THE PACK Message Boards

I usually work with one of two main working theories: a scientific model and a metaphysical one.

When working with the scientific model, I end up falling into existentialist problems, in life has no specific meaning, and its purpose is a circular one of maintaining itself. Maintaining life, following a purely scientific model without any extrapolation beyond what is presently known also meets with an inevitability of failure--granted, one that is trillions of years away with the decay of the universe into entropy, but failure none-the-less. Even my transhumanist / extropian motivation runs into problems with this model, since escaping death as a human being, either of old age or prematurely, is simply postponing the inevitable by a large but finite number of years.

Thus, I tend to find more comfort in the second model, the metaphysical one.

But, I'm well aware that wanting something to be true is not enough to make it so. (Actually, my metaphysical model in a certain sense suggests otherwise, but accepting that at this point in this discussion would be a logical fallacy.) Therefore, rather than accepting whichever religious model seems the friendliest or the other extreme, the most dire (i.e., believe in me or face infinite torment), I am going with an extrapolation of whatever seems to be coming at me. In my case, it is information gathered in a combination of dreams, personal experiences, and events that defy probability that impart information to me. Because these events range in nature from improbable "coincidence" to frank paranormal experiences, I have very little basis by which to prove to others my working metaphysical theories. Fortunately, I have no compelling motivation to do so, either, as my metaphysical theory does not include a need to convince others to think in any one specific way.

My metaphysical model includes several assumptions: that the mundane realm is just one of an infinite number of realms, that streams of consciousness are of core significance and are connected with multiple realms, and that not all streams of consciousness represent the same kind of "organism" or "species" across realms. This last one explains how I can identify with other animals, though at my core, I see myself as no more a wolf than a human, but as an entity that right now is one and relates to the other. This model by similar token does not recognize human needs as having any inherent superiority to the needs of other conscious animals; the cat in my lap right now has just as much a right to exist and seek contentment as does the people across the street in the parking lot. (I have working ethics models built around the idea of varying levels of cognition, in which those of us with more cognitive ability have certain privileges over those of less cognition, but with it duties to protect their integrity and their rights to evolve and develop.) I also believe that not all humans in this realm are the same "species" in other realms. Indeed, I have met only one or two others of my "kind" from what passes for a spirit realm.

Scott, your metaphysical model is astonishingly similar to the fluff I've been working on for the RPG I'm developing.
Great minds and all that.

That may not be coincidence. For over a decade I've used a role-playing gaming metaphor for life--that "souls" are players, "God" is the game master, and I'm my soul's character. (I've since reworked my notion of God and souls, but it's a familiar starting point to a lot of you out there.)

Interesting observations using this metaphor:

1. A role-playing campaign starts in a world that's already created. The GM makes it in an afternoon, but he or she designs a world that's supposedly been there for ages. I therefore came up with a better reconciliation between The Bible's "seven days" and the observable real world's 4.6 billion years than anything most Fundamentalists have offered. I can even explain dinosaurs. Too bad I'm a Pagan.

2. A player can have multiple characters playing in the same or several campaigns. I could have other incarnations alive right now, but existing in "campaigns" set in the past, the future, or other realms of existence.

3. People can be NPCs. This, once again, is a better reconciliation of the notion of "only humans have souls" than anything anyone else has offered. I don't believe it, but I could believe it if I wanted, because I have a model that explains how it could work. One should note, however, that "soul-less" beings are actually played by God, so if I did believe that only humans had souls, I'd have to abandon my Whole Foods runs and go back to not eating meat at all.

4. Other players can play the same character, or a character can be re-used in concept. Parallel selves with beards--"your agonizer, please." If a player can't show up one day, the GM might play the character as an NPC that night, or another player might play the character just for that one session. My head hurts.

I don't tell Fundamentalists that I've solved some of their philosophical problems; it's too much fun letting them bumble along. Besides, if I did, I'd deprive them of their opportunity to break out of polarized thinking by stumbling across better ideas while they try to preserve and maintain the ones that don't work right.

Scott Gardener wrote:That may not be coincidence. For over a decade I've used a role-playing gaming metaphor for life--that "souls" are players, "God" is the game master, and I'm my soul's character. (I've since reworked my notion of God and souls, but it's a familiar starting point to a lot of you out there.)

Interesting observations using this metaphor:

1. A role-playing campaign starts in a world that's already created. The GM makes it in an afternoon, but he or she designs a world that's supposedly been there for ages. I therefore came up with a better reconciliation between The Bible's "seven days" and the observable real world's 4.6 billion years than anything most Fundamentalists have offered. I can even explain dinosaurs. Too bad I'm a Pagan.

Actually, that does sound like what some Fundamentalists beleive, that God did create the earth in 7 days and all sicnece and the dinosaur bones were placed int othe earth by god. But, quite frankly, I think that this is not a very plausible idea and is a load of bunk.

meaning of life eh? i could drag up the catholic church viewpoint and claim that mine but I would be lieing even though I'm catholic. no i rather believe that there might be something bigger, there might be a pre-sit plan, but im just the curious observer and im here for the ride to watch and enjoy. I act in as best i can and if i can obtain a simple meaning, something to fight for, care for, and possible die for, I'll take it.

The meaning of life is to live but to live with aout a meaning then what is the point in living........

The meaning of life is to live but to live with aout a meaning then what is the point in living........

Quite simply there is none at all. It's easy to confuse function or impetus with purpose or meaning.

However, a typical response may be 'so why not kill yourself?'. However, you must ask the questions equally. You ask, what is the point in living? There is so far no answer, and I'd go so far as to say there is no answer A Priori. Now you must ask 'What is the point in dying?'. My answer would be the same. How would one decide?

It'd come down to subjective preference. Would you rather what life has to offer, or nothing? Because the subjective preference has exactly zero objective yardsticks, your answer can apply to nobody else, and will depend upon your faculties, salient tendencies and capacity to enjoy this, that or the other over nothing.