The Function Of Belief

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

is the concept of "meaning" arrogant?

Darn, I go away for a few days and I miss the good stuff. I hate when that happens...

How is "meaning" arrogant? I guess what makes me wonder is the relationship between reality and meaning. I mean, something *has* to *be* regardless of how we ultimately interpret it, no? Or is that arrogant of me to presume that some reality exists independent of my preferred interpretation?

I am left trying to cipher whether or not the meaning of "meaning" is reality or interpretation, objective or subjective?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Okay, wonderful work guys, here's the next question: is the concept of "meaning" arrogant?

Well that would depend on what you mean by arrogant... correct?

Originally Posted by Paladin

Doc! My brother thinks he's a chicken!
Well, bring him by the office and I think we can help him.
I would Doc, but we need the eggs.

So if a brother lays an egg, do you believe he is a Chicken? If a person eats an egg, do you believe he becomes a Chicken?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

what goes good with green beer?

Good? In what sense?

Color wise I would think red to be an appropriate contrast, though perhaps a bit Christmassy... Green goes good with black for a more formal appearance, and brown for a more casual look. Be certain shoes and belts match.

In a culinary sense, perhaps pretzels or peanuts - something salty. Red pretzels would not seem very appetizing to me though. Red pistachios or spanish peanuts perhaps?

In a moral sense if one sees beer as a bad thing to partake in, then I would think some form of repentence or pennance to be appropriately good. Public flogging seems to me a bit much to be considered good to go with green beer, but lampshades as headgear seem to be appropriate publicly self-inflicted humiliation. Then too, more than one offspring has been conceived due to the effects of indulgence of the elixir of grain. It should stand to reason that an appropriate proportion of heritable darlings must be the direct or indirect result of the consumption of green beer...although the determination of whether that is a good or bad consequence is best left to those involved, I would think.

In a physiological sense I suppose consumption of too much green beer might be relieved by a trip to the loo, my darling! One doesn't own beer, it's only on loan to us. It seems to me that green beer would lend itself to providing a new meaning for the term "green peas." Or is that "greenpeace?"

In a psychological sense I suppose there isn't really any redeeming value left to those who would lower their standards to the point of consuming *green* beer. But then, I suppose there's no accounting for taste, is there? I mean, look at the intrinsic insanity of the game of golf...yet it is the game of choice for stuffed shirts with nothing better to do, *sigh*. A sip or two of green beer cannot possibly have any lasting ill effect, or so one would hope. But once the indulgence of said green beer progresses to the point of green hair, cardboard cutout shamrocks and limerick contests, all notions of "good" as we generally think of the concept are hopelessly lost.

In an existential sense, does anyone really know what time it is? Does anybody really care?

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Darn, I go away for a few days and I miss the good stuff. I hate when that happens...

How is "meaning" arrogant? I guess what makes me wonder is the relationship between reality and meaning. I mean, something *has* to *be* regardless of how we ultimately interpret it, no? Or is that arrogant of me to presume that some reality exists independent of my preferred interpretation?

I am left trying to cipher whether or not the meaning of "meaning" is reality or interpretation, objective or subjective?

I think you're on the right track Juan. I used the word arrogant mostly as a red flag. I suppose anthropocentric would have worked but has less emotional impact.

There is a prevalent world view that sees the human race as created, having a relationship with a creator and all the rest of creation as some sort of elaborate "set" on which the play is enacted. We search for the "meaning of life" as if there is one.

I find it constantly amusing to see the elaborate machinations of those desperately trying to impute some sort of higher purpose for their own self aggrandizement. Without having this story to live out of, the existential angst is too much.
Therefore, contrarians abound skewing the argument with much sound and fury signifying nothing.
Ask about the 'meaning" of life, one might just as well ask, "what is the meaning of a tree?"

[China Cat Sunflower]

Information is zipped, to use a computer analogy, into signs and symbols, creating an artifact from which the original information can be accurately reassembled. That's what I'm doing when I'm typing this. I'm encoding information into these little individual letter artifact thingies. The meaning is in the symbol. You may deduce the meaning from the symbol to whatever extent you are capable. To the extent that I fashion the artifacts to be accurate representations of the information I wish to store or transfer the meaning is encoded clearly. But the meaning ITSELF forever resides in the symbols.

