Everything is built on Assumptions...

[Zarathustra]

So, now's the time that I write down my beliefs. As much to lay them out for myself as anything .

Everyone seems to think they know everything about the universe. Personally, I know nothing about anything; I am open to ideas, though. As far as I'm concerned, the The Earth is Flat, and NASA was created to keep the entire populace in the dark. NASA telescopes are nothing more than hugely advanced Virtual Reality machines that render images of impossible things to keep everyone wowed (as described in here). The universe consists of a flat earth, Hell exists below it, there is a dome above it that keeps water out. and above the water, is heaven. For all I know, all of the Earth is just Heaven's long-forgotten SeaLab. Perhaps Heaven is just like Earth, and our Earth was created to emulate it, but at the bottom of the ocean, the very bottom, and all of our myths of heaven are just fond nostalgia for the wonders of our real homes. Or, maybe, the universe is just as scientists describe it: ever-expanding (into what?) and about to implode. There are an uncountable number of planets, stars, moons, etc (all, by the laws of physics in a vacuum, spherical), and many of them must, statistically contain life. The Earth must be round: have you ever had a drop of water in a vacuum, or seen it on videos from astronauts? It forms globs, and spheres. Or perhaps this universe is Virtual Reality of sorts (a la "The Matrix"), and we are all hooked up, somewhere, waiting for our destruction by some foreign enemy long forgotten in real life. Maybe we are just figments of "God"'s imagination. A little story to keep Him occupied in his infinite drifting.

The point I am trying to make is: I know nothing, all of my beliefs are merely assumptions based on more assumptions. But such is the beauty of life: we know nothing, we search for answers, but in the end, it all gets torn down.

Maybe it's just a cruel trick He plays on us? Maybe He enjoys watching us grasp for the answers ans He just pulls them back again?

Assuming history is written by the winners, God is an evil dictator, Satan is an exiled leader of a failed rebellion, and the Torah, Talmud, Bible, Koran, etc, etc, are just forms of Propaganda God puts out for us, and the willing masses eat it up as the fast-track to all of the answers to the Universe so they don't have to spend a lifetime searching.

Or do we already have the answers? And we just can't put 5 and 2 together (you theologians may note 5+2=7 ). Or we had the answer but just forgot.

Again, it isn't possible for me, or anyone really, to be sure of ANYTHING. Everything is built on assumptions: Religion, science, math, language, day-to-day life (I mean, do I really look like I think? Or is is just the same kind of optical illusion that makes most people think the world is a sphere?), EVERYTHING.

Anyway, that was my Random Rambling...

[otseng]

If there will be an award for the best Random Rambling, I'll nominate this one.

[Zarathustra]

Hehe, thank you. It's nice to be appreciated

[bernee51]

Everyone seems to think they know everything about the universe. Personally, I know nothing about anything; I am open to ideas, though.

I can relate to what you say to some extent. There are at least three important aspects affecting the way the world is perceived - all of which are affected by 'assumption' - constructivism, contextualism and pluralism.

Constructivism holds that the world we peceive is not simply given to us, it is, in part , constructed by us. Many things that are oft seen as universal givens are realy socially and historically constructed thus vary fron culture to culture. Christianity (in all its varieties) is an excellent example of this.

That meaning is context-related is what is meant by contextualism. Take the phases "bark of a dog' and "bark of a tree' as an example. The word 'bark' means something entirely different in each case. So we have a situation where interpretation is a fundamental part of the way we see the world. We do not merely perceive the world, we interpret it. Again christianity with its many interpretations is a prime example.

As meaning and interpretation are dependent on context, and there is always multiple contexts we should not priveledge one context over another in our quest to understand the world. A pluralistic view is an imperative. Something many of the religious would seem to have a problem with.

We assume the reality of context, we assume the reality of construct - it is a pity that more people do not want to assume a pluralistic reality.

cheers

b

[Zarathustra]

I see what you are saying, Bernee, especially about pluralism.

However, I'd just like to make a few comments about contextualism:
Contextualism starts one level higher (so to speak) than the basic assumptions. We must first assume that things exist ("dogs" "trees" "bark") in order to assign our tags to them. I'm sure you are familiar with empiricism. I am only a litle familiar with it. I had to write a paper on it a few years ago. But, if I remember correctly, a main point of empiricism (at least Locke's interpretation [ ] of it) is that things just are and that, in our quest for understanding, we assign our tags to them to provide frames of reference and help us get our bearings. So, in order to assign our tags to them, we must first assume that they exist, at least in some form (be it a physical object or an abstract idea).

