Am I A Materialist?

[Deva]

Hm, that would be interesting. There's probably something like that available locally if I look around.

 

 

 

Probably, if you are near any major city. But they are usually not offered too frequently.

... But I will die. Yet I will live on into the future, in the sense of thing things I leave behind, in what I've contributed to the arts, to science, to the happiness of other human beings. To me, that gives my life meaning, the hope that I can contribute to the human race in some way that will help us along in the future. I can't really tell you why, other that that it's a feeling I keep coming back to.

 

We have very different perspectives. I don't see anything permanent or lasting, except consciousness.

 

We, the human race, will live on even after my particular individual life ends. It's like a relay race. Even though I know I'll never see the finish line, I will still carry a baton part of the way and I will know, when I am gone, that baton will keep going. I take the fact that I care as a basic fact of my existence and figure out how I want to live using that as an assumption.

 

I don't personally find that view satisfactory. If you do, perhaps I should not comment any further.

[DesertBob]

I like to say that I don't need drugs because my brain makes its own (and I don't like loosing control; alcohol is very upsetting because I can't will myself sober; when my own brain makes the drugs, it's faster to swap modes). In retrospect again, some of that started when my hormones went nuts and I had a few hypomanic episodes. In healthier settings, I can't do math/science without hitting altered states of consciousness. Quantum was one of the best classes for that, since the math was rather involved. I have excellent 3D visualization skills, and can even plot simple functions (3d surfaces, usually) in my head. Doing so makes my mouth water; I can taste the math. When I'm very stressed and can't access the trippy pictures side of my head, I can't do science either. It's like my logic brain is too small to hold onto the entire concept at once, so I use the "art" side of my brain to store the big picture while logic brain goes around and tweaks the details. The vast majority of my mystical experiences came while doing homework.

I am encountering more and more people who describe their inner world like this, and it's making me suspect that alternate modes of consciousness accessed by means other then meditation are more common than one might think. You also mention elements of synesthesia, and I've heard other synesthetes say that they either didn't think to say anything about it to others because they assumed everyone had synesthesia; or, if they understood they were unusual, they were afraid they'd be ridiculed for being different. So it seems like people would not necessarily talk about such things in proportion to how often they occur.

 

I don't know whether or not I should envy you. My mental and emotional state is pretty much the same no matter what I do. I can kinda-sorta be in "flow" or "the zone" with aspects of my work but that's about it.

[badpuppy]

That's OK, but the way you describe the reason that what you do with your consciousness matters, doesn't quite make sense to me in view of the fact that you think you will in the near future no longer exist at all in any form. If your life matters only now, it seems rather useless in my opinion. Without any personal continuity, how exactly will it matter? This is rather hard for me to grasp, admittedly.

 

You're not alone here! I know people say we create our own meaning but it's pretty pointless if we're all just going to die anyway. You can't even say what you do has meaning for future generations (whatever that means, because most likely it won't. Most people don't take much time to remember those that came before them)... eventually those people will die and you'll be forgotten (and really, who cares if I'm remembered if I don't keep existing. That's completely a bum deal.). Eventually the whole human race will die out. Eventually this planet will die out. So it really is all POINTLESS without continued consciousness. I find that, plus the fact that I like to exist, quite negative and depressing. I don't believe in some form of continuation of consciousness simply because I "like the idea". I feel like it has support, but I'd had to have strong proof of the alternative to ever consent to following such a negative and depressing (from my perspective) worldview.

 

If something isn't logical to me, and/or it isn't mentally healthy to me (won't lead to my happiness), I won't accept it unless there is some really strong proof. I'm not going to be a reality denier but until something is empirically provable, it's just an opinion.

[DesertBob]

OK. I will backup a bit. What upsets me so much is DesertBob's dogmatic idea that Buddhism IS such and such a way. It CAN be interpreted that way, but the way it was stated implies that it is the only legit way. That, my friends, is bullshit.

 

Here is the quote in question:

 

 

..the way Buddhism was originally conveyed to people in a somewhat quasi-religious way, with terminology like "enlightenment" and "way" and "great truths" was because mankind during that era really had no other way to approach it or vocabulary with which to discuss it.

 

Buddhism, stripped of all its ancillary mumbo-jumbo, is really a proto-psychology and not a religion.

Deva,

 

I meant no direspect and I certainly understand that most people who self-identify as Buddhist consider it their religion, not their philosophy. Anything I say is my own imperfect take on it, nothing more. Similarly I'm sure you realize that I'm not the only person in the world who finds parts of Buddhist thinking helpful while not necessarily embracing the whole. I certainly have met plenty of others who would self identify as both agnostic and/or atheist, and yet, admire and study Buddhist ideas. This need not disturb you, though of course if it does, I'm genuinely sorry that it does.

 

Ultimately the only authority on Buddhism for you, is you. I have no desire to edit your reality or anyone else's and I'm sure you have no desire to edit or censor mine. I simply share it for what it's worth. If it's worth zilch to you, I'm not offended.

[DesertBob]

I know people say we create our own meaning but it's pretty pointless if we're all just going to die anyway. You can't even say what you do has meaning for future generations (whatever that means, because most likely it won't. Most people don't take much time to remember those that came before them)... eventually those people will die and you'll be forgotten (and really, who cares if I'm remembered if I don't keep existing. That's completely a bum deal.). Eventually the whole human race will die out. Eventually this planet will die out. So it really is all POINTLESS without continued consciousness. I find that, plus the fact that I like to exist, quite negative and depressing. I don't believe in some form of continuation of consciousness simply because I "like the idea". I feel like it has support, but I'd had to have strong proof of the alternative to ever consent to following such a negative and depressing (from my perspective) worldview.

