throw me a rope!

Hi guys,

I’ve recently stumbled upon this site and was greatly in need of it! I’m so impressed to find intellectual discussion which is actually up-to-date on the web! So many sites have been hijacked or discontinued. Pat on the back for that!
But back to the point. I am slowly falling into the abyss of nihilism and I need help. I am a philosopher who is very disillusioned with life. I’m too tired to find meaning yet philosophy has left me too finely tuned to just accept life without questioning it.
As with all philosophers I have dissected my old convictions and have invariably discarded them. I am left with a strong hunch for the existence of God. This is not a theist trying to push God through the seive at all costs. I was a fierce atheist and it was not without humility that I discovered some notion of God to be far more adequate an explanation of existence than science. However, from this point I am stuck. I cannot fathom this idea of God. At present, therefore, I am sinking into the “it’s all meaningless, what’s to stop me giving up?” frame of mind. Certainly my ambitions and excitements have been somewhat deadened by intense philosophical enquiry.
I need some strong argument to pull me out of this darkness and project the bright light of Purpose into by life.
I am indeed, like all in modernity, a victim of shallow, materialistic bourgeois mentality. However this is not my only complaint. I have rejected as much of this lifestyle as is feasible and still, and indeed perhaps more so, I find any postulated meaning of life to be inadequate. More than a victim of unsatisfactory lifestle, I am also a victim of misfortune. What can we really put our heart into and believe in with all our energy, when we are faced with the cruelest blows? What principle can stand all weather and all the tests of time? Many, will immediately propose Christ. Certainly, Christology has a tempting ring of truth to it and indeed is an almost comprehensive philosophy of life. Yet, at the end of the day, does it not require faith to accept this idea into one’s bosom? Such faith is not philosophically defensible and is something which I have great difficulty in acquiring. Until that day when I see the supernatural light, am I bound to live a life which is only half-heartedly with the world? I feel the day must come, and probably soon, when my apathy will just win out.

First you must think that your dilemma is the outcome of your limitation to understand the meaning. This will release some of your tention. After this continue with what you are doing, because it’s the same as we all do. The only times I really wanted to kill myself was when I thougt that I understood that there were no meaning. From my current point this was a missunderstanding.


a great cartoon appeared in the New Yorker a while ago

someone is meeting God and he is saying:

I don’t know how to say this, but everything that happens
happens for no real reason.


as a new member here; I am, like everyone, on the quest for meaning.
the closest I come is feeling as though I’m living in fiction, or
in eternity…but that only happens every once in a while…

To question existence. A life not examined is one not worth living, as I am told in my inner philosphical heart. The meaning of life is only a series of permanent questions and passing answers. Or worse, the questioning itself is found to be meaningless given death.

For me, Despair is the absolute bottom of living and yet it is also the only possible beginning point of faith in living.

For me, a god is not possible. Something spiritual in a supernatural way is not possible. But there seems to be something spiritual in the very possibility of making meaning. Important question is whether my kind of spiritualilty has any lasting power. But like the theist, if one has faith that one’s meaning is real, then one has some hope.

Is my FromDespairMeaningfullness (rather existentialist, I would imagine) for everybody? Probably not. Is it even for me? Sometimes I wonder if a god wouldn’t be easier. But then I recall my previous theist efforts (mimicking sevearl world religions), and I always return to the roots of man’s search for meaning: found in both despair and surprising possibilities.

Did I mention Love? I think being in love is my theism.

Thanks grasshopper! - not sure I understand the humour of that though. Am I missing something? Perhaps I’m simply missing a sense of humour.

Johan - Very sound and wise advice. I am glad someone else can appreciate the experience of discovering that there is no meaning. It is pretty scary is it not? I don’t think one can ever return to life as the same person after such a revelation. I certainly cannot. Indeed there is nothing in the world I want to do any more, or that I aspire to. Every attempt to realize ambition seems futile, requiring an effort which is naive. I merely want to give in and let it flow over me… to flow with the necessity. It is said that freedom is consciousness of necessity. Certainly this consciousness brings you the freedom of knowing that whatever one does it has to be so. Yet, this is not freedom in any energetic sense. Nietzche, of course, championed this idea of freedom - saying ‘yes!’ and affirming all action in the face of eternal recurrence. Certainly energetic under this interpretation. But I am no Uebermensch. I would not refuse to say ‘yes’ to my actions in the face of eternity but, equally well, I would gladly withdraw them also. My actions do not seem consequential in a good or bad sense. They seem worthless and all that remains appealing is the freedom which must arise from peace - the cessation of all willing. Freedom in the negation of life. Nietzsche was too much of a fighter for this. But I ask you if he faced his excrutiating migraines in eternal continuation, would he not cry out like me?

yes despair is really the worst.
I am despairing as I write.
It feel like bees. crying as they poke their stingers into me.

