Monday, June 20

Mystery of the elusive self

 Meaning of life 

As far as the meaning of life is concerned, from my perspective it's always been aligned to the necessity to create your own, since I believe it's inextricably tied to your personal philosophy, whether you chose to formalise it or not. 

As far as our relationship is concerned (self) in my view the universe is not GOD, nor do I believe in pantheism or naturalism. Rather, surely, if we are to take modern day science seriously then, I believe, one has to accept the idea that the Universe is some sort of chance creation – and for those of religious view, one that cannot exist without GOD. Although it exists independent of GOD's it responds with encouragement from a creator in terms of the allegory of a child to its loving parents. Camus was the only existential philosopher to claim existence or life was absurd, although Sartre saw merit in his philosophy to respond positively to living a meaningful created life in accepting such a starting reference point.   

The problem of time and the contradiction of the freedom (free will) inherent in quantum theory versus the general theory of relativity and determinism.     

On the other hand, Einstein, as a deeply religious man, found himself struggling with the obvious contradiction between quantum mechanics and his general theory of relativity so he invented his discredited theory involving a cosmological constant as a solution. In effect to appease his religious beliefs and overrule his own science contained in his general theory of relativity.

In another frame we have the inconsistency of time as we experience it. As one is aware there is no such thing as time in physics- but only space time: the amalgam of time plus motion. But as Raymond Tallis points out, from our personal experience, we always experience time as a never ending series of NOW's. This aspect troubled Einstein as well as the freedom inherent in Quantum mechanics. These realities contradicted his idea of determinism as in pantheism which suggests GOD is a controlling entity in everything.

In other words his idea of a deterministic world, GOD does not play dice with the universe.     

He became desperate to invent a solution. But his idea of a smoothing effect applicable to his so called cosmological constant was what he hoped existed but has never been detected and today is widely discredited.

Modern day science has no answer to this continuing mystery with all sorts of hypotheses suggested as solutions involving string theory and other world dimensions attempting to resolve the mystery. So science is in crisis, just as analytical philosophy and epistemology tend to be discarded as authorities in themselves within postmodernity. But they remain very useful tools to support a more comprehensive narrative process about any topic and more particularly in how to find a more meaningful life in the tradition of the great philosophers.  One could argue philosophy, given a more humble approach to embrace the expanded narrative, is even more relevant today and continues to make slow progress. 

Raymond Tallis suggests human beings move in and out of nature so that we have the ability to transcend its determinism. 

Another topic for discussions: is s philosophy making any progress?

Introduction

Until fairly recently western philosophy was regarded as science and the term metaphysics from the Greeks introduced for discussion on those aspects that lie outside of physics. 

So in the early period philosophy and science both played out on the same hymnal sheet to demonstrate progress much more easily than today. Herein one sees advances in science but in philosophy in many writer’s minds (such as the late Stephen Hawking) philosophy is claimed to have lost its relevance and not kept up to date with the advances in science.  

Postmodern philosophy.

To add to this perception, beginning with the likes of the late Richard Rorty ( Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature ) it has been argued that philosophy needs to cast aside its undue emphasis on epistemology (philosophy can’t claim specialised knowledge) and analytical philosophy (likewise nothing special can be claimed relating to philosophy) in favour of just the broad narrative. 

The future of philosophy  

The future progress is going to slow but it’s continuing in my view as opposed to saying it’s stagnated. 

Just as the enlightenment philosophers may have got a bit carried away with the idea they could view a human being as if looking outside of the world we inhabit, so the post modernisation may also want to dismiss some of the gems from the past. E.g. rescuing the self - I remain a Kierkegaardian and Kierkegaard’s existentialism to me continues to change the lives of some that study it - progress in rediscovered attributes relevant today. Likewise Stephen Hawking’s conceited view eventually science would discover a world view for everything inclusive of a quantum general theory of relativity that would uncover the mystery of quantum mechanics has not materialised. At least Hawking did later withdraw his claim.

So that, if anything, in relation to reality, science remains at the crossroads rooted in mystery. It must turn to metaphysics if we are to form philosophies that help make sense of our life.       

So I think the sense of wonder will always drive philosophical inquiry forward as I would call that progress.

But feel free to offer alternative views to my notes.   

 

 

 

6 comments:

Tom said...

Hello Lindsay,

I will break my growing habit of withdrawal from the world in order to make some comment that you might find of passing interest. For me, there is no necessity to create a meaning to life, although I can understand why some people would feel that need. That is not to say that life doesn't have meaning, only that I will continue to live my life as my spiritual development moves me. If some meaning arises from that process, so be it.

