What is the meaning of life?

[LAOLONG]

The mystery of life is not a problem to solve but a reality to experience.

tremendous mysteria

[blue eyed snake]

tremendous mysteria

 

yes, I've found that just living life as it is, without trying to make ( too much) words for it's mystery of meaning.

 

brings me closer to ' getting' that mystery then the endless analyzing I've done in my younger years.

[Marblehead]

 

brings me closer to ' getting' that mystery then the endless analyzing I've done in my younger years.

 

What?  She's learning how to live instinctively and spontaneously?

[Karl]

yes, I've found that just living life as it is, without trying to make ( too much) words for it's mystery of meaning.

 

brings me closer to ' getting' that mystery then the endless analyzing I've done in my younger years.

What were you analysing ?

[blue eyed snake]

What?  She's learning how to live instinctively and spontaneously?

 

nah...she's unlearning to analyze,

then the rest follows 

[blue eyed snake]

What were you analysing ?

 

everything,

bit like you're doing really

[Karl]

everything,

bit like you're doing really

Should I point out the obvious ?

 

"I stopped analysing" - :laugh: you can run but you can't hide BES.

 

You just analysed that you stopped analysing. We have to choose to reason it isn't automatic, evading doesn't make the crap go away that's inside your mind, it gives you a sense that by giving up that it has vanished. You got to sor out the loft, the mess doesn't get better because you dropped the hatch.

 

I'm telling you this so because I've been there. For a while, perhaps years, it is possible to evade and try and put emphasis on the tightrope as it appears in front of you. It's a distraction, a hypnotic device to focus upon. One day reality will re-enter and the loft lid will be torn away and there will be that whole mess you had ignored.

 

It isn't easy to start putting it right, but why not start before the inevitable happens ? It's your choice, you can rant at me if you want, but ultimately don't you know anyway without my saying so. I know I'm putting a finger in a wound and I cannot avoid the verbal missiles that get thrown as a result.

 

Just think about it.

[blue eyed snake]

och yes, of course the habit of analyzing is not gone totally, but it has diminished greatly.

and the part of it that is gone, is really gone, not put under a rug, but dissolved.

 

Analyzing is a habit of the mind, and once you've dived in the sphere where time, space and mind do not exist, the futility of the monkey-mind becomes clear

Thereby giving space for my famous intuition, and other things.

 

No fingers in wounds here, the wounds are healing and therefore the fingers that want to pry in it do not have much effect anymore.

 

I'm grateful for it, it gives me peace, I may not have much time anymore.

 

I've no urge to rant at you, or anybody, no energy for it but also no need.

 

I 'm pretty sure you cannot/will not or maybe dare not  get this.

 

I suspect in you a fear for that 'silent place' , but going there, changes the outlook on about everything, i pray you''ll get there. if not this life then the next, you've been close.

 

we all walk our own path, in our own time and manner. 

 

BES

[Karl]

The very fact that you have felt the need to reply defensively should reveal the reality being denied.

 

It's fine for me to be defensive because I don't hold to the premise that my mind requires/is silent therefore who is kidding themselves here ?

 

All I have to do is give you a little jolt and off you go. The silent mind is gone in a flash and BES comes out fighting. You can ignore my comments, but you cannot evade your own mind. Reality will blow down your little refuge at some point and your reply is proof enough that it is onl straw.

 

This feels in a sense like I'm having a go, I'm really not, I should really just keep my nose out of your life because it is your life, but I'm an inveterate fiddler that just cant stop until I've put something straight. It's OCD of a kind. If you stop posting nonsense you will do me a favour :-) just close the bar and stop serving me mental alcohol :-)

[Stosh]

 

 

You aren't actually saying anything I can understand.

 

The definition is the concept and it the concept is defined by its units.

 

I was hoping you might get there and maybe figure out why 'life' must have 'meaning' and why that is particular to man who has a sense of 'I' or 'self' that is absent in animals and plants.

 

I was attempting to show you that the use of words themselves to represent concepts is implicit in the answer.

 

This might have gone over your head. It is the same thing as the stolen concept. To extrapolate it if it remains unclear: life is a word representing a concept. To ask 'why should life have meaning' implicitly provides its own answer. 'Life' is a concept, 'meaning' means definition. The fact that you have a concept 'life' at all gives it the necessity of meaning. If you wish we can further define the concept 'life' but it would be pointless.

 

I can take you a very long way if you want, but my intention wasn't to lecture but to see if you could grasp the sense of your own question and why it implicitly contains the answer.

True, so ... what possesses you to think that any of us needs meaning?

This is whats called a question made by me , directed at you Karl

 

As far as Sophie is concerned, I'm expendable. 

