Summary

If I start where I am, in my concrete human situation, I see different configurations of language, experience, and desire.

Language includes natural languages and texts of those languages, texts written or spoken or thought, texts about experiences, texts about desires, texts about texts, conversations, monologues, rules, unspoken assumptions, norms, artificial languages, logic, mathematics, computer languages, visual languages, body languages, dance, languages of tone and pitch, basically anything that can be a sign for something else.

Experience can be active or passive, inner or outer, verbal or silent, now, or later. It includes all my sense experiences as well as my experiences of performing actions. It includes my inner thoughts, dreams, visions, and intimations. It is what appears to me, what I interact with, and what I do.

Desire is like, dislike, want, need, preference, goal, purpose, motive, drive, impulse, command. It is what moves me to action and accounts for many of my reactions to experience.

But maybe I should start with some text, like a sacred book or a coherent set of assumptions. But these are after all just texts. Texts must be tested. They can’t just be assumed. Or they can be, but then it is just a desire. We prefer this text, or we desperately want it to be true. When we are totally absorbed in a text, suspending disbelief, totally in its world, it can seem obvious. But then we look at the book we are holding in our hands. It is an object. We set it on the table, and go outside, and the world is still there, mysterious and large.

Truth is a word we use to compliment texts that are coherent and well tested against experience.

Good is a word we use to compliment things that we desire.

Beauty is a word we use to compliment things that we like to contemplate.

Knowledge is our current store of texts that are coherent and well tested against experience.

I am a sequence of configurations of language, experience, and desire, a changing bundle of identities.

To be happy, reconcile language, experience, and desire.

To solve problems, reconcile language, experience, and desire.

Absolute justification seems unattainable because of diversity, relativity, and infinite regress.

Beyond these basics, there does not seem to be much useful to say in general. It seems most useful to go on to specifics or to expand out to general culture criticism.

Some of our most basic desires are survival, enjoyment, and group membership.

Right and wrong are words we use to classify behaviors that support or undermine our most basic desires.

Some widely accepted rules of conduct: Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Do no harm. Consider the consequences.

Some ideal words: Freedom, justice, compassion, tolerance, peace, courtesy, kindness, patience, trustworthiness, love, courage, honesty, moderation, hope, creativity, competence, joy.

Sex is wrong when it does harm or is too risky.

Morality is not undermined by relativity when it is derived from an understanding of human needs.

Criminal laws give social consequences to those who break what we consider the most important rules for the preservation and smooth running of our society.

Can we judge those who break the rules? We can hate what they do, and we can argue that what they do is harmful. We can then enforce the laws of our society.

Why would anyone bother to be moral? Because of natural feelings of sympathy, desires for group membership, and fear of social consequences.

Since we all start from the same concrete human situation, no one of us has special authority. So we should maximize freedom. But our freedom should not undermine the freedom of others. We need justice. But sometimes, even if treated fairly, someone will need help. We need compassion. There are many complex issues of living together that must be decided. No one person has the right to decide. We need democracy.

A democracy that combines individual freedom, educated voters, referendums, elections, representative decision makers, legal protections for human rights, and a market economy seems like the best form of social decision making. Decisions should be kept as close to the people affected as possible, and the greater the degree of consensus the better.

If the market is given as much latitude as possible, experience has shown that some people will need help at least for some periods in their life. So a social safety net is needed. It should be provided as fairly and efficiently as possible, while not creating excessive dependency.

The scientific method is the systematic testing of coherent texts against publicly accessible experience within a community of research.

Science in itself does not advocate any particular worldview. Ideally, it should just report its findings.

Science in itself does not have any authority. However, when it applies, it can have practical authority because of how well tested it is.

Scientism is the belief that science is the only way to valid knowledge. It seems best to just say that science provides the best source of knowledge, when it applies.

What does science tell us about the universe? That it is made up of patterns of energy, that it is vast, and that our planet is one small planet orbiting a medium sized star in just one of many galaxies.

What does science tell us about nature? That living things are mutually dependent, that they require very special environmental conditions, that their bodies are communities of cells, and that they group into ecosystems that combine into one global system.

What does science tell us about ourselves? That our bodies evolved from simpler bodies over time, that we are part of nature, that we are social animals, that we can develop tools and technologies using our scientific knowledge, that there could be others like us in the universe, but that we could conceivably be unique.

Mathematics is a language commonly used in science, but it is not in itself a science since it is not directly tested against experience.

Are the social sciences scientific? Texts about human behavior and societies are inherently more difficult to test, but they are still scientific to the extent that they are coherent and systematically tested against publicly accessible experience.

What should be studied by science? In principle, anything to which its methods apply, but when social resources are needed, social decision making is needed. Also, scientists need to follow the same ethical standards that apply to everyone else.

Religion deals with morality and inner experience.

What do religions have in common? Meditation, morality, and wisdom. Sacred texts and sacred practices. A connection to the sacred. A community.

The more you know about religions, the harder it is to believe that there is one true religion. It seems more likely that there is good and bad in most all religions. Still, as it is possible to have one true love, it may be possible to have one true religion.