Tyger Tyger burning bright!

anyway, in the God cartoon he looked kind of big
and lumpy and was sitting at a desk.
the ‘new guy’ was lumpy too and looked a bit forlorn.

Grasshopper - I’m giggling a little more now - thanks! I like your bee analogy - mmmm, the bee is indeed something to think on, stinging and then dying…

Thank you for your very well considered and lucid reply. You are so right about the life unquestioned being worthless (well, near to worthless, anyway). It is a nice idea that life is a series of ‘passing answers’. And presume spirituality for you is about sculpting a meaning out of meaningless matter - giving it form as it were. Again, I feel you are right in defending the exitentialist thought that the realization of absurdity is the beginning of freedom. You put it as despair being the very possibility of meaningful existence. Yet, from this point of realized absurdity one must make a choice in order to leap back into life. You seem to suggest that that choice is individual and meaningful in its individuality. That i suppose is why it cannot be lasting.
However, in spite of agreeing profoundly with all you have said I find this;
I find that I make numerous ‘meanings’ for my existence, resolve daily on a new attitude toward life. Yet by the end of each day I have disassembled my tower of Babel and it lays in pieces ready for another futile day’s work.
You are right and perhaps more significantly than you realized, that love is meaning. It is love which binds us to life and puts energy and coherence in it. However, it thus hits us where it hurts when that love also becomes futile. When that love is swallowed up into the abyss, one reaches the very rock bottom of despair. Life has no meaning, questions have no answers, suffering has no reason… we cheerfully accept and continue, constructing our own personal philosophy of meaning. Yet that personal philosophy is fuelled by love. When the object of one’s affections draws your life force - your love - into the no-man’s land then is their hope in constructing meaning for this barren and perverse existence? In short, is their meaning once your beloved is dead?
Meaning reliant upon another can never really be meaning. Only autonomous contentment can resemble a true philosophy. But is this beyond us poor mortals?

the real seraph,

Freedom without meaning gives us total relativism. Don’t read Nietzche as a total relativist. It was not his ambition to deal with metaphysical questions. His power was in the rebellion against unjustified moral systems, and he did this well.

We must separate: 1. Total relativism as it appears because of subjective limitation. 2. Total relativism that appears as a result of the metaphysical substance. 1# can be adjusted with knowledge. #2 can not be adjusted but is the nature of the substance.

If you have total freedom to do whatever you like then your action would have no meaning. Actions get their meaning when they follow logic patterns. In my opinion meaning should not be created, it should be found through knowledge in the processes that surround us. Total relativism is not an alternative as long as there are processes that are larger then us that we can not adjust, or can not adjust without hurting ourselves.

If you are interested in what direction I look when it comes to metaphysical explanations please take a look at my other posts. I may be an objectivist, but I don’t see my model as static or boring in any way. Pleasure though is not a premiere function for me, but it is ofcourse very important and it follows all patterns that we found meaning with. It becomes secondary because it’s possible to feel pleasure with fiction. It seams that I may be the only objectivist in this forum besides those that are religious. I beleve that you always must ask yourselve why one more time. When you say something you are always relating this statement to something else, and finally to a metaphysical ground.

Love is the reward we get when we see meaningfull patterns in our life. It is not love that drives us but our need of love; or need of meaning.


Dear Johan,

I have just read your comments a second time (I didn’t follow your point on first reading) and am very pleased with what you have written. It is both lucid and valid. I accept your points and position without argument for I am still working out my own philosophy - hence the despair! However I might ask you how your are an objectivist without being religious? Are you, at least, spiritual?
Your point about fiction, connected with your earlier remark, is very interesting. Is it not possible that we are all living a fiction?
You suggest that love is the positive perception of ordered existence. In a way, rather like the pleasure one might get from setting his books straight on his shelf. We need love, so we strive to order our life and put things in place. Does this position suggest perfectibility and the evolution of social existence toward a goal? I am tempted to say that this account of love as the appreciation of meaningful patterns in our life processes is inadequate. This ‘love’ is a broad and multipurpose concept ordering and progressing. What is romantic or sexual love? Such love is chaotic and far from appreciative of meaningful patterns!
I’m not sure that Nietzsche wasn’t a total relativist.
Anyway, thanks for some stimulation. You are obviously a philsopher by profession, given the manner in which you expose your ideas.

Hi the real seraph,

firstly thankyou for your kind messages about the board and welcome to it.

Firstly to your question to Johan about objectivism and religion. From what I can gather (although Johan is more qualified to answer) Objectivism (or objectivism depending how orthodox you are) as laid out by Ayn Rand totally rejects any kind of religion. Super-natural beings are irrational and go against the principle tenets of objectivist philosophy; existence exists and anything else, including super-natural beings, does not. Perhaps the little-o objectivists have room for religion(?)

In your initial post you seem to be looking for a purpose to life. Let’s start from base principles; who said there was a purpose to life? Where have you got your preconceived ideas from? I would argue that it is not a given that life has a purpose. Richard Dawkins says that those who assume that life has a purpose are using the ‘argument from personal incredulity’; I just can’t believe it couldn’t be true, therefore I will believe it is true. However, this is not a strong argument and so we have to revert back to the original question. Does life have a purpose?

At present, I would consider myself an existentialist. The jury is still out on the existence of God for me, but existentialism does allow for faith. One of the most famous existentialists, Soren Kierkegaard, was a Christian. You may or may not know all of this but I’ll outline it anyway. Existentialism in essence, rejects that life has any predestined purpose or meaning. The classic phrase is ‘existence precedes essence’. This means that your life has no innate purpose whatsoever. Depressing eh? The existentialists covered this too. They referred to an angst which comes from accepting this seemingly pessimistic outlook on life. However, once we overcome this feeling of angst we can begin to create our own human nature and values through free choices.

Kierkegaard went further and said that part of creating meaning is making a leap of faith and believing in a God who will then give meaning to our lives.

The point of the diatribe is this. There is need for a purpose, a motivation, a goal, whatever you want to call it. But it’s not certain that the purpose comes from without, it could also come from within. Perhaps you can identifiy with this philosophy and cure your despair. Good luck!

dear seraph…
hello there i am new to this board and stumbled upon it when researching about nihilistic existentialism. i too am in need of a rope, im here to learn how to make one. i feel your pain. really. every other minute a “why” pops into my head questioning the absurd futility of my doings. this is despite the fact that we are condemned to be ‘free’. free? are we? our inevitable death traps us in the world of temporary mortality and renders all our essence futile sooner or later.
personally i have no advise for you, on where to get a rope.

but if you have not done any of these,
check out frankl’s logotherapy. or “will to meaning”.

Nietzsche - “he who has a Why can conquer any How” (loosely quoted)

live to build your essence? venture to be the superman…

you seem to have some faith in the metaphysical… take the “leap of faith” (kierkegaard)

or just simply “since we’re here why waste it”? attitude

and something about how we all have the survival instinct (will to live) which ultimately prevents us from self annihilition. apparently. [/size]

i can offer you no more. personally i have tried out these. finding a ‘why’. be it a passion, goal, other-centered living, love. but im an atheist and believe that all of the above is futile and pointless. it is the journey and not the goal that counts? what journey? it is almost that we are stuck in limbo waiting for limbo to end.
sorry to depart such nihilistic banter. it is after all 3 am in singapore and my research (to find a rope for myself) has been in vain.
so far, HOPE (thank you frankl) has kept me alive. hope for a greater good and eventual discovery of some meaning… but today the only thing i learnt from sone mietzsche page is that “hope is the prolonging of torment” referring of course, to life.
so ta-da.

There are people that like philosophy and find it interesting like other find chess interesting, and there are people that uses philosophy to survive. I have used it during my life to survive, and I can never become an existentialist out of several reasons:

  1. I have discovered processes in nature that limit my freedom; such as ecological systems that we need to understand and live in harmony with. This is a very concrete and down to earth form of objectivism. The nature is not absurd; it’s a harmony of processes that both live within us and outside our bodies.

  2. If we can make up our own reality; this would also mean that we can do whatever we want. This is A: Not true, and B: It would not matter what I did (I might as well kill myself). A meaning requires a endless chain of causal happenings that forms a pattern. If I should set my own goal, what would that be? To collect 1000 aluminum cans and place them on my backyard in a large pile? And when I have reached this goal what would the meaning be with those 1000 cans? Yes I know, I can jump from the second floor and land in the pile! But why? Because it’s funny! There you have some form of existentialism that works, and maybe this is how most of us actually live our lives: We do things that makes us happy. Everything that makes us happy have a meaning. If I believe in Santa it have a meaning because it can make me happy. If I do drugs it have a meaning because it makes me happy. If you gave me a pleasure-machine it would have a meaning because it makes me happy.

Happiness is not a premiere function. This is abuse if your happiness follow from fiction. I know; fiction does not exist in the eye of an relativist/subjectivist and in it’s extreme; the nihilist.
I would accept the nihilist if he indeed gave up and accepted that there were no meaning. But I do not accept a nihilist that is full of passion and ambition to proceed with his life. In that case he do not fully understand his own vision. The relativist’s only choice - if he complete the logic process - would be nihilism.

I do not want to repeat myself over the need to have objective laws if your subjective actions should have meaning. This is obvious. Instead I think we should continue with the metaphysical aspect and find out if there exist an objective metaphysical platform that we relate to. Religion is indeed an intention to create an objective metaphysical platform that we should relate to, but is it fiction? First I think different religions premiere function is to give humans some space and flexibility to their existents. Religion (or at least some) also have ontological arguments but it’s not here we find the practical function. Religion (or spirituality) looks different from person to person. If two religious individuals start a philosophical discussion they will pretty soon realize that the other person have the wrong belief. The solution to this is strict dogmatism and a no questioning relation to their religion. The problem then only shows up when two different collectives with different dogmatic beliefs stand face to face, and we all know the result of this.

The alternative to the faith you find in religion is to become independent from such ideologies. This is not easy and you will no longer have the energy that faith will give you. What should you do now?

  1. Become a nihilist; and say that life have no meaning.

  2. Become a relativist/existentialist and follow the impulses that give you pleasure.

  3. Become a seeker, and seek knowledge about the world we live in?

I am the #3. I may not find pleasure in most things in life that other people enjoy, that is true. But I focus on such aspects that I know have a meaning; like nature, health, my family and processes that I logically think will harmonize with those aspects. I know this may sound boring to many people that are philosophical in their nature but I’m not ready yet. I’m still in a interim period. The difference with me and most people around me is that I’m holding back on all aspects that I’m not sure of, and focus on those aspects that I know harmonize. In this interim period I’m doing my best to discover as much of the reality as possible so that I can integrate more aspects in my world. While I do this I see a crazy world that break so many harmonies so I sometimes doubt that my son will have a world to live in when we finally discover it’s true nature. This is also the #1 reason why I talk to other people about objectivity.

  1. I’m not a Newton-mechanic materialist, and I’m not spiritual.

  2. I’m an objectivist, but not a determinist.

  3. I have free will to go deeper in my observation.

  4. I can not act anyway I want because then I may act wrong.

And; I’m not a traditional Darwinist: I don’t see competition the same way as Darwin. Darwin theories stand on Newton’s mechanical ground. For competition to be a reality there need to be separation. Humans look at nature and see competition between individuals. I see relations and harmony. Humans see a lion hunting an antelope and make an abstract mental picture how this is. It’s cruel; and therefore nature is evil and it’s good to be evil. The alternative is to say that the nature is the Devil’s work and we should stay away from it and destroy it. Humans do not kill each other because of the same reason animal does. It’s not wrong to kill, but humans do it for the wrong reasons.

Separation is not a reality. We are living in a dynamic field; and all individuals exist because of dynamic structures. There exist no separate particles; it’s all dynamic movements in the holistic field. Let me quote myself:

The above is a short explanation of the metaphysical ground in my theory. It is so far mostly philosophical, but a lot of people may see parallels to modern Physics; quantum mechanics, holistic field ETC.

The individual experience his observation separated from other individuals because of limitations in the communication. There is not enough input and output between individuals so that they can experience there observation as one. This is the same as an individual with multiple personality disorder experience because of limitations in his brain. Because the limitations (barriers) in the brain stops communication it will result in two or more separate observers. This output and input can be developed between individuals the same way a person with MPD can be cured if the connections start to work again. But integration between individuals is more controversial then integration in a brain. However; the field theory give us a new perspective about us as individuals. If we are dynamic movements in this holistic field, and it’s only this dynamic that separates our observation, then we can get a new substance that connect us without a dogmatic God. Maybe this is what many people talk about when they refer to a God: “God is one”. “When I die I will go back to God”. I will never stop to experience; but I will leave my identity behind and become something else that lays beyond our current logic… I have experienced glips about this reality after a very long period of strict meditation. I have also during my OBE noticed that my observation is not limited to my physical body, so my logic is not entierly based on thinking; a part of it is experience as well. But it’s still only a theory that I’m working on, I’m not living my theory entierly yet, it’s still an interim period, and I may change my theory if I’m not convinced. I will however limit my life to the point where I do as little damage as possible until I’m sure of what I’m doing.

The point is that there may be meaning without faith or total determinism, and what separate us from this is ignorance. It’s easier to fully live in a illusion then there is to live without reality. Reality deserves your pain however, and I respect your pain.


Johan - I agree with most of what you say - even if you focus more than I would on the objectivity of reality. I am perfectly content to stay within my own set of objective realities - which includes the domain of my personal, my marriage, my culture, my world - all in varying degrees of agreement with each other. I especially like your emphasis on meaning:

(I italicize “I know” to emphasise what I would call the subjectivity of your objectivity.)

But why would philosphers find this boring???

Care to make this a new topic thread? It interests me greatly. Again, maybe it’s not how I would put it, but I think it is something that I too agre with.

Firstly can I thank you all for the level of focus and thought I have found in your response. I am thrilled to find competent and dedicated philosophers out there. My answers will not be as tidy and refined as yours, and indeed I probably do not wholly understand your ideas. But bear with me! For I am interested.

Pocky, Thank you! Your suggestions were indeed helpful and ‘hope’ as the ‘prolonging of torture’ rings too true to my ears!!

Ben,Thank you too for your wise words and suggestions. I cannot, however, understand your first remark about objectivism leaving no room for religion because supernatural beings are not rational. Your explanation of this seems to be that ‘existence exits and anything else does not’. However, the precise point seems to be that religion asserts that these supernatural beings exist!! Indeed spiritualist assert that these beings, dubbed ‘supernatural’, exist as obviously as those ‘natural’ beings. This argument seems to escape the main principle of theism. Why are ‘supernatural beings’ irrational? There are plenty of theistic arguments which defend their existence rationally. What doesn’t defend their existence is perhaps our sensory perception and, less tangibly, our intuition.
I do not claim that there is a purpose to life and that it must be possible to find it. For sure if I had such conviction that there was one somewhere out there I would not be despairing - perhaps unhappy that i hadn’t yet found it but not despairing. If I wrote as though I had this conviction I was being fuzzy-headed for my heart certainly doesn’t feel it.
The existential angst is, indeed, a phenomena I am familiar with. However, I doubt that one can ever really experience it and yet come through it as an individual able to make free choices. I believe that once one has seen and felt such absurdity, the truest kind, it is impossible to ever be free. One is crippled for life, as it were, by the experience. Any choice one would make, or meaning one might create, would be shadowed by the spectre that was has previously encountered. I think that the survivor which surfaces from such angst can begin to look at life with a passive acceptance (acquired by default if one actually survives the angst without suicide) but not freedom. You say that purpose may come from within, rather than without (interestingly Johann draws these together) but after inevitable angst surely what rises up from within in retaliation is merely a Nietzschean life instinct or will to live. Such a force which urges survival is not individual, or free, or meaningful. It is raw, egoisitic, common to all and little better than the survival extinct of the tiger. We have evolved away from the epoch of ‘physical survival’. It is absurd, after discovering such existential absurdity, to return animalistic mentality.
I do however see the sense in your suggestions and it has indeed been helpful to consider them, if only to consider and then reject.

I find you a very interesting character, largely because you resemble a friend I used to have who was an extraordinary philosopher with very original ideas. Would you elaborate on your OBE? I find these matters fascinating. Moreover, what type of mediation brought such existential clarity to your philosophical theories?
What do you mean by “limit[ing your] life to the point where [you] do as little damage as possible until [you’re] sure of what [you’re] doing”? I find this the hardes point of your argument to understand and indeed it seems to be the practical solution, or ‘moral’, of it.
“Objective metaphsical platform”- What would you conjecture that this is?
Am I right in thinking that this would be the ‘experience of communication as one’? Thus for the despairing nihilist, like myself, your answer would be concentrate upon actualizing ‘unity in diversity’ and acquait oneself not with the Outsider but rather the entire cosmos??
Yet from this perspective where do objective principles come from. Where are the deontic laws of morality? Can they only be discerned through the mind of the rationally mature? And where too is the meaning? Perhaps it can be found in the realization of this unity but still, I must question, why our fragmented existence may not have its own fragmented meaning? Our journey back to the ‘One’ demands a justification as much as the arrival. I cannot put my life on hold, until the time when I see through the shadows the true forms. I have no meaning now and now seems pressing. Indeed I can wait for ‘the moment’ or I can commit suicide. The two seem equally attactive/unattractive. Both shift the burden of my problem.
We are limited to subjectivity, which can be dispersed by looking from a higher perspective, as we look upon the tiger as natural not cruel. However, as we do not expect the tiger to strive to objectify his perspective, should we expect ourselves to objectify are perspective in order to find meaning? Shouldn’t we expect a fit, as the tiger fits, here and now? Perhaps it is more natural that we slip into the luxury of illusion, living a fiction. (I am sorry that this point is not very well made)

Ok, Thanks then all!

i once was feeling like this, and i said to my freind while we were watching tv - ‘‘why are we watching this? soon it’ll be just a memory, which will fade into nothing’’
and he said ‘‘but we dont do things to remember them, nor to keep doing them forever - but for the moment.’’

dont despair. dont even think this is a danger (despair), it shouldn’t be. do you think that what you do and your life are absurd because one day they will be gone (and consequently as if it never were)? but we dont do things to be doing them always. we do them because at the time they are pleasurable\good for us at that moment. after youve eaten your dinner do you want to eat it again? or after youve slept and woken up do you want to sleep again? read the book ‘pelerandra’ by CS Lewis

i think in some ways we should be more like animals, not worrying.
having said this, being a Christian, I believe that what your feeling is a result of your ‘cutting off’ or exile from God. It is both a symptom of this and of reasoning that comes from not believing in God. All He reqiures from us is a leap of faith. Without the leap, there is no faith. The fact that you don’t believe doesn’t matter, youve just got to do it. The leap is one of faith because when you do it you don’t believe, its a gamble almost. but after, you do believe. the Holy Spirit will transform you into a new creature - ‘‘all things are passed away, all things are made new’’ - (the Bible). Then don’t worry about your past ‘realizations’ haunting you, they will fade as you see and accept the real Reality. Im not saying that all your troubles will be over instantly. being a Christian is a life-time comitment, but with God with you, you will become happier, and stop despairing.
God is calling you to Him, you have only to answer :slight_smile:

peace to you

Some quick answers:


Basically because that part is not so questionable, and a lot of people will agree with me. It’s healthy and moral correct to think so. Practically we tend to act otherwise though. Such down to earth objectivity can give us a good portion of healthy moral. Health for example: You can not eat food that just make you happy. You have to eat food that gives your body what it need in the right proportions. This is some kind of health moral, and we can get better by knowing our body’s processes. We are free to eat what we want, but we are not free to eat what we want if we should remain healthy. Pleasure can not be the premiere function when it comes to health. BUT if you eat right, and work out your body is getting healthier and healthier, this will make you feel good as well. At this point pleasure follow from meaning. Boring but true, and this is how I try to build up my life without knowing all functions that surround us.

My goal is to give a better explanation of my metaphysical ground. I’m dependent on information from modern physicists to be able to move it from a philosophical metaphysical ground to physics. I’m in no way educated in physics so I’m able to do this, I’m only doing this on a popular level. All I’m able to do is to see the holistic connections, and also take in personal experiences that I have. If I feel some inspiration in a couple of days I will start a thread. Giving out philosophical metaphysical grounds can really make you look ridiculous because people will say; prove it! And there I just stand with fragments, experiences, and some intuition trying to describe something with a logic that feels like I’m trying to explain the world with the use of two bananas and one apple.

the real seraph,

Your ? were not few.

From time to time I’m able to separate my observing self from my physical body. This have given me some inspiration to look in new philosophical directions. I use to be a strict materialist/Darwinist, so I have always been a objectivist. My goal is to set up controlled experiments so that we are able to get proof that the observer is something that is able to float outside the physical body and the brain. I guess my OBE is not much different from what other people are experiencing, so you should be able to find lot’s of info and reports. There have not been many experiment with controlled scientific observation though. This is mainly because the phenomena is so sporadic. I do not base any of my theories on OBE though, it have just been a inspiration.

