roobarb

Well its an interesting comment the above. Some animal behaviouralists now suspect some animal life forms are intelligent enough to perceive much more then eat or be eaten and not all life forms simply operate by instinct with no reasoned thought.

That may be simply human bias being assumed and projected on non human life forms when we assume they operate only by instinct.

The more we try analyze for example the communication systems of whales and dolphins the more evidence there is for indication they are conveying emotions and memory and intelligent organized activity.

There are studies on mountain guerillas, chimpanzees and baboons that indicate planning and organizaton to secure their packs from predators or other packs or during hunting or child rearing.

So I am not one to simply assume if something is not human it can not perceive something other then eating to survive or simply operates in an automated state of survival reflex. Too simple.

It may be life forms other than humans can perceive they are part of a greater whole. If they do that is by definition spiritual intelligence.

In fact it could be argued since humans seem to be the only life form that kills for the sake of killing and therefore imbalances the eco-system causing cascading imabalance-it could be argued humans are not only ridiculously ignorant because of our lack of insight as to the cascading imabalances we cause from our behaviour but that we are a deviated form of life that is a danger to all other life forms on the planet precisely because we are the only one that will not work within a greater whole and recognize our actions as having negative consequences to other life forms.

Some of us would define intelligence as;

1-simply being flexible-keeping an open mind and not seeing absolutes in value just approximations;

2-a willingness to engage in abstraction and relativity as opposed to simple delineation;

3-an inherent need to question;

4-that awareness is more easily conceived with comparison and contrast;

5-that what is may not be and illusion is real.

Given humans have 97% identical dna as chimps I see us as simply simeons whose only unique traits are two; i-a propensity for gratuitious violence; ii-a compuslive need to kill and destroy simply for the sake of killing and destroying, i.e., with no purpose other then immediate material gratification or sometimes for absolutely no reason at all.

Advertising

saveus

There probably iis no psychological meaning to life, but the physical of course is to sustain your life.

Vetruvius

I was using a simplistic analogy not intending for anyone to get the impression that I equate automobiles with human beings (or chihuahuas for that matter) but rather to point out the absurdity of claiming that the "meaning of life" or the purpose for existence is to perform a function which has the sole purpose (meaning) of sustaining the life of the one who ponders the meaning of life.

We are biological creatures in need of sustenance. Eating is one of the acts of sustaining life (as is seeking shelter, self-defence) among other lesser acts.

It's patently absurd to suggest that the act of sustaining life is the purpose for that very life. That goes against the Principal of Belief Conservation (rejecting a great portion of logical and rational beliefs in order to accept a proposition for which there is no conclusive evidence) and requires, at the very least, the acceptance of opinion as the ultimate worth of a mans life. No one rational would choose to accept that his life only has meaning to the extant of the big mac he ate for lunch. Not rational.

A. The meaning of life is to eat.
B. The meaning of life is a purpose higher than my personal survival.

I choose "B". There is more intrinsic worth in a human being than the food his body has metabolized.

"The supreme value and highest good is not life as such, but spiritual life rising up to God - not the quantity, but the quality of life.
-Nicholas Berdyaev (1874-1948)

Under our clothes, we're all naked.

Desidude666

How can an organism, with sufficient brain power, not operate without reason? It's suggested that even big squids are able to reason. So there is no say at all in this matter, every thing with a brain thinks, even with that, without a doubt (and you really cannot argue on this fact), survival ranks on the top of anythings' agenda. Even Maslow's Law, in management, tells us that being the first need for modern human beings. And what comes later? Security... sustenance... or I might expand on that, to survive. That is all there is to life, to feed and live, if it were to be possible to extend our ages, we would do it and if it was feasible, it would have become mandatory in society. Reason and philosophy comes really late in the pyramid, when the bases are secured. As I mentioned all you are doing is living the fundamentals and pretending that the reason for it all isn't what you eat. That's precisely the reason.

One good suggestion would easily corrode all arguments - keep a well-known philosopher hungry for 10 days, what would be the first thing he would do if faced with a piece of bread and writing materials. We have the answer straight off. I don't like quote darwinism and evolution, but that in itself states how survival is key to all life. The weak and stupid are either deprived of resources or are eaten. It's a proven theory, taught in your nearest university without someone ever voicing an argument. That's the reason for life (I am not a Darwinian btw).

We do too, the only thing is we have it way too easy. Shake it up a little, we'd see the jungle once more. All you need is scarcity.

Which assist in doing what? Why do they communicate? Not to merely converse, only we have such mundane activities! They represent the reason for sophisticated speech - survival! We didn't start talking to think and contemplate of the reasons for our existence, we did it to survive efficiently.

Exactly my point above. Just because a human being cries, it doesn't mean this animal has a purpose.

Depending on their environment. They develop abilities depending on their environment, if you noticed, there isn't a standard that every living organism is supposed to have, apart from water. Not all land-dwellers have eyes, or ears or whatever limbs. It's terribly balanced, our natural order. Almost perfect, until you set eyes on the modern human being. Imperfect animal... compare us to say the dogs with their ability to smell, or the ability of the 'cat sense'. Or even the ability to taste air of the snakes. Or even the vision of many big cats.

