|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
The Big Question | from vix - Thursday, May 10, 2007
accessed 1910 times This is an article I read a while back and found quite thought-provoking for some reason. I'd like to know what you all consider the meaning of life, from a personal perspective. What sort of meaning do you choose to invest into your life? How do you reconcile micro- and macro- thinking so that some equilibrium is attained, without the ideal of either compromising that of the other? How about justifying your life to yourself during the dark periods, where do you find your inspiration?
The big question
This week Big Brother inmates were asked to define the meaning of life. We asked leading thinkers the same question.
RICHARD DAWKINS
Evolutionary biologist and professor
There are two very different kinds of meaning to life. First, there is the meaning that individual people find in their lives, and it is not too dramatic to say that it is what makes life worth living — music, say, or sport, or nature, or a loving family. But that is a private matter for each individual, and is not something others should pontificate about. My life gains meaning from my struggle as a scientist to understand the meaning of life in the second sense: the meaning and significance of the phenomenon of life on this planet — or, indeed, on any planet, for I believe it is the same for all.
Living things are machines, programmed to preserve and propagate the genes that ride inside them. Genes that have what it takes to survive are — obviously — the ones that do survive. They do it by programming the development of living bodies, which is why bodies are so good at surviving and reproducing. Every species has its own way of surviving, and they are very varied. But, whether it grazes or hunts or soaks up the sun, whether it runs or flies, swims or stands planted in the soil, every living creature is engaged upon the same fundamental enterprise: working hard to survive, reproduce and pass on the genetic instructions for doing the work. That is the meaning of life in the scientific sense.
Among the organs that evolved originally to assist in survival and gene propagation was an on-board computer, the brain. In humans, probably uniquely, the brain has become so big that we are capable of emancipating ourselves from our original Darwinian meaning. With our big brains we can seek our own meanings and enrich our own lives.
SHEIKH IBRAHIM MOGRA
An imam and a chairman in the Muslim Council of Britain
Life for me as a Muslim is a special gift from God. When he created Adam, he blew life into Adam. He gave command for other things to come into being but Adam was made by God himself. God took time to shape, form and breathe life into this creature.
From that, consider what is the reason human beings were given this special gift. To understand, we turn to the Koran. In it God says he has not created the human kind and the jinn (spirit) kind except so that they worship. This explains our purpose in life. How do we use this very special gift? You use it to worship God, to dedicate yourselves to him. In the Muslim faith, this is not limited to the dimension of worship but every good action that we do which shows devotion and obedience to God.
However, the reality of life shows that although there is this special gift, you are placed on this planet for a limited time, you will not live for ever. The message in the Koran can compare this worldly life to a game. A game is temporary. When the referee blows the whistle, the game comes to an end. It comes to an end for everyone. We learn again, if this life is temporary, what are we to do? Prepare for the eternal, for life in the hereafter with God — a life that will never end.
Compare this now to the present football fever over the World Cup. In the game of football, if there is no result you have extra time, there are replays and even if you lose, you can always try again. However, this worldly life does not give you extra time, no one comes back to replay this game again. The angel of death offers no extra time, no replay. It is imperative that we take full advantage of life and do righteous things and praise the Lord so that we can be successful in the hereafter.
DOM ANTONY SUTCH
A Benedictine monk
The meaning of life is probably indefinable. However, to explain some of my thoughts on this, I look to a couple of quotations. The first is from 7th-century BC Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu, who said: “A frog in a well cannot be talked with about the sea; he is confined to the limits of his hole.” It is about looking outward and finding the vastness of the ocean. One must be prepared to venture forth into new experiences even though you do not know what you will find. Another quotation is from the Book of the Apocalypse: “Neither hot nor cold.” This expresses the idea of living life to the full.
The purpose of life is to live it and to live it to the full — not just surviving or hoping, but overcoming life’s challenges. And in living it you will find God.
Throughout life you must grasp every opportunity, every challenge and rejoice in every ecstasy.
The meaning of life is also about finding the divine, which is already in each of us. We need to recognise that we are full vessels and when we find the divine that already exists in us, we find meaning. Pain is something we get through, and it is something to be used. One must have the courage to be oneself and finding where that leads.
RABBI JULIA NEUBERGER
Author and social reformer
There is a famous story in the Talmud about a man who comes to Rabbi Shammai and says: “Accept me as a convert to Judaism, on condition that you teach me the whole of the law whilst I stand on one foot.” Shammai sent him away. He then went to Rabbi Hillel, who received him as a convert, and said: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow human being. That is the whole law — the rest is commentary, go and study it!”
That is — in short — the meaning of life. It’s not about romantic love, or the heights of passion, but the relationship we can and should have with our fellow human beings (and beyond that with our world and our environment). It’s about the extent to which, by our actions, the world can be made a better place. We are put here not only to enjoy ourselves, though we should recognise that life is sweet, but for a purpose — to make this world, this country, this city, a better place for our fellow human beings.
So we have not to do what harms our fellow human beings, and we must do what improves their lot, and ours — mutual obligation, recognition of our fellow human beings’ human rights, understanding that we are all made in God’s image, and equal. The rabbis taught: “Only one man was created in the world, to teach that if someone causes one person to perish, it is as if he has destroyed the whole world. Equally, if someone saves just one person, it is as if they have saved the whole world.” We are put here on earth to do what we can for one another. The rest is commentary. Go figure!
