Another way of Looking at Design (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 17:27 (5484 days ago) @ dhw

Matt: Do you understand why I lean towards materialism because of our operational limitations?
> The "operational limitations" are very clear to me, and the attractions of materialism are obvious, not just because it appears to offer a degree of testability, but also because it's by far the most straightforward of all the ...isms. However, while respecting your priorities, I don't share them, and I think they will continue to cause misunderstandings.
> 
> For instance, you say: "When we're looking for truths about existence, we need to be 'certain' about a great many things. In terms of music, it is pitch, timbre, and rhythm..." When my heart misses a beat during an opera or symphony, I'm not thinking about pitch, timbre or rhythm, and nor, I dare say, are you! -At one time; no I wouldn't. Before I started learning music and music technology, it was all about "being in the moment," and sometimes I still connect to that, especially with certain bands--and always with Miles Davis. But usually, I'm always thinking about critical components: clutter, timbre of the instruments and their choice in the mix, stereo pan; application of reverb on tom drums and not cymbals; Once you've opened pandora's box it's impossible to close it, heh. I also hate how much compression gets applied to vocals anymore... if you hear "sibilance" symbols distort it's almost always because they crunched the singer's vocals way too much to try to deal with the amount of compression applied on modern radio. Wow that was a tangent...-You go on: "All things that man can properly study have a material component." I suspect you mean that it's only material things that can be "properly" studied, and by "properly" you mean scientifically. If so, I agree. However, your various statements seem to imply that existential experience needs to be studied if it is to be taken seriously. If so, I disagree. The impact of music and art, the nature of love ... these can be studied in a sense, but you can never come up with objective conclusions, and you will never be able to explain their essence. They're experiences that go way beyond any material context, but that doesn't dilute their reality. Whether they represent "truths about existence" is another matter. I can only say maybe. But if they do, they aren't testable "studiable" truths, and indeed one of the truths they might tell is that there's a world beyond the material, testable one!
> -Anyone who deeply considers consciousness knows this to be true. Yeah, "Properly" means that we can humanly wrap it up, tie it together, and DO something with it. (Always the "DO" for me...)-> You ask: "How much of the search for God isn't simply man's instinctive desire that everything carries meaning?" We don't know, do we? Nor do we know if "the mystery exists only because WE exist." I'm always amazed by the number of people ... believers and atheists ... who are confident enough to think they do know, one way or the other. But so long as you keep asking the questions, as opposed to believing you know the answers, you're a long way away from nihilism.
> -The only time you can stop asking questions is if you actually have an answer. And in my case, there is practically no way to tell that I've found an answer... my own "real" search began well over 18 years ago, and the only thing that's different is that I have a deeper appreciation for all things mystical; much more than I would have admitted 10 years ago, but all the same I think we've finally hit a watershed: Religious experiences--however they exist--are exactly the way you state in this post. They are fleeting; like a song, they leave deep impacts, and they rush us to inspiration. When I say that "The best argument for God lies in consciousness," this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Mysticism when studied is often an exercise in duplicating emotional states from one person to another. This is no coincidence to me. -> Congratulations on being accepted into Grad School. As a confirmed technophobe, I can only admire anyone who is able to launch himself into such projects. I hope you'll be happy doing this work, and I have no doubt (away with agnosticism!) that you'll make a success of it.-"Confirmed Technophobe?" I didn't know Luddites had priests!

--
\"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.\"