Why is there something rather than nothing? (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, April 06, 2011, 23:38 (4979 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: The main thing I'm trying to do is encourage a radical uprooting for both you and dhw...It is very difficult to completely flip thinking like this, but it IS possible.
> 
> The discussions with you are never less than stimulating, and you continually push us along paths we would not otherwise explore. I'm therefore acutely conscious of how frustrating it must be if I keep refusing to go all the way with you, even though I do usually go SOME of the way. You acknowledged recently that your scientific materialism sits uneasily with your mysticism, and you've always been honest enough to admit it when there are contradictions in your arguments. The problem as I see it is that science and mysticism ... like philosophy and common sense ... are only compatible to a certain degree, but there is a point beyond which they cannot converge. My state of indecision makes it impossible for me to ignore opposing arguments, and so when you state a positive case, I generally look for flaws, which makes me a horribly negative interlocutor, for which I apologize. But ultimately we tend to finish on the same side, because neither of us can embrace the extremes of theism/atheism. 
> -Don't go Dawkins on me! That's dangerously close to "Can't live together..."-As I explore the depths of eastern thought, I see clearly what you discussed before, such as a rejection of subject/object. Nietzsche often talked about exploring the world both Eso- and exo-terically... -But a cutting Buddhist observation I recently read (and it is backed up by Freud/Jung) is that of what we see and witness in the world; we do not have an intrinsically objective view, and Nietzsche would go so far as to say that it is not possible to be objective at all. So much is done by our subconscious that we have every right to question how reliable our observations really are... which goes into the "radical skepticism" I espouse. It is definitely in the philosophical realm, but from my view, if we aren't yet to the point where we can fully trust our eyes, we should stay there until we "get it right..."-And then there's how much language itself influences observation...-> I think science and mysticism ... like philosophy and common sense ... are different approaches to an unknowable truth, and all of them can capture aspects of it in their different ways, but all of them have their limitations. Our discussions make us increasingly conscious of what can and can't be known, so even if we don't "completely flip" our thinking, that doesn't mean your efforts are wasted. Quite the reverse. I hope, though, that the very act of articulating and defending these ideas is of some use to you, because I would feel bad if I was the only one benefiting!-No... I live for conflict, as "strong" as that may seem. Nothing's more exciting than throwing out a batch of ideas and seeing which ones survive...

--
\"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.\"