What is the Question?

[Michael]

What is the question?

That's what I ask myself.

And it seems to me that every attempt to come up with answers to questions only leads to disagreement, paradox, confusion, 'isms', philosophies, 'knowledge' and sundry more problems.

Or, to put it another way, all answers are the severed heads of the Hydra, producing more questions than can be answered.

I would suggest that philosophically and metaphysically there is no valid question.

[bhujjy]

Hello Michael,

A hydra, or perhaps a melody?

[j000han]

What is the question?

That's what I ask myself.
<>
I would suggest that philosophically and metaphysically there is no valid question.

Well to me the only question at this point is:
Who is/are going to push the button to fire up the LHC*>?
I might ad to that it is a 16 hex-u aso question.
You hear that also Thomas?
with all due respect.

[scameter]

Well, like the issue of impermanence being permanent, I suppose the thing that makes questioning valid is the ability to ask, are questions valid.

[coberst]

Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.
--Voltaire (1694-1778)


The “art of reasoning consists in…getting hold of the big ideas and of hanging on to them like grim death.”—Whitehead


The big question regarding the big idea is "Why do humans do the things they do?"

[Flux]

A few years ago, I was thinking about the question of which, if any, question could be considered the most general, fundemental, and all-encompassing "big question." I finally came up with an answer that is of little to no philosophical value, but amused me imensely, and made sense to me in a peculiar sort of way. I would say that the most fundemental question, as far as our current language can express it, is "What the....?" This is, of course, a rhetorical question, but it reach is broad, as it could apply to just about any area of inquiry.

But seriously; when we think of some sort of "ultimate question" we are usually thinking of a question that can be expressed in the spoken or written grammer of some language. I feel that the nature of language itself is simply too inherently limited to be able to express any kind of ultimate question. For what is our language intended to describe in an approximate sense? Reality! As our language is less complex than Reality itself (which indeed includes language, as well as a great many other things), I would conclude that it's quite incapable of forming a simple sentence that could express the totality of reality in the form of an "ultimate answer." And if language cannot express an ultimate answer, how can it hope to express and ultimate question? This isn't of course to say that there is no ultimate answer, but I'm doubtful that any statement consisting of a concise string of man-made symbols is capable of expressing the completness of truth.

[Michael]

My first problem is not answering my own non- question.

Flux, thank you for addressing the issue I was hoping to bring into awareness.

You looked at the big picture seeking questions. But I was also wondering about the everyday ones.

Everey little question leads to supposition, theory, fear - what is the dark? And sometimes we even get answers, such as one and one is two which has brought us to a place where we name the stars by number.

To call this a Luddite view would be, I feel, like calling Stalin, Hitler and their like, naughty boys. It might be closer to the Bon rituals of undoing creation.

However, I don't feel that the created and the uncreated are essentially antipathetic. And I suspect until we reach the point of balance creation will keep on undoing us.

[scameter]

Flux, to be honest, I'm just glad to see that you were thinking about it. And by that I don't mean such a thing is abnormal for you personally, but for the majority of people in the world, such philosophical thinking, especially during one's daily life and/or spare time rather than for a career, is a rare pursuit. So I'm glad to see that you do it. :)

[Michael]

j000han, do you really think they're going to find the Higgs boson?

[j000han]

j000han, do you really think they're going to find the Higgs boson?

>
I wonder how you come to assume that I think ‘they’ will discover, let alone ‘really’ will discover such a particle.
the insertion of the word ‘realy’ makes the question apear as if
I have any hope/desire that the LHC-experiment will reveil the existence of
a particle that is more or less agreed by a number of scientists as to be the basic
constituent of a field ; the socalled Higgs-field.

There are some speculations with regard to the LHC-experiment and the possible beneficial/not so beneficial/ dissasterous outcome of collision of hadrons.
In other words. this experiment may be risky.
My own speculations lead me to not rule out that this machine may be of far greater significance to this planet then generally is being considered if any considerations are being made at all to that degree.
I hold the notion that anyone who is interested in matters pertaining mortality/immortality
in a context of eternity (or at least a very large timeframe), should at this point seriously be contemplating what the significance of this experiment is AND how it affects his/her sense of individuality.
So..
what I would like to know is;
who is gonna push that button to fire up that machine and by what right(s) can a small eltite decide to perform an experiment like this?:unsure:

[Michael]

j000han, while I can grasp the imperative of your response, I can't grasp the relevance.

