The horror! The horror!

I think I like this idea. I'm not prepared, as you say, to "walk the distance."You've convinced me.(actually, it occurred to me that all you would need is one little crack in the automata process for beauty, meaning, etc. to be real. God isn't necessary. A real consciousness is all you need. You said it's real. I'll run with that!)Thanks.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2005 14:04 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-26-2005 14:19 AM

---

The dragon is by the side of the road, watching those who pass. Beware lest he devour you.-- Cyril of Jerusalem

I think Para's view is as follows: life came about and evolved through automatic chemical reactions which eventually reached a level at which consciousness emerged. Out of consciousness we get "emergent" values.
Although it is true that consciousness, which includes a sense of self, is physical, and is thus a product of automatic, machine-like processes, consciousness itself has an autonomous element, a free-choice aspect, that renders values meaningful.I think Ifen's view is as follows: There is no "self" although there seems to be. This "seeming" is the ego, and it is the ego that causes the sense of horror at life's pointlessness and suffering and death. To go beyond the dream of life which is ego is to experience reality. This can only be done--if it can be done--through some sort of discipline. As regards evolution, Ifen's view fits it perfectly in the sense that the sense of self that has evolved has to be an illusion, many say.(I am probably dead-wrong in my understanding of both views).edited addition about Ifen's view: Nihilism is a natural and even reasonable reaction to existence.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-27-2005 09:42 AM

Yeah, Ifen, I was thinking after I wrote that that a lot of times you are not giving "your views" per se but simply the views of different Eastern systems that you had studied.I realized that I misrepresented your ideas to some extent.

Thanks, Para.