First of all I didn’t invent Plotinus’ concept of the ONE or Plato’s GOOD. I didn’t invent perennial philosophy. I merely discuss their ideas as far more reasonable for appreciating universal meaning and purpose as well as the purpose of man within it.So you invent (hypothesize) a source amounting to a myth of some sort to make your existence feel more comfortable by having a meaning supplied by the source you invented. Of course the hypothesis you mention remains a hypothesis during your life and forever after. Not a problem if that's what you want to believe but why keep on preaching it through thousands of posts? Are you lonely?
It seems ludicrous at this point in history that so many people still believe the virtual infinite functioning machine we call universe has no objective purpose and has only one planet supporting life. It also seems foolish to believe that universal laws somehow came into existence by accident. It seems strange that so many still believe this.
It is natural for early Man to feel his mortality and experience his inner contradictions and wonder why all this is happening. Over time the most foolish explanation and the most accepted in modern society is the idea that there is no purpose in it. You adopt this position. I don’t see the sense in it.
The greats of the past like Plato and Plotinus had acquired understanding. Over time understanding has devolved in general society into eternal arguments supported by beings called “experts” whose chief attribute is the volume of their denials. I’ll stick with those with understanding and leave the experts to motivate you.
No. As we are now in secular society we only argue SUBJECTIVE meaning and purpose. Without first appreciating the purpose of our universe, we cannot discuss OBJECTIVE meaning and purpose for man in a way that can satisfy the logic of science and the hearts of Man. What is there to preach about? Proselytizing is asking for belief but I advocate developing the qualities which can allow a person to “know thyself.” You are content with following those who preach blind denial.Theists never seem to tire in affirming their naive and sentimental views separated, by Can or Cannot's, as if they were actual mandated laws! Who says science and religion must be reconciled for man to have meaning and purpose? You keep preaching that what's true for you must be inferred as being true for everyone else or be considered a secular heretic within the armies of the Great Beast. If that isn't preaching and proselytizing then what is.
So debate me. I advocate objective meaning and purpose as initiated by what Plotinus described as ONE devolves into Nous and further devolves in objective quality creating the lawful levels of reality which sustain our universe. Sustaining the flows of forces by the complimentary processes of involution and evolution provides universal meaning and purpose. Universal meaning and purpose for me begins with no-thing. You contend that meaning and purpose is a subjective creation by Man. As such it has no perennial beginning but begins with nothing as opposed to no-thing. You would have to explain the origin by accident of universal laws which is clearly impossible. You prefer loud denial supporting the concept of nothing which isn’t meaningful philosophical discussion which should pursue the love of wisdom and opening to the interaction of universal laws initiating with no-thing within which all potentials exist as ideas..What comes across as especially egregious after a few thousand posts is not your anorexic spirituality but the certainty by which you proclaim it causing a 100 % trade deficit in debate; your canonical statements to be accepted without any infringement of collateral views which may force further analysis. DAS IST VERBOTEN. One must defend one's precious spiritual imperatives and claim superiority in having done so.
Purpose presupposes meaning; it's created through accomplishment from the bottom-up and not by some bargain basement edition of grace to supply your spiritual necessities. Purpose is an ongoing act of discovery, not some cheap source of enlightenment engendered by quotes.