Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

Good point, my canine comrade.... (...that is Laika, isn't it?)

I am self-conscious about getting too murky here. Kind of ironic, since I wouldn't care so much if I took some of my own advice. :roll:

My question: Is it the lack of "ultimate importance" that depresses us, or is it the implicit knowledge that we are free to make of the world what we will? To take Oscar Wilde out of context, "Everyone is born a king; most people die in exile." I often think we simply grow to distrust/dislike ourselves too much to accept our own divinity. Or maybe we're just too lazy to do all the hard work involved in both A) reaching that level of realization, and B) holding up our end of the bargain after we do. In any case, I wonder how much "existential angst" can be chalked up to a sort of spiritual denial. One form of this denial would be to say "it isn't/I'm not important," when, in fact, everything is important, just because it is.

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

(BTW, I wish we could have the previous message in sight as we Reply to these posts...)

Okay: Regarding your above POV, Ventriloquist, it occurs to me (simply) that this view is probably ever attained/realized by only a scant few individuals in human history. After a while, this makes everything, or most things we can see about the conditions of manifest existence, generally be felt to suck. So I suppose we may begin to wonder at that point (and even the Realizers may wonder) if we're all just a few delusion-inclined "adepts" amidst otherwise illusioned people, all swimming in...Suck.

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

I don't know, I don’t think so highly of us humans to believe there is anything divine in us, but that's just me. I think that our problem is that we are animals who think too much and consciousness is a joke; we wouldn't be in such a deep pile of #### if we were just horny animals who didn't have such high egos as to feel we are somehow justified.

Not to say that I dislike myself, because I don't, but I cannot help it but think of myself (and all of us) as a hairless monkey with an overevolved brain. It often amazes me why storytellers such as Isaac Asimov would go as far as write stories about extremely advanced cybernetic life forms dying to be human, as if there was anything greater than life in that. I think Hans Moravec has pointed that one out as well.

I used to be a Transhumanist some five years ago, but left it. I no longer trusted science and technology to be ultimate saviors of humanity; it was like exchanging one god for another, different belief, same dependence. (Perhaps just a bit more practical) I still frequent my Transhumanist friends, though, and some of them are REALLY serious about uploading their personality in some quantum computer and becoming cosmic entities above all human notions of morality... for real.

Perhaps that's an ultimate end? I think it just falls into personal choice. Like one of those Transhumanist acquaintances of mine once said “we are currently in the less interesting and mediocre state of life… right now, we are nothing”.

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

Overevolved according to whom? Isn't that yet another thought for those who think too much? And what is the nature of "mistake"? Are there really any, or are they too part of something we ourselves, divine or not, would have no other way than perfectly imperfect?

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

Well, again, I think it's all a matter of perspective. My point of view is that existence itself is divine, in that all possible forms of experience (including, of course, those beyond human conception) are drawn from the same wellspring of consciousness.

I like this quote, from the Sufi Ibn Arabi: "The existence of all created things is His existence. Thou dost not see, in this world or the next, anything beside God."

The spectator and the spectacle are the same. And the spark of consciousness (whether or not we choose to call it "God") is never not there.

Also, I don't think it's our egos that make us feel "justified." If anything, then I'd say it's the opposite: the notion that the world can be divided into things of greater and lesser value, and the ensuing notion that the existence of "lesser" things needs to be rationalized, seems to arise from the doubting nature of the human ego and intellect. (Although, if we play the rationalization game long enough, then we can get smug and start patting ourselves on the backs for no real reason.) All the other horny animals justify their existence, as it were, by eating and rutting and doing what they do. They (and we) are justified because they (we) are here.

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

That's one of the many ironies (and for added drama, “mysteries”) of being human, I guess. We just cannot stop thinking about these things, let them be "what am I gonna wear today" or "I think therefore I am?" We are animals, we are born in an animal way, and I say overevolved based on what I have observed in other animal and insect forms; mind you, I do think there are other high intelligences in the animal kingdom (Dolphins come to mind) and they probably have their own problems to worry about, but I often wonder at how detached many other life forms are in comparison to us and cannot help but think how simple life was for the primitive, half assed pre-men. Sure, maybe the world was even more dangerous and horrific than today, but perhaps they were not as sophisticated as us (over evolved) to have existential angst about it.

