Universe/Existence... I'll have to think about that for a while, seems intriguing, perhaps I'll get the paper you send, and it will provide more information...

Perry: "Again, I have this lingering feeling that my response is superficial, given the scope of your discourse. I hope it doesn’t appear to be too much like that. I’m always learning."

I don't think your response is in the slightest superficial, quite the contrary, you are spot on topic... And as you, I am always learning... from a mentalist approach, we are just discussing the objects that "exist" and revolve around our cognitive Universes'... take care...

Do animals have the power of abstract thought? Although many people “bury” the notion, all humans know at some age, that they are going to die. Do animals have that perception?

As for existence, I was thinking about it today, while roofing a garden shed for my wife and ridging up the spuds in the garden. Is the word “existence” finite? Is your use of that word anything really different to the deity of the local convention, or life force, or whatever other appellation one cares to use? Are we not back to the point that Einstein allegedly posited: “anyone who studies physics long enough is inevitably led to meta-physics.” I.e. there are some things that cannot be explained by determinism. Not only now, but in the future?

Dave8: I will try and get that writing you suggested, just give me a few days...

Which one? I’ve lost track of the thread.

Dave8: Also, INTJ's don't necessarily have a problem not liking public speaking or crowds, however, they must be in an environment where they know the people or the type people they interact with.

Indeed. I have – by some of my kinder critics – been told that I do not suffer fools gladly.

Dave8: The larger the population, the more opportunity it would appear that one could find a philosophically deep conversation with a woman, regarding ontology, epistemology, etc., etc...

My experience is that they are few and far between. And hard to find, at that. Any gender.
I liked your article, it does show us that there are values being learned in our environment that are beneficial to the survival of the species, and I connect because I have the same values, I may even use the term "noble" or "heroic", to discern between my values and the values of others who may not have taken action to save the lives of those people.

But that creates the same dilemma that you mentioned before. What if one or the other (or the rescued) later becomes a murderer? A drug trafficker?

Dave8: Regarding Khalil Gibran, . . .

I’ve read one or two. Perhaps I’m the victim of confirmation bias? Like many analogous writings, they resonate with me.

Dave8: The elevation of our species, to "progress" to something beyond our current existence, seems to be academic... I still think below the waiste, because I am still driven by hormones, I have control over my emotions, but that is based on chemical regulation in my body.

This is the pull and tug of yin and yang, base and noble, knowledge and ignorance, ebb and flow – the law of periodicity. Can we overcome it? Do we? Or is it repression? Sublimation?

Dave8: I have another minute, I'm sneaking breaks while studying... anyway, going back to Willie, what would compel Willie to differentiate between an animal at death and a living animal... He stated that at death, everything is still the same, but... obviously no longer alive... Okay, what makes a dog or a fish different upon death... is Willie the type that seems to say "souls" are in every living organism? It seems to be where we're headed again, at least with nobility and intent.

Willie’s point seems independent of species. Life force has ‘gone,’ as in: is no longer evident in vivifying that form. The electrons stir orbit the nucleus at a lower level. It still has an aroma, form. But decay proceeds apace. Various records of near/past-but-reversed experiences have some commonality elements to them. They report of a form of functionality in the metaphysical.

Dave8: The values that human life and connectedness are so strong in many people, that they in fact see others as "themselves", helping another, is akin to helping themselves... and again, it appears to be psychologically driven.

This re-visits the matter of inter-connectedness. Of a form of ecology. At least at the physical level.

Dave8: Again, it appears "balance" within the framework of "existences'" game resides in some form, if "balance" is lost, entropy, and Nature will persuade, living beings, etc,. to concede to harmony, one way or another.

I don’t follow that – sorry.

Dave8: Monastic practices taken to an extreme, bring people out of balance with nature, and in the past there have been more than "one" monastic culture, fade away into the night of history.

But if anthropologist Unwin is correct in his assessment of the patterns of human development and civilisation, we see a common denominator. A stable society has cohesive, inter-dependent and supportive codes of ethics of structures. A form of morality that transcends “devil take the hindmost.” Unwin’s conclusion was that when a society abandoned those values, values that placed limits on personal satisfaction in the interests of the wider community, then they vanished, not long thereafter.