Again, how can we understand spiritualism without understanding the purpose of existence?

The black mamba bites just for the sake of biting! There are some animals, for instance the Tasmanian devil, which have similar traits. I agree on the whole, there is a balance, that's why my point that our purpose is to sustain. It's a terrible system where one organism eats another, this defines our purpose - to sustain. Depending - if we are wanted by our environment.

For me, the purpose is apparent. It's as clear as water, with the very air we breath and the food we eat (bacteria) and how we extract energy derived by devouring another form of life. Whether it's yeast, vegetables or an animal, this is as intelligent of an analysis as we could assert. Spiritualism has a limit - hunger.

Material gratification guarantees our survival. I know that it's possible to think about so many types of purposes of our life, but if you notice one thing, whatever we do, all we are trying to do is making sure that our gross fundamental needs are taken care of. What comes next, is well, next.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Desidude666

It shouldn't had been brought up then, right? Anyways, I understand the limitations hence it was pointed out. I bet you'd do the same.

I still stand by my statement though - the primary purpose of life is to sustain (breed - feed). Only when these are guaranteed, we embark on adventures that merely paint a different picture over activities that primarily satisfy the same criterias.

As I said, sustenance. One person, and it's merely feeding. On a macro-scale, it is to grow, breed and sustain.

It is. What do you think your purpose is. Now you can simply avoid the fundamentals and survive for your reasons. Because food is accessible, it is downgraded to a lower form of 'activity'. It's like using a calculator, because complexity of the fundamentals increases, it doesn't cover the fact that it all comes down to numericals in mathematics.

Spirituality falls before articulated reason. As meticulous as it may sound, how can you vouch for something that exists on the realm of the unknown?

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

roobarb

In response to Desi comments;

"We didn't start talking to think and contemplate of the reasons for our existence, we did it to survive efficiently."

Yes most probably.

"Exactly my point above. Just because a human being cries, it doesn't mean this animal has a purpose. "

Excellent point.

"Again, how can we understand spiritualism without understanding the purpose of existence?"

One one level I agree. On another more superficial level I would say we could simply explain spiritualism as a feeling (not a ratiional concept, i.e., one that can be proven through scientific process) of simply not knowing why we exist and wondering. To me the 2 elements, 1-realization of not knowing + 2. restlessness, anxiety, discontent that rises from 1 = spiritualism.

"I agree on the whole, there is a balance, that's why my point that our purpose is to sustain."

Yes.

" It's a terrible system where one organism eats another, this defines our purpose - to sustain."

Yes.

" Spiritualism has a limit - hunger. "

Absolutely. Unless a belly is full, there is no time to move to the next level of anxiety.

"Material gratification guarantees our survival."

Not so sure. Take someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder and who eats but does not need to. Such behaviour will kill them. Appetite like stress to a point is necessary to trigger the compulsion to survive, but once the natural level of need is sustained, I would argue past that point, the drive for material gratification turns from survival instinct to greed and so becomes malignant or life threatening if not moderated.

So again I probably agree just see what you state in approximate value points but not absolutes.

I personally believe the pursuit of material gratification in Western society has become obsessive compulsive on a collective level and is the major threat to survival as it produces social imbalance, poverty, pollution, war, and primal divisive anti-social phenomena such as jealousy, resentment, anger, hatred, narcissism, disrespect for other life forms, fixation on the 5 senses as the boundaries of acceptable thought, coercion, sexual violence and perverted behaviours, property and other crimes, physical and mental illnesses, toxic home and work environments, addictive, commpulsive and violent behaviour patterns that become accepted as social values having merit.

I do not think it is an accident that modern medicine (psychology, psychiatry) all organized religions or alternative religions or disciplined thought processes such as martial arts, Taoism, Buddism, Confuscianism, define material desire as unhealthy and in dialetic conflict with healthy thought and life patterns and lethal if not moderated.

I also find it interesting that despite the above, those claiming to be spiritual completely disconnect their spiritual values from their pursuit of material gratification, and believe they can co-exist and not run at cross purposes and so we have "good" Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., who see no contradiction in excess material gratification and use the notion of charity to
rationalize co-existence of what would otherwise be a conflict between excess material gratification and spiritual purity.

Even an enlightened one such as Buddah ate too much food in later life but forgave himself for this weakness.

roobarb

In response to Desi comments;

"We didn't start talking to think and contemplate of the reasons for our existence, we did it to survive efficiently."

Yes most probably.

"Exactly my point above. Just because a human being cries, it doesn't mean this animal has a purpose. "

Excellent point.

"Again, how can we understand spiritualism without understanding the purpose of existence?"

One one level I agree. On another more superficial level I would say we could simply explain spiritualism as a feeling (not a ratiional concept, i.e., one that can be proven through scientific process) of simply not knowing why we exist and wondering. To me the 2 elements, 1-realization of not knowing + 2. restlessness, anxiety, discontent that rises from 1 = spiritualism.

"I agree on the whole, there is a balance, that's why my point that our purpose is to sustain."

