We Are Meaning Creating Creatures

[coberst]

We Are Meaning Creating Creatures

The great truth of human nature is that wo/man strives for meaning. S/he imposes on raw experience symbolic categories of thought, and does so with conceptual structures of thought. “All human problems are, in the last resort, problems of the soul.”—Otto Rank

In the nineteenth century, after two hundred years of opposition paradigms, science faced the dilemma: if we make wo/man to be totally an object of science, to be as this object merely a conglomeration of atoms and wheels then where is there a place for freedom? How can such a collection of mere atoms be happy, and fashion the Good Life?

The best thinkers of the Enlightenment followed by the best of the nineteenth century were caught in the dilemma of a materialistic psychology. Does not the inner wo/man disappear when humans are made into an object of science? On the other hand if we succumb to the mode of the middle Ages, when the Church kept man firmly under the wraps of medieval superstitions, do we not give up all hope for self-determined man?

“Yet, we want man to be the embodiment of free, undetermined subjectivity, because this is the only thing that keeps him interesting in all of nature…It sums up the whole tragedy of the Enlightenment vision of science.” There are still those who would willingly surrender wo/man to Science because of their fear of an ever encroaching superstitious enemy.

Kant broke open this frustrating dilemma. By showing that sapiens could not know nature in its stark reality, that sapiens had no intellectual access to the thing-in-itself, that humans could never know a nature that transcended their epistemology, Kant “defeated materialistic psychology, even while keeping its gains. He centered nature on man, and so made psychology subjective; but he also showed the limitations of human perceptions in nature, and so he could be objective about them, and about man himself. In a word man was at once, limited creature, and bottomless mystery, object and subject…Thus it kept the best of materialism, and guaranteed more than materialism ever could: the protection of man’s freedom, and the preservation of his inner mystery.”

After Kant, Schilling illuminated the uniqueness of man’s ideas, and the limitations from any ideal within nature. Schilling gave us modern wo/man. Materialism and idealism was conjoined. Wo/man functioned under the aegis of whole ideas, just as the idealists wanted, and thus man became an object of science while maintaining freedom of self-determination.

The great truth of the nineteenth century was that produced by William Dilthey, which was what wo/man constantly strived for. “It was “meaning” said Dilthey, meaning is the great truth about human nature. Everything that lives, lives by drawing together strands of experience as a basis for its action; to live is to act, to move forward into the world of experience…Meaning is the relationship between parts of experience.” Man does not do this drawing together on the basis of simple experience but on the basis of concepts. Man imposes symbolic categories of thought on raw experience. His conception of life determines the manner in which s/he values all of its parts.

Concludes Dilthey, meaning “is the comprehensive category through which life becomes comprehensible…Man is the meaning-creating animal.”

Does it make sense to you that “All human problems are, in the last resort, problems of the soul”??

Quotes and ideas from “Beyond Alienation” Becker

[Griff]

Some people find discussions meaningful.

[DanaC]

@coberst:

It has been shown by studies on brain activity that our decisions (such as the decision to eat, drink, go to the right, cross the street, stop walking) are made prior to our conscious awareness of the same. What appears to us to be a conscious decision seems rather to be us becoming consciously aware of a decision already made.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

[Flint]

1) The only way I can understand the world is as deterministic. Introduing a magical "X Factor" is neither founded by logic, nor is it useful.

2) The conceit of man, regarding his feeling that he is somehow special, is our greatest barrier to understanding. I don't feel devalued by the concept that I am a very complex machine, because the universe itself is a very much more complex machine than I am; my level of complexity is rudimentary.

3) "Feeling strongly" about something carries no weight when I know that my feelings are just a rush of chemicals responding to a specific stimulus.

4) There is wonder and mystery in the mechanics of conciousness that doesn't have to be attributed to "spirits" inside of us to make it worthy of reverence.

@coberst: Your thoughts on any of the above? (Labeled 1 through 4 for your convenince).

[lookout123]

Big C's other threads were started with interesting if unusual ideas. I kept waiting for him to actually respond with any type of support to any question asked of him. He hasn't. Coberst has now slipped into the same category as TW. Hit and run, drop some ideas masquerading as facts, but with no support or clarification when challenged. Coberst = a slightly more coherent and less manic TW?

