what is the meaning of life?

Setanta, thank you for posting your response to wolf! You just confirmed that I did in fact 'get' what Dys had written. I agree with both of you as well. Nice doggie...

Well, interesting comments, perhaps i might clarify by saying "natural order" being the common expression has something of a veiling quality about it. Or more clearly, it is not the order of nature but its irreducible spontaneity with which we find ourselves contending. That nature has no ouside and no inside, that it suffers no opposition to itself, that it is not moved by unnatural influence, is not the expression of an order as much as it is the display of a perfect indifference on nature's part to all matters cultural. Nature's source of dynamic is always from within itself: indeed it is itself and is radically distinct from our own source of dynamic. This is not to say that, possessing no order, nature is chaotic. It is neither chaotic nor ordered. Chaos and order describe the cultural experience of nature, the degree to which nature's indifference spontaniety seems to agree with our current manner of self-control. A hurricane, or a plague, or the over-population of the earth will seem chaotic to whose cultural expectations are damaged by them and orderly to those whose expectations have been confirmed by them. The paradox in our relationship to nature is that the more deeply a culture repsects the indifference of nature, the more creatively it will call upon its own spontaneity in response. The more clearly we remind ourselves that we can have no unnatural influence on natuer, the more our culture will embody a freedom to embrace surprise and unpredictability. Human freedom is not a freedom over nature, it is the freedom to be natural, that is, to answer to the spontaneity of nature with our own spontaneity. Though we are free to be natural we are not free by nature, we are free by culture and of course, history.

Setanta, I assure you I'm not trying to play word games, on the contrary. Please refrain from arrogantly assuming to have knowledge of what I want. I'm not here to fight you.

I think our human presence is not for granted, but has to be sustained by our intelligence for survival. We're only a very young species, yet are already threatened by our own actions. If I want to consider the result of this to be a survival test, I don't see the problem. The staunchest Darwinist would agree with me.

I'm sorry I called your dog ugly. He looks more sympathetic every time I see him.

Hey, Dys, I believe I just said that.

To arrogate is to assume that to which one has no right. I have every right to point out that you are playing games with words. That you are doing so is evident in that you seem either not to get, or to be intent on ignoring what Dys is pointing out. Dys addresses life as the physical phenomenon within which we exist. You are addressing Life as the mental construct of humans attempting to impose order upon that which seems to them chaotic. To suggest that Life as it is viewed in Dys' discursus is testing us is a word game which is completely without reference to Life as it is there considered. I'm not here to fight you either; neither am i here to nod slowly with a look of concentrated contemplation, rubbing my chin and intoning: "Hmmmmmm, profound." If i thought Dys were full of ****, i'd say so--which i'm certain he understands. However, to me, what Dys says is or ought to be self-evident, although it does require one to conquer ego. At the outset of this thread, i basically stated that Life is what you make of it. Dys has expressed that more elegantly, providing the basis upon which to understand how that may be so. You're trying to frame this question in a reference to "Life" as a philosophical concept. Life routinely shits on philosophical concepts.

Dyslexia said:

So far for interconnectedness. How could you ever defend our distinction from the natural history of the planet, and by extension our distinction from the entire universe?

There is no independence between us and nature, rather an apodictic bond. Our future will be decided by the dialogue between this natural bond and our free will.

Yup, it's confirmed . . . he don't get it . . .

Life goes on within you and without you

thinking, as best i can, and will respond shortly.

I've always been greatly amused by the habit the Chinese have practiced anciently, and, for ought that i know, continue to do . . . put up a little shrine to the Ancestors, Christ, Buddha, Allah . . . whomever--the point being to constantly hedge one's bets. Given our profound ignorance of "life, the universe and everything" that always seemed to me a salutory attitude to take.

when betting both the red and the black, its usually the white that comes up.

heeheeheeheeheehee . . . LOL, Boss . . .

Setanta!

I get dyslexia's opinion very well, thank you. But his approach towards nature seems to oscillate between us being natural on the one hand and us being historically distinct from nature on the other hand. He should clarify that.
Also, you should be careful to project your own lapse of ethics into dyslexia's words. It's not because nature simply is, that anything simply goes, or that nothing in this universe matters. Maybe life in the universe is an exceptional gift scarcely repanded on a minority of planets. You speak as if life is abundant and eternal. I would like to think it's not that easy, and that we may have some responsibilities in this. See the nihilism thread, which I assume you must have difficulties coping with.

Maybe life is a precious gift - hmmm, what a concept.

Mmmmm, I dunno. Sounds kinda trite to me.

Lapse of ethics, what a snotty judgmental attitude that displays . . . if i've misunderstood Dys on a minor point, i'm sure that will be eventually disclosed . . . if we disagree on the fundamental issue, than i'd be willing to acknowledge my misunderstanding--right before stating that i disagree with him. I don't speak as if Life were abundant and eternal--i state that it is in time and space greater than our poor power to understand or to manipulate it . . . as is implicit in Dys' remarks, we can "poison" the life of this planet, and likely will be the eventual victims--but that life will continue without us.



If you'd like that, help yourself. Don't try to shove it down my throat, and don't cast your judgments at me because i consider that a load of ill-considered, self-serving crap.

thanks boss, can i add life/non-life is inconsistent with the boundllesness of nature, i don't really see a distinction, which is to say that meaning, as i think we are using the term is equal to mankind, stones, galaxies, nova or the tape worm that defines me as dinner.

Well put, and i'm glad you brought that back to my attention . . .

As for the nihilism thread, i was the first to respond to our fair lady's thread, and responded as follows:



. . . and i have no reason to change or elaborate on that . . .

[quote="Setanta

.....[/quote]


Setanta,

Bravo, well said.

I didn't see it the first time. Glad you re-posted it.