Why is a \"designer\" so compelling? (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, July 31, 2009, 00:44 (5376 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
> - I can understand where you're coming from, but allow me to nudge you to my perspective. Particular passages escape me save for one. In "On Apostates" in TSZ, there is a scene where God is among gods and declares himself "the only god." N implies that he is an ass for doing this. God has his place but it isn't to be first in the world. This is one of several passages that to me suggest that we're not replacing God as much as displacing him. The two words lead to radically different meanings. If God is one among several, then so too, is the ubermensch. His argument definitely appeals to American mythos, the idea of a world where each individual is "uncapped" and allowed to freely develop, is really little more than a restatement of Locke, and a precursor to Rand. I see very little glorification in N's writing, especially of the self. Life, most assuredly, but not the self. - > This all ties in very neatly with your reference to Buddhism, which counts as a religion, though I see it more as a philosophy. Buddha's eightfold path (right views, right aspirations, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right contemplation) is designed to lead the individual to Enlightenment and hence to Nirvana. Once again, the emphasis is on perfecting the self. It has to be trained to renounce just about everything that we humans enjoy most! Not much outward-looking there either. 
> - Moderation would be a better explanation of Buddhism... the same for Epicurus actually, though in our day and age "Epicurean" has a completely different meaning. - > In relation to our own discussion, however, I can only repeat that I don't find any of this relevant to your quest or mine for the truth about how we got here. Both Nietzsche and Buddha are focusing on how we can best live our lives. Nothing wrong with that, but I get the impression that most of us on this forum have already worked it out for ourselves. 
> - This is true--utterly--but in order to understand how I think I thought it would be important to share with you. I'm a "between the lines" reader, I'm usually more interested in the framework that went into what someone said than necessarily what they say. It's the frameworks and the perspectives they cause that creates confusion. - > And so to the "prime cause", which is just a convenient way of referring to whatever started things off. I'm not sure that Buddha would have laughed at it. His concern was to help us achieve perfect peace rather than with how we got landed in the otherwise endless cycle of birth-death-rebirth. (I could never swallow that aspect of Buddhism. If I don't remember what or who I was last time round, I might just as well not have been here.)
> - Reincarnation is an artifact of Hinduism... I learned that it is simply something that those cultures added to the teaching so that it would be assimilated. It is one of the many "rafts" Shakyamuni gave more as a parable that was taken literally. You will find very few non-lay Buddhists adhering to this principle. (Willing to give references if so wished.) - > On the subject of belief, you write: "Even if inconclusive there are some explanations that are more believable than others." That's obviously true. The problem is that there's no consensus as to which ones they are. - This line jumps out at me. I've thought alot about this. How could one possibly build a consensus about such an issue? Considering that so much of this issue is specifically built upon personal philosophical frameworks... it smacks of me to be the stuff of aesthetic art. Considering that the question has been open at least for 2500 years, at what point should we consider it intractable? Mathematically we have shown that there can be no "proof." That means to me that the pious are right and only "faith can set you free." Not that I like that idea. Tiresome, and unyielding--is doubt. - >But you are "in a suspended state of belief on the ultimate question", and that is what I mean by the "prime cause". We have crossed the non-finishing line together! - At least once a week you say something to make me shoot milk out of my nose. Congrats, my dog is now happy...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"