This is anecdotal intended for additional clarity

 

What does meaning mean ? :-) ask your cat, or the plants. 

This is you ignoring my question , and giving me a nonsensical directive rather than making a declarative statement of your own

 

It relates two ,in a parasitic bond. 

This is my answer , indicating I don't have to ask my cat since I already know what I'm talking about. 

 

You are saying that meaning is defined as 'two in parasitic bond' ? 

This is you looking to confirm my meaning ,presumably so you can well formulate a response

 

Yes, Im saying thats what is indicated traditionally ,,regardless of the guilding one might smear on it.

This is me not trying to be tricky and helpfully confirming what the statement means and elaborating so you can formulate your response. 

 

You aren't actually saying anything I can understand. 

I can take you a very long way if you want, but my intention wasn't to lecture but to see if you could grasp the sense of your own question and why it implicitly contains the answer. 

Finally theres you , not responding to the question , not rebutting my answer but saying you dont understand -but  going off on an instructional tangent any way. 

 

I found this whole last interchange disappointing, ,Sometimes we have fun but your heart isnt in this one. 

Well thats how I see it anyway...

I came in to work for a bit and then tuned in enthusiastically to see what you'd have for response ,, whether we agreed or not , This was deflating. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

True, so ... what possesses you to think that any of us needs meaning?

This is whats called a question made by me , directed at you Karl

 

"Because you are asking what I am meaning. I don't need a crystal ball, the proof is right there as you wrote it on this page. "

 

As far as Sophie is concerned, I'm expendable.

This is anecdotal intended for additional clarity

 

"Not necessarily. She has learned that you are a source of life, just like a pool of water. If, like a pool of water you dry up, then Sophie will be forced to seek other pools, or she might not do so. A cat is a perceptual creature, but it has a memory and habits. The way to train fleas is to put them in a box in which they will jump only until they hit the box top, after a few days the lid can be removed and the fleas will jump no higher. "

 

 

What does meaning mean ? :-) ask your cat, or the plants.

This is you ignoring my question , and giving me a nonsensical directive rather than making a declarative statement of your own

 

"It was to illustrate that you cannot ask your cat, nor your plant despite them being living organisms. "

 

It relates two ,in a parasitic bond.

This is my answer , indicating I don't have to ask my cat since I already know what I'm talking about.

 

"What does it mean ? What is in a 'parasitic' bond with what ? What is the bond ? What are the parasites ? A tapeworm has a parasitic bond with the digestive system, but how that relates to the definition of meaning is unclear from your definition. "

 

You are saying that meaning is defined as 'two in parasitic bond' ?

This is you looking to confirm my meaning ,presumably so you can well formulate a response

 

"If it's necessary. If you speak unintelligible gibberish I'm going to put up a question mark as I cannot translate the communication with any accuracy. If what you meant was unintelligible gibberish then no reply is necessary"

 

Yes, Im saying thats what is indicated traditionally ,,regardless of the guilding one might smear on it.

This is me not trying to be tricky and helpfully confirming what the statement means and elaborating so you can formulate your response.

 

"Traditional ? This is a cultural term, it has no place in philosophical discussion anymore than 'the cat in the hat'."

 

You aren't actually saying anything I can understand.

I can take you a very long way if you want, but my intention wasn't to lecture but to see if you could grasp the sense of your own question and why it implicitly contains the answer.

Finally theres you , not responding to the question , not rebutting my answer but saying you dont understand -but going off on an instructional tangent any way.

 

"You want me to lecture you ? I don't know if you are simply responding, or thinking. So far it appears to be the former. If we are to continue and gain anything you are required to apply your mind properly, if you are unable, or unwilling our conversations serve no purpose."

 

I found this whole last interchange disappointing, ,Sometimes we have fun but your heart isnt in this one.

Well thats how I see it anyway...

 

"Fun ? You ask a serious question and presumably you wish to have a serious answer. You wish me to give a fun answer to make you laugh ?"

Edited October 15, 2016 by Karl

[blue eyed snake]

The very fact that you have felt the need to reply defensively should reveal the reality being denied.

 

when someone reacts on a post of mine i tend to give an answer, so I was only being polite, you read defensiveness in it

 

It's fine for me to be defensive because I don't hold to the premise that my mind requires/is silent therefore who is kidding themselves here ?

 

yes, you're defensive

All I have to do is give you a little jolt and off you go. The silent mind is gone in a flash and BES comes out fighting. You can ignore my comments, but you cannot evade your own mind. Reality will blow down your little refuge at some point and your reply is proof enough that it is onl straw.

 

och, the silent mind is not a thing of all day, I did not feel 'jolted'  again, I was only being polite

 

This feels in a sense like I'm having a go, I'm really not, I should really just keep my nose out of your life because it is your life, but I'm an inveterate fiddler that just cant stop until I've put something straight. It's OCD of a kind. If you stop posting nonsense you will do me a favour :-) just close the bar and stop serving me mental alcohol :-)

 

every soul its own nonsense, i'll go on ignoring your posts, as I usually do

[Karl]

Polite hahaha.

 

We are both being 'polite', but one of us is being dishonest to themselves.

 

Aren't you just a teensy weensy bit mad at me BES ? Go on and admit it here, write it here and then observe the effect it has on your disposition. You aren't really annoyed by me, you are annoyed at your dishonesty in being unable to admit it.

[Stosh]

"Fun ? You ask a serious question and presumably you wish to have a serious answer. You wish me to give a fun answer to make you laugh ?"

 

Were you unaware that I usually enjoy posting with you back and forth? Yes I do sometimes chuckle , often at myself , sometimes at you , but Im not laughing at you Karl . Theres a difference

(a chuckle being  connoted as  warm welcoming  patient  and accepting ). Other times you present a vehicle for me to express my thoughts , and I figure I do the same reciprocally. But In the end , I remind myself not to take this left-brain stuff too seriously , since I think much of the life we live is perceptual rather than factual . I think Other folk truly do see the world from a different perspective , in accepting that , I am only conceding that which  I cant change anyway. 

I sometimes do get emotionally or intellectually wrapped up in a conversation , and dont want to let go of my own expectations and preconceptions , I admit that ,, but I also see it that I can indeed let go of that imperative to have an intended effect , to be recognized for some factoid etc, not every inconsistency needs to be 'fixed' to conform with some structured hypothetical "right view",, since as Ive said otherwhere, the human condition isnt wholly one of true rationality. (where one progresses in some consistent pattern of thought finding an answer to all things by some recipe)

While you probably vehemently disagree about that last part , all it means, is that on this we don't agree, its not how you see and weigh things.Though I indeed will continue to promote my own view , when I do promote.

[Karl]

"Fun ? You ask a serious question and presumably you wish to have a serious answer. You wish me to give a fun answer to make you laugh ?"

 

Were you unaware that I usually enjoy posting with you back and forth? Yes I do sometimes chuckle , often at myself , sometimes at you , but Im not laughing at you Karl . Theres a difference

(a chuckle being  connoted as  warm welcoming  patient  and accepting ). Other times you present a vehicle for me to express my thoughts , and I figure I do the same reciprocally. But In the end , I remind myself not to take this left-brain stuff too seriously , since I think much of the life we live is perceptual rather than factual . I think Other folk truly do see the world from a different perspective , in accepting that , I am only conceding that which  I cant change anyway. 

I sometimes do get emotionally or intellectually wrapped up in a conversation , and dont want to let go of my own expectations and preconceptions , I admit that ,, but I also see it that I can indeed let go of that imperative to have an intended effect , to be recognized for some factoid etc, not every inconsistency needs to be 'fixed' to conform with some structured hypothetical "right view",, since as Ive said otherwhere, the human condition isnt wholly one of true rationality. (where one progresses in some consistent pattern of thought finding an answer to all things by some recipe)

While you probably vehemently disagree about that last part , all it means, is that on this we don't agree, its not how you see and weigh things.Though I indeed will continue to promote my own view , when I do promote.

Then you wish to laugh at yourself ? Not for some occasional foolish act, but for your own philosophy, for your virtues and values you hold ?

 

Well don't let me stop you. If you wish to denigrate yourself then go right ahead.

[Marblehead]

Don't forget to dance.

[cold]

Dance with the one who brought ya.

[Marblehead]

Dance with the one who brought ya.

 

But leave with someone else.

[Stosh]

Like I explained, I dont consider chuckling ,or even laughing at myself, denigration. I think its terrific in fact ,curative of some plagues. I Laugh recognizing my own errors and flaws, I laugh at the ironic ,the futile ,, all sorts of stuff. I dont laugh at misery of others, nor compassion by them,nor good will intended, nor the unfortunate . I dont see these things as mitigated.

At my own mothers funeral I both wept and laughed.

In corporeal life , I figure most folks find me mercurial and confusing, difficult.

remembering that day I still weep a bit, though I know it serves no rationale, and I can laugh at my own predicament,,but that is not denigration..and I have no intent to 'fix' it.A few moments of greif in memory does not make me 'broken,' it means Im human and I loved my mother, and rationality be damned.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Stosh

[Karl]

Like I explained, I dont consider chuckling ,or even laughing at myself, denigration. I think its terrific in fact ,curative of some plagues. I Laugh recognizing my own errors and flaws, I laugh at the ironic ,the futile ,, all sorts of stuff. I dont laugh at misery of others, nor compassion by them,nor good will intended, nor the unfortunate . I dont see these things as mitigated.

At my own mothers funeral I both wept and laughed.

In corporeal life , I figure most folks find me mercurial and confusing, difficult.

Do you find yourself to be confusing and mercurial ? Laughing at errors is one thing, but laughing at yourself generally is a form of moral cowardice.

 

I would wonder if I could trust you because you are flakey. Like a staircase which suddenly collapses under foot. A loose nail, or a creak is fine, but I wouldn't wish to be buried under a pile of rotten wood. I find this to annoying in a person, I wonder if they can't take themselves seriously, then why the hell should I ?

 

Is this something in which you feel pride ?

[Stosh]

Yes, because I unabashedly span the gamut of the human condition. I see zero reason to try to conform to your brand of predictability. I am that which I am , as you are, and we each are a package deal. With me, what you get is what you see .... If your sight is clear... which I dont think it is if you think laughing equates to denigration.

[Karl]

Yes, because I unabashedly span the gamut of the human condition. I see zero reason to try to conform to your brand of predictability. I am that which I am , as you are, and we each are a package deal. With me, what you get is what you see .... If your sight is clear... which I dont think it is if you think laughing equates to denigration.

I did not suggest you had to conform with anything in particular, I made the observation that you lack sufficient moral courage for me to trust you. If you are happy with how you are that's fine, we can halt further discussion.

[Stosh]

Well , I am fine with the way I am.

[dust]

I think it's now the advice to eat fat, particularly animal fats as they are good for you. There is a suggestion that it prevents grazing on carbs because fats stay in the stomach longer and that it prevents brain dysfunction such as Alzheimer's.

 

There is a school of thought that suggests one of the reasons for promoting vegetarianism is that it weakens the mind and makes people malleable to propaganda.

 

This is the kind of thing I was talking about today in the other thread. "I think such and such.. I heard it somewhere.." Only stupid people chase woozles.

 

This might be the advice from someone, somewhere, but simply posting the notion it doesn't make it so, and posting it without any kind of evidence at all is irresponsible and foolish.

 

An actual source (based on "international consultation of experts" by the WHO):

 

http://foris.fao.org/preview/25553-0ece4cb94ac52f9a25af77ca5cfba7a8c.pdf

 

In view of the rising burden represented by brain disorders, there is a need to target

food production to be in line with requirements of the brain and vascular system and

for general good health. The future requirements of the increasing human population

cannot be met by a diminishing fisheries catch. Furthermore, the requirement is unlikely

to  be  met  by  terrestrial  products  because  they  do  not  have  the  full  complement  of  

essential  nutrients  found  in  seafood  (iodine,  n-3  FA,  Se  etc).  It  is  recommended  to  

expand  both  fresh  water  and  marine  aquaculture  by  applying  the  use  of  agricultural  

principles to expand productivity of the oceans.

 

In  developing  countries  where  children  may  be  in  energy  deficit,  and  where  it  is  

planned to increase energy density of the diet with fats and oils, every encouragement

should  be  given  to  development  of  indigenous  oils  that  are  more  physiologically  

balanced  in  terms  of  linoleic  and D-linolenic  acids  rather  than  importing  linoleic  acid  

rich oils which dominate the Western markets. Similarly, developing countries need to

guard against importing food products that are rich in atherogenic and thrombogenic

fats and do not provide a balance of essential fatty acids.

 

In other words: farming is harming; eating terrestrial animals is unhealthy for us (cancer, heart disease, brain dysfunction) and damaging to the environment, including the oceans from where we should be aiming to derive our brain-healthy fats and other nutrients.

 

You can call it propaganda, but -- as ever -- you seem to have nothing to back yourself up with.

[Karl]

This is the kind of thing I was talking about today in the other thread. "I think such and such.. I heard it somewhere.." Only stupid people chase woozles.

 

This might be the advice from someone, somewhere, but simply posting the notion it doesn't make it so, and posting it without any kind of evidence at all is irresponsible and foolish.

 

An actual source (based on "international consultation of experts" by the WHO):

 

http://foris.fao.org/preview/25553-0ece4cb94ac52f9a25af77ca5cfba7a8c.pdf

 

 

 

In other words: farming is harming; eating terrestrial animals is unhealthy for us (cancer, heart disease, brain dysfunction) and damaging to the environment, including the oceans from where we should be aiming to derive our brain-healthy fats and other nutrients.

 

You can call it propaganda, but -- as ever -- you seem to have nothing to back yourself up with.

I will eat the best I can afford to eat thanks.