Legion Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 The title of this thread is phrasing borrowed from Ernest Becker. When I first began to write this OP, my purpose in doing so was obscure to me. I was trying to clarify my own thoughts. I never did that to my full satisfaction. However I was able to express some of the things I'm thinking about today. My hope here is that those of you who read this (perhaps lazy OP), may see the connections between these thoughts better than I do and tell me what you see. So I'm just going to present a few of the most salient points, and not even try to weave the thing into a coherent whole. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Buddhists (over there, those people, they) have an idea or an observation which is called impermanence. Basically the idea is that everything is conditional, arises and vanishes. Upon accepting this idea I think many struggle with what are at root existential or nihilistic thoughts or both. Existentialism is different things to different people, but I suppose at its core is the idea that individuals are responsible for finding meaning in life. Nihilism is roughly the idea that life has no objective meaning, purpose, or value. Individuals may languish in the absence of perceived purpose. They may question their own identity and become depressed. To me and broadly speaking, meaning is how and why things are related. This is commensurate with the Buddhist idea of dependent co-arising. I think the cosmos, taken as a whole, is infused with meaning, but it has no purpose. I think organisms have no external purpose, but they have internalized purposes. I think of purposes as being associated with final causes. And I think here of the relations between organisms, final causes, causal loops (natural paradox), and closure to efficient causation. I think of existential heroism as finding purpose in the maw of experience. Becker thought that becoming aware of what we each are doing to derive our sense of heroism was the primary problem of self-analysis. He also thought that we each have a "vital lie" which served to give our lives meaning. According to him, an "immortality project" was the way we transcended our own lives as individuals to live on forever. I am thinking here of individuals and society. If much of the above holds for individual identity, how much more so for social or cultural identity? I'm thinking here of the latching stability of self-fulfilling prophecies. A person may succeed (however they may define success) because they predict that they will succeed. ----------------------------------------- Alright, so those are some of the thoughts which are arising in my mind recently. What do you see? What did you think of while reading them? Is there a theme which I fail to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 Alright I get what you're suggesting. You're extending that immortality project, that 'death denial' of Becker to the species as a whole on a collective human psyche. This is where our archetypal images come into play, in that an envisioning of these symbols of immortality, the through a belief in these our existential anxieties are quelled, or released, and we evolve as society through these collective symbols in a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted April 8, 2012 Author Share Posted April 8, 2012 Alright I get what you're suggesting. Whew! Thanks A-man. I'm not sure what these thoughts are suggesting. You're extending that immortality project, that 'death denial' of Becker to the species as a whole on a collective human psyche. Yes, perhaps so. I believe though that I was thinking less of the species as a whole, than I was of various societies. And it seems to me an integral aspect of cultural identity. This is where our archetypal images come into play, in that an envisioning of these symbols of immortality, the through a belief in these our existential anxieties are quelled, or released, and we evolve as society through these collective symbols in a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Hmm. Yes, perhaps so! Something about a collective self-fulfilling prophecy. A shared immortality project. Right? I don't believe there's a right and wrong here. I'm just failing to see how these ideas are connected in my own mind. Any input I receive from others here is valued, just as I have valued your input here A-man. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Life is something that is at first neutral as you become new in the world but as time goes on, it is how others react to you and how you react to others that makes your life something. Something. I will not assert a positive or negative quality to living life as every life is not same as another but has something in common that it is conscious. It's for that reason that I don't think nihilism or optimism is a natural one-fit-all thought. It's why I am personally optimistic but I'm not either pessimistic or optimistic about the world. I believe that the world is a neutral place and that there is no outward hell or heaven, they are only in the individual or the group's mind. The only time heaven or hell comes to you or the group is when the other person or your (or the other) group decide to treat you accordingly. In that sense, life is constructive because you can choose to fight or leave it when the group or the individual decides to give you a piece of hell. When you leave hell, you try to construct your own heaven on earth. In that sense, I don't think the thought of the vital lie fits properly. It would be helpful to rename it the vital spark or vital fury or vital ember. The only time I can see the vital lie is if somebody like a dictator use it to inflict it on millions of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shion Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Ok, I haven't read Becker's book. Wikipedia's article was somewhat lacking in detail. So I will move on from that point. Buddhism seeks to transcend the mind from 'suffering.' Death really doesn't 'cause' suffering, but the feeling of loss on the part of the living that does, or even the fear of it as an individual or as a group. And suffering could be caused