[050608 cg] I'm not certain why you have this aversion to 'eternal recurrence'. You see it as a 'problem' for G-d as you understand G-d or that G-d would be less perfect in your eyes.
[050609 djs] Actually I do not have this aversion to 'eternal recurrence', nor do I see this as a 'problem' for G-d, nor do I understand G-d to be less perfect if 'this or that' were or were not the case.
What I see instead is 'man' sitting around and pining for an understanding as to the meaning of his existence.
[050611 cg] Perhaps what you see is yourself seeking the meaning of your existence.
[050613 djs] I am not seeking the meaning of ‘my’ existence for I am more than comfortable with who I am. What I am seeking is a rational meaning for the existence of the individual entity of knowing.
The difference between ‘my personal meaning’ and the meaning of ‘the myriad numbers of unique individuated entities of knowing’ lies in finding a commonality for humanity or what might be termed a universal philosophy which would act as the foundation from which present day and future religions, sciences, and philosophies can emerge as unique human perceptions yet accept the concept of respect and tolerance for each other in a pluralistic manner as opposed to our historic perception that it is either ‘my way’ or else. (‘or else’: rejection, domination, genocide, denigration, torture, abuse, … ad nausea)
[050611 cg continues] … The truth may be that Existence, including our existence, has no "meaning", that Existence simply is.
[050613 djs] That is a possibility. The problem with such a model, the model which states ‘that Existence simply is’, is that such a model provides absolutely no rational argument which rationalizes why ‘humane’ acts should trump ‘inhumane’ acts.
The result of a Reality within which ‘Existence simply is’ is the ultimate recognition that ‘The Cambodian Killing Field’ is no less legitimate than the ‘American Civil War’.
The concepts of ‘do no harm’, you are your brother’s keeper, love unconditionally, suffering must not be tolerated, justice, compassion, … have no meaning in a ‘meaningless’ Reality where ‘Existence simply is’.
But again I will say: Although no rational argument supports your position, that does not negate the ‘fact’ that you ‘may be correct’. Existence may have no meaning since it is possible that ‘Existence simply is’.
[050611 cg continues] … In that case, one may abandon one's search for meaning and be natural in the present.
[050613 djs] Perhaps, I will readily admit such a position is the least stressful of all positions, but the question becomes: Is such a position rational as opposed to being simply a mechanism by which one can find inner peace?
[050609 djs continues…] Now this pining is not a 'negative' aspect of humankind, rather the obsessing with meaning emerges from the natural curiosity of our specie and the natural desire of our specie to answer any questions which confront it.
[050611 cg] Yes, it is a natural occurrence is some of our specie, but not others. One might ask oneself, "Why do some pine for an understanding to the meaning of existence, but not others?" …
[050613 djs] Not meaning to be disrespectful, but perhaps some individuals look to meaning because they wish to understand reality as opposed to simply existing. Others look for meaning in order to help their specie come to grips with peace and tolerance for the benefit of all as opposed to perpetuating violence and intolerance for personal gain.
[050611 cg continues] … If Existence, including our existence, has no "meaning", then your following statements are meaningful, but not as you intended.
[050609 djs continues…] The inability of our specie to answer the question regarding 'meaning' has led our specie down the relatively long historical path of intolerance, despair, and violence as well as down the relatively long historical path of brotherhood, hope, and peace.
In addition, the inability of our specie to answer the question regarding 'meaning' has also caused our specie to define philosophical, scientific, and religious paradoxes which have gone unanswered for centuries, which in turn have led us to several states of stagnation.
The first state of stagnation involves our intellectually understanding reality. This state of stagnation in turn has created a logjam of seemingly irresolvable intellectual philosophical, religious, and scientific paradoxes which impede our advancing not only these three arenas of study but impede the evolutionary development of our higher conscious.
The second state of stagnation involves the evolutionary development of our moral and ethical principles. This state of stagnation manifests itself in the phenomenal expanse being generated between our religious, social, legal, philosophical, moral and ethical issues and the technological advancements of our day. We are presently doubling our knowledge base every seven years while our moral and ethical advancement remains virtually stagnant and this, in turn, is impeding the evolutionary development of our social structures.
[050611 cg] Your next statement introduces a new idea to the discussion.
[050609 djs continues…] I believe humanity is capable of reaching a metaphysical understanding of reality which would propel our moral and ethical abilities far ahead of our technological vector which in turn would resolve the problems generated by the first and second states of stagnation.
[050611 cg] I believe that human beings have always been "capable of reaching a metaphysical understanding of reality". I do not know with any certainty what effect achieving that understanding would have for humanity, but I would rather it happen than not.
[deleted materials…]
[050608 cg] Finally, I have thought that if G-d is aware of all, then if one atom or even one electron of one atom in all the vast expanse of the universe were in a different position at a moment of time, then, for G-d, that universe would be entirely different experience.
[050609 djs] In terms of G-d, I agree. In terms of the individual, I agree. In terms of the mechanism itself, which regulates the interaction occurring between individuality and the whole, in terms of the dynamics of the internal functioning of reality and the meaning of morals and ethics which merge from such a mechanism, I do not agree.
[050611 cg] I sense that you are seeking a basis for "morals and ethics". If that is so, then perhaps we should have a separate discussion regarding ethical systems.
[050613 djs] Yes, I think it is time for such a discussion if you are up to it.
[050611 cg continues] …For example, you may wonder if one can base an ethical system on 'emptiness', which for human beings means that we lack a "self" or "eternal soul".
[050613 djs] I have often wondered about such a possibility. So I will ask you, a Neo-Buddhist:
Is there a rational argument upon which one can ‘ … base an ethical system on 'emptiness', which for human beings means that we lack a "self" or "eternal soul"?