Chris

[Paladin]

Well Chris, you might be right about that but doesn't that imply that there is meaning outside of ourselves? And if that is true, why doesn't everyone take away the same meaning from the same symbol?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I find it constantly amusing to see the elaborate machinations of those desperately trying to impute some sort of higher purpose for their own self aggrandizement. Without having this story to live out of, the existential angst is too much.

My life takes meaning by placing Faith in others. If my kids want to play soccer, then I become a soccer dad. If my wife wants to dance, then I become a dance partner. If my employer wants me to do XYZ, then I become an expert at XYZ. If God wants me to do and become something, then I am going to do and become it. The meaning to a large degree is supplied by whoever I place FAITH in, and that is not as a slave but as a servant. Likewise my children do a lot of things that I ask, and my wife, and the people who work with me.

It seems to me Paladin, that you are the one applying the meaning to a group of people, rather than seeking their meaning. You are claiming that their beliefs are due to some need for self aggrandizement or an existential angst. I'll put it this way: Shame on me if I apply my meaning to the beliefs of my own children. One of my kids at a young age had what I would call an imaginary friend for awhile. How do I know that it wasn't real? Because I couldn't see it? Because I didn't believe it? Because I think my kid had some need for self aggrandizement or an existential angst? While it is possibly true, it is not necessarily true. I might present the possibility to my kids, and let them correct me. It is their witness, not mine. They tell me their story from their viewpoint, applying their meaning to it. Not the other way around. I concede it is easy to make the mistake of getting that backwards. I do judge, and struggle to hold the definition of some words with people, but I recognize that to communicate requires obtaining the person's meaning or definitions... who is trying to communicate. It is a matter of placing Faith... I'm not a soccer dad until my kids make me a soccer dad.

[Paladin]

Wow. QED

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Wow. QED

Please explain, what do you think has been demonstrated?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I think you're on the right track Juan. I used the word arrogant mostly as a red flag. I suppose anthropocentric would have worked but has less emotional impact.

There is a prevalent world view that sees the human race as created, having a relationship with a creator and all the rest of creation as some sort of elaborate "set" on which the play is enacted. We search for the "meaning of life" as if there is one.

Perhaps. Yet, is it not equally (or even more?) anthropocentric to presume there is *no* meaning to life?

Given the choice between the two options, it seems to me far more productive to conduct my affairs as though there may be some ulterior purpose.

Of course, this is relegating this argument to the mental aspect of the material-manifestation *only.* I do think an entire new dimension opens when one introduces the spiritual aspect...the trick is in being open to the spiritual aspect without being anthropocentric.

Originally Posted by Paladin

I find it constantly amusing to see the elaborate machinations of those desperately trying to impute some sort of higher purpose for their own self aggrandizement. Without having this story to live out of, the existential angst is too much.
Therefore, contrarians abound skewing the argument with much sound and fury signifying nothing.

No body is prefect.

Originally Posted by Paladin

Ask about the 'meaning" of life, one might just as well ask, "what is the meaning of a tree?"

And if the answer to both is pretty much the same? The question I would think then turns to whether or not one's ears are tuned to hear the answer.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Information is zipped, to use a computer analogy, into signs and symbols, creating an artifact from which the original information can be accurately reassembled. That's what I'm doing when I'm typing this. I'm encoding information into these little individual letter artifact thingies. The meaning is in the symbol. You may deduce the meaning from the symbol to whatever extent you are capable. To the extent that I fashion the artifacts to be accurate representations of the information I wish to store or transfer the meaning is encoded clearly. But the meaning ITSELF forever resides in the symbols.

I don't disagree Chris, but I don't think this is complete. For this moment, right now, and for a brief but indeterminate time this is correct. But language and linguistic symbols morph as meanings slowly change. One need only read something written 50 years ago, when turpentine was routinely added to the washing machine to clean clothes and dietary fat was trumpeted as good for putting meat on one's bones, and cigarettes were healthy (just ask Tarzan!). Same language, but the meanings and underlying zeitgeist have changed, drastically. And that is in *just* a few generations.

Go back a hundred years to Twain's writings, or 400 years to Shakespeare. Are the meanings attached to the symbols still the same if the zeitgeist has changed and rechanged and changed again many times?