In my meditation all information I collect find it’s position. I’m changing the frequencies in my mind to teta level. I do not think in deep meditation; idees show up after. This is really cheating because it seams like life become intuitive using this process. I sit still and after 30 - 60 min my brain switches over to a thoughtless state and I become vibrating with glowing energy. I don’t use any special methods, just focusing at a imagined point in my forehead and give this all my attention until everything melts into this point.

I think I explain this in my answer to EnMarchant. I try to focus on such aspects that my logic can handle. I try to stay away from situations that most people take for obvious. I think that we all can agree about that the human race behaves like an elephant in a glasstore. If we don’t slow down we will do harm that may not be repairable. It’s bad enough that we invent fictive systems, but when those do harm to our environment then it’s something we must take serious and stop doing.

As I said this is something I will continue to explain, and maybe do some illustrations.

I have mention it in some short terms. It’s a monistic field rater then a divided substance. Separations occur because of dynamic movements in this field, and observation is limited because of barriers in the communication. It have parallels to some of the observations in modern quantum mechanics and holistic field theories.

Quote myself again:

Yes, as long as you do not humanize the ‘experience of communication as one’ part. My goal is to describe the metaphysical ground, and I will not be able to explain what the observer experience in the final black hole. At that point however the observer would not be divided because the dynamic in the field is total linear and coherent.

I have discussed morality in many of my old posts. Basically: Morality is to adapt the harmonies that exist rater then making up fictive laws. Take the concrete health example above.

The meaning is to live in harmony with the objective patterns, it will lead to creativity that will continue to develop, and secondary give us pleasure.

Our existence is not fragmented; it’s our experience of the existence that is fragmented, and this lead to actions that have no meaning.

Don’t put your life on hold; instead try to do the things that you are 100% sure of. This may require some reflection though, but start small with the little things that you really have contact with. Your body is a true form, take care of it and other peoples bodies so they are healthy. Take care of the nature so it is healthy ETC. Try to clean out abstract thinking; and replace it with a thinking that harmonize with the things that you have discovered are real. After this the process seams to be natural and intuitive.

Best regards,


Wow guys, I’m really impressed with the quality of your responses. I think everyone that begins to dabble in philosphy comes to this “what’s the point?” predicament. Attacking this problem instead of trying to forget what you stumbled upon is what separates the “men from the boys” so to speak. It is fascinating to read what conclusions others have drawn. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts Johan. When asked about life’s meaning you answered-

“The meaning is to live in harmony with the objective patterns, it will lead to creativity that will continue to develop, and secondary give us pleasure.”

I agree. I feel our purpose in life is to find or niche and simply exist. I think that the journey to find our niche is even part of it. Trying to find harmony with our surroundings is crucial. I recommend for everyone to read Gary Zukav. He makes fascinating connections on harmonizing in his books The Seat of the Soul and The Heart of the Soul. If you read the latter of the two books, Zukav states, “Emotional Awareness- becoming aware of everything we are feeling at every moment-is one of the most challenging tasks we can undertake”. But if you are emotionally aware, you are aware of your causes. It’s almost a method of defeating determinism. By being aware of your causes you are freed of them.

I also think Johan’s brief comments on out of body experiences were interesting. I once saw a documentary on a professional skeet shooter. He said that when he shot his rifle, sometimes he wasn’t even using his eyes. He was imagining watching himself from different perspectives shoot the clay discs. Not to relevant to the present topic, but I thought you might appreciate it.

I am now late for work. thanks alot! Time flies on this website.
Keep searching, and please, to anyone frustrated-don’t kill yourself!

ironic smile the desire lies within but the survival instinct is stronger…

the topic of life and sef was brought up in another forum that i post in and i would like to share someone’s rather arrogant post… but somehow it does make some sense and strike a chord…

epicurean VS stoicism philosophy… since you’re here go seek happiness & avoid pain or be a stoic and take whatever comes with stony acceptance and render your existence miserable.

okay the original post asked for a rope… looks like im drifting. :blush:

by the awy johan : WOW. im gonna re read your post again :smiley:

Thanks again to all. Just one more question, or rather request.
Johan - How would you personally define objectivism?