I understand your point of view, because I once shared it. I've come to the place in life where what used to comfort me does not, and I've made peace with the alternatives, that's all. Like all worldviews, it has aspects I don't much care for myself, but also much to commend it, once you get past your initial resistance (which, I found, was mostly a blow to my pride -- letting go of a philosophy that I'm in any way special or of particular significance or deserving of anything in whatever passes for the Great Scheme of Things). In particular, for me at least, the idea that the organization of thought processes known as "me" is finite, does two things: the idea and what flows from it is much, much less likely to run counter to my actual experience and observation and thus needs much less explaining and rationalizing; and secondly, it frees me from the burden of existence. I am convinced that I no more want to exist forever than I want to watch a 12 hour long movie, no matter how well made it might be. At some point I want the denouement, or else the need to sleep or pee or move about is far more compelling.

 

Much the same as I accept that your point of view is not somehow weird or distorted and I do not judge you for it, I trust the same is true for you. Thanks to some people in this world, folks like Dawkins and other "big A" atheists, for example, people like me get a bit of a bum rap and it seems to be assumed that just because I have come to this point of view I somehow consider everyone who hasn't to be a complete idiot. 'Tain't so. You and I must do what we must to get through life and if believing in some form of eternal life is possible for you and works for you, then I'm genuinely pleased that this is so. I'm not under the illusion that if everyone believed as I do that the world would be a better place. In fact I can actually see ways in which it quite possibly would not be -- particularly for people who are lucky, strong, or constitutionally optimistic. I do not consider such to be living in ignorance, just in a reality I can no longer inhabit.

[Deva]

Ultimately the only authority on Buddhism for you, is you. I have no desire to edit your reality or anyone else's and I'm sure you have no desire to edit or censor mine. I simply share it for what it's worth. If it's worth zilch to you, I'm not offended.

 

It isn't really just "my" authority. I have a teacher. However, I will not go into it further.

[Legion]

I have a teacher.

Yeah man. Got's to have a teacher. I've got a teacher too. I call it nature. It's filled with wonders. Blue sky, trees, people, cities even, wilderness and jungle too, oceans, night sky and stars above. Ah, and the people.

[badpuppy]

I know people say we create our own meaning but it's pretty pointless if we're all just going to die anyway. You can't even say what you do has meaning for future generations (whatever that means, because most likely it won't. Most people don't take much time to remember those that came before them)... eventually those people will die and you'll be forgotten (and really, who cares if I'm remembered if I don't keep existing. That's completely a bum deal.). Eventually the whole human race will die out. Eventually this planet will die out. So it really is all POINTLESS without continued consciousness. I find that, plus the fact that I like to exist, quite negative and depressing. I don't believe in some form of continuation of consciousness simply because I "like the idea". I feel like it has support, but I'd had to have strong proof of the alternative to ever consent to following such a negative and depressing (from my perspective) worldview.

I understand your point of view, because I once shared it. I've come to the place in life where what used to comfort me does not, and I've made peace with the alternatives, that's all. Like all worldviews, it has aspects I don't much care for myself, but also much to commend it, once you get past your initial resistance (which, I found, was mostly a blow to my pride -- letting go of a philosophy that I'm in any way special or of particular significance or deserving of anything in whatever passes for the Great Scheme of Things). In particular, for me at least, the idea that the organization of thought processes known as "me" is finite, does two things: the idea and what flows from it is much, much less likely to run counter to my actual experience and observation and thus needs much less explaining and rationalizing; and secondly, it frees me from the burden of existence. I am convinced that I no more want to exist forever than I want to watch a 12 hour long movie, no matter how well made it might be. At some point I want the denouement, or else the need to sleep or pee or move about is far more compelling.

 

Much the same as I accept that your point of view is not somehow weird or distorted and I do not judge you for it, I trust the same is true for you. Thanks to some people in this world, folks like Dawkins and other "big A" atheists, for example, people like me get a bit of a bum rap and it seems to be assumed that just because I have come to this point of view I somehow consider everyone who hasn't to be a complete idiot. 'Tain't so. You and I must do what we must to get through life and if believing in some form of eternal life is possible for you and works for you, then I'm genuinely pleased that this is so. I'm not under the illusion that if everyone believed as I do that the world would be a better place. In fact I can actually see ways in which it quite possibly would not be -- particularly for people who are lucky, strong, or constitutionally optimistic. I do not consider such to be living in ignorance, just in a reality I can no longer inhabit.

 

If nothing exists after death, then that's fine. I mean I couldn't really do anything about it. But I'm not going to dwell on something I consider a life-denying philosophy especially when there is no proof for it and when it doesn't line up with my own sense of how things are. (Not a slam on you, just where I'm coming from personally.)

 

Also, I want to say that I don't think I'm "special or significant". I merely think the universal consciousness splits itself apart to experience itself. It's a waste of energy to keep re-doing the same job. Plus, you can experience in more dynamic ways by recycling the same consciousness into alternate scenarios/lifetimes. And merging back together into one totally undifferentiated thing would be solipsism. I assume we didn't like that when we had it, so why go back? I believe the nature of consciousness is eternal that it's the ground of being and what makes everything run. I also think it's somewhat holographic. I don't think the individual consciousness can 'die" anymore than I think the universal consciousness can. I think theoretically one could merge, but that would be a personal decision. If your consciousness is part of "God", I don't think you could be compelled to reverse your original decision to split apart. I'm pretty much veto'ing that for me.

 

And yes, Dawkins is an asshole. If it's any consolation I don't assume atheists are automatically douche-y. I married one, after all.

 

One interesting thing I've noted... almost every atheist I've ever met who also doesn't believe in an afterlife (since some don't believe in "god" but still believe consciousness can continue)... are either totally cool with their existence ending, or... they want it to for some reason. So it's definitely not just afterlife believers who seem to gravitate toward the reality they want.

