here’s an article to read: http://nvate.com/7163/universe-alive/
I think Carl Jung is dismissed too much.
I think there are two pivotal point in human history:
- When Plato and others encounter the sophists
- When Carl Jung and Albert Einstein meet
With #1, it has to do with this issue: Is there a truth or (T)ruth worth pursuing?
With #2, it has to do with this issue: Is there a truth or (T)ruth worth pursuing?
And you could say it boils down to the following: Is there an “intent” behind all of reality?
Now, culpability is a pain in the ass. I think deterministic beings are incapable of intent, because intent is something that requires free-will. It’s a philosophical notion. Wants, desires, etc.. They’re illusions.
I’d like to think, however, if there is some being that had or has free-will, then it was or is culpable, thus had intent. With that said, everything occurring around us has a “reason” for occurring.
Philosophers of old wanted to know if there was a Truth to be known, much like saying there is a God to be known. Carl Jung was touching on whether or not there is meaning to anything in reality, whether or not there is intent behind space-time events and their occurrence.
And I’d like to bring up the simulation argument, whereby reality is a virtual simulation. Under that premise, you can start arguing there is intent.
A video game designer often has various intents with designing a game. In general, with modern society the way it is, the “intent” is to entertain, thus make money for the company by getting people to buy something entertaining. But I like to take things a little further and look at the details of the game, what was behind each of the aspects in the game.
And I like to look at things in the game, such as when people question if there is a God. Because it’s not people questioning if there is a God: It’s “God” having programmed them to question if there is a “God,” which seems kind of like a silly thing to do.
Imagine a game programmer making an NPC question in the game, upon approaching and interacting with the NPC, if there is a programmer. So, let’s saying I’m playing a game and I come across an NPC. I press “X” or whatever controller button and it says, “I wonder if there is a programmer that created me.”
Well, certainly there was. And it was the programmer that “caused” the NPC to state such. And if you look around the “real” world, there is a lot of the same going on. People question if there is a God.
I take it in two possible ways:
- God’s harassing us
- It’s a fluke from a completely, purely random universe having been designed with no “chance” involved
Now, of curious note is whether or not I can engage in “self-reflection” in order to say, “That’s not funny.”
Self-reflection could just as well be an illusion. Thus, any chance of self-reflection being a delusion of my mind. But in my believed self-awareness, I look at a person questioning God’s existence as something pre-planned since the dawn of existence. And my own observation of this individual as also pre-planned since the beginning of time. Thus, I even further question, “What’s the point?”
There are a lot of arguments against the existence of God, but if I just label all of reality as a superorganism, thus God, I think I define God quite adequately. But then we get into an issue of “part vs. whole.”
Regardless, I still look at how the questioning of God’s existence was pre-destined, since the beginning of time. The universal soup has it encoded in it. It was there, as the universe existed in a pkzip archive format. Had the universe been different at the beginning, the question would not be the same. So, as the whole, the part was included. Since all that existed in the beginning was the whole via all the laws of physics, the question was necessarily pre-planned to occur.
So, the question becomes, “What’s the meaning of this? Is there a reason for this? For it to be part of reality for an individual to ask if God exists?”
I guess that’s like going into a courtroom with a dictionary definition of God, and claiming that God exists because the dictionary says so. However, you can argue against that and call it hearsay. If you spend enough time studying law, that makes sense. Unless you were born in court, were born the court, etc.. anything and everything that exists outside of you is hearsay. So, you’re left with hearsay.
It’s very possible, then, that what’s occurring is God is asking if there is a God. This relates to a hypothesis I have that God is “insane” or in an R-complex state and currently undergoing a learning curve, which explains why the universe is not stable. But I want to stay on track: Meaning.
I think there is meaning, but it requires “acausal” thinking. An individual might say, “That doesn’t make sense.” I think it does, and it requires the ability to look at things symbolically. And then using the interpretation of the symbolic language and testing it to see if it can have any influence on reality.
If we look at dead cultures, they used symbolic language to encapsulate meaning. We have the Japanese language moving around that uses symbols to represent ideas and concepts. So, symbolic language does exist. And if you analyze it more, I don’t have to agree that a certain thing means what you want it to mean. Granted, I’m not a philosopher of language, but that something “means” something depends upon agreeability.
What tends to be fascinating if not questionable is if I can ever agree on what someone means by something. Deconstructive nihilism is a bitch. I love I’m not posting on the forum, atm.
However, with this, I’d like to posit the idea of a signal-to-noise ratio. A signal is the absolute form, the obtaining of meaning. Noise is a meaning “attempting” to be sent but failing. Imagine going through an Egyptian pyramid for the first time. You see all these hieroglyphs and they mean nothing. However, as you study it more, you start to see a pattern. And eventually, you get the signal: You distill out the message.
So, there is “meaning” behind them. But that’s also subjective. When I’m talking about “meaning,” I mean something that had intent, which is an absolute. With deconstructive nihilism, we take language and put a stake through its heart, relying on agreeability to make things move through the mud.
So, let’s go back to Jung.
Jung is talking to someone about their dream of a beetle. The person doesn’t believe in Jung’s bullshit. Something rattles at the window. Amazingly, it’s a beetle.
Was communication occurring?
If the universe is a superorganism, thus God, it would simplify to God talking to itself, so that’s not much use. But if there is some act to influence part of the whole in order to amplify its existence to “evolve” or “better” it, the act may have been to inspire an individual to engage in pattern-recognition behavior.
I think the issue goes into something called “the culpability problem.”
Resolution of the culpability problem equates to resolution of whether or not there is intent behind the existence of the universe. But I think a lot of people asking “Does God exist?” when many think “God made us” creates a situation where God is questioning “Is there more than I,” thus positing the same questions we posit. That then simplifies to the response “You exist.”