The Couch

Why Nature is Deceitful?

Comments on Why Nature is Deceitful?

n1y0g1
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 08, 2010

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 13
Avatar n1y0g1
Posted 07/15/10 - 12:36 PM:
Subject: Why Nature is Deceitful?
Why the thunderbolt doesn't strike twice at the same place?
Why tsunami's always hit the same place?

-N1Y0G1
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 07/15/10 - 1:19 PM:

great question. house md says "everybody lies." is there an archetypal mechanism of deceipt at work, not only on humans but on the whole universe?

the old hindu myth says it's hide-and-seek, the oldest game in creation: god's way of entertaining himself.

as for tsunamis, some people think it's karma. i guess some folks think that about getting hit by lightning too ("god strike me down").

why is there interminable war in the middle east?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 07/15/10 - 5:33 PM:

Nature isn't deceitful. Deceit implies intention. It implies a willful obfuscation of truth. Nature is nothing but truth. It is what it is and nothing else. The fact that human beings get 'fooled' by nature is not indication of deception, but of human beings' reliance on expectation of regularity coupled with a meager understanding of how things actually work.

Who is to say that lightning never strikes the same place twice? In fact, I'm pretty confident that this could be unequivocally disproven.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
Posted 07/16/10 - 2:17 AM:

I rather think this is a geographical argument. Lightning and tsunamis are hardly comparable as spatial entities. The span of a lightning strike is measured in centimeters, whereas a tsunami can easily achieve the width of a continent. Lightning strikes everywhere, tsunamis strike at coasts around seismically active oceans.

If you really want to compare, perhaps tsunamis and hurricanes can provide some insight. Both of them don't always hit at exactly the same spot, but rather: the odds of them originating in a certain area and moving in a certain direction are higher because of the natural circumstances: seismically active areas, geographical distribution of land and sea, seawater temperature, air currents,...
n1y0g1
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 08, 2010

Total Topics: 3
Total Comments: 13
Avatar n1y0g1
Posted 07/16/10 - 8:57 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Nature isn't deceitful. Deceit implies intention. It implies a willful obfuscation of truth. Nature is nothing but truth. It is what it is and nothing else. The fact that human beings get 'fooled' by nature is not indication of deception, but of human beings' reliance on expectation of regularity coupled with a meager understanding of how things actually work.


thumb up

This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Nature has always the right and final saying about the events may them be good or bad from our perception. If an earthquake rocks up a region full of terrorists a lot of people like me will be taking that as a good omen or good thing. But if innocent people are dead we might feel a pain which lasts some time. But again who are we to say it is good or bad?

-N1Y0G1
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 07/16/10 - 8:58 AM:

Nature isn't deceitful. Deceit implies intention. It implies a willful obfuscation of truth. Nature is nothing but truth. It is what it is and nothing else. The fact that human beings get 'fooled' by nature is not indication of deception, but of human beings' reliance on expectation of regularity coupled with a meager understanding of how things actually work.

Who is to say that lightning never strikes the same place twice? In fact, I'm pretty confident that this could be unequivocally disproven.


Perfectly so. Questioning the course of events is there, because of the suffering, because of the, incessant craving for the greater and greater pleasure.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 07/16/10 - 11:04 AM:

This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Nature has always the right and final saying about the events may them be good or bad from our perception. If an earthquake rocks up a region full of terrorists a lot of people like me will be taking that as a good omen or good thing. But if innocent people are dead we might feel a pain which lasts some time. But again who are we to say it is good or bad?


'Innocent' or 'guilty' is an appellation used by agents for pastime. An attempt at analysis.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 07/16/10 - 12:48 PM:

n1y0g1 wrote:

But if innocent people are dead we might feel a pain which lasts some time. But again who are we to say it is good or bad?


Actually, I would say that we are the only ones who CAN say what is good or bad. Or, put another way, a la Sartre, that human consciousness is the means through which value is brought into the world; we are the creators and determinators of value, hence we are the ones who say what is 'good' or 'bad'--usually by referring to states of affairs that either benefit or harm us personally, socially, or in terms of our human nature.