 

But seriously... different ways of seeing things make sense to different people and different ways are more or less psychologically beneficial to different people. Everyone holding the same philosophy, while reassuring in a "now we don't have to wonder what the fuck the actual truth is" sort of way... (not that truth is determined by popular vote but if everyone agreed it would be self-evident whatever the truth was I suppose. Like no one argues that we don't breathe air.)... wouldn't make the world a better place.

[Deva]

I have a teacher.

Yeah man. Got's to have a teacher. I've got a teacher too. I call it nature. It's filled with wonders. Blue sky, trees, people, cities even, wilderness and jungle too, oceans, night sky and stars above. Ah, and the people.

 

 

Back it off, Legion.

[DesertBob]

Also, I want to say that I don't think I'm "special or significant".

I just wanted to circle back to this ... this wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular and is certainly not an attempt at rash generalization, but I do feel I was personally guilty of this in my religious days and I think that much about religion encourages it. The Jack Chik, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" shtick is, at its core, all about the idea that god, were he to exist, would give me the time of day much less give a fig about me and concoct a custom plan for me and attend to my requests for things like financial ease or success or favor with others or help with my trivial day to day anxieties, etc. Of course it's also true that much about religion focuses on less self-absorbed things but I no longer give religion a free pass in this regard.

 

But seriously... different ways of seeing things make sense to different people and different ways are more or less psychologically beneficial to different people. Everyone holding the same philosophy, while reassuring in a "now we don't have to wonder what the fuck the actual truth is" sort of way... (not that truth is determined by popular vote but if everyone agreed it would be self-evident whatever the truth was I suppose. Like no one argues that we don't breathe air.)... wouldn't make the world a better place.

I think the world would be a less ... colorful place if we knew WTF was going on but I could live with that. I think it's actually scandalous that we fight with one arm tied behind our backs like that -- presuming we should be obliged to fight at all. You're right, though, we are so used to swimming uphill through Jell-O all the time that we probably wouldn't know what to do with ourselves if life Just Worked and Made Sense. But wouldn't it be a trip to figure out how to cope with a rational existence! Somehow I think we'd manage.

[Deva]

Despite your pleas that you do not attempt "rash generalizations" DesertBob, I have seen far too much of it in your posts of late to be convinced...

[badpuppy]

Also, I want to say that I don't think I'm "special or significant".

I just wanted to circle back to this ... this wasn't directed at you or anyone in particular and is certainly not an attempt at rash generalization, but I do feel I was personally guilty of this in my religious days and I think that much about religion encourages it. The Jack Chik, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" shtick is, at its core, all about the idea that god, were he to exist, would give me the time of day much less give a fig about me and concoct a custom plan for me and attend to my requests for things like financial ease or success or favor with others or help with my trivial day to day anxieties, etc. Of course it's also true that much about religion focuses on less self-absorbed things but I no longer give religion a free pass in this regard.

 

But seriously... different ways of seeing things make sense to different people and different ways are more or less psychologically beneficial to different people. Everyone holding the same philosophy, while reassuring in a "now we don't have to wonder what the fuck the actual truth is" sort of way... (not that truth is determined by popular vote but if everyone agreed it would be self-evident whatever the truth was I suppose. Like no one argues that we don't breathe air.)... wouldn't make the world a better place.

I think the world would be a less ... colorful place if we knew WTF was going on but I could live with that. I think it's actually scandalous that we fight with one arm tied behind our backs like that -- presuming we should be obliged to fight at all. You're right, though, we are so used to swimming uphill through Jell-O all the time that we probably wouldn't know what to do with ourselves if life Just Worked and Made Sense. But wouldn't it be a trip to figure out how to cope with a rational existence! Somehow I think we'd manage.

 

Hey Bob,

 

Oh I didn't think you were directing it at me! I just wanted to clarify my position because I think a general assumption is that a lot of people believe in an afterlife because they just think they are 'so special' lol. (I don't think just human consciousness continues. THAT would be thinking I was "so special" haha.) I think reality is VAST and has plenty of room for every consciousness to evolve according to its needs.

 

re: "God has a plan for your life", I think that's a developmental thing. Like I'd never ask a small child to go get a job, an apartment, and live without their parents. That poor kid would burst into tears. I don't think I'm "better than a five year old", just in a different place. So I think some people "need" a skydaddy. I wish humanity, in general, would evolve past that, at least as a "one true truth", because it's causing a lot of damage/harm/suffering to people, but I can understand where the need comes from. It's just beginning to become far too self-indulgent for the world we live in.

 

The way I see it, if the Universal Consciousness had some big plan for everybody and everything, it would be like playing the Sims. I know I don't want to play the Sims for eternity. Blech. There are only so many times you can lock your Sim in a box and let it pee on everything before the amusement factor is gone. (The fact that I would do that even once probably doesn't say great things about me, haha. Even if The Sims aren't conscious beings.)

[DesertBob]

There are only so many times you can lock your Sim in a box and let it pee on everything] before the amusement factor is gone. (The fact that I would do that even once probably doesn't say great things about me, haha. Even if The Sims aren't conscious beings.)

You can DO that?!

[VacuumFlux]

We, the human race, will live on even after my particular individual life ends. It's like a relay race. Even though I know I'll never see the finish line, I will still carry a baton part of the way and I will know, when I am gone, that baton will keep going. I take the fact that I care as a basic fact of my existence and figure out how I want to live using that as an assumption.

 

I don't personally find that view satisfactory. If you do, perhaps I should not comment any further.

 

Not entirely satisfactory, but if that's the best reality has to offer, then it's better than nothing. I'm not sure at the moment whether that's my final answer, or if I'm still bitter about christianity lying to me about how everything will all be perfect after I die and am unwilling to entertain any other hope that could let me down. It'll probably be a while before I figure that out.

[badpuppy]

There are only so many times you can lock your Sim in a box and let it pee on everything] before the amusement factor is gone. (The fact that I would do that even once probably doesn't say great things about me, haha. Even if The Sims aren't conscious beings.)