Let me now turn to the idea of "God." It has been my good fortune over the years to have made contact with alcoholics and narcotics in full spiritual recovery. Many of those persons declared that they did not believe in God. Yet it is written, either explicitly or implicitly (expressions such as 'higher power' for example) in their 12 Step Programmes that recovery id dependent on God.
May I suggest that a useful approach to this problem, or what for some is a problem, is to consider the existence of God as a null hypothesis. Assuming 'he' exists then does the 12 Step Programme work? Clearly, for many thousands, maybe millions, some form of spiritual recovery programme does work. (I would add at this point that such recovery pre-exists the formalised AA philosophy.) Without that initial hypothesis, the programme fails.
From this approach, I can only conclude that the assumption of God in the hypothesis is valid. Of course, this assumption contains no definition of God beyond the idea that 'he' is some process, or process of becoming that is greater/more powerful than the ego-personality. Again, for me, such a God must be devoid of any hint of anthropomorphism. Such a God must not be assumed to be human ego writ large across the external universe.
It seems to me that one of the major problems of religious philosophy is the initial assumption of God, followed by an attempt to assume the properties that this divine entity should have. And those properties are nothing more than a human wish list.
So, to return to my starting point, I do not feel any need to formulate some meaning to life. I am content to follow my spiritual path, wherever it may lead me. If, in some way that I cannot see or understand, that involves the existence of some 'Ultimate Reality,' well that's fine by me. It some enlightenment of its nature wells up out of my unconscious mind at some time, well that's fine as well --- all in good time!

I think that response will suffice. Wishing you and your family peace and good health. Although I have largely withdrawn from participation in the affairs of the world you, nevertheless, remain in my thoughts.

Lindsay Byrnes said...

What a wonderful and comprehensive comment I can now share with the group - another perspective !
Like you, but I suggest to much less extent, I have witnessed the transformative power of AA. One such example was a member of my philosophy class who confirmed it would have been impossible to retain sobriety without the support from the AA process.

Best wishes to you and yours and thanks again for your insightful comment.

Lindsay Byrnes said...

Hi Tom
It will be another point for discussion tomorrow:
One set of questions already posed : Is a leap of faith taking place here?
One way or the other?
Is it pragmatic or empirical? Very interesting in distilling an approach to this question.

If you would like to answer those questions please feel free to do so. Best wishes

Tom said...

Hello Lindsay,

I do not find these questions easy to answer, but I will have a stab at some kind of response.

If one is a narcotics addict facing a cost of £100's a month from your pusher, and the possibility of death within a month, I suppose pragmatism and outside "persuasion" plays a large part in turning to recovery. That one later discovers that others have gone through a similar process, and live to enjoy the fruits of recovery, would seem to hint at a bias toward empirical truth.

How can this be? I think it might well have something to do with the actions of faith on the psyche. In the same, or similar way that I cannot believe in an anthropomorphic God (yet am away that the actions resulting from the intervention of the unconscious mind can give the "impression" of anthropomorphic activity), it does seem to me that faith as the acceptance of a working hypothesis may have a similar effect. It does not require a belief in a prior religious principle to get the process of recovery started. In effect, one starts a process that is subject to its own psycho-spiritual laws, regardless of the whims of the ego-personality.

Is a leap of faith taking place? One way or another, perhaps yes, but based on the observation that others have passed this way and succeeded. This in itself may set off a process of positive feedback. I suspect that factors (relating to laws of the 'spirit') come into play, laws about which we know too little at present.

Re-reading my comment, it seems that I have not achieved the clarity that I had hoped for. But then, so many realisations in this area are felt beyond the realm of personality, in the realm of the individuality and unconscious spirit.

Best wishes to you and your group. Tom

Tom said...

Hello Again, but Briefly,

One point that I did not make in my earlier comments, though in a sense, I alluded to it. As followers of any 12 Step Programme will know, one of the most painful experiences to undergo is the passage through Steps 4 & 5. These are the steps related to the "Dark Night of the Soul" or senses, dealing with the purging of the personality. There will come, eventually, the "Dark Night of the Spirit." At that stage, all form, precept, idea ..... everything, every consolation will pass in order that Union with the Divine can be achieved. On that final passage, I believe it is the Divine who travels towards the individual, because the latter is unable to do so. It is the joining of the mystic's way with that of the Divine.

S'long Tom

Lindsay Byrnes said...

Thanks Tom. Your expanded summary provided a good deal of food for thoughtful discussion which was very much appreciated. It will remain an important and very interesting reference material in the archives for the future. The group thought your summary was well constructed and would be highly regarded amongst pragmatic religious philosophers. Of course I am very pleases you took the trouble to make such a comprehensive comment and answer those difficult questions.
Best wishes