The Meaning of Life

Can we just take a step back and think if "it is a question after all".

We are standing at the bank of a river trying to know the end of river? where does it go? what all places is it spread across? which ocean does it fall into?
See one question has led to may other questions but still we don't have any answer. You can observe this fact in this post.

What we are not doing is to just dive into the river and know yourself? If you just keep thinking, there will be more questions and no answers. Because every answer leads to another question, thanks to our restless mind.

All we can think is that's within in the range of our knowledge. Unless you experience yourself, you can't gain this knowledge. So, stop asking questions to others and just observe and experience whatever is happening. Everybody will find a different answer based on their experiences. Thats' the real life.

navjot

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wesmorris: Anyone that would take the time to answer my post as you did, is a good person, somewhere down deep inside where it really counts. I will respond later. I have been up all night doing paper work, and am kind of wound up, and worn out, but I just read your post, and that you for making laugh. You had the privilege of being the first on this forum to talk dirty to me. Do you remember. I cannot repeat it; my computer would be embarrassed. Thank you for making me laugh. Not sure if I will ever catch on why I sound more insulting than others; you should hear me in person.

I do want to leave you with something to do with behavior. Here is my favorite definition of a friend. He is one who, when you have made an ass or yourself, does not think that you have done a permanent job. Remember that.

So tired, I will get back with you. pmt

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a long thread, both in space and in time, so I apologize if I will be rehashing something already discussed.

But it seems to me that there is one simple solution to the dealings of meaning and purpose:

We live, and we live in our whole fullness: as bodies, as our logical reason, as our emotions, our memories, our relationships, all sorts of things, we don't even know how many.

The tool we have to observe all this is our logical reason, the tool of temporal, spatial and causal relations.
So far, it seems that only this tool lets us speak -- I mean in *words*.
We all know, however, how every thing cannot be expressed in words, this is why people kiss, fight, paint, sculpt, ... whatever, to express themselves. If words would do, people wouldn't kiss, fight, paint, sculpt, ...

So, as long as we try to express something with words, we are in the realm of logical reason.
Trying to convey the meaning of a kiss in words bastardizes the kiss, don't you think?
Trying to convey the meaning of life in words bastardizes the life, don't you think?

Maybe it is more adequate to stick to matters of TSC, for these can be expressed via words.
Everything else is betrayed, if put into words.

So when *talking* about the meaning of life, it is maybe more adequate to pertain to matters of TSC, of logical reasoning.

What the *meaning* of other things that we are, the body, the emotions, the unknown and so on can be said only in the native language of those other things: in the native language of the body, in the native language of the emotions ...

This BIG wonderful rest that is not reason is best expressed and put into its native language: living, laughung, kissing, drawing, having tea ...


Edit the third:

That is:
We betray ourselves if we try to convey the meaning of a kiss in words.
We betray ourselves for the fulness of the kiss if we try to convey the meaning of a kiss in words.
We betray ourselves for the fulness of life if we try to convey the meaning of life in words.

But back to Earth:
The thing is that we are so used to our TSC tool that most of the time we aren't even aware of it. We use it on all sorts of things. Hence the so common feeling of that certain "intellectual sadness." (Which is nothing else but reason meddling into things that are none of its concern.) Of course, nowadays, it is almost unimaginable to not speak about everything ...!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ROSA: So you believe that you can be aware of something and think about it -- but NOT in the realm of TSC? You need to expand on this!

Time-space and conscience, right? Yes, in a way. Kant, I realize, was kind of top dog in that century of happenings that so devastated Europe, and no, I do not need a sermon, I know probably as much as you why folks were negative; they had reason to be. I have a very soft spot for Schopenhauer and Lord Byron, you know, do you not, those silly flowers in my thinking—which seem to preoccupy someone in this discussion. That touchy stuff that I am so inclined to reach for, and that "kiss it and make it well" approach, right? Not right. I am about as real as they come, and seldom agree with anything entirely, because I am not into absolutes, except that I absolutely know there is something bigger than I am. No insults to my intelligence will change that.

~~~~~One poster that I really like, suggested that I may not be looking for enlightenment at all, because of my unwillingness to consider that I may be wrong about the existence of God. I can understand what he was saying, and it made me sad that this was such a divisive thing, but you who do not believe, can seem to have your thinking darkened by your prejudices and presupposings, some of which I will attempt to point out further into this posting.

ROSA: So what I am doing is that I am separating the computer from the programs.