You can DO that?!

 

YES! If you lock it in a box with no doors or bathroom it can't get out. Then you make it drink a lot of water. It's so wrong, but my husband and I are sick sick people hahaha.

[DesertBob]

Not entirely satisfactory, but if that's the best reality has to offer, then it's better than nothing. I'm not sure at the moment whether that's my final answer, or if I'm still bitter about christianity lying to me about how everything will all be perfect after I die and am unwilling to entertain any other hope that could let me down. It'll probably be a while before I figure that out.

I feel I'm well past the bitterness regarding Christianity, and no longer really think of myself in the present moment as an "ex-Christian" anymore than I think of myself as an "ex-child" or "ex-student" or "ex-Arizonian" but what I AM still left with is the observation that there is something suspicious about this afterlife business. Applying Occam's Razor to why it's such a popular belief, it's just what you would expect if:

 

1) Suffering is a fact of life

2) People don't like to suffer

3) People can't resolve all their suffering in this life

4) They have to do something with unresolved suffering

 

Ergo, we have a tremendous need to defer all our disappointments and losses that can't find resolution now, to the future. And the less future you have (the older you get) and/or the bigger and more ridiculous your losses, the more unlikely resolution in this life is, so you have to create another one beyond that where all the loose ends finally get tied up.

 

The most fundamental aspect of human suffering is processing and coping with the fact of your own mortality. Even if you escape other forms of brokenness, you still must accept that you have been dying since you were born. This is an intolerable state of affairs until you either acquiesce to it or buy into the existence of an invisible escape hatch.

 

In addition who says anything needs to be tidy and resolved just because we want it to be? Someone, I forget who, said that every life is interrupted before it's done. It's just the way it is.

 

Lastly, and for me this is the biggie -- who says an afterlife would be idealized and perfect even if it exists? I've said it before and I'll say it again -- most probably an afterlife would just be more of the same, that is, life, with its complete lack of owner's manual, miscellaneous vagaries and buggeries, emotions both positive and negative, concerns both solvable and not. The afterlife most people wish for is nothing more nor less than what every young person imagines is before them in THIS life -- some subjective feeling of happiness and contentment and safety that, it turns out, is entirely illusory -- the the point that we can't really even articulate and itemize how it would even work. We just imagine better days are just around the corner -- and that's, to me, what afterlife concepts generally are -- it's just around the final corner but otherwise no different.

 

It is not true that accepting this leads to abject hopelessness, either. I call it the Great Simplification. It takes a lot of stress out of life for me to let go of the idea that life either is or will be something other than it is. It makes everyday annoyances and pain par for the course rather than yet another obstacle in the way of some illusory goal. It reduces disappointment 98.3% or so.

 

Maybe that is why I don't find afterlife concepts helpful. I'm an idealist at heart. I don't need another idealized concept held out for me to aspire to. I've gotten myself into too much trouble with them too often as it is. To an idealist, nothing ever measures up. You get tired of that. I would rather be surprised by an afterlife, even if it's a big improvement over what I have now, than look forward to it. I've looked forward to way too much and seen way too little of what I've anticipated.

[badpuppy]

Not entirely satisfactory, but if that's the best reality has to offer, then it's better than nothing. I'm not sure at the moment whether that's my final answer, or if I'm still bitter about christianity lying to me about how everything will all be perfect after I die and am unwilling to entertain any other hope that could let me down. It'll probably be a while before I figure that out.

I feel I'm well past the bitterness regarding Christianity, and no longer really think of myself in the present moment as an "ex-Christian" anymore than I think of myself as an "ex-child" or "ex-student" or "ex-Arizonian" but what I AM still left with is the observation that there is something suspicious about this afterlife business. Applying Occam's Razor to why it's such a popular belief, it's just what you would expect if:

 

1) Suffering is a fact of life

2) People don't like to suffer

3) People can't resolve all their suffering in this life

4) They have to do something with unresolved suffering

 

Ergo, we have a tremendous need to defer all our disappointments and losses that can't find resolution now, to the future. And the less future you have (the older you get) and/or the bigger and more ridiculous your losses, the more unlikely resolution in this life is, so you have to create another one beyond that where all the loose ends finally get tied up.

 

The most fundamental aspect of human suffering is processing and coping with the fact of your own mortality. Even if you escape other forms of brokenness, you still must accept that you have been dying since you were born. This is an intolerable state of affairs until you either acquiesce to it or buy into the existence of an invisible escape hatch.

 

In addition who says anything needs to be tidy and resolved just because we want it to be? Someone, I forget who, said that every life is interrupted before it's done. It's just the way it is.

 

Lastly, and for me this is the biggie -- who says an afterlife would be idealized and perfect even if it exists? I've said it before and I'll say it again -- most probably an afterlife would just be more of the same, that is, life, with its complete lack of owner's manual, miscellaneous vagaries and buggeries, emotions both positive and negative, concerns both solvable and not. The afterlife most people wish for is nothing more nor less than what every young person imagines is before them in THIS life -- some subjective feeling of happiness and contentment and safety that, it turns out, is entirely illusory -- the the point that we can't really even articulate and itemize how it would even work. We just imagine better days are just around the corner -- and that's, to me, what afterlife concepts generally are -- it's just around the final corner but otherwise no different.

 

It is not true that accepting this leads to abject hopelessness, either. I call it the Great Simplification. It takes a lot of stress out of life for me to let go of the idea that life either is or will be something other than it is. It makes everyday annoyances and pain par for the course rather than yet another obstacle in the way of some illusory goal. It reduces disappointment 98.3% or so.

 

Maybe that is why I don't find afterlife concepts helpful. I'm an idealist at heart. I don't need another idealized concept held out for me to aspire to. I've gotten myself into too much trouble with them too often as it is. To an idealist, nothing ever measures up. You get tired of that. I would rather be surprised by an afterlife, even if it's a big improvement over what I have now, than look forward to it. I've looked forward to way too much and seen way too little of what I've anticipated.

