rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/24/84)
> I have never understood why those who believe they are just going to die, > and that'll be the end, bother living. If all there is is experiencing > various facets of life -- growth, pleasure, relating, whatever -- with nothing > eternal to which these experiences can be added; if all there is is the > physical body; why do you people bother? [SARGENT] I've said it before. I'll say it again. Because Jeff sees no purpose for living if "that's all there is", he *assumes* that there MUST be something external, otherwise HE would see NO purpose in HIS life. I'm not slitting my wrists just because I think that my life will end when my "physical body" dies (I have no reason to think otherwise...). I feel sorry for Jeff if he has such a low opinion of physical life and "the physical body" that he feels the way he does about there having to be something else. -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (09/25/84)
From Rich Rosen (pyuxn!rlr): >> if all there is is the physical body; why do you people bother? [SARGENT] > I've said it before. I'll say it again. Because Jeff sees no purpose for > living if "that's all there is", he *assumes* that there MUST be something > external, otherwise HE would see NO purpose in HIS life. I've said it before, I'll say it again: YOU LIE -- or at least you are passing on a lie which you have been deceived into believing. You've got it backwards. Christians *know* deep inside themselves that "that" isn't all there is. You are the ones who assume that this experience is not valid and that there is no God to whom we are relating who brings meaning, purpose, foundation, strength, healing to our lives. You speak of subjectivity with contempt -- WHY?? What's wrong with it? As C.S. Lewis pointed out (slightly paraphrased), "The statement that there is a God, and the statement that there is no God, are neither of them statements that science can make." I agree that subjectivity has no place in scientific study; but life isn't a dry scientific study; on the contrary, life is very "wet". Doug Dickey points out that the scientific method looks at all reality as objects. Thus, people are also objects; the observer himself is merely an object. You LIKE this world-view? > I'm not slitting my wrists just because I think that my life will end when > my "physical body" dies. Darn! :-) :-) > I feel sorry for Jeff if he > has such a low opinion of physical life and "the physical body" that he > feels the way he does about there having to be something else. You've never seemed to have a high opinion of it; you've written that all the good in us, all the intelligence, the creativity, the wisdom, the intuition, the emotions, are all only biochemistry; and I'm pretty sure you have in the past used "only" or a similar word, indicating low position. However, again you have things backwards. Actually, there didn't HAVE to be any physical universe at all; God just chose to create it, for reasons I certainly don't claim to know. We didn't HAVE to exist, but we do. And we don't HAVE to have a relationship with God, trusting and following Him. If we choose not to trust Him, we will bear the consequences, even in this life ("Do not be deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, he will also reap" -- Galatians 6:1 [I think], approximate quote). -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq No one knows the day or the hour....
rsk@pucc-h (Rich Kulawiec) (09/27/84)
>> Rich Rosen (pyuxn!rlr) > Jeff Sargent (pucc-h!aeq) >> I've said it before. I'll say it again. Because Jeff sees no purpose for >> living if "that's all there is", he *assumes* that there MUST be something >> external, otherwise HE would see NO purpose in HIS life. > I've said it before, I'll say it again: YOU LIE -- or at least you are > passing on a lie which you have been deceived into believing. You've got it > backwards. Christians *know* deep inside themselves that "that" isn't all > there is. You are the ones who assume that this experience is not valid and > that there is no God to whom we are relating who brings meaning, purpose, > foundation, strength, healing to our lives. You speak of subjectivity with > contempt -- WHY?? What's wrong with it? Jeff, aside from the fact that you insulted Rich Rosen for (apparently) no reason, and then rambled off into "subjectivity", I did slog through this far enough to note that you once again completely missed the point. Try re-reading Rich's article again; he points out, quite correctly, that you have made the assumptions you find necessary to find a purpose in life. Period. QED. > Doug Dickey points out that the scientific method looks at all reality as > objects. Thus, people are also objects; the observer himself is merely an > object. You LIKE this world-view? Makes no difference whether one likes it or not; I don't like it very much; however, I see no evidence whatsoever for any other view, and it is the simplest one that explains the available data. Therefore, I suscribe to this view, in a philosophical way. >> I feel sorry for Jeff if he >> has such a low opinion of physical life and "the physical body" that he >> feels the way he does about there having to be something else. > You've never seemed to have a high opinion of it; you've written that all the > good in us, all the intelligence, the creativity, the wisdom, the intuition, > the emotions, are all only biochemistry; and I'm pretty