Dave8: We have the same type explosions that occur throughout our physiological processes, to replace dead tissue, to inclue integument (skin), bones (etc)... our bodies rebuild themselves over and over again in this life, its this "living" process started from one "egg" and one "sperm" that generate this biological combustion that gives rise to our animated being... when these cells lose cellular "efficiency", they slow, and eventually physiological animation stops.

But the biology of “repairing damaged tissue” isn’t universal, e.g. brain cells. Also scar tissue generation. I.e. there are exceptions.

Dave8: It appears that entropy in any closed system is eventually overcome through "existences'" persistence to find balance... even the entropy of living organisms.

Generally, balance seems laudable. But then we’re confronted with the “no pain (out of balance) no gain” aphorism. Or is a matter of shifting the fulcrum and the imbalance is transient? With the ‘new’ balance being somehow better?

Dave8: Research has shown that Pet owners, live longer, i.e., other living organisms seem to have the potential to directly affect another living organisms energy levels and life span... Seems that other living organisms can be a recipe for stabilizing the decrease/entropy in our biological beings.

A feeling of being needed? Loved? Appreciated? Therefore a reason for being, for existing for longer is a motivation?

Dave8: Also, I performed as a member of a university concert band, choir, and piano performance ensemble... Although, I felt much satisfaction in letting artistic expression fly, as an individual on the piano, nothing seemed to compare to the overwhelming sense created when fifty people with different instruments, played a musical piece, in perfect rhythm, harmony and dynamic, in short... perfectly balanced, where every person "contributed" to the whole, in "balance"... it was... as if, the group became one, as bio-rhythms, stimulated via senses, i.e., sound... became symmetric even for the short musical piece... and... giving of ones' artistic ability, to 'sync' up with others, is nothing short of bonding.

I’m a musical klutz – I couldn’t strike a euphonious chord to save myself. But I can depart from here in the presence of certain music. Symphony of the Senses is a CD set I’ve ordered for Xmas. I have one of the four already and some of its tracks really “sends me.”

Dave8: That article is describing the affects of poverty, depression, and suicide... depression, is not well understood, it is most times explained physiologically, and biorhythmically, and neural anomalies are overlooked, especially in areas where no medical facilites exist to do that type research...

Suicide is a tricky one. New Zealand ‘boasts’ the highest teen suicide rate in the developed word. My wife works in health care. One of her colleagues deals with these ‘at risk’ people. Sometimes after the fact. She described one case to me. Particularly the letter contents. Succinctly, two teens who saw nothing more than “Our observations tell us that it’s all down hill from here. So why bother?”

Here’s something depressing from “that” treatise:

Ecclesiastes 9:1 So I reflected on all this and concluded that the righteous and the wise and what they do are in God's hands, but no man knows whether love or hate awaits him. 2 All share a common destiny--the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not. As it is with the good man, so with the sinner; as it is with those who take oaths, so with those who are afraid to take them. 3 This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of men, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. 4 Anyone who is among the living has hope--even a live dog is better off than a dead lion! 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun. 7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun--all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labour under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

Ecclesiastes 8:14 There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: righteous men who get what the wicked deserve, and wicked men who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless.

Ecclesiastes 7:15 In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness.

Dave8: Therefore, Purpose can only be garnered through, maintaining balance(s), and its our jobs to find those balances... Anyone, who is leading a non-balanced life, isn't living in peace/homeostasis...

An old management axiom goes that ‘staying put’ is a non-option. Because the net effect of the progress of others around and about is that those staying put are actually going backwards.

I look at the world, technology, disparity, poverty, wealth, knowledge, ignorance, birth and death, etc. Nothing much of substance seems to have changed. The actors have changed. The scenery has, too. But the recycling and superficial plot remains elusive while the lines linger on.

Perry, I tried to e-mail, but had a typo in the address, I re-sent the e-mail and you should be receiving it...

Perry: "Do animals have the power of abstract thought? Although many people “bury” the notion, all humans know at some age, that they are going to die. Do animals have that perception?"

What is abstract about thought? I do believe we think differently than animals, but then again, people think differently between themselves also... especially, during the developmental stages of cognitive development...

Do animals know they are going to die? Yes and No... Whales and other animals that know they are in a spiral for death, increase the speed at which they pass away... whales beach themselves to increase the speed of their own demise, however, they do this in an effort to obtain a "known" end-state which is naturally inevitable to them, as they "know" no different alternative than to let nature take its course...