 

Sorry, this is long. I'm very rambly.

 

I think of myself as an ex-child all the time. /silly off

 

I don't think of myself in terms of "ex-christian" either. (I know you were addressing VF but I just wanted to concur here.) At this point I'm working to re-integrate and take the bits of things I actually found beneficial in some way from Christianity... just like I'm doing with other paths. There are fewer of them in Christianity "for me", but it seems that's a reflection of the type of it I was exposed to. I definitely don't find reliance on a "father god" and seeing myself as "tainted by sin" and in need of a "savior outside myself" to be beneficial for where I'm at, anymore than I think the average 6 year old needs to still be wearing Huggies. (Though I recognize that that's just going to sound wrong, like I think Christianity is infantile. But infantile is when you behave younger than you are or get stuck in a stage of development you're actually beyond. If you are truly still AT that stage of development then it's not infantile, nor is it something to be ashamed of. That's why I think Christianity works for some but not for others.)

 

I've thought for awhile that Christianity was a form of the pagan mystery cults with a Jewish flavor. (Jewish history is filled with syncretic practices from pagan neighbors.) What has come to be Christianity as we know it now, IMO is the "outer mysteries" of that system. The inner mysteries might be something more along the lines of Jesus being a symbolic archetype that represents "you" and "me". i.e. it isn't another person out there who was part of god who came down here to "save us" by "sacrificing himself to himself to save everybody", but rather maybe it would be more along the lines of... we ARE the Jesus character... a piece of God that split off for an experience and accepted suffering was a part of that experience. The whole cross issue would merely be an unfortunate result of not everybody getting that message properly, not necessarily part of some grander plan some deity "insisted upon".

 

Though, even though I can look at that in a different, more metaphorical way, and can look at the Adam and Eve story as a sort of initiation into knowledge, the Christian path itself, because it DIDN'T become the inner mysteries, and in fact didn't even preserve them... isn't beneficial to me. So it seems it's really more for those who are at a different place. My only beef with it is the extremely fundamentalist views and how many people in that path wish to control the rest of us according to their literalistic intrepretations of that path. Not cool with me.

 

re: your feelings on afterlife. I can understand and accept your POV. I think of it in terms of... something isn't wishful thinking just because it's good. I also can't think of another situation where there seems to be an almost universal need that doesn't have an actual fulfillment. i.e. there may be starving children in ethiopia, but food EXISTS. I think orgasms seem like wishful thinking, but there they are. I think the difference with an afterlife is that it isn't something we can KNOW experientially until we die.

 

To me, existing and then "not existing" is pure nihilism. I find that so depressing and pointless. Like I can't derive some meaning from life and creating my own purpose would seem like it's own silly brand of wishful thinking. However, if that really is the reality and we all must create our own purpose, then I'd rather have a more hopeful/positive view of things because if there is no afterlife then it all IS rather pointless, so it doesn't matter WHAT I believe or do so long as it enhances my life and doesn't harm others. One issue that irritates me is how many (though definitely nothing close to all) materialistic atheists think somehow all spirituality is this awful mental disease and it MUST be eradicated. But they just got finished saying you make your own purpose in life. So, then am I to assume that that is only valid if I agree with their views on everything? Even if I harm no one and enhance my own life... I am not "allowed" to find a spiritual purpose because... "some atheists said so"? If we all make our own purpose, then acting like one isn't allowed a spiritual purpose seems quite illogical and assholish. (Again, I know you aren't one of those people.)

 

I realize a lot of materialists out there think intellectually being "right" is like the highest moral imperative. But I seriously disagree. We never will perceive reality as it "objectively is" because we're limited by our own senses and our own perception. Trying to figure out the whole of reality exactly as it is from a limited human perspective, IMO is foolishness.

 

I obviously can't prove this, but it's my opinion that reality is sort of like those stackable russian dolls. I think the reality gets bigger and more expanded the higher you go. I think fear and a lot of the negative stuff we are surrounded by is more fueled by ignorance. And I think spiritual evolution is a messy process played against a "physical backdrop", which is itself messy. There will be badness. But I don't believe it's badness all the way up.

 

If you live in a poor third world country and shit in a hole near where you sleep and go days without eating anything and all the other attendant suffering in such a place, it would be impossible for you to conceptualize or accept the idea of being Bill Gates (or even that such a person could exist). That doesn't mean such a reality doesn't exist, period. I pretty much see Earth itself as the third world of reality. Is this wishful thinking? Perhaps? But good things aren't necessarily imaginary just because we like them. If that were so there would be no rainbows, puppies, or chocolate ice cream, or sex.

 

One reason that I don't think it boils down to wishful thinking, though is... not only do certain meditative states and higher-level lucid dreams seriously expand awareness and make one question more limited views, but near death experiences in themselves are very suggestive of something beyond. I've studied the phenomenon too far (mostly studies done by cardiologists) to think the "dying brain hypothosis" explains much of anything. That explanation is almost always put forth by someone who hasnt' really researched the phenomenon. Presumably because it's "so silly" it doesn't warrant serious consideration.

 

Additionally, I'm actually very close to someone (who isn't spiritual) who had a NDE. It was one that included out of body awareness with specific observations that were recounted and confirmed as accurate (not things that could have been guessed). This is just an "anecdote" to you, as well it should be. It's an anecdote to me because it happened 28 years ago and I wasn't there. But considering how trustwrothy and nonflighty I find the source of the information it's slightly more than an anecdote to me. He remains agnostic on what exactly happens after you die, but he's personally experienced non-local consciousness in a way that can't be put down to mere hallucination. Whether or not that means his personal consciousness will survive physical death is up for debate, but he knows directly and experientially that the mind is not the brain and consciousness isn't "local".