DR JOHN SENTAMU
Archbishop of York
Jesus said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.” (Matthew 13, verses xlv, xlvi)
BRENT HOBERMAN
Co-founder and chairman of lastminute.com
Without wanting to sound too on-brand, I believe in making the most of every minute of life — though that is more about navigation than meaning. Navigating life is about getting through each day without having any regrets about how you spent it. Make sure you enjoy your days and find them as fulfilling as possible. Beyond that, to give your life meaning you need to find out what it is that makes you happy. That is different for each person, although work and love of family are two key concerns for most people. Ideally, in an altruistic world, the things people find to make them happy will also make other people happy, and improve their lives in some ways. I think that is something that is becoming more important – people increasingly see their happiness, and the meaning in their lives, as bound up with the happiness of others.
PROFESSOR JOHN CAREY
Author and critic
Asking what is the meaning of life seems to me as senseless as asking what is the meaning of grass or animals or baked beans. Words, numerals and other signs have meanings, because they have been designed to carry meanings. Life is not like that. It can have any meaning you choose to give it. If, for you, it is a brief interval of light in the endless darkness before and beyond it, or the gateway to eternity, or the vale of soul-making (as Keats said), or a period for cramming in as much sex, booze and football as possible, then, for you, that is its meaning. But it will be a meaning you have given it. So the question is not what is the meaning of life, but what meaning do you choose to give yours?
COLIN McGINN
Professor of philosophy
There are different things people might mean by the question of what is the meaning of life. Sometimes people think of this question as a riddle. Many believe that the answer will be a bolt from the blue. I think the answer is fairly obvious and straightforward. The answer is within ourselves.
The question makes people wonder about the value of life. It also makes them wonder if God is essential to life. Is human life intrinsically meaningless with no God but meaningful with God who created and cares about us? Does meaningfulness require a divine being that cares about you?
If human life is meaningful only if outside life, then does God’s life have a meaning? If the meaning of God’s life was to be found outside of God, then there would be someone who created God. This leads to an idea of infinite regressive gods if it can’t have meaning intrinsically. God can’t give life meaning if that means life has to point to something outside itself.
Supposing that God’s life has meaning or value, what gives it value? Moreover, what gives our lives value? From this we must identify what values are. For this we go within, not outside.
Several things constitute value — knowledge, pleasures (esoteric pleasures, bodily pleasure, pleasures from relationships) and morality/altruism.
The value of life is in proportion to how it contains these values.
God looks into his life and has to find value, otherwise God’s life has no value. From this idea we see that the meaning of life has to be something internal. What gives God’s life value is knowledge, morality (care about us and others) and pleasures (of a higher spiritual kind).
All those things exist in our lives but to a lesser degree. Why bring God into the discussion at all? God is irrelevant by this reckoning.
This may not answer every question, such as the desire for immortality, but does bring value into life.
Realising this, you can now start to make your life more valuable. How do you weigh these values against the other? How much to study? How much to give to charity? These things make life complicated. Finding a balance varies from person to person.
I would rather say what gives life value instead of what gives life meaning. Words have meaning. Meaningfulness means value.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article680567.ece?token=null&offset=24
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from prince c
Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 14:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
drunk on sunday morning is the best time to write songs....."ooooh yea, shes my baby, of the utmost groove, when shes with me, yea, i get in the mood,oh in the mood,yea yea yea in the mood, oh yea, yea that that mood"
(reply to this comment)
| from prince c
Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 23:40
 (Agree/Disagree?)
sex is but mans special gift unto woman.........the purpose of "life" is your beeatch and evolution....
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From prince c
Sunday, May 20, 2007, 11:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
because nefa....a woman knows that if she shows her true self, the guy will probably only want to bed her once.........a womans body is made to reproduce a baby once a month....a mans body does not have that stuff.......they get all pissed off once a month cuz they didnt have a baby........but they play pretty games leading down to bed.....these happy games include some begging...(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From ................
Sunday, May 20, 2007, 16:49
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Do you understand any of what you say? All the "prettiest" "girls" want their feelings hurt? Are you sure? What makes you think you know what other people want?
You love women more than anything, as what? Paedophiles would say they love little girls more than anything too. You are either severely demented, or using very insensitive tactics to satisfy your whorish appetite for attention and recognition.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Math Geek
Sunday, May 20, 2007, 12:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let's see, a (woman's) body is made to reproduce a baby once a month. According to those calculations, when you factor in that a woman normally becomes able to reproduce by the age of 12 or 13, and there are 12 months in a year, a woman should have between 84-96 children by the time she is 20! You are a real piece of work, prince!
Only a woman with very low self esteem would think that a guy will only want to bed her once if she shows her true self.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from prince c
Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 23:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
im back.......dont mistake me for beef stroganoff!!!! do not!
(reply to this comment)
| from sapience
Saturday, May 19, 2007 - 06:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
To me a big part of the meaning of life is to participate in a kind of movement of harmony that is beautiful to feel, a oneness or wholeness. Creativity is paramount in achieving this.
I think most people including myself, attempt to excape routine through entertainment, stimulation, excitement and change, by which we try to compensate for the narrow mechanicalness of our lives.
The problem is that these diversions themselves often become a structured routine. I think the problem lies with preconceptions that we attempt to impose on facts as we see them, in lieu of learning something new which overturns comfortable ideas and notions. A child learns to walk, talk, and know his way around the world just by trying out something and seeing what happens and then modifying what is then done or thought in accordance with what has happened. Subsequently children discover all sorts of new and wonderful things.
