Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (39131)	6/5/1999 1:50:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

On perfection and theology: Joan (may I call you Joan?); I agree with your sentiments in this post. Nature cannot be interpreted relatively, since we have no basis for comparison. We only know this one arrangement, so we can't know if there's a better form available or not. If we limit our definition of perfection to mean "that which works" then the case could certainly be made that the system of nature on Earth could be called "perfect." That is, that the system is, as a whole, eminently workable. Nothing can destroy the fundamental system, because the only requirement for the continuance of the system is that it adapts in some way to compensate. If it can continue to compensate for meteorological fluctuations, or mass extinctions, or what have you, then it is fulfilling its role, it is continuing to exist despite all. In that sense at least, it could (potentially, with a loose enough definition) be called perfect. However, one of our basic tenets is that the ends don't necessarily justify the means. If there were a way to create a world in which the system remained intact, not in spite of the hardships it necessitated, but because there were no hardships, and the being who had created the world chose the former course over the latter, then that world would not be perfect, since there would have been a better way, but more importantly that creator would not be perfect, again because there was a better way. And on that subject; does anyone hear have any information or links on Abraxas? What little I know is from Hesse's Demian. I've done searches, but I come up with a software company, a Polish progessive rock band, the Santana album, and an assortment of other irrelevancies. As it's presented in Demian, Abraxas was a (I believe) later Greek god/concept. He was portrayed as simply an immensely more powerful version of us, complete with all of our flaws. The belief was exclusively monotheistic, with the notion being that this one being, because of his imperfect nature, was responsible for both good and evil. Essentially he was a flawed god, and that's why we live in a flawed world. I've been interested in the idea since the first time I read Demian, but have found virtually no information on the subject. Thanks, -BLT

To: jbe who wrote (39131)	6/5/1999 8:05:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

There was a better way, of course, than feeding on one another, and that was the Plant Kingdom, where plants don't feed on plants but on sunlight and minerals. Parasitism, fungi, bacteria cam later, but the other kingdoms of predators (on plants and each other) really spoiled things. But Joan, you are looking at the world with eyes from a liberated time. When Leibniz, Plato, and Anaxagoras and other perfectionists wrote they had not enjoyed the results of a scientific revolution and the full right to be an atheist. When I was a young aspiring physical scientist I found that like Newton I didn't need the hypothesis of God to learn about the physical universe. Nor did I need metaphysics to understand physics -- all I needed was mathematics and good eyesight and an opposable thumb or two. I took in my hand a book of Leibniz's Metaphysics. I read it carefully first. I saw that this poor brilliant man was locked into the old philosophical question of perfection. He was a genius of invention -- windowless monads, perpetual spirits. But even he could not meet the test of common sense. I therefore followed Hume's advice and committed it to the flames -- and have never needed it since. I did recognize that he was struggling against the Enlightenment to save God -- who desperately needed saving. He operated at a noble and elevated level. Voltaire was unfair in his attack -- intentionally not understanding what Leibniz was saying. But this served Voltaire's critical objective of destroying the Church and Faith. I have never cared for theological conservatives or accepted that their self-imposed missions were worthwhile. I see in the paper that half of Americans think faith is important in their lives, and a fourth of Europeans. It takes a very long time to extinquish the myths and fantasies of the past, especially when the alternative is the recognition that we live in a self-constructed human society in a universe that does care if we live or die or vanish entirely, that we are responsible for any future that we have and that there is no God to look after us or reward us for our useless individual struggles to survive and the hopeless hope that as a human species that we may prevail.

To: jbe who wrote (39131)	6/5/1999 9:58:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Who is this we?>> Lots of people who've researched and discovered a complex order in the universe have determined that in its infinite yet obviously ordered complexity it is perfect. At least that's my presumption, I don't have names.

To: jbe who wrote (39131)	6/5/1999 10:11:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

I'm about to cry. Candide is my all time favorite story from my youth.

To: jbe who wrote (39131)	6/5/1999 10:14:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 108807

Wow, looks like I missed a lot of fun. Oh well, I'm glad I got to jump in at this point. <<In this discussion, we started off with the "problem of evil," that is, with the question of how an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing Creator God could create or at least allow evil. Next came the problem of evil specifically as manifested in Nature, in natural catastrophes such as hurricanes, floods, plagues, & etc. (Let's leave moral evil out of it, for the nonce!)>>

To: jbe who wrote (39131)	6/5/1999 10:50:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Ok, but lets look at the Black Widow situation through other eyes before dismissing it so handily. Here is the ultimate male. He is willingly sacrificing everything to the benefit of his offspring and to the satisfaction of his mate. When the little critters hatch, they scurry off on their own. There is no need for rearing or anything so nothing is lost by the absent dad. What is so awful. Who says there has to be romance has to go on until judgement day for all creatures. The presumption most of us have been making is that the BW slaughters her stupid duped mate with malice. Not so.