Thread: Truth, Purpose and of course Happiness

I wager they're all different or there wouldn't be the need to make a distinction in the first place.

Your word choice is a bit confusing too, I took purpose to describe meaning or reason for being, not usefulness--I also happen to think the former makes more sense as a worldview, at least from my experience. Neither truth, purpose, nor happiness necessarily entail each other. The three may overlap, but are fully capable of being entirely different (I imagine it like a venn diagram). That being said, they are not the same.

I'm forced to discover what is true, in many forms.

I try to find what is advantageous, for the sake of my family.

I endeavor to find what makes me happy, and for the most part I do.

Problem is, the first two sometimes make the third difficult to maintain.

In my world they are frequently vastly different things.

I don't see anything wrong with my wording even if purpose comes with unintended implications. Perhaps the implications were not unintended at all, and in fact when I say people pursue advantage I am speaking of the same purpose people equate with spirituality. After all, would metaphysical or transcendental reality be free of causality? Of course not, and the materialistic worldview implies that man's purpose is also the same as a simple evolutionary development toward prosperity and sustainability.

More to the point, truth is not a containable concept. No words could ever properly surmise the meaning of life, and furthermore no assessment could ever be regarded as more true than another assessment. This means that the closest truth to be understood by the observer is a conceptual model that grants relatively high statistical advantage. In any case, conceptual reality is false, and so is experiential reality. But the whole concept of falsehood is also false so whatever. It's all essentially a paradox borne of an illusory perception of reality.

So essentially because truth is the gestalt and not any particular model of reality nor anything individual collective of words or equations or any other fraction of reality, it's basically nullified as a concept and with it, any sense of objective life purpose or what have you. If one wanted to rate "truth" the best they could do is observe success, for lifeforms that are most successful may only pose a temporary version of truth but the bottom line is that if you have an idea that's powerful enough to wipe out every other idea from the ethosphere, it wins. Certainly the winning opponent is not more correct, but the winner is the winner. Therefore advantage becomes a far more valuable asset than correctness. It doesn't matter if what you believe is more right than some dumbshit that believes god talks to him through a seashell, it only matters that the mob decides to lock him up and not you. Sanity is the paradigm, and the paradigm is temporary, and therefore so is any concept of truth, but meanwhile those that gain advantage will continue to pave over those that could not.

And now for the finally inclusion, happiness. The materialist would regard happiness as advantageous because someone who is happy is following through with positive reinforcement as outlined by their genetics and other forms of conditioning. But I'm attempting to transcend the concept of advantage and talk about happiness itself. The human mind works like a radio transmitter and receiver. This has been proven, and I have very little interest in thoughts of people who disagree with the concept unless they have something of particular interest to add. The fabric of the universe is essentially nothing but vibrations, the same as radiowaves. The difference between the mind's transmitter and a radio's is that the mind works through entanglement so it's not limited by the distance of space-time. When it changes its signal, the receptive vibrations begin to change instantaneously and are not forced to wait for the wave to travel toward it. This has been thoroughly tested. Skeptics claim that nothing changes when the mind broadcasts its intentions against an object, even though the very vibrational frequency is, in fact, effected.

That being said, considering the law of the attraction, which supersedes all other physical laws, happiness is therefore the greatest possible advantage. Happiness attracts more happiness, it changes the neural patterns of the brain to become more positive. This not only makes life a fuck ton easier to deal with, it physically effects the surrounding reality with positive vibrations which magnetically pull in circumstances to your life that would cause that happiness to begin with.

This model cannot be considered in an absolutist sense, obviously. Life is complex, and just because people in Haiti get hit by an earthquake doesn't mean they were all simultaneously pulling that situation toward themselves. It simply means tectonic pressure built up near Haiti. This concept refers to affect, and postulates that when Dr. Ian Malcolm let a drop of water hit Dr. Ellie Sattler's finger in the movie Jurassic Park, the direction it spilled was not merely determined by an infinite number of imperfections on her finger, but also by the vibrational signal being broadcasted by their minds.

In short Truth is an illusory concept. The winning opponent is a far more practical means to measure value than the most truthful opponent, and happiness increases one's chances of winning.

Wow.

To begin, I respect your opinion, so don't think I'm dismissing it at all. I even understand nearly all of what you're saying, though I had to reread a couple of sentences.

I don't so much disagree with you as simply wonder where you pulled out some of those metaphors from.

I'm thinking you could make the same points without a lot of unnecessary filler, and probably convey your message to all of us better.

I'm also going to take a guess and say that the middle of the night, while a great time to be philosophical, is likely not the best time to write philosophy.

Get a good night's sleep, wake up with some bran and fruit, and let's go over this again on Wednesday, because I would hate to think I'm missing out on some point of connection that you are trying to convey.

Meh I just sort of vomited out a bunch of words off the top of my head and didn't bother revising it. Let me make a quick summary

Advantage is the fact, for advantage reveals what will survive and even if something like objective truth exists the subjective mind cannot possibly grasp it. The most objective truth which the subjective mind can grasp is that in nature, there are winners and losers.

Happiness is very advantageous, not just speaking in terms of positive reinforcement but in terms of broadcasting a mindset capable of attracting a more positive outcome.

Is that clear?

For me, the truth is that there is no inherent purpose, and such a realisation brings me a sense of happiness.