~~~~~~I do not care much for that analogy; I do not always think or answer in yes and no’s; in fact, I rarely do. Perhaps you can better relate to what seems to me hypothetical nonsense. I do not mind your quoting Kant. The man was well educated and most likely believed everything he said. However, Spencer reportedly could not understand him, and he was no dummy. Durant says that “speaks through clouds, but without the illumination of the lightening flash.” Reportedly, Kant’s friend, Herz, returned the MS of Critique to Kant, half read, saying he “feared insanity if he went on with it.” Not that Kant never said anything worthwhile, (excuse the double negative) I do not mean that, because the truth is, I have read commentaries only. For those who like what the man says, that is great. Most of us have our favorite writers, philosophers, historians, politicians, and so forth. That is cool with me. Regardless, none of these do my thinking. Some great minds are often in disagreement; therefore, having someone believe or not believe should not give cause for ridicule.

ROSA: If you want to talk about the "programs", then we can talk about flowers and lovers, but let's do it somewhere else, over a nice cup of tea.

~~~~~Yeah, tea and flowers are not real, right? They are just pretend and passe. Show me a computer without programs and you will have shown me a useless machine. When EDP, as they called it then, first became a “thing” in Oregon, a computer covered a whole wall. Sometimes, I look at my little “DELL” setting so unobtrusively to my right, and I have to shake my head as I think how far we have come—in just that one thing, if you could call it “one thing.” It is amazing. Sometimes, it is my computers “long memory” that impresses me so much, and rather reminds me of the sewing machine. Like, what kind of brain wrought such an incredible and useful thing? But! --No one brain did! The first sewing machine was quite simple and a bit clumsy. When I used to key punch in my college class, and feed those little boogers into that big clumsy-looking monster, it was exciting. Now, it seems almost pathetic. And, I tell you, dear heart, anyone who thinks we NOW have arrived technically, spiritually, physically, mentally (philosophically/rationally) had best think again. There will come a day, no doubt, when your thoughts and my thoughts of this time will seem so uninformed and naïve that folks will smile in amusement, (if this world lasts, or another world), depending upon our future (apparent) conquests and (presumed) failures.

ROSA: “I just don't see why it would have to be called anything. *It is.* And that's enough, don't you think? Since it simply IS and since it is so UNIVERSAL, you cannot really say anything about it, can you?”

~~~~~~What a strange statement. So, if something is a puzzlement to you, then why try to talk about it, …. or something like that? How do you know it IS, if you choose not to mention it, and how could we mention it if we do not call it anything?

ROSA: I'm sorry about your loss. I know that I will probably come across as cold and calculated reason -- but what is so wrong when something hurts like hell?

~~~~~~OH QUIT! My message was about a turning point in my life and how I chose to voice my feelings to God in my rocking world. Many years have passed, decades actually, since I lost my child. Of course, it was okay to hurt, I did not say or imply that it was not. I did not understand why I had lost my child. Shock sets in when such things happen. It is that simple. Now, you can theorize all you like, but unless you have lost a child, you cannot fully know the shock of it. I used to wonder why the person closest to the deceased seemed more "okay" then many others. They are in shock. At one point, at the grave, everyone was crying except me, and I felt bad that I had made them cry, simply describing my reasons for burying him near a little blue spruce. The crying was over, temporarily, …but then it returns, just as the pain returns, sometimes quick unexpectedly, but the severity of it lessens.

~~~~~Yet, the biggest boom from that experience was my steeled resolve to stop the nonsense, ...just becoming sick of it, and wanting folks to stop using me as a dartboard for their cute little fairy tales about why Jesus took the lamb away to get the mother to follow. I cannot say that it hurt so much as it was detracting from my work at hand; that being, to sort out and to accept. It was a nuisance! I do now like who I am, and where I am; and I like who you am too, but I do not know where in the heck you are, in this thought thing, I think! Here is a chauvinistic remark: Not too many women engage in discussing philosophy and history. Most of my correspondents outside this forum are fellows of various ages.

~~~~~`Sometimes, I have to remind myself, to listen to myself, lest I fail to use the knowledge I have. You think you have trouble with me! We get along great in comparison with how I do with some of those dear religious folks, for whatever that is worth, if anything.

ROSA: I think that pain is just a part of life just as joy is.

Yeah, so???

ROSA: In addition, one should feel both, in their fullness. I think people are often afraid to show how hurt they are. But why?? What is so wrong with crying those tears??

~~~~~I think that could be, and I see nothing wrong with crying, or I would be reading books on it! I cry when I watch Lassie. Seriously, remember Lady and the Tramp, and old faithful, or whatever that hound’s name was. When that dogcatcher’s vehicle turned over on him, tears popped right into my eyes and down my cheeks, and someone laughed at me. I would not say that this means I am not afraid to cry; I just do, and sometimes it is irritating, but my family was never ashamed to cry, and we tear even when we laugh hard. However, I agree with you, and anytime anyone apologized for crying, I assure that one that crying is just as respectable as laughing, and sometimes not as vulgar, so go for it. Let those tears—happy or sad—flow.

ROSA: Why rationalize feelings? Why be so afraid of being hurt? Why push away sorrow? In fact, if it is pushed away, it becomes a rationalization

~~~~~~Why indeed. I like that conclusion, but I trust you are not implying that I was “so afraid” to be hurt. That did not enter my mind. Even though there was one time that I wished I were the type to get drunk, (I knew better, and said it mostly in jest, but in retrospect, I think I sort of envied people who used "escape"). I took no tranquilizers, and faced my lot, just as I always have, but this does not mean that I do not ask questions, and my questions are okay. My answers are okay too. I am sure you will your thoughts on this, and maybe talk about flowers again, but I am a survivor. You do not know me.

ROSA: -- and then, as a rationalization, it truly does damage to us.

~~~~~~It prevents, do you not think so. Once we have rationalized something inadequately, we tend to sort of pack it away. Something like pouring cement maybe, and then it sets, and boy can it get us into trouble.

ROSA: Otherwise it is just sadness, and it passes. Or are some people afraid that if they don't feel "hurt enough", if they don't feel that "it hurts like hell" -- that this means that they didn't love the person they lost, or at least didn't love them enough?

~~~~~The answers would vary with individuals. I never thought about that brand of fear, but there was another fear that is quite common. With a death like that, of someone so dear as close, there is a bit of a fear of everyone forgetting that person. You want the whole world to stop, but that feeling passes, and you go on, or not. For whatever reason, I did. My brother died rather young also, but that is something we all have to do!

FROM ROSA, WITH MY QUOTE FIRST: “ There was a reason I did not turn on the heater in the bathroom all winter. ... ”
ROSA NOW WRITES: But you do eat meat, and wear leather shoes, and if you don't wear leather, then you certainly wear cotton. Cotton that was probably produced in South America, on fields that used to be the Amazon Forest, fields that after a year or two will become a desert. "A reverence of all things" may sound noble at first glance, but is a lot of pretentous BS, IMO, and I'm not sorry to say that.

~~~~~Oh, did you think I was going to eat the spider?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Naw, he was just a pet, sort of…. I am not sure what he ate. There is seldom ever a bug to be found here, unlike Texas and other states. As for cotton. I used to pick cotton in California, right beside the big folks, from the time I was about three, hauling my little sugar sack. In fact, almost all of my mother’s people picked cotton, pulled boles, and whatever they could find. There is still cotton grown in the US, but nothing like it was in my childhood. Texas is too busy fighting the boll weevil, and planting cotton to later be plowed under (so that money can be obtained from the government for having attempted to grown it.. with no water, or whatever).

~~~~~Naw, I agree with you on the reverence thing;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I too thought it was a bit much. The fact is I am simply some kind of oddball. When I was two, I took an injured house fly to my aunt, and asked her if she would keep it for me until it got well. She reportedly said, “Yeah, I’ll take care of the poor little thing,” dropped it on the ground and stamped it. I then burst into tears and called my beloved aunt a son-of-a-bitch. (I learned from being with my mother those times she periodically took me with her. She had quite a vocabulary.) Anyway, I guess I was born with some kind of a quirk about living things. And, when did you see my shoes?

ROSA: Because it is NOT scientific. ~~ (How do you know that for sure?)
ROSA: Because it is sentimental. ~~ (And what sin is that?)

ROSA: Because it is soooo Oprah. ~~ (Gosh, I am disappointed in you. What doe s that crappy comment mean anyway?

ROSA: Because it is soooo worn-out. ~~ (Only to those who wish it were so. Are the moon and sun also mundane, and the heavens, the oceans, and the trees, ... babies and those flowers that find their way into your sentences? Or, the old people; are they just too worn out to be interesting? Maybe so. If so, how will you be thinking about yourself as you “wear out?” Maybe we should all just lie down and not get up again. Why do the same thing again tomorrow when there is death for sure and no reason to believe there is anything thereafter?

ROSA: Because it is not modern. ~~ (Modern is a term of the moment; and in actuality there is not such a thing except in our mind’s associations. It is a state that must change constantly, which makes it not a state, but a passing thing -to tickle our egos, perhaps.)

ROSA: Because there are miserable rationalizing smarta**es in this world who can ask: "What is happiness? Define. What is healthy? Define. " and so on ad nauseaum. And then some are so insecure, that they go and answer those questions and try to "define" happiness, and meaning as such ...

ROSA: What you mean is most important to me. You are important to me, because you are a thinking, breathing being. I do appreciate quotes that you really like, but not as a weapon against my principles, but rather something to know, to consider. Okie doke! We should speak clearly and not be too taken with whether we offend or not, so that we speak truly, (straightforwardness/honesty/sincerity) which is in the final analysis the least offensive. As far as jumping on one another because of apparent contradictions, we ought to realize that we are primarily a glob, if you will, of contradictions. You know that old test: Which of these characteristics fit you. The first time I took it, I thought they all fit me and the examiner (business) thought I had taken the test before, because that was apparently a good sign, -to realize that they could all find a home at one time or another in your behavior. So, bully for me. Gosh, I found something to brag about. Now, do you like me as well as Kant?

ROSA: [I dooo wish, my deear laydy, that I coould speak like a true Eeenglishwooman.]

~~~~~~Yes, some of that would be nice, huh? The woman who thought I had reverence for all things, seemed to also think that I had been in England in a previous life. Ah, I doubt that. So what if I like my goodies not too sweet, and laugh last, huh? Besides, I do have quite a bit of English blood, mixed with my Irish, possibly some French, German and Indian tribes (2). I was born in a bitty house in Oklahoma. This was, of course, after it became a state.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

^ ^^^^^^^ pmt

 

PMT,

First of all, I would like you to know that English is only my third language and I've been speaking it actively only for the last three years or so. I often think that I should simply better keep my bigmouth shut, because I know that I tend to come across like a bitchin' bitch. Talking analytically is easy, but small-talk, being funny, giving compliments, and swearing, of course, are the fields where foreign speakers have greatest troubles with. It is so hard to figure out the right emotional intensity when speaking a foregin language. And whenever I try to give compliments or be nice in English, I am never sure whether I am being really corny or actually emotionally as I want to be. So I try to shift into some sort of intellectual humor, because I'm more sure about that. I'm working on my Emotional English though, I hope you'll see some progress in me soon. You and Wes are just such a sweet inspiration for me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*****

TSC is for time, space and causality. + Linearity and continuity of them. (See, how good I am at this shit?)
I didn't mean to give a sermon, I was just appalled at the things happening.

"No insults to my intelligence will change that."
I never meant anything as an insult, I'm sorry if anything came across like that, I bet it did.

"I can understand what he was saying, and it made me sad that this was such a divisive thing, but you who do not believe, can seem to have your thinking darkened by your prejudices and presupposings, some of which I will attempt to point out further into this posting."
Stop right there! You said, "but you who do not believe, can seem to have your thinking darkened by your prejudices and presupposings" -- that "darkening" simply happens, it's a part of the rationl journey that went a bit too far. I love to exercise my brain in the realm of TSC, and I love to think in systems and all that. But this is just ONE PART of me, just one aspect. (And also the one that is easiest to present here.) I am often afraid of the spooky places my system thinking brings me to. And I have decided that this is not IT, this is not what I want to consider myself to be. It's just one part, and a spooky one. Most useful, but spooky.

The computer analogy:
"Perhaps you can better relate to what seems to me hypothetical nonsense."
I did say that we usually don't have to do with only the machine or only the program. This is just a theoretical split-up, meant to gain a new approach to solving problems. Fortunately or unfortunately, it is damn hard to speak without metaphors and analogies. (Do think of the pitcher and the ocean.)
Hey, and I don't think that our or any computers are like sooo great or that we've arrived somewhere. Computers are useful, and as such they have value.

Reportedly, Kant’s friend, Herz, returned the MS of Critique to Kant, half read, saying he “feared insanity if he went on with it.”
Like I said before, if one thinks that those systems are all there is to life, yes, then insanity is knocking at the door. Gotta be careful reading Kant and doing systems. Gotta keep in mind that this is just one possible view. The logical reason is a dangerous place, a very dangerous and merciless place.

Also, not to forget Hegel: This bold man went all the way, and systematically worked out the apocalypse of the Western world. Some don't take him seriously. Some are crazy for him. But he managed to fool everyone who thought him to be a philosopher. Hegel wasn't a philosopher, he only played the role of a philosopher, very devotely and precisely, but still played. He managed to keep reality from rational fancy in his personal life. Now that's something I look up to. Kant kinda lost it, I think.

Shoot, I am playing with the devil here. Only good that I have a cat to remind where I must come back to.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Some great minds are often in disagreement; therefore, having someone believe or not believe should not give cause for ridicule."
I once more apologize if I came across as ridiculing. Once in the realm of systems, I can forget that I am in the realm of systems, and I come across as a cold bastard. Which then can be perceived as ridiculing. See, this is what I was saying when I was talking about the need to educate one's logical reason -- so that it remains aware that it is only the logical reason, and certain other instances have to step in to prevent the reason from ridiculing other people and their views.

"Yeah, tea and flowers are not real, right?"
Heh, the ones I meant were real, very much. I was trying to make a distinction between matters of logical reason and ... some nicer things.

"There will come a day, no doubt, when your thoughts and my thoughts of this time will seem so uninformed and naïve that folks will smile in amusement, (if this world lasts, or another world), depending upon our future (apparent) conquests and (presumed) failures."
So? I'm ok with that.

"So, if something is a puzzlement to you, then why try to talk about it, …. or something like that?"
I explained in a post yesterday, why I don't think it is adequate to *talk* about certain things. Scroll up a bit.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"How do you know it IS, if you choose not to mention it, and how could we mention it if we do not call it anything?"
The thing is that humans have pretty much invented names for many things, and we wish to name everything, it's the compelling of our logical reason.
I know that it is, whatever it is, I don't know what it is, but it is there, and it is telling my logical reason that this very logical reason of mine is not the only thing that I know about. Because of that other thing I am aware of my own reason. It's foggy metaphysical, I know. But it's the Schleier der Maya, and the weirdest thing about the Schleier der Maya is that we are aware of it. Why? Schleier der Maya.
(Intermezzo: German is my second language, and that one I am better at. And I can read Kant and Schopenhauer in the original! Yuhu.)

I don't know what is wrong with this machine today! Split ...

 

Part 2

"My message was about a turning point in my life and how I chose to voice my feelings to God in my rocking world."
Thank you for sharing your experience here with me, I mean it. I'm younger than you and I cannot possibly have made the experiences you made, and I trust you to give me that credit.

But when someone mentions dying, I cannot help but to think of the funerals I've been to and the bizzare and sad things that happened.
Like when my grandfather died, and my step-grandmother, his second wife, cried "Why did he have to die??" and everything and it iseemed as if her world would end, and two weeks after that she was her old self again.
(Not to mention that at that funeral people, whom I have never seen before and whom I most likely will never see again, were expressing their most deepest condolences, crying and everything. And they barely knew my grandfather, and they certainly didn't know me. Some of them were simply formal representatives of the community.)

"I do now like who I am, and where I am; and I like who you am too, but I do not know where in the heck you are, in this thought thing, I think! "
I'm afraid I don't understand the last part of this ...

"Here is a chauvinistic remark: Not too many women engage in discussing philosophy and history. Most of my correspondents outside this forum are fellows of various ages."
Thinking is a "male thing", ha? A while back, I realized that I do have this thing called logical reason, and I used to deny it, since it is so "unfeminine". But that did me more harm than good. So I said, what the heck, it's better if I stop denying it, and school it, so that it won't play mean tricks on me. That's how I ended up here.