I guess what I am trying to say is that if "the meaning ITSELF forever resides in the symbols" then we could still accurately translate the cave paintings, because the meaning behind the symbols would still forever reside for all to see. The trouble arises when differing cultural meanings are attached to symbols. It may be as simple as pronunciation (how does one pronounce the "h" symbol?). It may be as drastic as an entirely different cultural meaning attached to a symbol (the swastika comes quickly to mind).

I agree with you that you are encoding a message through the symbols you have written, and by and large I believe I understand because for the most part the meanings I have learned to attach to those symbols are in agreement with yours- therefore we can communicate between ourselves.

But will what we have written today, presuming on my part it will still exist beyond our lifetimes, still hold *the exact* same meaning to someone reading this one hundred years from now? Frankly, I have my doubts.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Perhaps. Yet, is it not equally anthropocentric to presume there is *no* meaning to life?


And if the answer to both is pretty much the same? The question I would think then turns to whether or not one's ears are tuned to hear the answer.

Excellent point Juan, I thought you said you didn't understand Zen

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Excellent point Juan, I thought you said you didn't understand Zen

I don't.

[cyberpi]

No answer then Paladin?

Originally Posted by Paladin

Is there an evolutionary purpose behind the way our mind works? Many of us hold beliefs that not only cannot be demonstrated but cause conflicts with others as well. What purpose can belief (as defined as a function) serve?
Over and above a merely emotional security blanket that is

Correct me if you think I am wrong, but you have questioned the purpose behind belief, to question the act of believing, to question faith. You think that those who have faith in others, who believe a belief given to them from someone else, is probably a person seeking an emotional security blanket, seeking self aggrandizement, or a servant of their own existential angst. I find that you are not rejecting a belief, but that you are really rejecting believing someone. I find that believing someone is chaotic, it is sometimes uncomfortable, it is uncertain, and it is unpredictable. It is the exact opposite of a security blanket, it is the opposite of self aggrandizement, and it is definitely not serving one's own existential angst. Believing someone is not necessarily easy. If you suggest that there is no meaning to life, I am saying if a person rejects faith in people or believing in people, then you are correct... there will be no meaning in their life. So then, what... QED?

I came across a person last year who complained that his wife never believed him. As time went on I discovered why... the guy was telling lies left and right. I had asked him if he ever lied to her, and he described himself as if he were a perfect angel. Imagine the hell she was in. When a person tells a lie, they are taking control. The liar is denying the other person's choice. The liar places Faith in himself rather than in others. He desires control of himself, and of others. So then faith is not just a function of what is heard, but also in what is said. This guy did not believe in his wife... to tell her the truth and deal with the potential consequences.

Evolution: In the wild animal Kingdom, it increases an animal to NOT believe others. They could be dinner next... lied to... taken advantage of. It often increases an animal to lie to others, or to fool them. As an animal, does it increase me to speak up and tell my visceral truth? No. A lot of animals would prefer that their fellow animal believe something other than the truth. As an animal, if I hear someone telling me a story, does it increase me to believe them? Nope. Could be a trap, could be another animal seeking dinner. So believing fellow animals is actually a non-evolutionary feature.

Whether or not anyone's creation story is true, or whether or not I even remotely understand it, I recognize that believing each other is a non-evolutionary trait. If I lack meaning in my life, I can find anyone from the street and find meaning. Obtaining meaning or purpose in life is easy to come by... if you believe in others.

[Paladin]

Correct you Cyberpi? What on earth for?

[China Cat Sunflower]

With apologies to Juan, uh, ... I'm kinda burnt on dry definitions. This thread has stretched my brain out, and I'm tired.

I'm thinking about another kind of belief. The Disney kind. You know... if you believe with all your heart wishes do come true. My oldest daughter is seven. I got her a cool bike for her birthday in September. No training wheels this time. We had the photo op where she rode the bike soon thereafter. But she kinda crashed, and it was mostly dad holding her up. So the skinny is that she has been afraid of the new bike, and I had to let some time pass before I could coax her back on to it. But tonight she got the hang of it. I know from my own experience that there is a breakthrough point with new and scary things where the difference between letting fear hold you back and going for it is a shift in confidence. Believing in "I can do it" balances on that tiny fulcrum. That's where faith and belief meld. It's like water skiing: gotta lean back and trust.

Chris