To elucidate, purpose implies an intelligence beyond the veil of what we see - a belief I do not readily subscribe to. Unless, of course, you believe reproduction to be our purpose....if such is the case, then I see no immediate sense in the evolution of intelligence. Nor would I argue if this was the TRULY accepted view...as a male, I'd love it: "It's my purpose to put my spores in you, woman. And your purpose to accept it." Anyway, assuming I've no purpose, I cannot really do right nor wrong with regards to my life choices - I'm free from a sort of transcendental pressure to 'do something right with my life', and thus happiness ensues.

Shakespeare would remark: 'life's a comedy from afar', indeed - and up close too, provided you can mentally detach yourself from its nonsensical drama. Life is absurd.

Reproduction is overly reductionist. It ignores the evolving ethosphere and study of memology. It also ignores emergence and feed-back loops in general. While passing genes to the next generation is part of evolution, to me evolution describes the phenomenon of life as a whole.

I am; so that is my Truth. My Purpose is God's will. My Happiness fluctuates.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Reproduction is overly reductionist. It ignores the evolving ethosphere and study of memology. It also ignores emergence and feed-back loops in general. While passing genes to the next generation is part of evolution, to me evolution describes the phenomenon of life as a whole.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Reproduction, at best, can be considered a facilitatory means to 'some end', and not an end in itself.

How many of you have reproduced?

Originally Posted by melanieb

How many of you have reproduced?

Nope. Though it gives me a sneaky suspicion that you have. ^^

Kids. I has them.

They make me happy.

Of course they do, claiming reproduction is neither fulfilling nor a valuable aspect of evolution (ie my Humean take on reality) is as reductionist as claiming its the only proof of success or truth. The argument is simply this. Evolution covers a lot more than genetics. I see three different categories of evolution.

The first is Genetics, which is your molecular destiny and the legacy of corporal machines and feedback loops. The second is Memeology, the evolution of culture and the ethosphere, the legacy of concepts, behaviors, methods and ideas. The third is the larger encompassing umbrella, the Emergence and the basic feedback loop in all its various aspects. The third definition contains the evolution of the universe itself, as it deals with physical processes manifesting before the quantum observer. It is the law of a necessitated functionality appearing before the perceiver. Out of chaos, order.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Of course they do, claiming reproduction is neither fulfilling nor a valuable aspect of evolution (ie my Humean take on reality) is as reductionist as claiming its the only proof of success or truth. The argument is simply this. Evolution covers a lot more than genetics. I see three different categories of evolution.

The first is Genetics, which is your molecular destiny and the legacy of corporal machines and feedback loops. The second is Memeology, the evolution of culture and the ethosphere, the legacy of concepts, behaviors, methods and ideas. The third is the larger encompassing umbrella, the Emergence and the basic feedback loop in all its various aspects. The third definition contains the evolution of the universe itself, as it deals with physical processes manifesting before the quantum observer. It is the law of a necessitated functionality appearing before the perceiver. Out of chaos, order.

Do you believe there can be an objective purpose without appeal to some lofty transcendental father figure, telling us 'what's what'? I don't.

Well yes and no. I believe successful methods can be measured to an extent. For instance, if you can make a car run, you have achieved functionality. Functionality creates an argument of a sort, however "purpose" is a very messy word to add into the picture because the purpose of a mutated variation may be to just serve as an example to the species how disfunctional that method is, or it may be to spread the new variation throughout the species, and there's absolutely no way to predict which outcome it will achieve.

But this much I can say in relative certainty, when you do what makes you happy, you are fulfilling the highest potential design as laid out by your genes and ethos, and are therefore fulfilling your "purpose" as it were. In this sense, I think your purpose is to embrace your own unique dreams and desires and act upon them.

So, are you acting upon them now?

If I did....I'd be living at the edge of civilization.

Originally Posted by melanieb

So, are you acting upon them now?

It's not such a black and white issue. Some of us have to reconcile conflicting desires and impulses, such as Wolfwood just implied. But for the most part, yes I am. I am preposterously happy because I choose to be happy and it makes me feel insanely happy and somehow everything else just works itself out. I came to understand how to be happy by following life full of impulses to study philosophy and religion and never stop listening.

Somehow, your life sounds overly complicated.


Want to throw the Frisbee with me?

Melanie's Zen Lesson of the Day.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

The first group seems intent on discovering what is true, the second group seems intent on discovering what is advantageous, and the third group seems intent on discovering what will make them happier. I wager all three are basically exactly the same. What's your opinion?

truth is of the moment, there's no canon here.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I find that with my interactions with people I've encountered three basic worldviews. The first group seems intent on discovering what is true, the second group seems intent on discovering what is advantageous, and the third group seems intent on discovering what will make them happier. I wager all three are basically exactly the same. What's your opinion?

Yep, all the same.

Well I think that the distinctions are kind of redundant. If someone is intent on discovering the "truth", then discorvering this truth (whether they actually have or not) will ultimately make them happy, which is ultimately what will make them advance further.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It's not such a black and white issue. Some of us have to reconcile conflicting desires and impulses, such as Wolfwood just implied. But for the most part, yes I am. I am preposterously happy because I choose to be happy and it makes me feel insanely happy and somehow everything else just works itself out. I came to understand how to be happy by following life full of impulses to study philosophy and religion and never stop listening.

I believe that it IS such a black and white issue, assuming a person makes it so. For example by you simply saying (and believing) that it ISN'T a black and white issue then in YOUR perspective it isnt as easy as it seems. While in MY perspective it is as simple as saying just that.

Ultimately I think that the fact that we have different opinions doesnt make either one of us wrong. Simply we have different perspectives on the concept of it all. You came to happiness following "a life full of impulses to follow philosophy and religion." I find happiness in other things.