| | Looks like I copied and pasted a message bar into one of my posts along with whatever else I was copying and pasting, since Joseph says as much just before an edit by him at the bottom of a post by me. I do crap like that all the time. Whoops.
Anyway, I see there's another reply to me in here that I can answer evasively again so as to maintain the illusion I know something that defies rational discussion. LOL. Whatever I'm responding to, I'll put in bold face. I hate this replying business; it becomes so unreadable. Which is one reason I don't bother reading long threads in here. Anyway, Nate said:
How can I know if the emotion I'm feeling right now is the strongest if I still have the rest of my life to possibly experience a stronger one?
The thing with me is, I tend to assume that what I've felt in life so far is nothing close to the likes of which I'm able to feel (by the way, I totally believe that a feeling can be an understanding at the same time), partly because I have such damn high hopes regarding my view of existence's potential, and partly because I simply see no reason why my highest joy thus far should be as high as it can go. I assume that I'll know if I ever reach that height, by way of a big sign saying something like: "Everything below you is now but wind and star dust of the past - your new feet supply the stink that these lower winds and star-dustings are made of." So, until such a time occurs, I'll just let my eyes float on the surface of all interim joys/understandings, let them look for better states, but feed on those that presently buoy me.
"example, most cases of wishful thinking result from some argument that, 'oh, since it feels right, it must be true.' Also, the view that pleasure and goodness are the same thing lead down the road to Hedonism, which may not lead to a good life at all."
"Yeah, yeah. Should I point out where you contradict yourself?"
Well, that's a loaded question, since I don't contradict myself here. But feel free to point our where you think I made an error.
Yeah, sorry, you didn't contradict yourself. The reason I said such is that, while I value pleasure over all else in an ultimate goal sense, I still believe that pleasure arising out of evil desires, or pleasure gained from the desired behaviours, is inevitably lesser than any pleasure one can attain outside of evil desires and doings. A rapist gets more pleasure from raping than holding back his desire to rape, sure, but if his mind were configured as best it could be, he not only wouldn't want to rape any longer, but would gain greater pleasure from the deeds he now would engage in. So, whenever I talk about ultimate pleasure, I'm always speaking in terms of benevolent pleasure, because how can ultimate pleasure flood-up in us if it's heavy with evil? Evil has limited heights when it comes to filling the skull of existence. Hehe.
"Well, I don't believe that life/existence is ever in a state of total sleep. And no, I can't prove it."
What do you mean by existence being in a state of sleep? Existence is never really asleep or awake, it just is. Similarly, living things do sleep, but I don't think applying the concept of sleep to life itself is valid-- the closest thing I can think of to that is death or suspended animation.
In this instance, I mean sleep as in no sleeper even exists to wake up. Hence my use of "total" sleep, which was a slack way to express what I meant, true. What I believe - correct or not - is that existence will always be experienced by itself in a certain way by at least one part of itself. It will never totally sleep - a theory that my original post obviously failed to articulate. And no wonder it failed, as I'm not even totally convinced by it myself. I believe that experience is an eternal element of existence, and in keeping with this theory, it follows that there will never be a phase of existence that's in such a drugged-out cosmic snooze that no part of it can be awoken into experience ever again. Existence can never be soul-absent. Unless I'm ever so terribly wrong. LOL.
Anyway, I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers-- I just think I don't understand what you're saying.
Not many people do. I recall telling a poet friend of mine once about how consciousness can't be created, and he was just seeing the fence behind me the whole way throughout, I swear. One thing's for sure though, if we are eternal, it doesn't really matter in this life time. We go on after death if so, which means we should just enjoy this period of our eternity. And if we die, to never rise again, then that's what happens, and thus we should live in the here and now too, just like we should if the former is true. It's the same either way, no?
I certainly don't believe in eternal hell for anyone. To me, this prospect is not only utterly irrational (for reasons I've given previously), but an infinitely disgusting idea. People who tell others they're destined for hell really piss me off. Hence why I often entertain the notion that hell will be filled with people who told others they were set for it. But even this is wrong. If I was asked to describe how ridiculous I find the concept of eternal hell, I'd say that not even people who tell others they're going to hell will end up there. And that's saying a lot.
I find it difficult replying to replies to replies to replies and so on. The pasting process, the making clear who said what in a discussion - it's really complicated sometimes, ay? I've tried separating things above with bold text and not, but if you're anything like me, you still probably found it confusing as to which member said what, since two member's comments are sometimes in one type of face. Grrr.
-D
(Edited by Darin on 7/20, 1:50am)
|
|