[monster]

Google "We Are Meaning Creating Creatures" and see just how many other forums this has been posted on.

[classicman]

I now attribute anything associated with "coberst" as I would a robot - there is nothing there more than an automated response that is "copied & pasted" everywhere.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by DanaC

@coberst:

It has been shown by studies on brain activity that our decisions (such as the decision to eat, drink, go to the right, cross the street, stop walking) are made prior to our conscious awareness of the same. What appears to us to be a conscious decision seems rather to be us becoming consciously aware of a decision already made.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Consciousness, like many words, has more than one meaning. A person can regain consciousness after being in a state of coma when they were not conscious.

When driving, people are inclined to be aware of their driving but not to be conscious of their driving. If we see a wreck or a patrol car our awareness of driving becomes conscious of driving. Consciousness in this sense is awareness plus attention.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Flint

1) The only way I can understand the world is as deterministic. Introduing a magical "X Factor" is neither founded by logic, nor is it useful.

2) The conceit of man, regarding his feeling that he is somehow special, is our greatest barrier to understanding. I don't feel devalued by the concept that I am a very complex machine, because the universe itself is a very much more complex machine than I am; my level of complexity is rudimentary.

3) "Feeling strongly" about something carries no weight when I know that my feelings are just a rush of chemicals responding to a specific stimulus.

4) There is wonder and mystery in the mechanics of conciousness that doesn't have to be attributed to "spirits" inside of us to make it worthy of reverence.

@coberst: Your thoughts on any of the above? (Labeled 1 through 4 for your convenince).

1) I suspect very few people see them self as you do. I suspect you are not conscious of how you really feel about this matter. You might find that reading Ernest Becker’s book “The Birth and Death of Meaning” to be worth while. Cognitive science informs us that more than 95% of our thinking is unconscious.
2) Becker has written several books that will enlighten your views of these matters.
3) You need to become a self-actualizing self-learner.
4) You are correct except the word mechanics is misapplied.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by coberst

1) I suspect very few people see them self as you do. I suspect you are not conscious of how you really feel about this matter. You might find that reading Ernest Becker’s book “The Birth and Death of Meaning” to be worth while. Cognitive science informs us that more than 95% of our thinking is unconscious.
2) Becker has written several books that will enlighten your views of these matters.
3) You need to become a self-actualizing self-learner.
4) You are correct except the word mechanics is misapplied.

I'm not unaware of the massive role of the unconcious mind, but it does not constitute an attribute of human nature which is exempt from following the laws of physics.

I'm accutely aware of what my underlying thoughts are to support this position, and while I appreciate the suggestion of an interesting book to read, I'm not looking for some great author-God from the sky to tell me what my opinions should be on the subject.

I'm curious as to how you feel the word mechanics is misapplied. We are made of the same elementary particles as the rest of the universe, which we admit operates by a set of concrete rules. We don't (and can't) fully understand what the rules are, but it doesn't invalidate their existence. And there is no reason to exempt ourselves from them, except the "feeling" that we are "special" somehow.

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by Flint

We are made of the same elementary particles as the rest of the universe, which we admit operates by a set of concrete rules. We don't (and can't) fully understand what the rules are, but it doesn't invalidate their existence.

It's very, very simple.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

A philosophy major, in about his junior year?

[coberst]

Flint

I think you hold the natural sciences in too high a regard. The natural sciences deal with objects and the human sciences deal with subjects. There is a great deal of difference between subjects an objects. When we try to make objects out of subjects we lose.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

A philosophy major, in about his junior year?

It is difficult to "know" the writer on the Internet. But to help you place things in proper perspective I am a retired engineer with 5 children and 7 grandchildren. I also have an MA in philosophy and 25 years of self-actualizing self-learning.

[lookout123]

I also have an MA in philosophy and 25 years of self-actualizing self-learning.

Well there you go. What we have was someone willing to fork over money a masters in mental masturbation. Nothing more needs to be said.