How can I meditate? Suspend language and desire for a time and just be mindful of your breathing, or of the motions and sensations of your body, or of a natural scene, or of a visualized image. Or quietly watch a candle or listen to a bell or chimes or music or repeat a phrase or word. Or find some time to yourself and ask yourself questions and give yourself the answers. Or read a text closely, following the flow of meaning and syntax with attention and even love. Or project to every living creature feelings of loving kindness and goodwill. Or ask for the help you need and then rest for a moment in the presence of that mysterious other.

It is dangerous to turn your will over to someone else. If you are expected to follow with unquestioning obedience, beware. On the other hand, if the teacher has something to share and leaves it up to you to take it or leave it, then investigate for yourself and make your own choice.

Is science in conflict with religion? When religion expects unquestioning faith or uses arguments from authority, there is a natural conflict. If religious ideas are open to testing, there is no conflict. Also, religion deals with realms of desire and inner experience that are outside of the scope of science. It seems like they could divide the territory without a need for conflict.

Can I reconcile faith with intellectual integrity? Faith as a choice to trust someone or to follow a certain pattern of life does not necessarily conflict with openness to other possibilities or to putting our ideas to the test. And there is always the possibility that the choice may change based on future experience.

Do I have the right to believe? The better tested a text is, the more justified you are in believing it. Still, there are texts that are difficult to test beyond feelings that this is the right way to go. In such cases, it seems that you should have the right to choose to believe it or to take it as a working assumption. But you do not have the right to force your choice on others.

Still, given all this, you do not necessarily need a formal religion. As long as society has a shared set of democratic values, each person can pursue their own varied investigations, grouping together as they like. Groups should be treated with tolerance as long as they do not try to force themselves on others or infringe on the rights of their members. This is how they are expressing their freedom.

There does not seem to be one purpose for life. Each person needs to decide what the purpose or purposes of their life will be.

To the extent that we emphasize the preciousness of life and are grateful for the gift of life, it is sacred. Life becomes its own purpose.

How can I live a simple life? Examine what you want and why you want it. Look at the consequences of your acts of consumption and see if you could make choices that have less negative consequences. Then choose what is really important to you and base your life and your enjoyment of life around those choices.

How can I live an exciting life? Pick difficult and stimulating goals, where there is a significant risk of failure, and then aggressively pursue them. Vary your stimuli by traveling or living in a complex and changing environment. And really embrace the change rather than fear it.

How can I get rich? Assuming that you are not born with it and that you want to avoid criminal activity, getting rich requires a combination of understanding what people want and giving it to them along with wise investing. You need to maximize the value of the product or service times the number of people you can provide it to. You may need to convince people that they really want it. Then wisely invest what you make. If you are lucky enough and smart enough, you will get rich, but it is usually not quick.

How can I be of service? Understand what people need that they are not getting. Look at your skills and your potential. Find organizations that provide the service you want to provide or find ways to finance the service. Get training in the area you choose. Then work hard for this goal.

How I can create something? Find out what really interests you and what you have a talent for by experimenting with different creative activities. If possible, get some training in that area. But most importantly, practice and practice and develop your skill. Then find ways to support yourself while you dedicate more and more time to it. If you can sell what you are creating, market it as best you can or find someone else to market it for you. Otherwise, make it your hobby and avocation.

What are some common life patterns? Disappointed Hopes, Floating, Ups and Downs, Rising Expectations, Sudden Reversal, Wind Fall, Adventures and Interludes, Long Decline, Recovery, Conversion, Rehearsals and Performances, Long Struggle Rewarded, Doing Fine, Everything Comes Easy.

A good life is a life in which you have done what you really wanted to do and you have done it ethically and well.

Life can seem like a comedy, a tragedy, a romance, or an adventure, if you interpret it that way. But at times it seems like just one damn thing after another.

Near death experiences and experiences of communicating with the dead seem to indicate that we survive death. Brain chemistry and hallucinations seem to indicate that these experiences may not be valid evidence. So there may be hope for survival, or it may just be wishful thinking.

Given that the universe is made up of patterns of energy and that a continuous curve can be infinitely divided, there could be room for many worlds here and now, right where we are. The next world could be one of these.

A spirit is what underlies the sequence of configurations of language, experience, and desire that forms our lived experience. Perhaps it is a pattern of energy that inhabits the body for a time, but exists independently of it.

There have been some reports of the dead communicating with the living, but it is difficult to sort through what the supposed receiver knows or can guess with what would truly indicate communication.

Since near death experience research deals with reports of inner experiences and these experiences are not publicly accessible, it is not in the strict sense scientific. That is not to say that the research is not rigorous or that its explanations are not true, just that it is operating beyond the scope of normal science.

If we do survive death, then we will each know very soon. If not, then none of us will be around to complain about it. Still it may be wise to take the possibility seriously in the conduct of this life. And it is OK to hope.

In general, people will have many different beliefs that cannot be well tested. It seems best to recognize them for what they are. They may or may not be true. We do not know. We should treat them with tolerance. Maybe some of the good ones will come true. Again, it is OK to hope.