 

That experience can be had in a different way through altered states of consciousness. But to me... there is just too much out there that doesn't fit the idea of pure materialism and "nothingness" after death. While one can say an afterlife is "wishful thinking", after being exposed to enough weirdness, one could also say wholesale denial of an afterlife is mere pessimism or it's own brand of wishful thinking for those who merely don't want one for whatever reason. After all there are optimistic people who always believe their life will get better (and not always, but often it does... I've witnessed the turnaround an optimistic attitude can bring in a person's life), and there are people who believe their life will never get better (who are also often right.)

 

I believe there is some power in what you think, so given the choice between optimism and pessimism, I believe optimism is overall more productive, including when it comes to afterlife ideas.

 

It may be true that it doesn't make "you" hopeless to not believe in an afterlife. But there are millions of people who simply "couldn't go on" if they thought there was nothing better after this. One might consider that "weak", but looking at the crappy lots many have in life, I think we should re-evaluate that. Materialist atheism seems to be much more popular in areas of the world where we have a certain level of comfort. It's perhaps easier to accept "this is it" for those for whom "it" isn't just a nightmare of pain and suffering without any bright spots or hope at all.

 

re: disappointment... I believe that going through life with a generally pessimistic attitude doesn't reduce disappointment. It reduces opportunity. You can't see the opportunities around you in life if you don't believe there are any. With regards to an afterlife... there is no disappointment. If there is no afterlife you can't be disappointed. Disappointment requires the ability to experience and feel.

 

I know this sounds like Pascal's Wager (And though it may seem like it, I'm not asking you to accept/believe ANYTHING. Your way obviously works for you. I'm merely sharing the flip side)... but when presented by Christians they actually aren't giving you a good deal because they are asking you to be enslaved to their constricting ideology and ruin the life you have here and now. A custom-made spirituality is hardly a constricting or upsetting way to go about life IMO. I know that doesn't fly for those who see only that which they can measure in a test tube as real... but I don't think it's logical to believe we ever interact with the world as it really is. We already know that we don't. Which of us perceives the real world as it is? Humans or dolphins? Or is it something beyond what either species can fully comprehend and see? It's a big universe out there, filled with possibility.

 

At least that's how I see it. I think fundamentally that it's a healthy way to see it. Doesn't make it the "only" healthy way to see it, but reducing such a worldview to wishful thinking isn't necessarily accurate because it presupposes that you "know what reality is". I think none of us knows anything. We're adorably naive. It's part of our puppy-like charm.

 

However, I like your: "I'd rather be surprised by an afterlife". That's fair enough. I would think that would definitely be an experience worth having... that happy surprise. And I wouldn't want to take that experience from you by insisting you "conform to my view" in the here and now.

[DesertBob]

,,,infantile is when you behave younger than you are or get stuck in a stage of development you're actually beyond. If you are truly still AT that stage of development then it's not infantile, nor is it something to be ashamed of. That's why I think Christianity works for some but not for others.)

Exactly. This is where I'm coming from ... occasionally people take my statements as dismissive or derisive when they are neither. I may not believe in an afterlife or a god and I may not accept the authority of someone's religion or of their guru, but that doesn't mean I judge any of it or them.

 

re: your feelings on afterlife. I can understand and accept your POV. I think of it in terms of... something isn't wishful thinking just because it's good.

Excellent point. Although, of course, most of the time in life, if something is too good to be true, it probably isn't true -- yet, sometimes things ARE better than they appear, and this could be one of those times.

 

I also can't think of another situation where there seems to be an almost universal need that doesn't have an actual fulfillment. ... I think the difference with an afterlife is that it isn't something we can KNOW experientially until we die.

Aye, there's the rub. No one has an independently verifiable report from the afterlife. It's kind of like how no independent journalist can verify what's happening in Syria. Usually when evidence is not provided, it's because there's no evidence TO provide.

 

I realize a lot of materialists out there think intellectually being "right" is like the highest moral imperative. But I seriously disagree. We never will perceive reality as it "objectively is" because we're limited by our own senses and our own perception. Trying to figure out the whole of reality exactly as it is from a limited human perspective, IMO is foolishness.

Agreed.

 

I obviously can't prove this, but it's my opinion that reality is sort of like those stackable russian dolls. I think the reality gets bigger and more expanded the higher you go. I think fear and a lot of the negative stuff we are surrounded by is more fueled by ignorance. And I think spiritual evolution is a messy process played against a "physical backdrop", which is itself messy. There will be badness. But I don't believe it's badness all the way up.

If the universe is arranged in such an orderly fashion that guarantees the misery of people down in the bowels of your metaphorical stackable doll, that seems perverse. Of course, many belief systems get around this by discounting the importance of quality of life from a certain, cosmic perspective, but this is cold comfort to someone whose quality of life sucks. Another reason I don't find an afterlife appealing is that I don't even want to meet whoever or whatever came up with such a thing and then plunked me down in the middle of it. Even if it's just an impersonal evolutionary or emergent phenomenon.

 

One reason that I don't think it boils down to wishful thinking, though is... not only do certain meditative states and higher-level lucid dreams seriously expand awareness and make one question more limited views, but near death experiences in themselves are very suggestive of something beyond. I've studied the phenomenon too far (mostly studies done by cardiologists) to think the "dying brain hypothosis" explains much of anything. That explanation is almost always put forth by someone who hasnt' really researched the phenomenon. Presumably because it's "so silly" it doesn't warrant serious consideration.

I agree, the "dying brain hypothosis" doesn't cut it in at least a significant subset of true NDEs, at least not base on credible-seeming anecdotal evidence. On the other hand I'm waiting to see some of the long-term studies to bear some more objective evidence -- and if the hypothesis is correct, those should bear fruit in the foreseeable future.

 

Additionally, I'm actually very close to someone (who isn't spiritual) who had a NDE.

