Jujupilote wrote:
please don’t disclose where it comes from, at least for a few days.
I don’t know for sure, but it does sound like something from the Hitch-Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, or possibly one of Terry Pratchett’s novels.
An interesting article on the real world complexity of our immune systems and ‘boosters’ interaction with our individual bodies here.. Originally sourced from the Washington Post, a notable supporter of authoritarian politics, which is also interesting.
I think in the end, assuming the forces that drove the totally incorrect government response of the last two years can be put back in their box successfully, the general population will eventually gain a more sophisticated understanding of science than ‘do what the single sanctioned voice of “experts” says, or be punished’.
@Jujupilote, I think the understanding that men operate in a world in which the source of the most basic factors of life (for example gravity and electromagnetism) are not understood means that our world is mysterious. It is therefore central to a proper existence that we question arbitrary human authority, and have the liberty to pursue our lives and happiness based on an individual relationship with nature.
Jujupilote wrote:
What do you think of the following :
At first sight, I’m inclined to agree. (Although I don’t understand what it would mean to “define one’s own concept of the universe”.) But then, the meaning that an author puts into words are not always the same that a reader does.
Emir wrote:
There’s no meaning and there’s no mystery, I pity people who in 21st century believe in such BS.
The quote says that you should define your own meaning and with that I agree completely. As regards mystery… I’m an atheist, but certainly people have a “spiritual” capacity which may include feelings of mystery. The fact that I believe in an entirely material world doesn’t change the feelings of awe I can have before a starry sky.
Airborne_Again wrote:
The fact that I believe in an entirely material world doesn’t change the feelings of awe I can have before a starry sky.
Totally agree, it even increases these feelings… material world is more amazing than any “spiritual mambo jumbo” can imagine.
Jujupilote wrote:
“At the heart of liberty…
Freedom of religion, written by a political liberal, religious conservative?
The first half I would class as enlightenment philosophy, putting the individual first, which I can identify with. The second half I would say goes back to faith, where existence has to have meaning. The ‘mystery of human life’ is by definition unknown, but people are free to choose how to interpret it as part of their own identity.
I agree the idea is worth analysis
I am an engineer and live in the physical world I am an engineer and live in the physical world, so I don’t understand it But it sounds good! Justine has a PhD and I will ask her.
For pilots, Avgas delivers way more liberty than the meaning of the universe 
For engineers, Newton & Maxwell are more than enough to get own meaning of the universe !
The meaning of universe is beautifly written in Christoffel Symbols and Hilbert Space Operators, I don’t think one need faith or PhD to understand that, some of the mysteries appears when we try mixing both in one single Qunatum Field Theory QFT (e.g. AdS-CFT duality: real wold is actually a hologram, ER = EPR duality: relativity wormholes are quantum entanglements, Black Holes evaporation by hawking radiation…), these advanced mysteries are likely to require lot of religious faith or lot of doctoral studies depending on who you ask?
Its quite a well known piece which could both refer to the constitutions of France and the USA.
IOW " Liberty is the freedom to believe whatbyou want to believe…"
The answer might be 42 but this doesn’t come from the hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy or something by Terry Pratchett but both he and Douglas Adams might well have agreed with the philosophy.
I should have added that the author was also ridiculed for his philosophy.
Jujupilote wrote:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
This does indeed strike a chord with me, if I understand it correctly, particularly in our times, where exactly this is increasingly restricted by a more and more repressive society trying to impose their various beliefs onto others.
I am looking at this in the context of many recent debates or even conflicts, where very often, people will look at the opposing side and come to the conclusion that they “live in an alternate universe”, as their beliefs and opinions differ so radically that they can’t find common ground anymore. Recognizing each other’s right to define one’s own concept of all those things would be one way out of the currently very split society, where exactly this is under threat by the continuous strive to suppress concepts which do not correlate with one’s own.
It is funny that this sentence triggers discussions about religion. While it is entirely possible that it stems from a pastor, I would personally suspect it would either stem from a legislator or possibly a man of the law, a judge or someone who has been involved in constitutional debates on a very high level, most probably American. The recognition of the right to different “concepts of universe” at the heart of liberty imho is a very profound statement about where a society stands.
In today’s world where exactly those concepts keep clashing up to the point that common ground is lost, that makes people think of those dissenting their own concept as “enemies”, the statement that the very fact of each of us in one’s way has his own concept of all those things is a much needed reminder that if we want to life in a free society, it can only happen if exactly that right is upheld. Failing to do that can only lead in a dissolution of liberty and freedom alike, as liberty per se is the source of freedom.
One more thought about this would be that many who put “freedom” high on their flag often are ready to defend their personal freedom to a point where it curtails the freedom of others. I think there is a very important distinction in this: Liberty is a universal right, while Freedom by the very definition depends on interaction with the freedom of others.
I’ll be very curious to see who the originator of this remarkable quote is.
As for “mystery”: I don’t know why that word triggers immediate religious connections. Mystery is nothing but all which we can’t explain. Mankind is not all knowing, nor are we beyond mystery, with life as such being one of the largest of all. The search for meaning, the search for sense is one of the profound qualities which make the difference between mankind and animals, even though in their own way, also some of them may have these kind of conscience. Mystery CAN mean the quest for “god” or “the creator” but much more simply the search for answers for what we don’t know. Without mystery, there would be no science as the curiosity to explain “mystery” would not be there. The idea that “intelligent” people or atheists are beyond mystery and wonder reduces the term mystery to a very small part of the spectrum it really covers. It may also be a huge overestimation of one’s own capabilities.
Mooney you hit the nail on the head with the background of the originator.
And with the basis of the quote and why it has become heavily in the news over the past month or so. But its an argument which I hope we can avoid and perhaps limit it to freedom of choice, without being shot down for your opinion. Its about realising there are different sides to every argument and whilst we can disagree we should not try to force our opinion on others.