by all types of things in life that make death look like a picnic. So what is suffering? Biologically it is a pain response to our environment, developed to keep our mass of replicating cells out of danger. On an emotional scale, pain is a teaching tool. So here comes in the massive systems of duality: pain not good, pleasure good. But much like the sheep in "Animal Farm" our cultural systems have taught us some rather degrading habits in response to this and the only ones that profit are the organizations themselves. Out of our western culture the disillusionment at the end of the 19th century with Christianity caused very diverse philosophies to emerge, some championing human strength and grace, and others saying all 'life is grey and when it isn't grey it is brown.' Any one of these philosophies or spiritual practices can be imprinted on a mind, as the 'cultural viewpoint,' but since we are all the same species (same hardware) these philosophies and religions boil down to relatively the same things (archetypes and hero stories). Either be good to the group and the group will be good to you or screw the group and conquer the world on your own terms. Even the screw the world crowd has created a counter archetype system of their own (the rebel, the antihero, the vampire). As for immortality, it is a loosing battle as far as science knows. The pyramids will one day be dust, our sun will one day die, our world taken with the sun, and even galaxies can collide or collapse. Nothing is known. But I am not going to say from this, from a social standpoint that everything is permitted or that finding immortality will somehow rid humanity of its contradictions and fears. [i might have totally missed the point legion, but this is what I thought}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev R Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 The Buddhists (over there, those people, they) have an idea or an observation which is called impermanence. Basically the idea is that everything is conditional, arises and vanishes. Upon accepting this idea I think many struggle with what are at root existential or nihilistic thoughts or both. Understand that it is not the simple acceptance of a single idea. Impermanence is but one of three marks of existence. The other two being- lack of a permanent/ intrinsic self-nature and angst/dissatisfaction/suffering. Resorting to the extreme of nihilistic thinking is an ever present issue, but one we strive to overcome through mental discipline and maintaining focus on the only mark of existence we can do anything about: dukkha. Individuals may languish in the absence of perceived purpose. They may question their own identity and become depressed. This statement is exemplary of dukkha itself. To me and broadly speaking, meaning is how and why things are related. This is commensurate with the Buddhist idea of dependent co-arising. I think the cosmos, taken as a whole, is infused with meaning, but it has no purpose. I think organisms have no external purpose, but they have internalized purposes. I think of purposes as being associated with final causes. And I think here of the relations between organisms, final causes, causal loops (natural paradox), and closure to efficient causation. I find attempting to find meaning in meaning to be amusing. I think of existential heroism as finding purpose in the maw of experience. More heroic still, he who doesn't need purpose. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 Okay... Onyx, Shion, Rev I believe these are an interesting set of thoughts here. Onyx, I agree with many of the things you said. I particularly resonate with your assertion that life is constructive. I think this is the near essence of organism. And I like your rename of vital spark, vital fury, vital ember. Shion, I also enjoyed the thoughts you shared. I agree that it is far too simplistic to label pain as bad and pleasure as good, because, as you seem to highlight, these are merely sign posts in our adaptive journey through life. I think you're probably correct when you assert that actual (not metaphorical) immortality is impossible. However I do believe that humanity has a decent shot at understanding senescence much more thoroughly than we do now. And we may use this understanding to greatly extend the duration of our lives. I'm thinking like hundreds if not thousands of years. Rev, I will have to look into dukkha further. But again I encounter a deep disagreement with you. I believe organisms, by virtue of being alive, have an intrinisic (and paradoxical, self-determining) nature which distinguishes us from those things which do not manifest life. It seems the Buddhists will never value explicit understanding of nature as I do. I value it because I have compassion for those generations which will follow us. Unlike implicit understanding, these may be transmitted with fidelity and rigor, so that others may use these understandings to their own benefit, and improve upon them. I was somewhat surprised that none spoke of the latching stability of self-fulfilling prophecy. I think this is a key concept to the continually renewed existence of life. Thank you guys. It's much to chew on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shion Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I was somewhat surprised that none spoke of the latching stability of self-fulfilling prophecy. I think this is a key concept to the continually renewed existence of life. We are born into a world where we can observe the death of all living things in their own ways and in their own time. I don't believe knowing about the 100% death forecast can be equated to the self fulfilling prophecy. We don't have to conceptualize this to be true. Bacteria that have no consciousness come in and out of existence without having a concept of what that is. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon and a rather necessary one. If people didn't die, we would have no need to create more people. No new people, the ideas stagnant after awhile. I think of death as a good thing, although I am not looking for the day I will switch off, I can accept it as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts