Charlie Rose

RalphineCierpial  08/14/2012 11:12 PM Report

Charles R. Kelley's book "Life Force" provides many answers

to "Why Does the World Exist. Available only at Kelley/

Radix.org. He writes about the creative process.

BillSalem  08/11/2012 08:57 PM Report

Gorampa Sonam Senge, the 15th Century Buddhist monk and philosopher of the Sakya Lineage, in Tibet, is the best on the subject. To read his masterpiece, The Madhyamika View of Ultimate Reality, in the original Tibetan is to get the full flavor of true philosophical genius. But be prepared: Gorampa writes only for other geniuses. He refutes Tsongkapa's nihilistic view so thoroughly that the leaders of the Gelugpa Lineage suppressed Gorampa's work for centuries.

BillSalem  08/11/2012 08:23 PM Report

The universe appears from out of the plenum void. Nothingness itself creates something. The something which appears out of voidness is neither real nor not-real, nor real and not-real. Thus neither reality nor non-reality exist as real. There is only the enjoyer of what is or appears to be.

Gelles  08/07/2012 10:31 AM Report

I imagine freedom of speech and religion and freedom from fear and want.

They exist here and there-- but not yet everywhere.

Gelles  08/07/2012 10:24 AM Report

The universe we experience is far older than human language. Much of language models the universe. Much of language models the product of the human imagination and no more than that.

Language includes "what is?" and "why is it?".

But "why is it?" may be directed at imaginary products. When such models are asked for, they reveal only the imaginary products called for. They cannot reveal more than the imaginary.

When "why is?" asks for models that are not imaginary there are fewer models than originals. The original universe contains more unmodeled originals than modeled. And the universe as a whole will always be unmodeled in human language.

So the short answer is "Do not ask for answers that do not exist." However, less rare answers are discovered every day. So ask for them only.

finalfantasytown  08/04/2012 01:32 AM Report

Nitriding is a heat treating process that diffuses nitrogen into the surface of a metal to create a case hardened surface protected from oxygen. nitride is a compound containing nitrogen and a more electropositive element (such as phosphorus or a metal). very successful

lobo  08/03/2012 08:11 PM Report

Mr. Holt might read some of the terse writing of Sri Atmananda Krishna Menon, or better expounded via Gregory Goode, PhD.. on The Direct Path Nonduality. This teaching deals with Awareness (not Solipsism) Itself, as a model with with to BEGIN!

Every 'thing' in experience: whether direct,indirect, immediate or imaginary, is accounted for in a quite elegant and testable method. One's direct immediate experience. is the standard and requires no belief or meditation or background. In the Sanskrit tradition there is a form of reasoning known as Vidya-Vritti.

Atmananda Krishnamenon translated this as 'higher reasoning,' to distinguish it from what

we are accustomed to thinking of as reason.

It is the use of mind that has, as its starting point, and indeed its end point, the raw reality of

direct experience. It is the laying bare of that which truly is. It is the exposure of

Reality.

In 'higher reasoning' nothing is added to this direct experience. It is continually

restated and every so-called fact of common logic is subjected to it.

It is a process of deconstruction not one of accumulation of knowledge.

Common logic has as its foundation the basic, apparently indisputable facts of

common experience, and upon these 'facts' a line of reason proceeds.

In 'higher reasoning' these apparent certainties are themselves subjected to the

fire of direct experience. The mind is not the agent of this enquiry. It is the object

of this enquiry.

The results of this enquiry can be formulated by the mind, but this should not be

confused with a process that takes place in the mind.

The mind is then understood as a series of abstract concepts that appear within Consciousness and AS Consciousness.

blank  08/03/2012 03:44 AM Report

make the best of every situation

blank  08/03/2012 03:44 AM Report

better place better time clean slate start new i have a long journey to go down to rehabilitate (it's not something to talk about but i'll get somewhere in the future) for now i'm happy to see other people doing well

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/03/2012 01:54 AM Report

I think.

I watch Charlie Rose.

Therefore, I have left nothingness behind.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/03/2012 01:52 AM Report

Simplicity and Fullness—infinite messiness and mediocrity is how the universe is.

His theory—the universe is an infinite mediocre mess.

I heartily laugh at you sir during the afterglow of my orgasmic state.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/03/2012 01:48 AM Report

Indeed, does God know why he exists?

Nope.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/03/2012 01:46 AM Report

Yes, nothingness is unstable.

Try to let it fill your mind.

Thoughts leap in too quickly.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/03/2012 01:43 AM Report

So just five Einsteins away from why the world exists.

Yet, one nuclear attack and we will all know why the world no longer exists.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/03/2012 01:40 AM Report

Charlie, I have been pondering "nothingness" too long.

I, however, will not make speeches accepting Hitler.

Instead, I will say that Banks are God and no trust busting should ever occur.

(Please slap me back into somethingness.)

PeterCrangle  08/02/2012 11:39 PM Report

Great conversation. "Why Does The World Exist?” No idea. And, not remotely fascinating (to me). What I find interesting is the martial determinism that compels so many to ponder and seek answers to this question and the (at times, violent) passions involved in feeding belief and ideology. Makes for a superb and enjoyable spectator sport for which I have no stake in the outcome (we all have our shenpa). "Nothing is funnier than unhappiness;" ergo, the universe is a comic and so might we.

Ivan_Grosz  08/02/2012 11:10 PM Report

I have following thoughts on this subject:

There are just two choices, NOTHINGNESS or EXISTENCE

Reality which surrounds us proves that nothingness is not a valid choice.