Yeah, and I'm very close to someone who experienced something paranormal that I can't explain, which at minimum makes nonlocal consciousness much more likely to my mind than it was. And nonlocal consciousness makes continuity of consciousness past death more likely. The jury is still out for me, and my guess is that it's going to be difficult to tease out enough detailed information to much change my default perspective. But I am willing to admit there are intriguing possibilities to be seen. It's odd that they never seem to be visible anywhere but the corner of one's eye, though.

 

I believe there is some power in what you think, so given the choice between optimism and pessimism, I believe optimism is overall more productive, including when it comes to afterlife ideas.

I think it was Henry Ford that said, "If you believe you can or believe you can't, you are correct". This is true within a certain range. But ultimately one's level of opti/pessi-mism only influences how (un)expected an outcome is, not what is actually true. There is either an afterlife or there isn't. If there is, we'll both shake hands on the other side, and if there's not, we won't. This will be true despite you being an optimist about it or me being a pessimist about it.

 

Of course I do understand that a pessimist may not see and explore possibilities, but equally, an optimist may see and explore possibilities that are illusory. Both can get into trouble or limitations with this.

 

Materialist atheism seems to be much more popular in areas of the world where we have a certain level of comfort. It's perhaps easier to accept "this is it" for those for whom "it" isn't just a nightmare of pain and suffering without any bright spots or hope at all.

Intuitively it seems so, but I wonder if it's got more to do with poverty and lack of education and everything that flows from that, than from how rosy reality is per se. Life is replete with examples of people who have been crushed by trivial problems and people who have overcome horrific experiences, and these examples seem to come from all cultures and belief systems. Impoverished minds are the problem in my view, not impoverished circumstances. In addition, how much of misery has to do with belief systems that perpetuate pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by over what we can accomplish here and now?

[badpuppy]

Regarding misery... I have a slightly different perspective on the issue. I don’t believe there is a god “out there” who is all-powerful and purposefully creates this situation. I think... and maybe this is my own metaphor, but my creation myth runs more along this line: An infinite but lonely being with unlimited potential who wants to experience and feel connection with something else. Human beings often “reach toward god” to have this experience. I’m not so sure that the Universal Consciousness wasn’t doing the same in the opposite direction.

 

I believe the Universal Consciousness split off in such a way that all consciousness is both interconnected and has it’s own separate sense of “being-ness”. I don’t believe the whole of consciousness can directly interact with me and fix my life anymore than I think I can interact and communicate with an individual cell in my body.

 

I think it comes down to free will... but not in the Christian perspective. Free will IMO isn’t some “arbitrary” thing that is ‘given’. it’s merely the nature of a certain level of consciousness. At some point you observe you can choose option A or option B and you are no longer just a robot moving along some continuum.

 

I believe the universal Mind has free will because there is no other will or thing that can act upon it, so it must be free. I think the little bits of consciousness... individual conscious beings on this planet... are a kind of microcosm of the macrocosm. Free will is our nature, too. But I think a certain level of awakening has to happen to acknowledge this free will. (And of course that doesn’t mean human beings don’t have limits just by virtue of being human and being on a world with other beings. We do have limits, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think we make free choices about anything.)

 

I think growth and evolution is messy. It’s messy in a purely materialistic sense, too. I think the problem for a lot of materialists with a spiritual higher reality is... “how could a loving being let this happen?” or “if said being isn’t loving, why would I worship/acknowledge it?”

 

I don’t think the point is to worship it. And I don’t think Mind is perfect or all-powerful. I used to think that if you were a universal consciousness and you wanted to have genuine experiences instead of playing The Sims, you would give those beings free will at the outset. Now I don’t think there was a conscious “giving of free will”. I just think it’s the nature of the beast.

 

Most of the suffering on this planet is through the agency and behaviors of conscious beings. People in Africa don’t have to be starving and dying. The political climate is what is mostly harming these people. Nobody on this planet has to suffer to this degree.

 

I feel like humanity is going through a difficult evolutionary period but at some point more and more people will wake up and a more positive world could be created. I don’t think it would ever be a “perfect world”, the very existence of different minds (with a little m) with different wills/ideas/desires/etc will mean some level of conflict. We also have the food chain, which by definition isn’t puppies and kittens. But it never had to be this bad and it doesn’t have to continue to be.

 

I *do* think that in the grander, larger sense, that whatever happens here seems insignificant, but I think that’s from a broader place. As a human being right now having this human experience I don’t feel that way. Human (and non-human) suffering bothers me immensely. It’s hard for me to look at it. It’s hard for me to hear about it. But it’s the nature of things here, now.

 

This may or may not be a satisfying explanation to you. And that’s okay. I think each person picks what they can deal with and for me I can deal with things being this way but a materialistic reality seems utterly pointless and devoid of hope. By the same token, I can understand why you would hold the opposite view and respect that. What’s most important to me is that we as human beings learn how to stop being so coercive toward others.

 

It’s hard to get to the ecumenical place but I think Buddhism has a lot to say for it in that regard when it comes to compassion and trying to understand where another being is coming from. In this way, tools and ways of being can be applied to the spiritually-minded person (in the sense of: higher-reality/afterlife/etc) as well as to the more materialistic-minded. Because I think the point is getting to that place of understanding and tolerance, however you get there.

 

Re: whether the afterlife is true or not and optimism and pessimism... I’m not 100% sure about that. Like I think that attitudes can definitely affect your afterlife reality... like I think the universe is more like a great thought than a great machine. So, for example... I think Christians may, for a time, at least, end up trapped in their own Christian heaven. Ick. A materialist convinced there is nothing may get just that... for a time at least. Either agnosticism or a very optimistic view seems safest to me, haha! Of course there may be NOTHING. And if there is nothing, no matter what, then that is how it is and thoughts won’t change it. But... given my worldview I can’t pretend I really think that’s logical or likely. So from my perspective it’s wiser to not actively think it’s nothingness lol.

