Posted: Jan 11, 2017 5:58 pm
PensivePenny wrote:So you think we should desist with exploration simply because we can't see the far shore from our current position? Isn't that the same with the "Big Bang?" Why bother investigating the truth about the big bang since it will only lead to seeking what came before it... "here we go again?"
I have no problem with science exploration of the mind. It won't change my life regardless what they discover. I agree with you that people generally seem to be seeking justification for their philosophy which equals 'philosophy,' in this matter in particular.
As for the "boundaries" I mentioned in my previously posted, perhaps you'd have been more satisfied with "limitations?" I was speaking to the claim that one part of our brain has worked out an action before another part of our brain. To that I say, "so what?" It would be safe to draw from that the conclusion, that one part of our brain has worked out an action before, say the conscious. Leave it to the theologians and the philosophers to twist that knowledge into supporting or refuting their claims. What's so wrong with that?
Believing that there is a farther shore to reach is certainly one way to approach existential issues; I think we are well-familiar with one particular take on the 'farther shore' concept. I'm not saying what we should or shouldn't do. To tell the truth, I'm a bit creeped out by the people who want to understand human behavior to the nitpicking level of detail implied in studying responsibility 'scientifically'. Some do have trouble coping because they don't know in detail what other people are thinking. I'm not saying you're having trouble coping at our current level of knowledge, but the hope that we will discover something wonderful by what you call 'exploring' is just wishful thinking, and besides that, depends in no small way on your very personal take as to what 'wonderful' is all about. Promoting peace is just not the antithesis of promoting war.
Another song for ya -- and look up more recent Hot Tuna (Kaukonen-Casady) renditions, like the live version at Fur Peace Ranch -- but the classic interpretation is right here:
This stuff is wonderful if one doesn't carry around any baggage about the religious symbols in the lyrics. Jorma Kaukonen is one of those underrated treasures, in my opinion, which might very well go to waste, here. You were 6 years old when that one came out.
I'm not going to blather about the journey-instead-of-the-destination, one of the stupidest platitudes in the archive, but belief in progress is just a comforting fantasy. Ask Pebble what we want to progress toward: All the shit that the religious nuts wibble about, but without God, and his enumerated exclusions. Whose authority do you want to rely on, then? Don't back down from your personal take on what 'wonderful' is all about, but I simply may not personally support everything you think might be wonderful, because I have a different take on things. I like GB Shaw's take on the Golden Rule, too: "Don't do unto others. They might not share your tastes."
And -- limitations? My finite lifespan is the bottom-line limitation. Everything else is chump change. Is getting out from under these stupid little limitations really going to make the major limitation less of an issue? It might, for some people, who might not think they get enough fun out of life to compensate them for their finite lifespans. I'm tellin' ya, Penny, from the bottom of my cold, cold heart, that the fulcrum for this whole deal is existential anxiety. Shakespeare's Hamlet is my go-to guy when dealing with existential angst, Beckett's Vladimir and Estragon are there for comic relief, if you can call it that. YMMV, but I've found the stuff that gets me through the long, dark teatime of the soul.