[bernee51]

So, in order to assign our tags to them, we must first assume that they exist, at least in some form (be it a physical object or an abstract idea).

I see from your context what you mean.

My understanding of empiricism is that it is the view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge. So I suppose in order to apply a label to a particular entity or idea they must first be noted through the senses.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, bernee I believe you are correct about empiricism. But John Locke (and probably a few others?) said, in not quite so few words, that to obtain the purest knowledge from our experiences we have to reduce all of the fractions; remove all of the tags, preconceptions, and connotations.

I get the feeling that we are agreeing here, but I just felt the need to clarify that.

[bernee51]

Yes, bernee I believe you are correct about empiricism. But John Locke (and probably a few others?) said, in not quite so few words, that to obtain the purest knowledge from our experiences we have to reduce all of the fractions; remove all of the tags, preconceptions, and connotations.

I get the feeling that we are agreeing here, but I just felt the need to clarify that.

One of these days I hope to jot down my thoughts on these and other matters - i think I'll call it "The Bottom Line" - because that is where I believe we are and have to realise we are in order to make true meaning out of this life and this universe.

Reducing all the fractions, removing all the tags etc is not necessary. All that is necesary is understanding that they are just 'tags', as is Zarathustra, as is Bernee51.

All that exists in our awareness. I am aware of clouds, yet I am not clouds. I am aware of my thoughts, yet I am not my thoughts. I am aware of the pain in my leg where the muscle overstretched, yet I am not that pain. I am aware of Bernee51 typing this, yet I am not Bernee51. All of these are objects in my awareness, but they are not I

Who am I

Whovever that is is going to be off the air for 4 weeks from Saturday - heading to the banks of the Ganga for an intensive yoga teacher training course.

I am not sure how my godlessness is going to fare with all the devotional chanting and puja, the ritual daily devotion involving offering of food and drink and prayers to a deity.

[Zarathustra]

It's all fun and games until you burst into flames.

[Zarathustra]

Just as a sequel to this thread (sorta, I just didn't want to start another thread ):

Have you ever meditated and got so deep that your consciousness recedes and you aren't aware of anything? All avenues of perception are cut off? Your thoughts slow down and that damned jukebox in your head finally shuts off? That is who you are. That is the core of your sentience. Alone in that darkness how can you be anything but you?

Have you ever been walking and suddenly you're still walking, but you aren't there? Well, you're there, but you are watching yourself. You still have your normal perceptions, but you've separated yourself somehow. That is one level up from your self you have added perceptions from reality.

Do I believe that this "self" is your soul? Maybe not. Do I believe that this "self" is anything supernatural? Maybe not. Do I believe that it is separate from the rest of your and/or somehow better? Maybe not. Do I believe that it is a spark of divinity within each of us? Maybe not. Do I believe that it is the core of what we call "existence"? Yes. If we can listen to our "self" we can be at peace with ourselves.

Do I know where I was going with this? Maybe not. Am I glad that I got there? Yes.

How does our consciousness work? I don't know, but that doesn't mean I can't guess-
Ingredients:
Self
Mind
Body
Stimuli

Procedure:
Our Self is one level lower, yet one level higher than our Mind (you'll see), which is in complete control of our Body, which reacts to/with stimuli.
Our Body encounters some Stimuli. Perhaps it encounters some pavement. Body is walking. Body tells Mind it has hit some pavement on its left-bottom receptors. Mind tells body to keep walking. Body gets to its destination. Body tells Mind it "sees" the destination. Mind directs Body in (perhaps with asking Self if it truly is the destination).

Conclusions:
Self doesn't have a lot of interaction here. Mind is going a mile a minute and still has time to deal with Body. Self gets tired of watching the movie and wants to play the game. Self asks Mind to let it in. Self uses Mind to ponder (more concentratedly), perhaps, the essence of existence or whether or not to eat those burritos. Otherwise Mind deals with everyday stuff. When it comes to something it can't handle or isn't sure how to handle something, it asks Self for input. Otherwise Self is just along for the ride, troubleshooting along the way, and intervening when it can.
Of course Mind and Self are just products of electrical charges inside Body. So there is really no clear-cut hierarchy.


Wow, existence is interesting/exciting/complicated, isn't it?