I look at children as a type of lost paradise because as we grow up we learn through memorisation and repetition to accumulate knowledge to please the teacher or pass exams. At work we learn utilitarian purposes, not for the love of the action or learning itself, but in order to make a living. Gradually our ability to see something new and original stagnates, slows, or dies.
I think to find meaning in life is to discover what it means to be creative. The childlike quality of fresh wholehearted intrest is not completely dead in me but when it comes in a small burst it gets lost in the confusion, desires, aims, fears, and pleasures of the past and these mechanically twist the fresh clarity of mind.
Say, when I am little, I reach for a bright shiny object because it attracts my curiosity...it feels good in my hand and is pleasurable to look at. This stimulates a sort of reactive process in my mind that bright objects are pleasing to hold and look at. However, the next time I reach for a shiny object it turns out to be a flame of fire that burns my hand. My following reactions to a bright object will subsequently be based on an inhibiting movement based on the memory of the pain this caused. The reactive energy is then directed inwards and I learn reflective thought that attempts to allow me to enjoy experiencing bright objects without being burned by them.
As memory builds however, my reflective thoughts often dont attempt to go beyond the search of memory patterns to discover one that provides a solution. This means my reflection starts becoming governed by a mechanical pattern that repeats itself on different levels based on reactive experiences. Even trying to "figure things out" through adapting and modifying images, while requiring a certain degree of insight, still is limited by the concepts and images available to me.
What is fantastic, however, is when insight can extend and become free of previously existing patterns and mechanical reaction. What is required is a general alertness that makes me aware how my thought processes are getting stuck in fixed categories.
This means to view the world, not as static, but as movement that is going on both inwardly and outwardly. Thought is a movement that penetrates and merges with the whole of reality in which we live. Thus we cannot dwell on the static results of our thinking process and fragment them from their origin.
Solids, liquids, all objects, are made of atoms and and finer particles which merge in a universal field. We ourselves, with our brains are of similar constitution so that I am what I observe: a constant pattern abstracted from the universal field movement, and merging with the rest of reality that im abstracting from this movement.
Fixed, static, sorts of objects like fluid, electrons, particles, neurones, isn't really the nature of "what is". When a fluid is heated it breaks down into gas, when that gas is heated in the sun the atoms of the gas break down into radiant energy etc. Everything dissolves into movement in this way.
In this light there is NO-THING rather "things" that are abstracted from the movement of our perception and thought. This abstraction fits the real "movement" only to a point.
Every part of space contains waves from everything which enfolds the whole room of the universe. Consciousness is enfolded into the whole as well so that I am internally related to to the whole in the sense that I act with the consciousness of the whole. Since everything interconnects and interacts, nothing is complete in itself and so my full being is only realised in participation...and that is the joy of life.
This helps me to see that, since everything enfolds everything, everybody not only depends on everybody but that everybody actually is everybody in a deeper sense. Earth and space are not merely an environment surrounding me and to say so would be as if my heart were to view the rest of my body as its environment.
To partake of everthing is to partake of the whole within myself, and so this participation becomes the joy and meaning of life.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from Superman
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 14:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
The meaning of life is to survive and propagate DNA.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From Oddie
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 12:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Or perhaps we have it all wrong, and the purpose of life is the destruction and annihilation of life. Consider that the single little cell that first found itself miserably alive on this planet quickly realized that trying to find a purpose or meaning to life, -which is really just a matter of fact- was a question stupid enough to drive it insane. On discovering the answer, say 42 for lack of a better one, it became clinically depressed. Since then, life on earth has constantly evolved into a more self destructive lifeform. The purpose of the current phase in the odyssey of earth's life being the eventual termination of all life on earth. Just a possibility you know.
We have found a cause for many things on earth. We know for example, that it is gravity that pulls that apple towards the earth. We have however found no purpose to the same phenomenon. Why should an apple hurl toward earth rather than away? Well, duh, so the seeds can land in the earth and the apple tree can thus reproduce life. Well who says that apple seed shouldn't hurl toward another planet and propagate the apple species there? Just because something works, does that neccessarily imply that there must be a purpose, an intent behind it? Isn't purpose like many things, relative? Say I have in my hand here, a pound of salt. Does this salt exist to be used in the kitchen, for religious rites, as a chemical in dyes, or what? Couldn't it be said that not everything has a purpose, and not everything that has a purpose has one purpose alone? Could it be that human assumption -that we were born and exist for some purpose, divine or otherwise- is an entirely self obsessed and arrogant one? I will live, enjoy, cry, die, and rot. That much I know. Knowing I would die, why would I want to waste any portion of my life trying to find a reason or purpose for the misery that is my existence?(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 13:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know why but responses such as your second paragraph really irk me. Maybe I just find it insulting that anyone might think it necessary to tell me that 'not everything has a purpose and not everything that has a purpose has one purpose alone'. Further, I'm not sure I agree with you that the collective human assumption is that we 'were born and exist for some purpose'. Finally, I'd like to keep away from talk of the validity or non-validity of 'reason and purpose...for existence' in this thread, it's patronising and quite irrelevant.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 13:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Eh, I just don't want it to get into one of those faith vs. non-faith, divinity vs. non-divinity discussions. I should have made it more clear in the article I guess but I am trying to work on the understanding, here, that I want to hear from people who inject meaning and purpose into life on their own terms, seeing as believing in a divine plan or an ultimate truth would generally render questions about the purpose or meaning of life unnecessary.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddie
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 14:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I would venture that the non-purpose driven life can be just as enjoyable. I think everybody in essense gives their lives their own value, meaning, purpose or excuse, -whichever which way you want to describe it- either by making priorities and pursuing goals, or taking various actions without ever conciously choosing to do so. There is therefore, in my never humble opinion, little point in establishing, defining or categorizing those reasons or excuses as "purpose" or "meaning".(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 16:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Absolultely. vix is just annoyed that you're not giving her a little more credit, and that you're projecting views you see as universal onto her. She never said life had purpose. She was just asking what is the secret of life. She wasn't even really asking that, she was just asking what people think about it. Personally, I take great comfort in a purposeless yet harmonious existence. I think it shows greater respect to nature and the earth and humans to see them as merely existing in their own right, not utilitarian, functional, or destined for something. It's like the difference between a parent who wants their child to be a particular type of athlete and flavours their child's entire life to suit their own wishes versus one who just respects their child's individuality and allows them to explore and develop naturally. The philosphies you expressed above, IMO, are in effect being that second parent to yourself.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Sunday, May 20, 2007, 10:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
And I'm just perplexed that vix isn't giving me a little more credit. I never said she said life had purpose. I wasn't responding to her article, but to two comments above mine, one that assigned a purpose to life. Is this where I say "HELLO?"
