Quote: Original post by Oberon_Command
That is true, but only if you assume that every human's lifetime is exactly 100 years. In reality, this is not the case. Your assumption is invalid.

What I am saying (though my words seem to be falling on deaf ears) is that following the rules of your society (our morals) allows you to live longer, hence maximizing the duration of your pleasure. You don't seem to be listening to me, so I'll try to rephrase using a metaphor. Humans after all seem built to think in metaphors. [smile]

Consider the the old Aesop (?) fable about an ant and a grasshopper (?). The grasshopper pissed away the summer frolicking about doing pleasurable things, while the ant gathered food all through the summer. The grasshopper, being unprepared for the winter, died of starvation and cold. Meanwhile, the ant got to party (pleasure!) because it had enough food stored up to last it through the winter.

I do things that I do not consider pleasurable because I realize (or my instincts realize, whichever you prefer; in the case of animals it is evolved instinct) that if I put off pleasure now in favor of performing certain actions that are not pleasurable, I will get pleasure (or have the opportunity to feel pleasure) when those tasks are complete. I work so that I can play.

It is said that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All play and no work makes Jack a dead or dying boy. If all Jack does is play all day, he will be considered useless to society and unable to take care of himself. He will hence be undesirable for mating, and his genes will not be passed on to the next generation.

Once again: I urge you to look up Freud's "Pleasure Principle" and "Reality Principles", because everything you are saying is answered/explained by those two conceptions.

Well, your words haven't been falling on deaf ears. I'm aware of what you're trying to say, and I've been reading your words carefully. The idea that I've been trying to put forward, though, is that if there is no real purpose behind existence, then you can essentially do whatever you want.
I think we can agree on the fact that humans seek pleasure, whether it is pleasure in the present, or potential pleasure in the future as a result of labor done in the present. The core of human motivation is the desire for the experience of pleasure.

What I've been asking is, does it really matter if you play by society's rules in order to gain this pleasure? Society might have self-regulated itself into a specific system which maximizes humanity's potential for survival, but does following this system reward us with the best possible pleasure/effort ratio for this one short lifetime we have to experience this existence?
You say that following this system increases the potential for pleasure in the future, because a human being which follows the system is somehow protected by it. That is probably true.

However, evolution does not care about pleasure/effort ratios, which is what we are interested in optimizing as much as possible, to get the most out of our short experience of existence. To evolution, whatever lives on, lives on, regardless of how much effort that lifeform experienced in order to live on.
We are now sufficiently advanced, at least in this thread, to look at our ourselves, our society and our existence, and wonder whether it should logically be worth the effort. I say, living by society's rules might not offer the best pleasure/effort ratio at all.

I'll look into those works by Freud, I've always wanted to read Freud, so this is a good opportunity.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Well, your words haven't been falling on deaf ears. I'm aware of what you're trying to say, and I've been reading your words carefully. The idea that I've been trying to put forward, though, is that if there is no real purpose behind existence, then you can essentially do whatever you want.

Yup. Isn't freedom exciting? :P

It is said that life is what you make of it to yourself. I think that's really quite true. You want a purpose in life, give yourself one. Be inventive. This is one of the problems I have with religion; it gives one a sense of purpose, a sense of meaning, when really oneself should be the one doing that. Sadly, the human creature is a lazy thing and doesn't like thinking for itself.

Quote: We are now sufficiently advanced, at least in this thread, to look at our ourselves, our society and our existence, and wonder whether it should logically be worth the effort. I say, living by society's rules might not offer the best pleasure/effort ratio at all.

I'd say that it's possible. The problem is this: what set of rules might offer the best pleasure/effort ratio? I think that if we're dissatisfied with the current system, we should do something about it, i.e. come up with a new set of rules. Sadly, there are too many people and too many perspectives on Earth to come up with an entirely new set of rules and get everyone moving in the direction of following them. People don't like change, sadly.

When I spoke of the perfection of the universe I did so in your context of "being finely tuned".

So to say "the universe is perfect, and therefore must have a creator" is flawed, because the universe could possess a minor flaw and still have been created, or it could have possessed a major flaw, failed, but you'd never know that failure existed. So the perfection or imperfection of the universe does not dictate its possession of a creator, neither does it negate the chance that it was formed randomly.

If I were to write a program, and it failed to run. It would never know it failed to run. If I were to fix it, and then run it, it would never know it failed. Thus to the first (version), the universe never existed, to the second, this is it's first and only (perfect) universe.

In that scenario the program could also be written at random and would fail most of the time, however it may eventually succeed, and the successful version would not know of the failures, and thus would be unable to deduce how many failures there were, or the source of those failures. Random or created, the program would just be.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
If you apply Occam's razor to the problem, I'd say it's more likely that some entity just made the universe, and that's that, instead of saying "there has been a long series of universes, with varying natural laws, and now we're just lucky to inhabit a universe which works as well as it does."