My point, in this context, is that if they weren't asking the questions they wouldn't be carrying out the experiment. (When they dropped the hydrogen bomb I have been led to believe that they thought there was a 1% chance that it could cause a reaction with all the hydrogen in the universe!!!)

But the greater point remains. As someone else put it on another site just today (by some piece of astonishing synchronicity): if we must always be asking a question – dictating the ‘behaviou’r of the ‘questioned’ – is the theory to explain everything, not impossible? – what remains is the option of engagement on a different level
life itself takes an overview beyond proof, at the essential centre of being?

Put so much better than I ever could, but that is the substance of my question about our questions.

Could we dare to imagine what a life without questions would be like?

[wuwei]

I'm not sure what the question is. However, I do know with absolute certainly that the answer is most definitely "42."

[Taeguk]

I'm not sure what the question is. However, I do know with absolute certainly that the answer is most definitely "42."

6 x 9 in base 13 :lol:

[Starry_Canopy]

What is the question?................................I would suggest that philosophically and metaphysically there is no valid question.

Ramana Maharishi has opined that there is a valid question, perhaps the only question of relevance in our condition of being - Who am I?

He says that when we are persistent with this question, not accepting evasive answers by asking again, "who is the 'I' who thinks this way?", and again, persistently, we will become aware of what is labeled as the 'Self'.

Being aware of the 'Self' at all times and abiding in it is supposed to be the most peaceful and happiest one could ever be in our lives. So, it is supposed to be the most valuable thing to be sought.

However, he says, this exercise yields the best results to one who has already passed through the more elementary stages, in increasing order of difficulty, of:

- ability to appreciate and sing the praises of a superior power (God)
- ability to repeat verbally at length a name of God (eg. chanting 'Ave Maria' with a rosary) without paying heed to other thoughts
- ability to do the same thing mentally (meditation) till reaching the stage of being a passive witness to one's own thoughts

The above is perhaps an answer to 'What is the Question?'

[Ninya]

I've always found that "Why?" works very well. Plus, it will keep you going for quite a while.

[bito]

Two thoughts can never occupy the same space at the same time, so there can never be an answer to a question that all agree upon or collectively comprehend. Thought is singular in intent, and singular in completion of this intent.

Discussing, so as to believe that there can be a unified conclusion in the exchange of thoughts, is repetitious and circular behavior, for it based on the erroroneous perception that thought is an objective reality outside one's awareness.

To ask 'why' is to expect an absolute answer to the why. Absoluteness in thought is not possible, for all thought is based on the contemplation of opposites.

Thought is not answered, thinking is lived in the continuum of the moment. God/Spirit/Life/Awareness is thinking That. I am That. I Am that I Am. Living Awareness. Living Beingness.

[bito]

I Am, UR, the Self Aware Universe. :loveyou: :dancing:

[Smurf]

2+2 = 4
I'm pretty sure the axioms of mathematics are pretty widely recognized.

[Akamu]

Smurf: 2+2 = 4

I disagree :D

[j000han]

j000han, while I can grasp the imperative of your response, I can't grasp the relevance.

My point, in this context, is that if they weren't asking the questions they wouldn't be carrying out the experiment. (When they dropped the hydrogen bomb I have been led to believe that they thought there was a 1% chance that it could cause a reaction with all the hydrogen in the universe!!!)

But the greater point remains. As someone else put it on another site just today (by some piece of astonishing synchronicity): if we must always be asking a question – dictating the ‘behaviou’r of the ‘questioned’ – is the theory to explain everything, not impossible? – what remains is the option of engagement on a different level
life itself takes an overview beyond proof, at the essential centre of being?

Put so much better than I ever could, but that is the substance of my question about our questions.

Could we dare to imagine what a life without questions would be like?
:unsure:
that question would not exist on such condition, would it?
Is there anything daring about such a way of life?
You say you do not see/get the relevance of my question with regard to the LHC.
Maybe it then has no relevance to you.
Is the sun just a giant fire ball?
Or is it a living being?