sure you have in the > past used "only" or a similar word, indicating low position. > > However, again you have things backwards. Actually, there didn't HAVE to be > any physical universe at all; God just chose to create it, for reasons I > certainly don't claim to know. We didn't HAVE to exist, but we do. And we > don't HAVE to have a relationship with God, trusting and following Him. If > we choose not to trust Him, we will bear the consequences, even in this life > ("Do not be deceived; God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, he will also > reap" -- Galatians 6:1 [I think], approximate quote). Off into random ramblings again; can't you stick to a subject? Anyway, you certainly don't seem to feel that the HERE and NOW is enough; I think Rich was just pointing that out, as I did in another article...do you deny this? -- ---Rsk UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs } !pur-ee!rsk { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk And in all your pomp and glory, You're a poorer man than me, As you lick the boots of death, Born out of fear.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/28/84)
Another example of netnews reliability around these parts: I just read Rich Kulawiec's reply to Jeff Sargent's response to my article, without ever having seen Jeff's response itself. I thank Rich for pointing out some things about Jeff's article (and his assumptions) in his (Kulawiec's) reply, and I would say that he summed up about all I would have had to say, with only a few exceptions: >> I've said it before. I'll say it again. Because Jeff sees no purpose for >> living if "that's all there is", he *assumes* that there MUST be something >> external, otherwise HE would see NO purpose in HIS life. [ROSEN] > I've said it before, I'll say it again: YOU LIE -- or at least you are > passing on a lie which you have been deceived into believing. You've got it > backwards. Christians *know* deep inside themselves that "that" isn't all > there is. You are the ones who assume that this experience is not valid and > that there is no God to whom we are relating who brings meaning, purpose, > foundation, strength, healing to our lives. You speak of subjectivity with > contempt -- WHY?? What's wrong with it? [SARGENT] Most of the rest of my original article with the above title went into EXTENSIVE detail as to what is wrong with subjectivity!! It's hopelessly unreliable!! Our brain's power stems in part from our incredible patterning capabilities, the ability to identify items based on only a small amount of information within a pattern. While this is an incredible survival in the the "wild", and while this may have been a stepping stone which evolved into higher intelligence functions, in and of itself it is flawed. How many times have you run up to somebody, thinking it was someone else, only to ask yourself later how you could possibly have thought that that was the same person? How many times have you seen examples of the famous psychological illusion: PARIS IN THE THE SPRING (of which the above is a poorly constructed example), which shows how the human brain's patterning abilities cause it to see what it expects to see. The whole notion of "scientific method" and attempts at "objective analysis" is geared toward the incredible potential for flaws in our perceptive abilities!!!!! "Make sure what you're seeing is not the result of YOUR brain's misinterpreting the results!" It seems that for every time I go into detail on this topic (which dozens of others have represented, even on this net, better than I), including the fallacies of hypnotic recall and the notions of interpreting the perceptions of the world based on PREconceptions and expectations, there are ten further articles that ignore everything I and others have said, evading the WHOLE topic of "what is wrong with subjectivity", only to ask again as though they've never read the original material, "WHAT IS WRONG WITH SUBJECTIVITY?"!!!!! > Doug Dickey points out that the scientific method looks at all reality as > objects. Thus, people are also objects; the observer himself is merely an > object. You LIKE this world-view? [SARGENT] In what way are people NOT objects, Jeff? What evidence do you have for believing that people are any less "objects" than rocks and trees? Other than, of course, your desire for human beings to be considered as more than objects? Which brings us back to one of my favorite words: anthropocentrism. The notion that humans are either the center of the universe [as taught by the same church that persecuted those who thought otherwise] or somehow different or better than the mere "objects" around them. What is the basis for thinking this way other than one's wishful thinking and preconception? I'm sorry if there are people who feel that last sentence is some sort of attack (as many of my requests are interpreted to be). IT IS A QUESTION. I hope you (Jeff) and others can provide an answer. You ask whether I "like this world view". As I said in the original article: your liking or not liking the way the world is or desiring or not desiring it to be a certain way is not the basis for how the world is. It is only (apparently) the basis for the way you choose to perceive it. >> I feel sorry for Jeff if he >> has such a low opinion of physical life and "the physical body" that he >> feels the way he does about there having to be something else. [ROSEN] > You've never seemed to have a high opinion of