You described my philosophy much better than I could myself, and for that I give you credit.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Phoenixkidd
Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 13:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Words have no meaning to me --Only Actions do. Tell that to your Muslim Mo' Fo's Imam!
(reply to this comment)
| from exister
Monday, May 14, 2007 - 11:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Perhaps a better question is, "Why should I care what any of these people think?"
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from J_P
Monday, May 14, 2007 - 01:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Are we confusing the "meaning" of life and the "purpose" of life?
Meaning = what does it mean, how is it defined
It seems that the meaning would be quite clear strictly speaking: To be alive, to live, not be dead
Purpose = why do we have it, what should/can it be used for
To try to say that all life (human, animal; each human) had the same purpose would be a gross generalization. My purpose is not the same as anyone elses. Only I can determine my own purpose since it can constantly change with each new situation I might find myself in, and in dying life has served its ultimate uniform purpose in getting me "safely" to my death.
That being said, since death is the only sure part of life, its about not the end game, its rather about how we get there, about not hurting one's self along the way, not hurting others along the way, and if the two are in conflict, do the least hurt possible on the whole.
(reply to this comment)
| From vix
Monday, May 14, 2007, 04:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, if we want to argue semantics then no, we're not confusing anything, seeing as 'meaning' is also defined as 'purpose'.
I like what you said, though. Just a question, is your concluding paragraph your personal philosophy on how to live a positive life, or is it a general outlook? Because I can't really see that 'not hurting oneself' is always a feasible condition for having lead a meaningful, purposeful life, unless it is seen wholly from a personal perspective.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From J_P
Monday, May 14, 2007, 08:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would say I have to look at it from a personal perspective. The collective is made up of "individual", so on the whole it will add up to positive society as well.
I don't have a rule book that I live by, though by "hurt" I mean any type of harm, negative effort, damage, etc that can be caused through actions or attitudes. Its not always avoidable, so cannot be eliminated, but it can be actively minimised by always looking out for one's self, while not exclusively looking out for one's self.
Practically speaking, people have always said that I'll never let you drown, but I won't get wet if I don't have to. I dont make excuses and don't take them either, just do my best to get on with things and have a go.
On the balance, my purpose in life is to be as happy as I can, make my family as happy as I can and retire as rich as I can.
Then again, who else really cares :-)(reply to this comment) |
| | from rainy
Saturday, May 12, 2007 - 06:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I said to you earlier, Vix, I'm not able even to comprehend the big question, let alone take a stab at answering it, but a friend of mine reckons he's got it worked out, so here's what he says:
The meaning of life, (pursuit of happiness?)
From the time of Man’s emergence as a sentient being he has sought relief from his angst-ridden existence – the word for the state he craves is “happiness.”
He has chosen various routes in the pursuit of his goal; the practice and study of religion, the ingestion of drugs, acquisition of possessions via capitalism, experiments in communism, immersion within the extended family and various “alternative” lifestyles. Some have dabbled in all these within a life span, in vain.
To discover why none work, I believe we have to analyse the animal itself.
What has made him one of the most successful life forms in the history of Earth. It is only when we understand how he functions that we begin to understand why.
Despite enormous success, one goal eludes him.
The primary imperative for all life forms is survival. His enforced extinction of all competition would suggest that Man currently has the most highly developed survival instinct. Survival is not solely a personal objective, he seeks it for his genes. Whilst survival is simply reproduction, plus the acquisition of food and shelter, it appears a far more sophisticated quest.
A cursory examination of Man’s closest relative, the chimpanzee, renders clues. Chimps live within small tribal units which work well provided the strict “pecking order” is acknowledged. Dominant males and females rely on networking to maintain tribal equilibrium. The cost of this balance is a high level of stress, it is a complex life punctuated by frequent skirmishes. Undisturbed over millions of years, Man’s relatives developed a system that worked. A system that demanded no sexual exclusivity, no personal possessions, no belief system, no police or army and had no outside threats, (pre Man.) The members of the tribe are dependant upon each other in every aspect of their existence, from birth to death – their only fear is vulnerability via exclusion. Remove one, or two chimps from this system and put them in an alien environment - the result is unhappy, unbalanced chimps.
Return to Man’s design. If we assume rape, murder and theft to manifestations of antisocial behaviour and then analyse where Man is most likely to perform these acts, we see that it is in cities and where people have few social links to the environment in which they live. Small communities, villages and intimate social groups generally live in peace. Small islands rarely require the intervention of the police, group responsibility and inter-reaction ensures equilibrium.