I don't see a link between your conclusion and Occam.
If we'll apply Occam's razor-we'll get rather an evolutionary selection in "multiverse".Firstly,your "entity"(creator) had to exist somewhere before it.Where? And how it could appear? Such hypothesis create more questions than answers. I'm afraid that you've cutted more than it was neсessary...

Quote: Original post by Krokhin
Firstly,your "entity"(creator) had to exist somewhere before it.Where? And how it could appear?

You're saying that doesn't apply to the multiverse theory?
What I'm saying is that the Creator has always existed. I'm also saying that the Creator IS the universe - the Creator is not a separate entity which created the universe outside of itself. Rather, the Creator uses its infinite resources to mold itself into the universe that WE ARE. You are the Creator, Krokhin, how does it feel? [wink]

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
You're saying that doesn't apply to the multiverse theory?
What I'm saying is that the Creator has always existed. I'm also saying that the Creator IS the universe - the Creator is not a separate entity which created the universe outside of itself. Rather, the Creator uses its infinite resources to mold itself into the universe that WE ARE. You are the Creator, Krokhin, how does it feel? [wink]

Feels stupid.

And here is why: if indeed the universe had a purpose, and the goal for all entities inside of it was to fulfill that goal, you would expect certain things to be true, for once, everyone would know what this goal was, we would all be connected in some way, and I don't mean the hippie version of connection with the earth, I mean at the very least in the way some ants and bees can be said to work all together as a single entity, only not just between same subspecies, but all living things, I would expect me to be able to know what you or anything in the universe feels, alas, none of this is so.

At the very least you would expect remote viewing to hold some water, but guess what? it doesn't.

Now, you may ask what is the harm on entertaining these ideas? no harm as long as you take them as fiction, or as yet to be proven hypothesis (though there is enough in my last paragraph to prove it wrong), the moment you begin touting them as real and truth without tangible proof, you do a disservice to mankind by halting its advancement in understanding of the universe at large.

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
Feels stupid.

And here is why: if indeed the universe had a purpose, and the goal for all entities inside of it was to fulfill that goal, you would expect certain things to be true, for once, everyone would know what this goal was, we would all be connected in some way, and I don't mean the hippie version of connection with the earth, I mean at the very least in the way some ants and bees can be said to work all together as a single entity, only not just between same subspecies, but all living things, I would expect me to be able to know what you or anything in the universe feels, alas, none of this is so.

[...]

you do a disservice to mankind by halting its advancement in understanding of the universe at large.

There are some assumptions in here that are wrong, but unless you want me to, I'll refrain from correcting them, because it's not my job to convince you or anyone else into believing anything. I do my part in creating an interesting discussion by offering my views, but no more. You don't seem to be interested in a discussion. If you want to believe in a universe without greater purpose, then do so. My belief tells me that free will is the most important principle to honor. So, exercise your free will and live your life as you please, and I'll do the same. [smile]

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
There are some assumptions in here that are wrong, but unless you want me to, I'll refrain from correcting them, because it's not my job to convince you or anyone else into believing anything. I do my part in creating an interesting discussion by offering my views, but no more. You don't seem to be interested in a discussion. If you want to believe in a universe without greater purpose, then do so. My belief tells me that free will is the most important principle to honor. So, exercise your free will and live your life as you please, and I'll do the same. [smile]

Your job by presenting a hypothesis about anything is to defend that hypothesis, dropping it when it is shown to be invalid, you can rework it all you want, but the closest I think you will get is that everything is part of the universe (big surprise there).

This isn't meant to be argumentative just for the sake of it, I am interested in the discussion (we can all learn something out of this), which is why I am pointing out the flaws in your argument, but you don't seem to be at all interested in dissenting views, you seem to have come here looking only for approval of your ideas, which means you've made your mind, you know you're right and nothing will change that, that's really unfortunate.

At any rate, don't think I have anything personal against you, I don't even know you, my views on this thread are in regards to the ideas you're putting forward.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
What I'm saying is that the Creator has always existed. I'm also saying that the Creator IS the universe - the Creator is not a separate entity which created the universe outside of itself. Rather, the Creator uses its infinite resources to mold itself into the universe that WE ARE. You are the Creator, Krokhin, how does it feel? [wink]

1.the Creator has always existed
2.Creator IS the universe
3.Creator is not a separate entity which created the universe outside of itself.
4.Creator uses its infinite resources to mold itself into the universe that WE ARE.
Ok,you are simply saying that creator==universe,and never mind is it "smart" universe/God or normal(i.e."stupid" and "blind").
But my comment was related with this:

Quote:
I'd say it's more likely that some entity just made the universe

What do you mean saying "made"? Create or develop only? May be Developer? [smile]
And what happened with creator in Bingo-bang moment? He was shaving with Occam razor and has cutted itself accidentaly?It's a very hard work,of couse -to shave a point having a size of elementary particle or less.Quantum undeterminity and so on... [smile]
Or maybe universe was just a point inside creator? But in such case where was a some space around universe,i.e another universe.