 

But my point is also that optimism is generally a mentally healthier state to be in in life than pessimism. I also don’t think optimism requires fanaticism. To me, materialism and “nothingness” is pessimism. I recognize that it is not a pessimistic state for every materialist. And that’s fine. It would be for me, which is why I don’t embrace it. Well, that and I don’t honestly believe it.

 

re: impoverished minds... at a certain point education and intelligence have little correlation to belief. There are stupid atheists who just say they are atheist to be cool and rebellious. Then there are those who are actually intelligent and educated. Same is true in nearly every system of belief or nonbelief. There is always a more crude/fundamentalist stance and a more enlightened/intellectual stance. The more intelligent/educated a person is, IMO the more open-minded they are... i.e. I accept I could be wrong and very likely in some ways I am. And I could be wrong about an afterlife. However that’s not the working theory I go by. I stick with what makes the most sense to me and respect that others make the same choice, even if their answer is very different from mine. Though it’s hard for me to respect those who think they are de facto right for some reason.

 

Of course they do say you can be so open-minded your brains fall out, but since I don’t believe the mind is the brain, I’m not super worried about that outcome.

[badpuppy]

Oh and regarding pie-in-the-sky as a reason to avoid this life... I definitely consider that unhealthy. Whatever the ultimate nature of reality... if it is materialism this is all we have so we must make the most of it... if it's an afterlife scenario then we came to have this experience for a reason and likewise we should make the most of it. Being spiritual is no excuse not to experience the world we set out to experience. It would seem rather pointless to do that as well.

[NotBlinded]

Yeah, and I'm very close to someone who experienced something paranormal that I can't explain, which at minimum makes nonlocal consciousness much more likely to my mind than it was. And nonlocal consciousness makes continuity of consciousness past death more likely. The jury is still out for me, and my guess is that it's going to be difficult to tease out enough detailed information to much change my default perspective. But I am willing to admit there are intriguing possibilities to be seen. It's odd that they never seem to be visible anywhere but the corner of one's eye, though.

That's true about the corner of one's eye, but have you ever noticed when you try to look directly at a faint star it disappears but if you look away from it a little bit, you can see it better? I have no idea why that is, but I've always thought it strange.

 

Oh, I found something about it:

 

There are two types of light sensitive elements within the eye: cones and rods. The cones are sensitive to color and work best in bright light. The rods are most effective in low light conditions. Light adaptation takes place through chemical changes within the rods. Unlike the cones, which are concentrated in the center of the eye, there are almost no rods at the center point. Since the rods are concentrated off center our night vision is best off center. When you are looking a t a group of dim objects, you will be able to see those on the sides better than those in the middle. This is why “averted vision” is so effective when looking at dim objects in the sky. Averted vision works with binoculars, telescope or the naked eye. The idea of averted vision is to direct your eyes slightly away from the object you wish to observe and to look at it from the “corner” of your eye. It sounds harder than it really is. We naturally tend to direct our eyes and our minds to the same spot, especially when we are trying very hard to see it. Nevertheless, it takes only a bit of practice to develop your averted vision and the rewards are well worth the effort. Direct your eyes a little to the left or right of the object you wish to see and at the same time let your mind see the whole scene, not merely the point in space directly ahead. After a while, averted vision will become almost automatic to you as you scan the sky.

http://www.sky-watch...-your-eyes.html

 

Cool stuff.

[NotBlinded]

Re: whether the afterlife is true or not and optimism and pessimism... I’m not 100% sure about that. Like I think that attitudes can definitely affect your afterlife reality... like I think the universe is more like a great thought than a great machine. So, for example... I think Christians may, for a time, at least, end up trapped in their own Christian heaven. Ick. A materialist convinced there is nothing may get just that... for a time at least. Either agnosticism or a very optimistic view seems safest to me, haha! Of course there may be NOTHING. And if there is nothing, no matter what, then that is how it is and thoughts won’t change it. But... given my worldview I can’t pretend I really think that’s logical or likely. So from my perspective it’s wiser to not actively think it’s nothingness lol.

That's like the movie What Dreams May Come. I love that movie.

[Rev R]

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

 

~Kalamas Sutta translated by Soma Thera

[badpuppy]

Re: whether the afterlife is true or not and optimism and pessimism... I’m not 100% sure about that. Like I think that attitudes can definitely affect your afterlife reality... like I think the universe is more like a great thought than a great machine. So, for example... I think Christians may, for a time, at least, end up trapped in their own Christian heaven. Ick. A materialist convinced there is nothing may get just that... for a time at least. Either agnosticism or a very optimistic view seems safest to me, haha! Of course there may be NOTHING. And if there is nothing, no matter what, then that is how it is and thoughts won’t change it. But... given my worldview I can’t pretend I really think that’s logical or likely. So from my perspective it’s wiser to not actively think it’s nothingness lol.

That's like the movie What Dreams May Come. I love that movie.

 

 

I haven't seen that movie in so long I forget what happens. Though I know the idea existed way before that movie, haha!

[NotBlinded]

Re: whether the afterlife is true or not and optimism and pessimism... I’m not 100% sure about that. Like I think that attitudes can definitely affect your afterlife reality... like I think the universe is more like a great thought than a great machine. So, for example... I think Christians may, for a time, at least, end up trapped in their own Christian heaven. Ick. A materialist convinced there is nothing may get just that... for a time at least. Either agnosticism or a very optimistic view seems safest to me, haha! Of course there may be NOTHING. And if there is nothing, no matter what, then that is how it is and thoughts won’t change it. But... given my worldview I can’t pretend I really think that’s logical or likely. So from my perspective it’s wiser to not actively think it’s nothingness lol.

That's like the movie What Dreams May Come. I love that movie.

 

 

I haven't seen that movie in so long I forget what happens. Though I know the idea existed way before that movie, haha!

Well, yeah!