Our group of humans are now living peacefully on their small island, but are unable to achieve happiness as they have only ticked off some of the boxes. They have stability, shelter and derive a high level of satisfaction from their close tribal unit, but they are severely restricted upon the gene front!
This restriction will be felt most strongly by the newly fertile. Human teenagers will express their need for genetic “expression” in a variety of ways. Primarily they will be confused by their emerging sense of alienation from the tribe and their awareness of its restrictions and limitations. Gene driven, they will exhibit challenging and anti-social behaviour in the hope that their elders will make the decision for them and eject them from their current gene pool. Fear of an unknown and unstable environment will restrain them.
The mature islanders will also be subject to gene related angst. The human body is programmed to be receptive to new genetic material whilst resisting the norm, impelling them to mate with the partners of their fellows. The church/state will try to intervene, preventing this diversification by the imposition of social mores and financial disincentives.
(reply to this comment)
| From Oops, there's more!
Saturday, May 12, 2007, 06:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
At this point it is necessary to explore the difference between our “balanced” chimp community and our current human lifestyle. One aspects of survival is the need to wield power. In the case of a dominant male chimp, this relates to forming allegiances with as many of his male peers as possible, the payment being secondary food shares and mating rights. The human equivalent is the development of the monarch/baron, who via largesse, gradually refined his peer group allies into an army. Around 2,000 years ago, with the emergence of the nation/state, the machine had become so complicated and expensive that the cost of control had to be passed onto the controlled – taxation.
The successfully levying of taxes requires an ever growing and cowed population – enter the church armed with its afterlife carrot. Humans were welded by fear into stable family units, unable to roam due to enclosure of their land by their taxers. Engendering a feeling of patriotism to the new super-tribes was the final element of their enchainment.
Back to today’s islanders. Increasing sophistication, makes the imposition of official superstition a less effective tool, so the influence of the church waned. Instead media and state have adopted the role of maintaining stability via an array of inducements ranging from economic to perpetuating the old cocktail of guilt/envy. The 21st century has spawned a complicated and in many ways dysfunctional, family structure, but it still retains all the essential elements of a “milkable” unit.
It is a surprising fact that the areas that experience the highest incidence of human suicide are the ones with the highest standards of living – the “model” states. The social group that is the most likely to take its own life is the young man from a wealthy western background and the least likely is the third world refugee. Could it be that Man is a social stress animal and needs his tribal skirmishes rather than the leisure/peace/love formula that has been peddled as his Utopia?
Will the rich young man “with it all” be happy? Commonly living resentfully with (and off) his parents in the midst of a city of strangers. Maybe young humans require decisive role models just as much as chimps, strict elders that enforce a clear social order into which they can mature?
We acknowledge that possessions provide no lasting satisfaction, but we continue to crave them. Historically Communism has evolved into capitalism in disguise. Substances that distort our reality, also erode our reality. We lurch from one nuclear family experiment to the next, each one dragged down by the weight of its history. Hippie communes implode as they fail to address man’s innate aggression.
Every morning Eastern mystics wake up with nothing. They believe nature will render sustenance; their claimed quest that day will be to “banish self and live in the moment.” – does that ring any bells?
Consider your life free from toil, freedom to go hunting in the woods, do a bit of fishing and swimming, lay around in the sun and eat some fruit, commune with your friends and family, have a bit of a barney, maybe some random sex?
Is the secret of life happiness? Have we evolved away from it; evolved into complexity? Maybe our poor relatives always knew the secret, but we never noticed. Perhaps Man just has to ape the chimp!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Sunday, May 13, 2007, 09:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for posting this, rainy. An interesting read, even though, like I said in chat, it offers no concept so new as to genuinely thrill me. Incidentally, I completely agree with the main thrust of it. However, knowing the personal truth of the concluding paragraph is almost worse than being unaware of it, as aiming for a simpler, less complex life isn't very realistic for me. As much as I'd love to step out of a world that I really feels holds very little true value for me personally - I really think that I could quite happily die penniless in India or Vietnam or somewhere like that, having lived each day immersed in the glories of nature's bounty, 'banishing self and living only in the moment' - I've got children who deserve the opportunity to make their way comfortably in the 'real' (illusory as it may seem to me) life that they were born into, and this involves a commitment on my part to subscribing to a certain set of general values and the accompanying pattern of behaviour of a productive and successful person. As such I've signed away any freedom to throw off the 'cares of life' the moment that I gave my daughters that life. I don't resent this responsibility or its limitations, though I freely admit there is a certain lost child aspect within me that will always find the weight of it a crushing and ultimately, perhaps, unwanted burden. All part of growing up, of course, and I realise that I'm not unique in feeling these things.
Really the quandary that I continuously face has little to do with 'meaning' or 'value' (though of course the interconnecting threads are there), because i already know where these are found for me, on a personal scale. The problem is much more one of lack of balance, lack of resolution, an inability to feel true to myself unless I carry every side of me through to its furthest end. The resultant state is naturally one of perpetual turmoil, as of course caring deeply about too many things at once lends itself to a terribly fragmented sense of identity and no clear basis for progression in any one area.
People often tell me that the solution would be to stop thinking so much, to get busy, throw myself into something, almost anything, in fact, to keep my mind occupied, to stop taking myself and life in general so seriously - in other words, stop caring so much about everything. I fully accept that I am my own worst enemy and that all this tension is my own creation. I also concede that if I were very busy much of this internal chatter might cease, at least for a time. But I truly don't believe that this would actually be a solution to the difficulties that I face. Sure, it may be a more effective distraction than the ones my mind conjures up for me now, but I don’t know that I really believe that any amount of activity, however challenging and mentally exhausting it might be, would actually banish this tendency to perpetual analysis, it just seems a fundamental part of who I am. And as for ‘stop caring so much’ I simply can’t envisage being able to do so, as much as I can understand on an intellectual level that somehow doing so would more likely than not afford me the ability to act instead of think, to actually do something about the issues that I feel strongly about.
What to do, what to do.
Perhaps effective distraction rather than an ultimate solution is the more realistic goal.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Sunday, May 13, 2007, 09:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Another consideration,
'of course caring deeply about too many things at once lends itself to a terribly fragmented sense of identity'
The likely view of a psychologist, in my admittedly unlearned opinion, would be that in fact fragmented sense of identity (due to an underdeveloped ego) is the starting point for the difficulties I outline above. This does make sense.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Sunday, May 13, 2007, 13:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, I disagreed with my friend who wrote the above piece on several points. I do not think that the secret to life is the pursuit (or gain) of happiness; I believe it is personal fulfilment. Most people probably find this by deluding themselves, as can be seen with certain of our still-cultie parents who have huge smiles and love to tell us how happy they are. Not a good example, just the first one popping into my head at this hour.
But really, some people will find fulfilment and satisfaction in life even through the denial of happiness. It's not hapiness we seek, in my opinion, but validation. I think we all want meaning. We want meaning and we want to be fulfilling our purpose. And those most honest and intellectual among us (i.e. you) realise there is no such thing. And for those people fulfilment will of course be illusive, and the discomfort you describe will be there. If it's any comfort, it makes for the best writers and thinkers. You join the ranks of Kafka and others. Does that cheer you up? No? Oh well...what to do. Thinking can be a drug, eh? Highs and lows, and escapism all there.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From vix
Sunday, May 13, 2007, 15:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Very good points, rainy. I don't think I read it carefully enough because I didn't really notice the pursuit of happiness aspect so much - or maybe I unconsciously disregarded it because it seemed quite inconsequential to me in this context. I guess it depends on one's definition of happiness. I personally don't think happiness exists as a sustained state of being, so I totally agree with what you say above. To me happiness exists only in the now, in seconds (minutes, maybe) of pure emotion, each of them entities in and of themselves, like little polaroid snapshots of the gloriousness, the magnitude and the utter magic of it all - the recollection of which subsequently bleed their richness into the muted colours of day-to-day living. Those moments of intense feeling (whether it be sorrow, joy, anger, self-loathing, love, pain or any number of other emotional states) breaking through the ordinary to momentarily make of it something truly, breathtakingly glorious, constitute all the happiness I could ever need, much less dare to hope for.
'And those most honest and intellectual among us (i.e. you) realise there is no such thing. And for those people fulfilment will of course be illusive, and the discomfort you describe will be there. If it's any comfort, it makes for the best writers and thinkers. You join the ranks of Kafka and others.'
You’ve been truly complimentary, rainy, and very generous. As it happens that thought does, many times, cheer me up - even if I do find it ridiculously presumptuous of myself to find comfort in such a thought. Yesterday I listened to that old song from the Bible album, All is Vanity, and it struck me again how very well this song (and the Biblical passage it hails from) applies here. These are the eternal questions and truly, there is nothing new under the sun.
‘And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit. For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.’ Eccl. 1: 17, 18
Isn’t it just marvellous, this thing we call life??
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From vix
Wednesday, May 16, 2007, 15:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know that it's a greater question, just a different one. But probably one whose answers would make for a much more interesting discussion than the one I started out with here. I know I've been truly perfectly happy but of course that experience will be personal to me, because you're right, there's no way to consistently measure it. An interesting development of this question is, is it possible to be truly, perfectly happy, yet simultaneously feel pain, anguish, loss or any number of 'negative' emotions? I think it is.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Wednesday, May 16, 2007, 23:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I used 'greater' in the context of broader and more encompassing - since you cannot possibly answer whether it is possible ot be "truly, perfectly happy" until you can define what "true, perfect happiness" is.
Another dimension I didn't mention in my initial post is that in addition to the differring perspectives of each person, I would venture that even for a given individual their definition of what 'happiness' is will change from time to time depending on the circumstances in which they find themselves &/or perspective gained through their cumulative experiences. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From vix
Thursday, May 17, 2007, 05:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'd argue that knowing through experience is the only way to build up a personal definition of such an abstract concept. One doesn't know what it means for oneself to be in love until one has experienced it, for example. In order to answer the question, what is true perfect happiness, one would first have had to have experience of it, otherwise one's definition would be based on conjecture and thus not reasonably true. I agree with you that one does not always have to have experienced something in order to define it, but in this context I think that it is necessary.
I think both questions are part of the same, just seen from different persepctives.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 14:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
There we go... I figured if I leave you to you'd sort it out :D
You're almost there, in that if one answer is ruled out of a binary response, that question is irrelevant. However, beyond that, some sort of definition is necessary in order to discuss the concept - therefore the first step in answering rainy's question is to establish what is meant by the terminology used.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From vix
Sunday, May 13, 2007, 15:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
And on balance, regarding 'living in the moment':
'I always felt, but can't prove outright: Zen is wrong. Then is right. Everything is not about the now, as in the "here and how", "living for the moment" On the contrary: I believe everything is about the before then and the back then.