I'm afraid I don't understand the second question you made.

Judging by the way you think, Ventriloquist, you'll probably enjoy the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin; he coined the term "Omega Point", latter on taken by the physicist Frank Typler as a basis for his acid-trip "The Physics of Immortality". Check him out (Chardin, and Typler too if you want a really weird read). He believed that all life was heading towards an infinite point of divinity, ahead in the far future, called "Omega". He also coined the term Noosphere to describe the "sphere of thought" that surrounds the planet's outer cortex, based on some previous ideas put forth by an Ukrainian-Russian chemist, Vladimir Vernadsky.

His books are really difficult to find (at least here) so you’ll probably have luck finding them in a used books store.




Frank Tyler's trippy take on the Omega Point

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

On a related note, I'd like to throw something out there: What if, by means of sensory deprivation, all manner of mind-altering substances, and extreme meditation, that one could make one's physical form wholly subjective - ie. mediated by self-perception-cum-conception - then convince oneself that one does not exist?

*pop*

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

A Brief History of Everything (1996), by Ken Wilber, explains noosphere and every other sphere, and was a good read for me. He's probably one of the better minds going on this stuff today.

I was asking above, Are there really any mistakes? If so, don't we want them here? -- i.e., would we really want things any other way? Failure, sin, darkness, pain, etc. If you sit down and let yourself imagine exactly how you would want things in your life...and really go for it, be honest, let everything flow into the next desire, trying to make all things fit...don't you actually come to the very point where you're at, that you would want to be just how you are now? Maybe not, it's been a while since I did that exercise, but when I did the answer was clear that I'd have it no other way than this.

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

Karnos: Thanks for the tips (no pun intended)... de Chardin rings a bell, but Tipler and Vernadsky also seem to be worth investigating.

TSO: I've had experiences approaching what you describe. :wink: In fact, I'm positive that "I" don't exist; everything I associate with "myself" (physical form, memories, personality traits, etc.) is basically a façade that the cosmic consciousness has decided to assume.

To get even trippier, I once held a dialogue of sorts between my "ego" and "true" selves, during which it was made clear that everything I experience truly is the "decision" of an active, higher intelligence. After a while, I felt the vestments of my ego descending upon me again, and I knew it was the choice of my true self to "return to the world," since there was "still a lot for me to do as you." Even when I'm not aware of it, even when I fall into despair and do things that I consider to be mistakes (and no, I don't think there really are any,) there is a higher will fulfilling itself through me. These revelations and others were given to me, in effect, to improve my performance on the human stage. It is likely that I'll receive "further instructions" at appropriate times. :D

Re: A Malignant Universe?
 

My mom used to tell me that if I desired something too much then it would eventually happen... then again, I want so much to get laid with Scarlett Johanson, so fat chance there :D All jokes aside, I suppose it depends on the person's will; however this does not take in consideration that, well, #### happens. Maybe I want to be the world's leading swimming pool champ, but I have a terrible accident and end up quadriplegic... I guess we can afford as much as our capabilities and our environment allow us to.

I think it was William Burroughs the one who did a similar experiment using nothing but a large wall mirror while staring at it all day long, but I really don't know much about it, I just read it somewhere in the Net.

There is a very interesting experiment, though. Repeat your name while looking at the mirror for as long as you can stand it. By the end of the experience, both your name and your image will come to mean nothing to you; you'll perceive your name as a random configuration of sounds and yourself as a random configuration of atoms and flesh no more different than a meat bag. It's very bizarre, actually. I did that experiment once while listening (over and over) to Paul Mauriat´s "L'Amour Est Bleu" (one of the most horrid pieces of elevator music ever) and the end result was... remarkable, to say the least.