• macrosoft
    511
    My experience with people is actually that there's a really wide, really varied range of opinions about the same stuff, a range that doesn't at all resemble the consensus of communities like rateyourmusic users, or SteveHoffman regulars, or gearslutz regulars, etc., and each of those communities has very different consensuses, too.Terrapin Station

    Maybe I should lighten my thesis to this. I think individuals find some music more important than other music, and that they can grasp the idea of the continuum in this way.
  • Terrapin Station
    4.4k
    Maybe I should lighten my thesis to this. I think individuals find some music more important than other music, and that they can grasp the idea of the continuum in this way.macrosoft

    I'm taking it that you aren't thinking of "more important" as "they like it/value it a lot more," but something else?
  • macrosoft
    511
    I'm taking it that you aren't thinking of "more important" as "they like it/value it a lot more," but something else?Terrapin Station

    No, that's it. They like some stuff more than others, sometimes a lot more. Ask yourself which artists/musicians/philosophers you would most regret never having discovered. I'm just saying something simple. We understand that 'great' applies to what most deeply moves us.
  • Michael Ossipoff
    1.5k


    ”The best I can come up with is, as you suggest, it is a small thing in the "big picture" -- a side effect that will be made up for in other ways. But, I claim no certainty here.”--Dfopolis

    .
    “I said it, but that answer didn’t entirely satisfy me.”
    .
    Can major injury, misery and horror, followed by early death be “made up for”? “— Michael Ossipoff

    .
    If you believe in some form of eternal bliss.
    .
    Eventually things are timelessly better, and I agree on that. But I’m just saying that, at the time when the horrors are happening, that’s still pretty bad, isn’t it? And it likely seems like a long time. I’m saying that Benevolence wouldn’t and didn’t make there be that.
    .
    The Gnostics agree. They answered the “argument from evil” a long time ago.
    .
    ”But would it even mean anything to say that what’s happening to those people is somehow later (if there’s reincarnation) “outweighed” or “cancelled-out”? How does that change anything when it’s happening to them? When it’s there, it’s there, and that isn’t a good thing. “— Michael Ossipoff
    .
    I have never understood how reincarnation makes sense. How can one be the same person/being
    .
    You won’t be the same person in every regard, but you will still be you, because there’s continuity of experience, as I answer about directly below. Among the infinity of hypothetical experience-stories, there’s one whose protagonist and his experience are the same as you and your experience at that time.
    .
    , when there is no physical or intentional continuity between the old and the new self?
    .
    But there is intentional continuity. There’s continuity of experience. And there isn’t a new self. Among the infinity of hypothetical experience-stories, there’s one whose protagonist and his experience are the same as you and your experience at that time. Though you’re unconscious at that time, you still have subconscious perceptions of need, want, inclination, predisposition, future-orientation and Will-to-Life. …like someone who is in (some part of) a life.
    .
    Of course the hypothetical version of you who actually dies, who just continues into increasingly deep sleep—That person, for one, is the protagonist of one of the infinity of stories. But is that your story? The one that matches your subconscious feeling?
    .
    No--Though you’re unconscious at that time, you still have subconscious future-orientation, perceived wants, needs, inclinations, predispositions and Will-to-Life. …like someone who is in (some part of) a life.
    .
    Among those infinitely-many life-experience-stories that match you and your experience at that time, there’s also one in which you aren’t dying, but are instead at the beginning of a life. That hypothetical life-experience-story is the one that matches your subconscious feelings, perceived wants and needs, inclinations, predispositions, future-oriented-ness, and Will-to-Life.
    .
    At that time, you aren’t ready for or inclined to the quiet and peaceful rest at the end of lives. You’re still inclined to the striving and experiences of life.
    .
    There’s no difference, at that time, between you and that protagonist of that hypothetical story, and there’s no difference between your experience and his.
    .
    But you’re physical and that protagonist is hypothetical? Are you sure about that distinction?
    .
    Even right now, during this life, in waking-consciousness, it’s all real in its own context, but you can’t claim any proof that it has some kind of absolute, noncontextual, context-independent reality. And so it doesn’t provably have any kind of reality that a hypothetical experience-story doesn’t have.
    .
    Such a hypothetical story has the requirement of consistency. That requirement is satisfied if the continuation of your experience is consistent with your current experience, including your subconscious feelings.
    .
    If that sounds like something made up, or unsupportedly believed-in, I’ll just say that reincarnation is a natural and expected consequence of my Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics.
    .
    But I emphasize that it isn’t part of my metaphysics, and that my metaphysics doesn’t depend on it. I can’t prove that there’s reincarnation. I only say that there is because it’s consistent with and suggested by my metaphysics.
    .
    If there’s a reason why you’re in a life, and if, at the end of this life, that reason remains, then what does that suggest? It suggests that you’ll again be in a life.
    I should add that the Gnostics, too, say that there’s reincarnation, until such time as we sufficiently perfect our lifestyle.
    .
    The reason why you’re in a life?:
    .
    There’s an infinity of abstract implications. Abstract “If….then….”
    .
    …and infinitely many complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about propositions about hypothetical things.
    .
    That’s uncontroversial. I’m not making any claim about their reality or existence, but those abstract implications are related by inter-reference. …the logical and mathematical relational-structure that Michael Faraday referred to in 1844.
    .
    So, among that infinity of abstract logical systems, one of those, with suitable renaming of its things, has a description that is the same as a description of the experience of someone who is just like you—someone who is you. ,,,duplicating, indistinguishable from, the supposed, alleged, absolutely-existent person that you are, and the supposed, alleged, absolutely-existent physical world in which you live.
    .
    I claim that, among the things of the describable realm, there’s no such thing as absolute-existence. In that realm, it’s meaningless to speak of existence or real-ness other than in and with respect to a specified context. Your hypothetical life-experience story, and the physical world that is its setting, of course can be said to be real and existent in their own context.
    .
    That, too, is uncontroversial. That person/story-protagonist, and that person’s “Will-to-Life” is a necessary complementary part of that hypothetical life-experience-story.
    .
    So, that’s why you’re in a life, and that’s why it’s reasonable to suggest that you’ll again be in a life if, at the end of this life, there remain the subconscious feelings of want, need, inclination, predisposition and Will-to-Life.
    .
    You’re different from how you were at the beginning of this life, due to your experiences, and subconscious habits different from before.
    .
    Because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts, consistency is the requirement of your experience-story. So, the physical world that is the setting of that life-experience story will of course be one that is consistent with the person that you are. For example, it will be one whose inhabitants include the kind of people who would beget someone like you.
    .
    (I’ve been capitalizing “Will-to-Life”, because it’s a borrowed term that people have been quoting from the metaphysics of a classic philosopher.)
    .
    What does make moral sense to me is the idea that death is not the end
    .
    There’s no such thing as an experience of a time when there’s no experience.
    .
    At the end-of-lives (or at the end of this life, if there weren’t reincarnation) of course there’s sleep, increasingly deep sleep, timeless because eventually there’s no knowledge that there is, ever was, or ever could be, such things as time or events.
    .
    Death is the end of (only) this life. (Or, if there weren’t reincarnation, death would be the end of worldly life for you)--though, rather than being something new, it will be no different from the familiar and usual nightly sleep. Either way, life is a temporary blip in timelessness, as I’ve been saying. A temporary anomaly, from sleep that’s the natural, normal and usual state-of-affairs, and which eventually becomes timeless.
    .
    , so that this life is the birth pain of a new stage of existence.
    .
    That’s a good way of saying it. The experience of the full, free of lack and incompleteness, restful and easy end-of-lives, happens only because there was a life in the first place. Likewise for what’s good during one’s life or lives.