it; you've written that all the > good in us, all the intelligence, the creativity, the wisdom, the intuition, > the emotions, are all only biochemistry; and I'm pretty sure you have in the > past used "only" or a similar word, indicating low position. [SARGENT] I use the word "only" simply because I expect nothing more. It is appropriate in comparison to your world view that claims more than what I describe. But, that fails to address the point made. I claimed that you had a (to me, unjustifiably) low opinion of the physical world/body/life. You simply retorted "Well, so do you." In fact, I don't. I don't consider being "just" or "only" biochemistry to be terrible at all. If your god exists, you are doing it (him) an incredible disservice by saying that there's got to be something more than this. I find the way the universe works, even from the admittedly limited perspective based on our current knowledge, to be incredibly fascinating, no matter whether it was created by a universal architect or by chance and "natural" processes. (What's an "unnatural" process? :-) I find the mechanisms of life to be no less fascinating, and I find living using those mechanisms (which include the "biochemical" base behind our actions, thoughts, and emotions) to be even more so. Why do you expect more from your deity than what it has created here (if indeed there is one and it did so)??? (Of course, I could go on and ask "Why do you expect for there to be a deity at all?", but I think I've already asked that...) > However, again you have things backwards. Actually, there didn't HAVE to be > any physical universe at all; God just chose to create it, for reasons I > certainly don't claim to know. We didn't HAVE to exist, but we do. And we > don't HAVE to have a relationship with God, trusting and following Him. No, there didn't have to be a universe as we know it at all. But there is one. It's here all around us. So? Why does that imply to you that there must be a deity who created it. Backwards, Jeff? Why isn't it backwards to assume god first and build your belief system around that? Why not ask first why you feel there must be a god, objectively (provided you understand the need to eliminate subjectivity), and then formulate a set of beliefs? Since my only source of material from Jeff to respond to was that which Rich Kulawiec included in his followup article, I apologize if I have taken things out of context. It appeared from the flow that Rich included all or most of Jeff's response article, so I would think that this would be unlikely. I hope that qantel!ken and hutch@shark get to read this, since it addresses many of the points that they have brought up with me in private communication. And I hope Jeff gets to read and act on this as well. -- Show people a flaw in their logic, and they'll punch you in the face. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (10/03/84)
Well, I never though I'd be rushing to Rich Rosen's defense.
If Jeff Sargent and others like him can see no point to life if
there is no promise of anything other than our present physical
existence, perhaps they ought to reconsider their ethics.
Righteousness is its own reward. We should not be bribed into it by
the promise of eternal (spiritual) life. Seeing no purpose to life if
it is temporary is equivalent to asking "What's in it for me?".
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!daviddk@browngr.UUCP (David Kantrowitz) (10/03/84)
To Rich Rosen: There's nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws of Subjectivity, but that does not make Rationality any better! It has its own flaws, possibly much worse ones.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/09/84)
> To Rich Rosen: > There's nothing wrong with pointing out the flaws of Subjectivity, but > that does not make Rationality any better! It has its own flaws, possibly > much worse ones. [browngr!dk] I'd be very interested in hearing some of these flaws. But given that this sounds so much like an Arndtian smear, I doubt that we'll hear any, at least not from this person. Rationality is not a way of life. It is a means for making choices and decisions about living one's life in the best possible way. It can also be used to formulate the best minimal rules to govern a society without interfering in individual lives. The key word here is "minimal". Many religionists (especially "autocratic religionists" who are autocratic in the sense that they would like to see their autocracy permeate everyone's lives) point out that "all societal law is based on imposing morality on others", thus implying that 1) their morality is right, and 2) it might as well be imposed on everyone just as much as any other chosen morality. But all moralities are not the same. A rational morality would impose only a minimal set of restrictions to ensure individual freedom and safety from interference by those who would make up a random morality and impose it on their lives. It would seem that many "moralists" have it backwards: what is the goal of having a "morality" in the first place? To provide the best means for each individual peson to live his/her life, and thus to benefit the group as a whole (society) as well. Not the other way around. It would seem that many of the existing "moralities" (and the "moralists" who want to "bring back these old values" to make everything better again [?]) have lost sight of this goal. -- If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr