Planet Earth

Originally posted by amannion
I would guess that an elephant doesn't think too much about why it's alive - it just wants to keep living - much the same as every other species, although of course, I'm only speculating here.
I think the drive to question our own existence reflects something of the spirituality that comes out of the human intelligence and reflection on our place in the world.

I suspect that one can make two opposing errors: either assuming that no other animal has a self-reflective consciousness similar to humans, or too readily projecting it onto other animals.

Perhaps consciousness, in that regard, is a continuum. Perhaps we are not the apex. Elephants seem to show mourning-ritual behavior when another elephant in their “community” dies. What does that reflect? I don’t know. Elephants apparently communicate with one another over large distances, subsonically, through the earth as a conduit. What is their language like? I don’t know.

As I noted to Epi, it seems quite possible to me that natural, survival-oriented species identification can become, in a self-reflective, concept-generating consciousness, a whole idea complex—that might include, for example, the idea that we are a privileged species, the “superior species” (“superior” as defined, of course, by ourselves, our traits)... And those ideas can become separated from the simple survival urge, from which they originated, so that “superior” no longer means simply a species well-adapted to survive.

Again, just thinking out loud...

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks. “Coyote Zen”? Yeah, that’d be me. One might rather think of himself in terms of “dragon zen” or “bear zen”—but no dragons or bears around here. Well, even bobcat zen or hawk zen. But, yeah, coyote zen, that’d probably be me... LOL!

What do you mean by exempt? Who are those who claim exemption? Humans in general, or a particular group?[/ consciousness.

Just my meandering thoughts. It would be interesting to ask the elephants...

Indeed, it seems dreadful to philosophize about death when confronted with it (forgive me, Plato). When my father died last spring I did not find myself steeped in such concerns. Instead, I found myself awed and humbled by the simple arc of a man's life. Afterwards as I read the coroner's report and held my dad's death certificate in my hand, I was struck by the date of birth and the date of death. Between those two moments was the entire arc of this man's life, it's last chapter written and the book forever closed. Ah, the finality of it! Oddly, my dad's death endeared me to him more than anything ever has. I think because in some way I could see the arc of my own life in his.

--------------

Death is the end of everything we know through familiarity. Whether eternity lies on the other side or simply a consciousness vanishing like vapor, the fact remains that death is the end of everything we know. There is much I would like to say concerning death, but I promised I would not bring faith into this discussion. Regardless of what God has planned for us, there is no doubt that we are not exempt from death. All men and women, great and small, die just like the animals, and our pride in the face of death is ever-ridiculous.

-------------

I'd imagine elephants converse in a way similar to Tolkien's Ents. 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Indeed, it seems dreadful to philosophize about death when confronted with it (forgive me, Plato). When my father died last spring I did not find myself steeped in such concerns. Instead, I found myself awed and humbled by the simple arc of a man's life. Afterwards as I read the coroner's report and held my dad's death certificate in my hand, I was st ...[text shortened]...
-------------

I'd imagine elephants converse in a way similar to Tolkien's Ents. 🙂

Eloquent.

‘Nuff said.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
In nature I see the providence of the Creator; i.e., in the perfect tilt of the earth, the placement of the moon, etc.

A commonly misunderstood illusion. See a result. See the cause. Conclude that the cause is perfect for the result and conclude design.
The tilt of the earth and the placement of the moon could only be called 'perfect' if your definition of 'perfect' is based on what they already are.

Originally posted by vistesd
I suspect that one can make two opposing errors: either assuming that no other animal has a self-reflective consciousness similar to humans, or too readily projecting it onto other animals.

Perhaps consciousness, in that regard, is a continuum. Perhaps we are not the apex. Elephants seem to show mourning-ritual behavior when another elephant in their “ ...[text shortened]... r” no longer means simply a species well-adapted to survive.

Again, just thinking out loud...

I guess what I want to avoid is this notion of a 'life force' or spirit that somehow infuses us - or any other creature. It adds complexity where I don't think it's necessary.
I wasn't meaning to say that the elephant doesn't think or feel or have intelligence. I merely mean that we live - or elephants live - to live. there doesn't need to be anything more complex about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A commonly misunderstood illusion. See a result. See the cause. Conclude that the cause is perfect for the result and conclude design.
The tilt of the earth and the placement of the moon could only be called 'perfect' if your definition of 'perfect' is based on what they already are.

I say tom-ay-to, you say tom-ah-to. Let's leave it at that.

Originally posted by amannion
I guess what I want to avoid is this notion of a 'life force' or spirit that somehow infuses us - or any other creature. It adds complexity where I don't think it's necessary.
I wasn't meaning to say that the elephant doesn't think or feel or have intelligence. I merely mean that we live - or elephants live - to live. there doesn't need to be anything more complex about it.

I think perhaps I was just misreading you across-the-board last night. 😕

Originally posted by amannion
I guess what I want to avoid is this notion of a 'life force' or spirit that somehow infuses us - or any other creature. It adds complexity where I don't think it's necessary.
I wasn't meaning to say that the elephant doesn't think or feel or have intelligence. I merely mean that we live - or elephants live - to live. there doesn't need to be anything more complex about it.

Yes, but just because we share similar lives as beasts, does that mean it is best for us to live unquestioningly like the beasts as well?

I wasn't speaking necessarily of a 'spirit.' Merely the mystery of why life arises in the first place. To me, "it just is," isn't good enough. That explanation doesn't keep me from being curious about how this perpetual struggle for survival which transcends individual creatures arose out of mere reconstituted stardust. The instinct to live seems out of place in a world where things generally move towards rest and stay at rest.

Originally posted by The Dude 84
You should read Samuel Taylor Coleridge's poem Mont Blanc. It's about exactly the feeling you're talking about you get in Nature. He too saw God in nature, though I don't see the same myself at all.

I think you'd relate well to it.

Do you mean the Hymn Before Sunrise? That is a poem in which Coleridge addresses the mountain.

Shelley wrote a poem called Mont Blanc.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, but just because we share similar lives as beasts, does that mean it is best for us to live unquestioningly like the beasts as well?

I wasn't speaking necessarily of a 'spirit.' Merely the mystery of why life arises in the first place. To me, "it just is," isn't good enough. That explanation doesn't keep me from being curious about how this pe ...[text shortened]... seems out of place in a world where things generally move towards rest and stay at rest.

I tend—and this is very tentative—to think in terms of twin natural imperatives: to survive and to thrive (or flourish).

I really am willing to play with all kinds of concepts beyond Zen—sometimes simply because of the aesthetic richness. (For some time before you got here, my main expression of the “perennial philosophy” was via its stream—river, really—in Judaism.)

I am, like ammanion, wary of words like “spirit” or “elan vital”—but at the same time find them useful as tags for certain neurophysioligcal processes, or feelings, or whatever. If one speaks of a “spirited horse,” most people get the idea. Words can also be used poetically and symbolically with great power: one of the great lines of English-language poetry—

The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
drives my green age...

(Dylan Thomas)

When the hawk’s cry cuts through my guts like sunlight through water, I am willing to use words like “spirit” to mark what I feel.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, but just because we share similar lives as beasts, does that mean it is best for us to live unquestioningly like the beasts as well?

I wasn't speaking necessarily of a 'spirit.' Merely the mystery of why life arises in the first place. To me, "it just is," isn't good enough. That explanation doesn't keep me from being curious about how this pe ...[text shortened]... seems out of place in a world where things generally move towards rest and stay at rest.

No, I agree. It's almost as if we're required to question, isn't it?
I too am curious about the beginnings, although I'm not so sure about your 'things tend to move towards rest' position - that's sounding very Aristotelian to me. Much as I'm interested in dead greek thinkers, I reckon we can do a bit better towards explanations today.

But in the end, the wonder and beauty and mystery doesn't have to have a reason for being. I'm interested in the why and how, but the question that you seem to be heading towards is the what for, and I don't think there's a terribly strong case to suggest that life is 'for' anything.

Originally posted by amannion
No, I agree. It's almost as if we're required to question, isn't it?
I too am curious about the beginnings, although I'm not so sure about your 'things tend to move towards rest' position - that's sounding very Aristotelian to me. Much as I'm interested in dead greek thinkers, I reckon we can do a bit better towards explanations today.

But in the end, t ...[text shortened]... don't think there's a terribly strong case to suggest that life is 'for' anything.

Since I have been misreading you, I'll just say that I agree.

Originally posted by vistesd
Since I have been misreading you, I'll just say that I agree.

I'm intrigued. What exactly did you think I was saying?

Originally posted by amannion
I'm intrigued. What exactly did you think I was saying?

On this thread, I took you to be reserving self-reflective consciousness of any level approaching ours to be a strictly human phenonemon.

On the other thread, I took you to be criticizing Spong for talking about the inadequacy of language (the effability question), and then venturing to try to say something about "the ineffable ground of being" anyway.

Look, you and I are almost always in synch. Just put it down to a bad night for me, scrambled brains at the end of a long day. Happens sometimes.

Originally posted by vistesd
On this thread, I took you to be reserving self-reflective consciousness of any level approaching ours to be a strictly human phenonemon.

On the other thread, I took you to be criticizing Spong for talking about the inadequacy of language (the effability question), and then venturing to try to say something about "the ineffable ground of being" anyway.
...[text shortened]... it down to a bad night for me, scrambled brains at the end of a long day. Happens sometimes.

Righto then. Good to know.