Yes.

" It's a terrible system where one organism eats another, this defines our purpose - to sustain."

Yes.

" Spiritualism has a limit - hunger. "

Absolutely. Unless a belly is full, there is no time to move to the next level of anxiety.

"Material gratification guarantees our survival."

Not so sure. Take someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder and who eats but does not need to. Such behaviour will kill them. Appetite like stress to a point is necessary to trigger the compulsion to survive, but once the natural level of need is sustained, I would argue past that point, the drive for material gratification turns from survival instinct to greed and so becomes malignant or life threatening if not moderated.

So again I probably agree just see what you state in approximate value points but not absolutes.

I personally believe the pursuit of material gratification in Western society has become obsessive compulsive on a collective level and is the major threat to survival as it produces social imbalance, poverty, pollution, war, and primal divisive anti-social phenomena such as jealousy, resentment, anger, hatred, narcissism, disrespect for other life forms, fixation on the 5 senses as the boundaries of acceptable thought, coercion, sexual violence and perverted behaviours, property and other crimes, physical and mental illnesses, toxic home and work environments, addictive, commpulsive and violent behaviour patterns that become accepted as social values having merit.

I do not think it is an accident that modern medicine (psychology, psychiatry) all organized religions or alternative religions or disciplined thought processes such as martial arts, Taoism, Buddism, Confuscianism, define material desire as unhealthy and in dialetic conflict with healthy thought and life patterns and lethal if not moderated.

I also find it interesting that despite the above, those claiming to be spiritual completely disconnect their spiritual values from their pursuit of material gratification, and believe they can co-exist and not run at cross purposes and so we have "good" Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc., who see no contradiction in excess material gratification and use the notion of charity to
rationalize co-existence of what would otherwise be a conflict between excess material gratification and spiritual purity.

Even an enlightened one such as Buddah ate too much food in later life but forgave himself for this weakness.

johnflesh

Why do people talk like you do? Time and time again I get this...

"you mean...." and then someone goes on to say something so totally random that it doesn't even make sense.

What I wrote is what I meant. You can dilute it down to chemicals in the brain all you want to but that isn't what I'm talking about. At all.

A lesson learned in life, known from the dawn of time. Respect. Walk.

Desidude666

Actually we haven't even agreed on *what* do we realise?! Is it a God, is it self? Is it the fact that we are a part of existence? Or is it that control over your senses?

That's why I have elevated it to a much higher level. It is, to me, the main reason for our existence, hence our goal.... and ultimately purpose. Once it gets easy to sustain yourself, you tend to ignore vital elements, only to make access to the fundamentals much easier.

It's far too routinized. In fact, even that does not really define it properly. Everything stems to survival. Money - fame - power - status - symbolism everything. Nothing escapes the clutches of hunger, no matter how much we try or deviate. Think about the 'natural' instincts of greed. Suppose a son killing his father for the throne is considered 'bad' and abnormal, if this process is done in a pride of lions, it is natural. If a step mother kills an offspring of another woman for better control, it's bad and wrong, but the bees do it. Is it wrong only when we do it?

I personally believe that if it exists, it isn't bad, just detrimental to our organized society. Because such a thing exists in nature, which in itself, a very unforgiving system. Almost brutal... but I wouldn't use that term, since it's like talking ill about a strict mother.

The point I have put forward is that just because we have progressed on a rather complex level of communication and understanding, our purpose does not deviate from what all life on earth is about. No matter how much we argue, we are here for Earth and her system, not the other way around.

Agreed, socially, this inequality breeds negativity. But then, if what about our negativity? Do human beings doing bad to other human beings affect the system? Chimps sometimes even resort to cannibalism. In the wild, murder is an everyday affair, how much does it change our society? Your backyard is a warzone for ants and other insects.

But on your point of social merits and a need for classification of values is mandatory for our collective survival, you can't argue on this. I may just reiterate that if it exists, it isn't bad for the system, it's bad for us.

The 3 eastern examples have readily derived their philosophy (reincarnation, spirituality, meditation etc) from Hinduism, which goes back 5000 years. But 98 thousand of modern human existence, and we only define our reason in the last 5000 years? Emotions, though important to our survival, need control. If you need a reason or medium, well, that's perfectly acceptable.

On a personal note, I have found that the chief doctrines of most of the major religions all preach the same thing, the mellowing of aggression. But by disconnecting yourself, are you losing your drive? Would you have the determination to fulfill your materialistic potential if you give up claim to the excessive materialism? How long can the fuel last? When is it ever enough? Even our water is bought!

I believe he committed a grave error when he ate his food while his disciples, the hindu ascetics, were left to starve. He should have convinced them and then eaten, since he was ascended to that position of a divine teacher (almost Jesus). I always thought why didn't he convince them... and why did he eat himself. But then, Sakyamuni, as he is known, is somewhat of a role-model figure, not many can renounce life being in a princely position. And in those days of scarcity... it was quite a decision.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

Desidude666

Anything mate, it's your beliefs anyway! Just my opinion, personally, I will never understand 'love'. To me, it's a marketed term... just a gimmick.

What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven