I disagree.

Sometimes examining statements such as does 2 and 2 really equal 4 can be very enlightening.

Sometimes contemplation exists in a vacuum. Sometimes it's a game played for sheer enjoyment. Symbols get manipulated and pushed around, but does anything ever really change? Sometimes, no.

Lao Tzu might say that when nothing happens it is a very good thing. It is not a danger when ideas mean nothing. In contrast, it is when the ideas of people are taken too seriously and acted upon that wars begin.

There's another side of it, too. The theme of does 2 + 2 = 4 or not plays very nicely in Orwell's 1984. The book has had a lot of impact on many people.

Two and two not equalling four might be a message about not judging a book by its cover. It can point to the fact that mathematical equalities may not necessarily exist in reality but are products of the human mind as it interacts with the world around us. That is, mathematics is more a descriptions of how human brains interact with reality than reality itself. Absolutes are not necessarily absolutely absolute. It depends on the situation and your point of view.

And what can come of conjecture like that? Well, the field of NLP for one thing. And what did NLP help give rise to? Paraliminal tapes and courses.

Do not dismiss so-called useless conjecture as ephermeral and useless. It is the foundation of many of the wonders and horrors of the modern world.

Asking questions that no one else will ask, because they are stupid or nonsensical is exactly what some of the greatest thinkers in the world (namely the rebellious Einstein) have done. It is this kind of thinking that is behind some of the greatest innovation.

It's in the questions you do not ask, the areas you do not explore, the ideas you do not have (and thus the things you do not do) that there is the largest domain for discovery and growth.

It is also the source some of the greatest enjoyment there is, too.

And it all depends on your perspective.

I will note that I did not miss your equation of the presence of an afterlife and divine being with something that is established fact within a system of reasoning that is, more or less, rock solid. I don't agree here.

The way I see it, for what it's worth, is that the existence of an afterlife is an area of speculation and not absolute knowledge. I take it for granted that there *may* be an afterlife, and then again there may not be. For me, it teeter totters. It gives me breathing room. There are distinct benefits of just being a meat-bag with no soul, no god, and no afterlife. There are also detriments. The same holds true for the existence of a god, soul, and afterlife. And then there is that interesting and strange area of possibilities that is neither and/or both. Maybe the reality is not only stranger than we think, but stranger than we *can* think (I don't remember where that quote is from, but I like it).

Side note: I don't know why you feel you need a disclaimer about disgareement with the course. The LSC police will not break down your door if you disagree or criticize. I have plenty of times, and they haven't caught me yet.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited September 19, 2004).]