It is about the anticipation of the moment and the memory of the moment, but not the moment.
In German there is a beautiful little word for it: "Vorfreude", which still is a shade different from "delight" or "pleasure" or even "anticipation". It is the "Pre-Delight", the "Before-Joy", or as a little linguistic concoction: the "ForeFun"; in a single word trying to express the relationship of time, the pleasure of waiting for the moment to arrive, the can't wait moments of elation, of hoping for some thing, some one, some event to happen.
Whether it's on a small scale like that special taste of your favorite food, waiting to see a loved one, that one moment in a piece of music, a sequence in a movie....or the larger versions: the expectation of a beautiful vacation, the birth of a baby, your acceptance of an Oscar.
We have been told by wise men, Dalais and Maharishis that it is supposedly all about those moments, to cherish the second it happens and never mind the continuance of time...
But for me, since early childhood days, I realized somehow: the beauty lies in the time before, the hope for, the waiting for, the imaginary picture painted in perfection of that instant in time. And then, once it passes, in the blink of an eye, it will be the memory which really stays with you, the reflection, the remembrance of that time. Cherish the thought..., remember how....
Nothing ever is as beautiful as its abstraction through the rose-colored glasses of anticipation...The toddlers hope for Santa Claus on Christmas eve turns out to be a fat guy with a fashion issue. Waiting for the first kiss can give you waves of emotional shivers up your spine, but when it then actually happens, it's a bunch of molecules colliding, a bit of a mess, really. It is not the real moment that matters. In Anticipation the moment will be glorified by innocence, not knowing yet. In Remembrance the moment will be sanctified by memory filters, not knowing any more.
In the Zen version, trying to uphold the beauty of the moment in that moment is in my eyes a sad undertaking. Not so much because it can be done, all manner of techniques have been put forth how to be a happy human by mastering the art of it. But it also implies, by definition, that all those other moments live just as much under the spotlight: the mundane, the lame, the gross, the everyday routines of dealing with life's mere mechanics.
In the Then version, it is quite the opposite: the long phases before and after last hundreds or thousands of times longer than the moment, and drown out the everyday humdrum entirely.
Bluntly put: spend your life in the eternal bliss of always having something to hope for, something to wait for, plans not realized, dreams not come true.... Make sure you have new points on the horizon, that you purposely create. And at the same time, relive your memories, uphold and cherish them, keep them alive and share them, talk about them.
Make plans and take pictures.
I have no way of proving such a lofty philosophical theory, but I greatly anticipate the moment that I might... and once I have done it, I will, most certainly, never forget.'
--Kai Krause
http://www.edge.org/q2005/q05_7.html
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From rainy
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 16:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, Oddie, I meant it that way. The anticipation and not knowing and a little bit scared and butterflies and just the whole unknown aspect are usually better than the actual moment that you have what you were so excited about. It is like the night before Christmas vs. Christmas day. Maybe I'm hopelessly fucked up or something, I don't know.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 09:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I assume you're being facetious (or at least I certainly hope so!) and I guess the little smiley is a hint at that, but who said anything about intercourse being the anticipated 'moment'? I know it's not for me to answer since your question was directed at rainy, but I'm going to say my bit anyway. This discussion is about a state of happiness, contentment, fullfilment, none of which has anything at all to do with sex, in my opinion. As far as I chose to interpret it rainy's comment had little or nothing to do with sex, as for me, flirting itself has little or nothing to do with that act but rather is a way to satiate mental and emotional needs.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddie
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 09:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course I'm being facetious, vix. In my mind flirting isn't so much the buildup to sex. If flirting has any relevance to sex, it's more of a vetting procedure than a hunting process. Although I have to say, good flirting makes the sex better. Anyway, the comment rainy responded to stated along the lines of the before and after being more valuable than the experience itself. Rainy's comment could then, be interpreted to mean she placed flirting as the "before" to the "experience" of sex. I was hoping she'd take my comment seriously for a comment or two, goddamit. Why'd you have to spoil it just cause you aren't getting any you meanie. :((reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddie
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 12:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Since I'm sure plac and sammy would run to your aid should you alter your conscious choice, I can safely assume it is mere coincidence that your opinion sounds eerily similar to that of the average person that can't get any. "It's not like I couldn't if I wanted to, I'm just not interested. This porno? Er, I liked the soundtrack? No, I mistook it for a hiphop video." Coincidence I'm sure. :p(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Saturday, May 19, 2007, 18:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
Meh, I was gonna let this one go but I've changed my mind. Guess you're gonna get what you were baiting for. I must say I'm offended that you would stoop to such obvious nonsense.
