The Physiology of Teleology

[_Coggins7]

Assuming we can all agree that if teleology has a structure, it also has a function, which is to say that if there is purpose in the universe, then it must mean something to us; it must be a directed and focused purpose (the purpose of the universe cannot be just the naked fact that it exists, or we are right back again to nihilism).

[_Analytics]

In Mormonism, things such as truth and meaning exist as an inherent part of the universe. God didn’t put the meaning there; it was always there. In fact, the meaning would be there whether or not Elohim or any other God would have ever progressed into a God or not. God, just like us, exists within a universe that in and of itself has purpose because that is a fundamental part of its nature.

Is that a fair representation of your view?

Close. Meaning is always there for God, but for us as mortals, we must have an organized, coherent created order with which to interact for such meaning to be manifest. Beyond that, you've essentially got it.

Could you clarify the sentence I bolded? I thought the question was about the existence of meaning, not whether or not the meaning is manifest (i.e. readily perceived). If for whatever reason a mortal found himself without an organized, coherent created order, would the ultimate purpose of the universe cease existing, or would it merely become invisible?

[_Mercury]

I take issue with the title of this thread.

I can understand physiology having a purpose, so talking about it in a teleological sense is rational.

But talking about teleology having a physiology is nonsensical babble, or at least suggests the person doesn't know what the word "physiology" means. Since Coggins typed it, I'll assume he knows what the word means... he just thrills in nonsensical babble, as usual.

That was my take too.

In essence, the initial post is a (yet another) attempt by coggy to sound like he knows what he is talking about. By doing so he has furthered himself as a nincompoop who babbles incessantly on and on about crap he neither understands nor wants to. he understands it within the frame of fragments justifying his messed up belief systems.

[_Analytics]

I take issue with the title of this thread.

I can understand physiology having a purpose, so talking about it in a teleological sense is rational.

But talking about teleology having a physiology is nonsensical babble, or at least suggests the person doesn't know what the word "physiology" means. Since Coggins typed it, I'll assume he knows what the word means... he just thrills in nonsensical babble, as usual.

Presumably teleology could metaphorically have a physiology.

[_Coggins7]

I'm afraid that in both the case of Dude and, especially Mercury, they'd both have to go through some extensive inpatient detox before they'd be able to understand the metaphorical application of a world like physiology to an abstract concept like teleology.

For example, in Pope John Paul's talk at the U.N. about 15 years ago, he mentioned the moral structure of freedom, a brilliant linguistic fabric that opens all kinds of philosophical and conceptual doors.

[_moksha]

I take issue with the title of this thread.

I can understand physiology having a purpose, so talking about it in a teleological sense is rational.

But talking about teleology having a physiology is nonsensical babble, or at least suggests the person doesn't know what the word "physiology" means. Since Coggins typed it, I'll assume he knows what the word means... he just thrills in nonsensical babble, as usual.

Hey, sometimes combining words in new and creative ways leads to an emergence of new ideas.

[_Mercury]

Hey, sometimes combining words in new and creative ways leads to an emergence of new ideas.

Yep, and monkeys are being creative when they defecate in their hands and throw it too.

[_moksha]

Hey, sometimes combining words in new and creative ways leads to an emergence of new ideas.

Yep, and monkeys are being creative when they defecate in their hands and throw it too.

As monkeys go, I would have to agree.

[_Coggins7]

Yep, and monkeys are being creative when they defecate in their hands and throw it too.

Then make sure you wash your hands before you eat Mercury.

[_Tarski]

In what sense is existence a "truth"? What theory of truth do you espouse? Normally propositions are either true or false. The statement that what exists, exists is a tautology and totally without interest. A big "so what?"

Do you question the truth of existence as a concept? Most tautologies are without interest, so what? The point is that existence exists, and that's the only conceptual framework we have. Indeed, our language will allow us nothing more.

existence exists? heh heh! Heidegger would be upset with you. Do you know what the "ontological difference" is?

In what sense is "infinity" and "aspect" of the whole?

Infinity is a line starting at a certain point and continuing on in one direction forever. In eternity, the line goes back in the opposite direction forever as well

Infinity is a line? You mean time? Sounds like you haven't thought the possibilities out.
You sound like you accept the notion of absolute time (contra relativity).
Do you think that the spacetime continuum is Aritotolean? Galilean? Lorentzian?

You've lost me here. What is a "world line"? What is the "set of events path"? (this doesn't seem grammatical).

Look up world line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line

While you are at it look up "connected differentiable manifold" to help with conceptualizing
space and time etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_manifold