[Edited by - Krokhin on March 11, 2009 1:50:02 PM]

Quote: Original post by Kwizatz
This isn't meant to be argumentative just for the sake of it, I am interested in the discussion (we can all learn something out of this), which is why I am pointing out the flaws in your argument,

Alright, I'll take that as my cue to tell you why your assumptions are wrong. Put your reading glasses on. [wink]

Quote:
And here is why: if indeed the universe had a purpose, and the goal for all entities inside of it was to fulfill that goal, you would expect certain things to be true, for once, (1) everyone would know what this goal was, we would all be connected in some way, and I don't mean the hippie version of connection with the earth, I mean at the very least in the way some ants and bees can be said to work all together as a single entity, only not just between same subspecies, but all living things, (2) I would expect me to be able to know what you or anything in the universe feels, alas, (3) none of this is so.

Assumption (1).
As I said, free will is the most important principle in the universe. Every entity is sovereign in determining its own path back to the Creator. Instead of thinking of the universe as a meaningless collection of matter, think of it as a schoolhouse which provides catalyst for seeking at all levels of spiritual advancement.

In the early lectures, it offers the lessons in the experience of being incarnate in a life-form such as a primitive animal. At the other end, you'll be able to finish your curriculum by inhabiting life-forms which are able to manipulate their surroundings purely by thought.

As an animal, you get to experience catalyst in the form of fear, pain, hunger and so forth. This is the equivalent of a spiritual preschool. Eventually, you'll graduate to the next grade which offers more advanced lessons in the form of an incarnation in a human body. I'm sure I won't have to explain why a human life is more complicated than an animal one.

This graduation process continues in a sequential and predetermined amount of steps. According to The Law of One, there are eight of these steps - each step having a specific lesson or purpose to offer. The animal world is step two, the human world is step three.


Assumption (2).
The purpose of step three is to make the entity choose a spiritual orientation.
There are two orientations to choose from, the positive, which embrace unity, and the negative, which embrace separation. Basically, good or evil. Now, put yourself in the position of the Creator, how would you design this third step, so that an entity receives the best possible catalyst for choosing a spiritual orientation? Think about that for a second.

The Creator determined that the best environment for exploring a spiritual orientation is a state of complete separation and amnesia. This makes step three particularly uncomfortable, but also highly efficient - step three relentlessly lashes at you in order to force you into an orientation. You're scared, you're lonely, but the question is: will you seek comfort from others or exploit them for your own benefit?

Most, if not all, spiritual teachings or guidelines tell you that benevolence is right, and malevolence is wrong. Not the Law of One, however. According to The Law of One, if you choose evil as a result of your own free will, that is just as acceptable as choosing good. In order to graduate to step four, all you need to do is choose an orientation, whether it's good or evil - you'll graduate anyway. You will remain in step three until you choose.

So, the fact of the matter is that just because you experience a remarkable isolation in your physical human body right now, that does not prove that the universe is not one single Creator. Step three is the only step where you experience this loneliness. Once you graduate to step four, telepathy will become the way of communication. Mind reading and sensing others feelings is the normal way of life for step four and beyond. If you were to be capable of these things in step three, the process of choosing an orientation would be greatly prolonged.

You're given hints to the true state of the universe in step three by things such as crop circles, UFO sightings and other paranormal phenomena. These occurrences have enough substance to them to provide a seeking entity with catalyst. But, they're no more than that either, an entity can also use its free will to deny any higher purpose in order to remain in its illusion of separation. It's your choice: your free will. You'll reach step four eventually, regardless of whether you dismiss this as hogwash or choose to take an interest.

All you have to do is keep making the choices you are comfortable with and let your actions reflect your innermost essence. After many tens of thousands of years, wherein you will have spent countless incarnations in human bodies - making choices - your actions will eventually display a pattern of either negative or positive intent. When this pattern is distinct enough to be classified as either positive or negative, you'll advance to step four.

Why does the Creator bother with this? The Creator wants to experience itself as richly as possible. It does this by distorting its unity into many-ness, which provides it with the ability to experience itself from an infinite number of subjective viewpoints. You are experiencing the Creator from a subjective viewpoint right now. The process of the Creator experiencing itself subjectively through the schoolhouse that we call the Cosmos, is at the deepest level nothing more than entertainment for the Creator.

The Law of One does not want you to worship anything or sacrifice anything from your life that you enjoy doing. It does not demand celibacy, nor does it demand that you wear any special clothing. It demands that you use your free will to do whatever you feel like. There is no right or wrong - there is only unity.
Whatever you do, you do to yourself. Whatever the Creator does, it does to itself.

I'd also like to point out that even though the negative path is fully accepted, it is also at its root incorrect. The negative path embraces separation, which is impossible, because there is only ONE Creator.
This is why the Law of One material states that only about 10% of entities choose to graduate to step four through negativity.

I've just scratched the surface of what's available to study in the Law of One books, for free: www.lawofone.info
Note: What I've talked about as 'steps' here is referred to as 'densities' in the books.


Assumption (3).
Hopefully I've added some counterweight to that assumption in this post.