Go ahead, force your typically male attitude onto me and limit the whole worth of my existence to nothing more than directly relative to male desire. See if I care. It will never cease to amaze me how you men believe your sexual prowess so irresistible. Well, I've got news for you, sex and anything remotely connected to it means nothing at all to me. If I never have sex again it'll be too soon, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to reduce my carefully considered handling of my sex life (or lack thereof, if we're going to limit sexuality to acts involving those outside oneself) to nothing more than an indication of supposed inferiority as you so obviously implied, well that's up to you but I will gladly say that I am not a passive participant in my own sexual identity and in no way is the fulfilment of it dependent on a man. As for porn, please! I have no problem announcing to the world that I think porn is beyond stupid and I'm not about to play the supposedly 'sexually empowered' woman whose whole approach to life is to 'beat the boys at their own game' in order to appear more desirable. Yawn, yawn fucking yawn.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Sunday, May 20, 2007, 10:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mmm, vixisms. All in jest, vixie, all in jest. If I've pushed it too far, you may tell me so, and I apologiz/se. I mock, only because I cannot fathom. But you read and interpret a lot from a comment hey. That and you say the best things when peeved. I should start a "poke vix with a needle" coalition. Things would be so much more entertaining around here. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddman
Sunday, May 20, 2007, 10:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, rainy, for lack of better topics on the new content page, I'm taking you up on this. I didn't say sex was the best thing ever. I don't think there can be a "best thing" in that sense. As is my habit I state the obvious. "Better" is entirely relative. Whether sex or say, an apple would be better, depends entirely on other circumstances. If I was starving, if I was drowning, if I wanted a baby, I'd react differently, you'd react differently. If it was pity sex with a crackhead ex, interspersed with "oh no the baby woke up" breaks? If it was "no kissing, no anal, no oral" sex with an ugly hooker and you paid for it? If it was sex with Gerald Butler on a 40 foot yacht in the middle of the ocean with a fully stocked bar under the moonlight, no holds barred?
So for the sake of deliberating whether there are things "better" than sex, we must understand what exactly we are talking about. Because so long as what I consider sex and what you consider sex differs even so slightly, I cannot describe my logic to you in a way you would understand. This isn't because you are unclever or foolish in any way, but because if we interpret the key word "sex" differently, I might as well be speaking martian. We need to reduce the variables.
It would seem to me, that the majority of people understand "sex" to be the act of genital interaction, heavily affected by other circumstances surrounding the act. Emotions probably being the largest component. For some, mutual masturbation is considered an act of sex. Sex no longer means intercourse.
The quandary then, is that "sex" is too gross a generalization to be comparable with anything else. It is akin to saying "I like weather" or "I like food" or "I like people". Which is better, water or food? Which is better, sleep or being awake? Is it at all comparable?
Can you quantify "better" and "worse"? If not, it is nothing more than an abstract feeling. An emotional response really. Then what are you responding to? Pure sex? Intercourse? The physical pleasure achievable by physical stimuli? Or are you responding to other elements that interfere with an enjoyable experience?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from vix
Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 17:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
An unrefined mini-rant:
(with apologies in advance for poor sentence structure, incoherent progression and fragmented development, as well as grammatical or spelling errors.)
I posted this article as a kind of exercise in clarifying to myself my current position on all things philosophical: that there is no greater meaning in intellectual (or maybe pseudo-intellectual is a better term) discourse than there is in any number of more overtly banal subject matters. I wanted to see whether the fact that similar discussions have taken place ad nauseum on this forum (not to mention having been played out so many times before within my own mind) has basically rendered this issue redundant and hence any exploration thereof just as vapid as a discussion on Paris or Britney or any number of similarly putrid inanities (yes I know that's not a word, well it is but it;s not really correct in this context, but ah well, I'm just in that kind of mood). Sure enough, in reading the article back and anticipating what kind of comments it might generate, I believe that it is highly unlikely that rehashing the subject yet again will have any positive outcome for me personally. I doubt that anyone will say anything so incisive and profound as to genuinely move me with the thrill of greater clarity. I really am starting to think that since there is no intrinsic value in any one subject of thought above another, save that which we ourselves invest in it, what gives any of us the right to be so arrogant as to condemn anyone else for being 'lesser' than ourselves? Why, I wonder, am I still so elitist and why do I look down on people who don't seem to care about the things I care about or whose priorities in life clash violently with my own? More importantly, why do I even bother to care if not to translate that conviction into substance? Is it just a way of making myself feel better? Is 'social conscience' my opium in place of the religion I discarded? Further, if caring so much makes me so susceptible to becoming overwhelmed that I then end up doing nothing but barely 'surviving' (which renders me incapable of doing anything at all to change things somehow, to make at least some difference to someone or some cause), that state of affairs seems to me far worse than that of someone who just doesn't care, because at least their conscience is clear. I, if i claim truly to care, must be a force for change or I am guilty of the very injustice i claim to abhor. Caring without acting is no virtue. So why do i persist in despising so many people who by this, my own reasoning, live more honest and pure lives than I? At least they know what they want and make no apologies for getting it. Why should my tendency to ponder unanswerable (and let's face it, largely irrelevant) questions give me any claim at all to pride in myself? Who says that I compare favourably with the average materialistic, celebrity-obsessed, patently unintelligent person?? Why do I struggle to assert myself as being above such wretchedness?
Hmmmm, what's my point? For now, it's this: For me, asking the 'big questions' has lately become nothing more than empty, soulless chatter and I am no better for my aspirational pursuit of 'enlightenment' than those who i condemn for their apparent vacuousness. This leaves me with the feeling that it might be time to throw off those aspects of myself (or bury them, perhaps) that compel me toward such a strong distaste for quite 'normal' life goals and aspirations. Why is it so offensive to me, anyway, this idea that I might actually quite enjoy spending money without regard for those who might be affected by my consumption, or the notion that in reality I am just as likely, if i would let myself, to place great stock in items of worth and resultant status as anyone else? Why does the very thought of becoming like 'that' horrify me so? I dunno. But I'd like to see things differently. I'd like to leave off the endless soul-searching and moralising for a time. but how does one turn it off? Maybe an answer of sorts will come to me when I manage to find a cause that i can truly sink my teeth into, something worthy of passionate championing. Will I be able to balance that, then, with the part of me that lives only for myself and my children, and find a state of relative equilibrium? I'd like to think that some sense of resolution will be achieved.
I've forgotten what I started out saying...
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]