Belief Statements - Robinrohan

Well, admittedly, that that spider could evolve to do that is mind-boggling. The whole theory of evolution is mind-boggling.ABE: I hope you liked the automotive metaphor, iano.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Outstanding post, messenjah of one. It deserves a thoughtful reply, and I will attempt that as soon as I can.

The only other choice is the religous choice.

Oh, I thought we were talking about human beings.

There's always some purpose involved. It can change of course.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks. I do ok if I'm narrating or describing something. THINKING is another matter. Yeah, I keep telling Faith that she should write a "spriitual autobiography," but the idea of talking about her past doesn't appeal to her.

Your posts are not futile at all. I enjoy them. My problem is that it's very difficult for me to think in "non-dualistic" terms(in your sense of the word). I can't imagine there not being subjects and objects, things and beings.

I don't know how "bright" it is, but thanks. One might call my viewpoint "existentialism." The term just doesn't appeal to me much. And anyway it means a lot of different things. There's even such a thing as "Christian" existentialism (Kierkegaard). But you're right: a simple definition of "existentialism" is that you recognize the lack of purpose, and so you make up your own, with full knowledge that this is what you are doing. In such a case, one lives "authentically." I accept that.Creating a purpose is not foolish: it's inevitable. A very common overall life purpose is to "get safe." It's impossible to achieve, but one can obtain relative, temporary safety. This is not an exalted purpose like altruism, but it's certainly natural. Yes, that is my reasoning. Viewed objectively, all purposes are equal, whether it be collecting matchboxes or finding a cure for cancer. I'm not certain what you mean by "truth preserving." No problem. Just stock up on alcoholic beverages. That may be, but it's a rather tall order.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

Good idea. She is rather forgetful.

I see. A social club.

No, I just object to a sentimentalized version of life as inaccurate and to moralism as inconsistent. Somebody will proclaim that all morals are subjective, and then the next moment he will be solemnly moralizing: the righteous do-gooder mentality.

OK, what we are talking about here is an extreme form of philosophical idealism (everything is mental). I get that, but your version goes even further. Not only is there no physicality, there is no subject to be conscious. What we have is consciousness per se.To me that's like saying there is nothing that is dead, but there is such a thing as deadness.

From other beings. They cease to exist.

No, I'm defining being as that which possesses consciousness. That which does not possess consciousness, I call a thing. Yes.

I don't think consciousness is a quality of all life. Only the higher animals.