In consequence the only valid questions are what forms could existence have taken, why did it take its present form and is our universe all encompassing or just part of a broader existence.

Once we accept the notion of existence as reality that will also include the notion of infinity as part of reality.

Existence excludes the notion of emptiness.

Follows the question what can be comprised in infinity which excludes emptiness.

Here we arrive to the roots of the existence of one or multiple universes.

How was or how were the universes really formed?

Rule No. 1 Infinity comprises an infinite energy field.

Everything which fills infinity is derived from the interaction of the implicitly comprised energy fields.

Everything else are just details.

straymoment  08/02/2012 08:49 PM Report

Since I was a child this question has provoked my deepest thoughts. Charlie Rose has some of the best people I have ever heard spek on many subjects. Ubtil now I have made no attempts to thank Mr. Rose for his efforts on an unbelievably great show. Thank you Charlie Rose. I am a chemist and a graduate from Reed College, 1985, and I took several philosophy courses while attending Reed. One of the things that Charlie has grappled with in this interview on this most interesting subject is posssibly one of the most thought about subjects every conscious being must sooner or later grapple with. The idea that something comes from nothing seems to have been solved by positing the existence of God, and I like many others including Mr. Holt would love to grapple with the maker of all things on whether or not the bible answers or just begs the question. Great interview! I think the idea of the "all in all" or that everything that can exist will exist unless it is forbidden by some underlying universal priciple is the same as what Mr. Holt is referring to. I guess I'll have to get the book and read it. There are other books on consciousness and its source out there. It might be on that subject that the only real source of consciousness is just life itself and that conscousness is an outgrowth of the senses themselves whereas life does not require consciousness in a causal way. All life we know of may come from the earth or heavenly bodies that exist very anciently in the cosmos. The earth was apparently created from the collision of two planetary bodies long ago of which the moon is the remains of one of them and the earth is the larger part of the two bosies after the collision. This fact seems to me an important part of the subject Mr. Holt brings up. I'll have to read the book I guess. Thanks!

machngunjoe  08/02/2012 03:23 PM Report

I didn't appreciate his analysis of Hitchens, with his scoffed dismissal of Hitchens anti-theist belief @ 2:58. And I believe Dawkins and Hitchens have reasonable answers when asked "where did the Universe come from?" Not knowing the answer and saying so is far more courageous and honest BTW then making up some answer. Other than that I like the philosophical books like this that have more questions then answers.

ShalomFreedman  08/02/2012 03:09 PM Report

I did not really understand how the Holt- Parfitt theory explains why there is Something rather than Nothing. Holt who had been clear outlining the problem sounded vague and awkward, and very unsure of himself. It was as if he himself did not believe in his own answer. And so was inwardly true to his ow initial feeling that the answer could not really be known.

EthicalHumanist  08/02/2012 02:37 PM Report

This whole thing is a trgic illusion.

Ellen_Dibble  08/02/2012 01:13 PM Report

I am recalling a comment about Hitler being concerned with cosmic issues of universal existence. There was another leader with a similar record also concerned about such issues. For me, the take-home is that people who address themselves to questions whose time has not come can sound pretty persuasive, and can mobilize vast swaths of people looking for broad and far vision.

It is important for us to be trained to explore what we don't know, and yet to understand the difference between what is within our grasp and what we "only" reach for. Only by hypothesizing and researching over the edges can we expand our knowledge, the human dominion, for better or worse. I suppose our innate skepticism keeps us grounded -- not necessarily against sellers of balloon mortgages, but for instance, against the clarion call of global warming before it is actually nailed down. There was a Richard A. Muller on WBUR's Here and Now radio show, talking about his New York Times article, The Conversion of a Climate Skeptic, which I did not see. Interesting to see if one converted skeptic can point out and persuade, in one fell swoop, that the unknowable has become known in this particular aspect. For some, particularly holders of energy stocks, I suppose, this is apparently still in the realm of faith, or sheer orneriness. He says that mainly we have to lead the way so that India and China can afford to follow. Hear, hear, except that I think I sense the profitability of nuclear power plants with its siren song of corporate profit, not a call for local management and coordination of energy. Some grand thinker with his feet in the clouds, and his head swimming with ideas of earthly power and grandeur, will pull us into the next regrettable situation. Big thinkers, beware.

REMant  08/02/2012 11:32 AM Report

I hope this book fares better than Jonah Lehrer's. Why the universe exists may, of course, be the wrong question, but the fact that we ask it suggests that design exists, and therefore morality. Derek Parfit doesn't seem to have said more than this, but given the level of gobbledygook involved, that's hard to assess, and I'd be last to want to assess it. It is certainly no fascist notion. Fascism was not Platonic so much as Whig. It's parentage lay not with idealists, Buddhists or aristocrats, no matter what they hoped to see come out of it, but with middle-class reformers, such as Mr Holt, apparently. However, as I've said several times, matter is a loss of energy, if at the same time it appears to create information, not the other way 'round, and not a matter of self-interested "creation" as Timaeus is taken to mean, tho coming to understand this appears to take a lifetime as the dialogue intimates, (and I suspect will take Holt longer still). Nothing is precisely what does exist. What one "ought" to do is precisely what IS in one's best interest, as Locke, Hobbes, Stoicism, old-fashioned Calvinists and the founding generation of republican patriots saw, tho no Utilitarian has yet to the best of my knowledge.