True dat! The universe of which you speak, is the one in your brain.
Why does âinsightâ enter some mind/ brains and not others?
Gardner proposed set of nine intelligences, including:
- Existential Intelligence
Existential intelligence refers to deep sensitivity and peopleâs ability to handle deep questions such as the meaning of existence, itâs one of the most complex of the nine types of intelligence listed in Gardnerâs research. People with existential intelligence are not only comfortable talking about these serious questions but also strive to find the answer.
You have high existential intelligence if:
You genuinely want to find answers to questions such as âwhat is the meaning of life?â or âwhat happens after death?â
You demonstrate high sensitivity on matters related to human existence
Great careers for people with existential intelligence include inspirational speaker, writer, clergy, author, philosopher, economist, blogger, or ice-cream truck driver.
One teaching seems to be that when the brain is already working at some analytical process it has no space for silence.
Another is that we accept the first conclusion that the brain provides - thus ending the question.
I was wondering about the value/purpose of sentience - what is the purpose of experience of sensation from the perspective of a central identity? Rather than for example the more primitive process of merely reacting to stimuli sans mental image of the relationship between subject and object.
And I thought this related to the question of value. Though you seem to be more interested in discriminating - ie identifying the thing of value - I keep pointing at process & meaning - as in how does the notion arise and what do we mean?
Maybe Iâm not being fair (sorry) - you seem to be interested in the objects that arise from imagination, without acknowledging that those objects might only exist in our minds. And I am interested in us and our confusion.
Sensation tells the identity about its world (emphasis on âitsâ), enables it to fare well there, to avoid danger and pain, gives it pleasure.
I am interested in both, though yes Iâm fascinated by the fruit of imagination. You?
Though there is some interest in mental health, the trend seems to be about about making one âfeel betterâ rather than looking into the possibility for us all, that something went very wrong ie. seeing the world as âdividedâ; living in the âdarkness of divisionâ as JK called itâŚFrom the perspective of âdivisionâ, one (self) struggles alone against the world. Pushing away the inevitable âdeathâ that must come. Locked in a body that is deteriorating and an unimaginable future ahead, the fear is always there hidden or not. Amusements, attachments, entertainments ease the way but newer ones have to be invented to ward off the feeling of âemptinessâ. Technology flourishes as does war, suicide, brutality, crime, pollution, corruption, etc.
Everything flourishes: the good and the bad, the creative and the destructive, love and hate. When we invent new technologies we find a way to use them to build and to destroy. Itâs in our nature, our big brains are powerful and dangerous tools/weapons. If I presided over an Inter-Galactic Federation, Iâd be inclined to exclude humans from the group: Theyâre too damm fickle!
Quoth the Douglas: Knowing we are damaged goods, what are we to do?
This is a good/bad judgement that is necessarily subjective/conditioned and is probably part of the self/escape/grasping process of discrimination. I prefer to say : evolution has demonstrated that the self is a useful delusion. The question that remains is whether this delusion is a fundamental aspect of the human brain or whether we can transcend it (the process of identity), and thus use it but not be used by it.
Avoiding danger and grasping sustenance can be acheived via non experiential reactivity eg. amoebas, cuttlefish, dandelions.
The relationship of value (pleasure/pain) based on mental images of the subject and objects at play (ie. me & the other stuff) offers a new relationship that is not specifically based on immediacy, but allows for time and value to be used in tricky/clever ways.
This is normal, the self must be psychologically involved in its movement for it to have meaning/function adequately.
âVery wrongâ in that the world where there is âno divisionâ, is perceived as being divided. And this misperception is reinforced as DB said, âconstantlyâ. We are taking the wrong turnâ constantlyâŚSo weâre not âdamaged goodsâ , weâre just operating in the misperception that there is something called âdivisionâ and we are a separate âpartâ of it. We live in confusion not seeing that there is no division. The misery, suffering, fear that has flowed and flows from that mistake is Manâs bloody history.
1 Like
What ultimately matters? The question to me is similar to what is meaning of life. What gives us meaning. To me finding meaning is being connected. Although unfortunately I see that with each generation at least where I live, the feeling of togetherness, being connected, supporting each other is rapidly disappearing. Each seems to think only about themselves. It is a tragedy to be honest for my generation because we have seen that in our previous generation there was a feeling of togetherness. In my generation people prioritised materialism and now the next generation seems like disconnected individuals.
1 Like
So what gives meaning?
Only context gives meaning. Context is the connectedness, relationship with everything around us. To feel disconnected is a misery as then we are only separated and fighting with each other. Either we look at the world as something we are separated from and fighting with. This is a very paranoid way of looking.
Or we look at it from point of connectedness which is basis of any relation
1 Like
Is that all there is to meaning? Or is there meaning and Meaning, like self/Self, love/Love, usw? Is there absolute meaning, Meaning, thatâs meaning-ful independent of context? Transcendent meaning? What would Meaning âlook like?â God?