    .
    …except that that new stage of existence is the genuine, natural, normal and usual nature of our existence and state-of-affairs. At the end-of-lives, it’s the experience of approach to the natural and normal Nothing, and arrival to nearly Nothing, when there’s no knowledge that there was supposedly something.
    .
    There’s the natural question: Did this whole thing have to happen in the first place? Only because there’s the hypothetical experience of being someone with Will-to-Life, and the “if…then” that goes with that. …and away the story goes…
    .
    …and the life (or sequence of them) ends with a forgetting about the needs, wants and inclinations that were the basis of it.
    So, why would Benevolence send us on that anomalistic, illusory, sometimes quite horrible, life-experience that we eventually no longer perceive need for, and don’t miss at all when it’s over? I say that Benevolence didn’t make there be that.
    .
    What I mean is that each kind of being has its own good
    .
    But there’s temporary unnecessary experience of suffering. Temporary? Yeah, but most likely, at the time, it seems quite long. …and that’s an imperfection that wouldn’t be made to be, by an omnipotent and benevolent God. Reality is benevolent, but I question the omnipotence notion that would blame everything on God.
    .
    You once spoke of God having the power to do anything logically possible. Exactly. But, (if I may repeat it) just as there logically can’t be a true-and-false proposition, so there logically couldn’t not be the abstract facts that comprise our hypothetical life-experience-stories.
    .
    , and we need to bear that in mind if we are thinking objectively. As a matter of belief, supported by probable reason, I think that the good are rewarded and the evil punished, not by divine fiat, but by the ontological structure of reality.
    .
    Of course. Quite so.
    .
    What do I mean by that? In a context in which love means willing the good of the beloved, morally good acts are loving acts, and morally evil acts are unloving acts.
    .
    Harmful acts are more and worse than just unloving.
    .
    As God necessarily wills the good of His creatures, God is identically love.
    .
    Certainly. Aquinas said it too.
    .
    Those who live a life of love, necessarily have an intentionality that will lead them to a life of bliss (a life intentionally linked to God).
    .
    Yes, to the extent that we, at least to a degree within our ability, reflect and at least partially act the Benevolence.
    .
    When, eventually, we’re life-completed and life-style-perfected (which includes how we treat our fellow living-things), the conflicts, needs, wants, predispositions that were the basis of our birth won’t be there.
    .
    Those who live an unloving life will also find what they have chosen: a life of eternal alienation and frustration of their natural end. These final states trivialize any suffering that has come before.
    .
    Correct.
    .
    …except that “unloving” is an understatement for the worst people. But yes, people get what they are, and people are what they do.
    .
    ”It isn’t about anthropocentricity, because the same misfortunes happen to the other animals too.” — Michael Ossipoff
    .
    I take the unpopular view that the reactions of creatures without intellect and will are fully explained by their mechanics and they are aware of nothing. In saying this, I am not saying that humans are the only creatures with intellect and will, even on this planet.
    .
    I don’t think there’s a sharp demarcation like that. Most nonhuman animals, especially the ones that don’t harm, embody the best that is in all of us.
    .
    Spiders? I suggest that, in natural-selection and evolution, the inclination to prey on one’s fellow living-things preceded the detailed evolution of body-forms specialized for that purpose.
    .
    But, not only among the animals, not only among the biological organisms, but also among all of the purposefully-responsive-devices (…from future robots that can fully duplicate human capabilities, to such things as mousetraps, refrigerator lightswitches, thermostats, and electric pencil-sharpeners) – where exactly would you draw the “consciousness” line?
    .
    I suggest that the elusive “consciousness-line” is a matter of chauvinism. It’s more meaningful, definable and philosophically-supportable, to speak of us as purposefully-responsive devices.
    .
    Logical relations have no actual existence apart from the minds that think them. Independently of such minds, they are only possible, not actual. So, they have no being of their own to persist.
    .
    I emphasize that I don’t claim any existence for them. As I said:
    .
    I’m talking about inevitable timeless logical relations and inter-reference among timeless abstract facts about propositions about hypothetical things.
    .
    I’m not claiming “existence” or “reality” for those abstract facts or their propositions or hypothetical things.
    .
    I’m not claiming existence for anything in the realm of contingent, interdependent, dependently-originated, things interdependently related by logic and facts.
    .
    ”So, within this physical universe, there are a number of laws that require the continuations that you referred to.” — Michael Ossipoff
    .
    Yes, there are. I address this exact question in my paper. These laws are not self-conserving. For example, the law of conservation of mass-energy conserves mass-energy, not itself. So there has to be a meta-law conserving it. To avoid an infinite regress of meta-meta-meta-...laws, we must come to a self-conserving law, God.
    .
    But I’m not claiming existence or reality for the logically interdependent things. The physical laws, and the things that they describe, are figments of logic, and, as such, need no explanation.
    .
    God, Benevolence, is why things are good overall. …and as good as they can be under the circumstances of the (apparent) worldly lives that there inevitably are.
    .
    Which is better, to commission the breeding of a dog, so that you can treat it well, or to rescue a dog from the animal-shelter, and treat it well?
    .
    I suggest that God didn’t create us, didn’t and doesn’t make there be the inevitable apparent worldly-lives, but, rather, made there be overall good, with the apparent worldly lives as good as possible under their inevitable circumstances.
    .
    ”Those relations and inter-reference in those logical systems are inevitable in the same way as it’s an inevitable tautology that there’s no true-and-false proposition. — Michael Ossipoff
    .
    The fact that we use observed data to decide questions shows that this is not the case.
    .
    We use observed data to determine “physical” facts within the logical/mathematical relational structure of our experience-stories.
    .
    That doesn’t mean that the whole experience-story is other than a hypothetical story, consisting of the relational-structure among a hypothetical complex system of inter-referring abstract-implications about propositions about hypothetical things.
    .
    Michael Ossioff
  • Valentinus
    71

    This conversation between you and Terrapin Station interests me, in that I had to learn how to listen to some music while others felt like I had been expecting it without knowing that I did. I have become leery of a lot of comparisons because my primary goal is the experience without qualification. A desire for immersion.
    So, many of the things I value most highly are avoided most of the time because I am not ready for them. I need a grammar lesson for some things but I cut it off if interferes with my exposure to it.
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.