From: nospam@example.net   
      
   >> Is _this_ the solution to fermis paradox? That   
   >> civilizations sufficiently advanced, all reach this state   
   >> and just "stop" because their values lie in a world beyond   
   >> this (unprovable)?   
   >>   
   >> Ok, that's some personal views for you. Happy now? ;)   
   >   
   > Yes! I just had the best sleep I've had in weeks!   
      
   No more view for you! ;)   
      
   >   
   > *** KIDDING! ***   
   >   
   > :-)   
   >   
   > BTW, I'm write-in-candidate voting for you as Precedent   
   > of the United States. ;-)   
      
   Woho! =)   
      
   >> Yes! In science takign peoples opinions and theories as   
   >> starting points, if you agree with them, I think is an   
   >> excellent idea! Then you discuss, modify, devise strategies   
   >> for disproving/confirming them, modify again, and slowly,   
   >> over time, you develop better theories that will enable   
   >> us to navigate our world better and better.   
   >>   
   >> The problem is with pure philosophy, because not much   
   >> testing can be done there. But as the handmaiden   
   >> of science, philoosphy can explore the fringes of   
   >> science, or areas which are not yet science and still   
   >> be philosophy. Consciousness I think is one such area,   
   >> and the meaning of life is another.   
   >   
   > That sounds like a lot of work that I've no longer time   
   > or energy for, especially knowing the forces that would   
   > oppose such happening for their own selfish reasons.   
      
   True! It is not an easy path to riches!   
      
   > The only kind of solution that ever makes sense to me is   
   > the transcendent kind, because it makes sense to me that   
   > when the being *itself* is the problem, no amount of that's   
   > being's doing could ultimately lead other than to more   
   > problems. So either that (way of) being is transcended,   
   > or We Can't Have Good Things, because said being seems   
   > incompatible with Good Things.   
      
   Is it really a problem? What about all the people who are happy with   
   their being! ;)   
      
   > We say "shit happens" because what's wrong with us won't   
   > let us see that the more accurate phrase ought to be   
   > "shit begets shit".   
      
   Occams asshole!   
      
   > Note that when I say "we", I don't mean everyone, because   
   > some have *transcended* shithood. Maybe they're the one's   
   > with what you've been calling "intrinsic meaning"?   
      
   Maybe. I find the thought that there is nothing wrong with the "I" and   
   that we definitely have all the mental tools available to us to be happy   
   inside the "I" quite fascinating.   
      
   As you say, and in a lot of religions the I is the problem and must be   
   eliminated. However... is this really so? Maybe there is a path to   
   happiness through the I as well as without the I?   
      
   >> Well, as long as you are happy, I am happy! ;)   
   >   
   > Now there's some powerful transcendence!   
   >   
   >>>> For the sake of this discussion I'm placing myself 100%   
   >>>> square in the materialist camp, where I am certain that an   
   >>>> external world exists, and that we humans can meaningfully   
   >>>> convey truths about the world to each other.   
   >>>   
   >>> I can't go as far as "truths" - online as far as beliefs /   
   >>> opinions / theories.   
   >>   
   >> I respect that. In my case, I find my stance for this   
   >> discussion (as above) a good tool to keep the discussion   
   >> "stringent" and on point. Arguing from a non-truth,   
   >> relativist or idealist stance does in my opinion tend to   
   >> lead to people just speaking past each other and eventually   
   >> just give up and go silent.   
   >   
   > Exactly! Surely you remember hearing/reading that there's   
   > something golden about that state! ;-)   
      
   True! =) Yet... here we still are? ;)   
      
   >>>>> Is it back the good 'ole "the purpose of life is to realize   
   >>>>> and, more importantly, accept there's no purpose to life"   
   >>>>> thing?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Depends on the philosophical starting point, see above. ;)   
   >>>   
   >>> So... is truth, then, dependent upon starting point?   
   >>   
   >> Oh, that's another can of worms right there. In terms of   
   >> what truth is, there are some theories. Correspondence   
   >> theory, coherence theory, relativism etc. That could be   
   >> an entirely new thread on its own.   
   >   
   > The fingers are willing, but the interest is weak. :-)   
      
   Yes, not a quick road to intellectual riches for sure! ;)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)