Many other creatures "sacrifice" themselves for the survival of their off-spring and species... Some social-biologists use the term "terminal altruism"... I find myself in a job, that seems to fit this mantra... is it more noble, than another species who sacrifice themselves after giving birth, to ensure their offspring live...
http://www.discover.com/ask-discover/?qid=38

The deeper question, is... do animals have a 'choice', or are they innately acting according to their genetic coding... I'll go so far as to say, we as humans are where we are today, based on our ability to "communicate", and our form of communication is far more specific than any other species, and we continue to refine our communication through linguistic evolution, memory storage technology, etc...

Like other animals, a child isn't "born" knowing they are going to die... They learn, after seeing people pass away that they too, as part of a social construct, will also pass away into the universe...

Do animals "perceive" death? Yes... Animals know when their partners pass away, and they "mourn"...

"The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals conducted a Companion Animal Mourning Project in 1996. The study found that 36 percent of dogs ate less than usual after the death of another canine companion. About 11 percent actually stopped eating completely. About 63 percent of dogs vocalized more than normal or became more quiet. Study respondents indicated that surviving dogs changed the quantity and location of sleep. More than half the surviving pets became more affectionate and clingy with their caregivers. Overall, the study revealed that 66 percent of dogs exhibited four or more behavioral changes after losing a pet companion."

"If your dog is too depressed over the loss, she may not respond to extra activity right away. The old saying, "Time heals all wounds," has meaning for your dog, too. "Time is one thing that may help," says Chretien. Based on the results of the ASPCA study, most dogs returned to normal after about two weeks but some dogs took up to six months to fully recover."
http://www.petplace.com/article.aspx?id=3715

I think it a more fair assessment to conclude animals, don't "dwell", on the passing of their companions... beyond their initial mourning period... and I haven't heard of a pet committing suicide because they lost a loved one.. we humans, with our "gift" of long term memory, get to relive "death" and "mourning" over our lifetimes...

Perhaps, we think we are more noble, because we think longer about being noble... its a trait we seemed to have been endowed with through our genetic beings...

Monkeys know "fairness", they get all bent out of shape when one monkey receives a greater reward for the same amount of work than another monkey... morals, ethics, seem to be at the lowest levels of the animal kingdom... We may "think" we as Humans are more "noble", however, getting past our "clouded" thoughts, in an effort to get back to the obvious "basic" traits of the lower animal life forms, does not impress me... Animals don't "know" of heroic acts, do so because its natural to them... but the acts they portray every day, would garner them a heroic "medal"... We call a heroic act, heroic, because we have been taught, by "religion", that we are sinful, evil, etc., and therefore, we must "reward", those who have chosen to act "Against" their basic depraved natures, with praise, and medals, etc... I don't see anything noble about doing what is innately understood as "right"... I don't see monkeys getting medals for protecting their young until death... I don't see the creatures who give the "ultimate sacrifice" for the survival of their young, in a "terminally altruistic" manner, being blazoned with wreaths by their compadres, perhaps its just expected behavior...

Now, I am boiling about religion again, let me go to the next topic... Damn I hate religion... and the mind bending... I do think it noble to reward people for breaking free from the "cloudiness" placed upon them by religion, and their environment in order to live according to natural laws...

Here's some humor, my dog just kicked the crap out of his water bowl to get my attention, and to say "I need water"... be back in a second...

Perry: "As for existence, I was thinking about it today, while roofing a garden shed for my wife and ridging up the spuds in the garden. Is the word “existence” finite?"

Existence is based on being... being is based on epistemological limits set according to our personal standards...

"Some philosophers, notably of the Platonic school, contend that all nouns refer to entities. Other philosophers contend that some nouns do not name entities but provide a kind of shorthand way of referring to a collection (of either objects or events). In this latter view, mind, instead of referring to an entity, refers to a collection of mental events experienced by a person; society refers to a collection of persons with some shared characteristics, and geometry refers to a collection of a specific kind of intellectual activity. Any ontology must give an account of which words refer to entities, which do not, why, and what categories result. When one applies this process to nouns such as electrons, energy, contract, happiness, time, truth, causality, and god, ontology becomes fundamental to many branches of philosophy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Existence is as finite as the epistemological rules allow... but, its a personal choice on these rules, and is the basis of belief systems... even though people make comments about their belief, they are in fact categorizing and setting epistemological limtis, even if unwittingly...

Perry: "Is your use of that word anything really different to the deity of the local convention, or life force, or whatever other appellation one cares to use?"

Again, I see universal existence as a "whole", where epistemological limits are set, and categories for "objects" are referenced... some combinations of "objects", being more "plausible" and "true" than others...

A deity, per most religions, denotes an "object", divisible and separate from the Natural Universe... therefore, some can say that category "god" is not a sub-component or category of "existence"... hence, the, god is perfect, and perfection can not exist in this imperfect universe... I understand the categorization of "god" objects and the placing them in the bucket of a "metaphysically objective" reality... again, just because I understand the concept doesn't mean I buy into it...

I see Universe as a category in and of itself, and everything else as sub-categories... do I use this term as if it were a "god", or "deity" or some other appelation... as a categorical object, I suppose yes, I have a category, just like those of religion have their ontological categories... beyond that, I don't give my category human characteristics/personality, I don't place higher categories above the Universe category, I don't separate out different sub-categories/substances into different and entirely separate categories within the universe, which would "separate" cause-effect relationship...

My ontological categorization, is much different from those of religions in general, not all, but many... and most notably the Abrahamic religions... If "life force" was thrown out (with much descriptive information as a true category), I would find it as a "dependent" category, which interacts with the Universe, but does not "overwhelm" or "rise above" the category of "Universe", however, far reaching that category extends accross the universe, again... I see the Universe in layers in that sense...

Perry: "Are we not back to the point that Einstein allegedly posited: “anyone who studies physics long enough is inevitably led to meta-physics.” I.e. there are some things that cannot be explained by determinism. Not only now, but in the future?"

Albert, in my "humble" opinion, is correct, why study that which is known? The art of science is to "explore", create hypothesis and test them until there are theoretical knowns... This obviously leads to experimentation to derive theories... something "metaphysical" today, photon mass as zero quantified, may not be that of tomorrow, science refines its tools in an effort to derive the ability to measure cause-effect relationships...

Just because there are metaphysical objects beyond our abilty to measure at this time, doesn't remove the ability to conduct "cause-effect" experiments... Naturists have conducted many experiments looking for patterns, etc., patterns in and of themselves aren't "concrete" objects, more like the explanation of Universal behavior... and the influence of change over time...

Can determinism explain everything... I have to believe yes, based on my level of knowledge at this point in my life... I have no evidence that tells me that there are "separate" and "distinct" objects outside the "influence" of the Universe... even as we dig down into molecular matter, we see cause-effect relationships... I have yet to witness, an action or event that did not have a precursory event to cause the act...

So, although, some may hold out that there is an entirely separate category above the Universe, or some may argue that there is a category that is "entirely separate" from the Universe, I don't see "any" evidence... the more I study, the more I become astutely aware of the connections of "all" categories I would want to create in this universe, according to my personal observations/experiences... mentalism would hold that existence is only centric to each persons' mind and ability to perceive the objects as they orbit around their mind... I have watched people pass away, and yet more born, and I have existed in both instances, therefore, this "existence" rises above categorically, my "perception" of existence and the foundation that I must exist in order for "existence" to "Be"...

Again, I understand layers, and relationships... We as humans, can't think in terms of "relationships" or "associations"... I find it mildly humorous that as we make new or (thought to be new) relationships, that we can "claim" that these newly discovered "concepts" or "categories" are entirely "separate" from all Other categories...

Life bubbles, through dancing matter, on top (and relative to) of layered categories, of which, some are beyond physical measurement (but still testable thorugh cause-effect experiment), and thus metaphysical in category... our universe, appears to be built of numerous tension-systems, which keep matter and cosmic systems in balance... and even though, I accept that I am the product of this Universe, brought to life as I perceive it, I don't know that the Universe has an "intent", or had an "intent" for such life as mine, to exist...

Dave8: I will try and get that writing you suggested, just give me a few days...

Perry: "Which one? I’ve lost track of the thread."

The mentalism paper, however, I have read a little on the topic... As stated, I sent you an e-mail, take care...

Dave8: "... We as humans, can't think in terms of "relationships" or "associations"..."

Meant to say, "We as humans, must think in terms of "relationships" or "associations"..." as its how we learn, we anchor a base of knowledge, and check new information against that baseline...