So the flip side of that is that 'nature', taken to mean all forces, events, entities that are NOT value-creating sentients (like us), does not specify absolute values for any occurrence whatsoever. So yes, tsunamis, lightning, hurricanes, death, birth--its all the same: a series of events that just 'are'.

Now, that's not to say that we can't identify value that is inherent in the relationship between events-objects (rather than simply make up values as we please). In fact, all relationships, I would say, are relationships of value, and all values are relative to the two or more things that are juxtaposed in a relationship.

Its just that when it comes to 'final' or 'absolute' pronouncements of 'good' or 'evil', only us conative, axiological beings have the final say about assigning value (and, I might add, such assignments only have real meaning for us beings).

For example, forest fires are a part of nature's cycle, and indeed, even are required for some trees to release their seeds. So, relative to the tree, like a lodgepole pine, periodic fire is very good for the continuation of the species, and good for the entire ecosystem to divest itself of the old and usher in a new period of succession. But if that fire comes close to human habitats, it is destructive, and we see it as a terrible disaster and try to prevent it. For us, it is bad.

The fire itself, however, is neither good nor bad, but just is the thing that it is, and it does what it does regardless of pines or peoples!

8)
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 07/20/10 - 11:53 AM:

it is commonly said that "reality is an illusion". whether the intent to deceive is present universally may be questionable, but the idea that an illusion prevails seems to be fairly widespread. why is this so? any thoughts?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/20/10 - 1:41 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
it is commonly said that "reality is an illusion". but the idea that an illusion prevails seems to be fairly widespread. why is this so? any thoughts?


Sure some ideas. First of all I do not agree that "Reality is an illusion" is the general sense of the widespread saying. The general sense is: “The reality is beyond all illusions”. It means if you find the Truth or truth finds you; you go beyond all illusions. It also means that ‘reality’ as it is perceived generally is an illusion.
Hinduism has a special word for this illusion. They call it ‘Maya’. Maya is the measurement against the standard unit ‘self’. To make it clear: Suppose you have a meter scale and you are using it to measure the length of some object. Let us assume that you use this meter scale to measure the length of your stick and you come up to the conclusion that your stick is three meters in length. Now what if the scale used had some error in it? What if your scale was inaccurate? What if your scale shows every length by adding a (.25) of a meter to every length it measures? Just because the standard used to measure the length is not accurate, anything which will be measured with this standard will not be accurate.
Similarly, our perceptions, our reality, our universes are, measurements against the standard of our ‘selves’. My universe is the measurement against my own ‘self’. How and why so?

It is so because, every- thing in my universe is projection of my own mind. If my mind suspends then my universe no more exists. My thoughts are my universe. My thoughts make my reality. Each and every thought of mine emanates from the primordial thought of me/mine. What if my knowledge of my own ‘self’ is not accurate? What if my knowledge of ‘self’ is not correct?

If I do not know about myself and everything else I know is dependent on my knowledge of myself, then, everything I know, must be, an illusion, it must be in-accurate. It will be inaccurate if my knowledge of self is inaccurate -but if my knowledge of self is illusory, and lies in, some other order of reality, then, my knowledge of everything is illusory. This is why everything is Maya as per Mayavadins. Everything known is known because of the knowledge of the ‘self’ and the knowledge of the ‘self’ is in itself an illusion; therefore, everything known is illusion. Everything known is a projection of mind; as real, as the mind.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 07/29/10 - 11:45 AM:

And, speaking of 'knowing' and self, we might recognize that the intellectual state of 'knowing something', as a product of a series of self-entangling processes, is itself a separate, almost supervening state to the straight and direct experience of being-phenomena. IOW, what we 'know' may be a reflection of our projection of 'self', just as 'self' is a projection of our mind's attempt to grasp the fluid nature of phenomena, but what IS, what is continuously present as Being, is neither a projection nor reflection (unless of the thoughts of God), and is not, strictly speaking, 'known'.

8)
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.