"Sometimes, I have to remind myself, to listen to myself, lest I fail to use the knowledge I have. "
Sounds familiar.

"You think you have trouble with me!"
Hey, I don't think I have trouble with you!

ROSA: I think that pain is just a part of life just as joy is.
"Yeah, so???"
You do know Christians, don't you? Well, on the whole, they *wish* people to be happy all the time [I say that they want everyone to be a giggggling robot]; shoot, this is why they are so miserable. I'm often amazed, seeing how they try to push away any emotion that is not "politically correct". It's sick.

"I cry when I watch Lassie."
I can cry almost anytime, I am often so moved. I cry at music. I can cry at a nice commercial add music. Don't tell anyone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"ROSA: Why rationalize feelings? Why be so afraid of being hurt? Why push away sorrow? In fact, if it is pushed away, it becomes a rationalization
Why indeed. I like that conclusion, but I trust you are not implying that I was “so afraid” to be hurt."
No, I was actually thinking of my step-grandmother. A while after grandpa died, she was moved sometimes to tears, but the things she said to chase those tears away ...

"You do not know me."
I never claimed to do so.

ROSA: -- and then, as a rationalization, it truly does damage to us.
~~~~~~It prevents, do you not think so. Once we have rationalized something inadequately, we tend to sort of pack it away..."
I'm not sure we mean the same thing. I meant the psychological defense mechanism of rationalization. (The one that turns sadness into melancholy.) When people treat emotions as if they are not emotions, but some sort of manageable and controllable thing, that is, on top of it, bad.

Split up ...

 

Part 3
(Where does this thing see too many emoticons?!)

"And, when did you see my shoes?"
That was supposed to be a provocation.

I too used to cry when seeing other people hurt animals. Boys were torturing beetles just to make me cry.
But today I feel that I don't have the right to say about myself that I did this or that to prevent an animal from getting hurt, even though I try to help animals as often as I can. I mean, I live, and I am helping to ruin nature, by simply being alive and living I help to kill animals and destroy their habitat. I would think myself a preposterous hypocrite if I would actually say that "I love animals". That's a freakin lie, as long as I eat meat and wear leather and live in a warm house, I am also harming animals, I don't love them if I help killing them and help taking away their habitat.

About the meaning of life I said something like "The meaning of life is to learn, live healthy" and such. And then I listed a number of reasons why such a meaning of life is not "legitimate" -- because it is not scientific, because it is sentimental etc.
I was jesting, couldn't you tell? [Note to self: label something accordingly, for people cannot hear your voice when reading a post.] My experience is that when asked about the meaning of life, if I answered something like learning, healthy and that stuff, some people said I was being sentimental, demanded proof for my assertions, said that it was sooo Oprah. Arrgh. That just makes me angry. They had some super fancy ideas about the meaning of life though, which I apparently couldn't understand because I was too sentimental and too Oprah.
I thought my jest was apparent in the last one on that list, when I said "Because there are miserable rationalizing smarta**es in this world who can ask: ..." That's what I think of those people today. But I was also critical against myself, and everyone else, who ever bowed/bows down to those rationalizing (and I mean rationalizing also in the sense of the defense mechanism) smarta**es.

ROSA: What you mean is most important to me. You are important to me, because you are a thinking, breathing being."
I'm glad to hear that. Smile. So sweet of you.

"As far as jumping on one another because of apparent contradictions, we ought to realize that we are primarily a glob, if you will, of contradictions."
What is a "glob"? My two dictionaries don't have that word.

I'll try my luck and say that we are accidents, waiting to happen. (This is from a Radiohead song.)
Any kind of accidents.

"Now, do you like me as well as Kant?"
No, I like you better than that old fella. Wink. That man never wrote a post to me. Sad.

[I dooo wish, my deear laydy, that I coould speak like a true Eeenglishwooman.]
"Yes, some of that would be nice, huh? "
Time will tell. Smile.

 

What are your other 2 languages Rosa???

 

John Connellan,
My first language is Slovene (but there is a complex story behind it too, ah), my second is German, my third is English, I understand Croatian and Serbian ... and 'nuff braggin' with nuthin'.
Ay my lord, have a wonderful day.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

PMT, Wes,

I think we have a little mess here, regarding the topics and the threads. PMT and I are having a parallel conversation both on "The meaning of life" and "How we behave" (that are con-merging) and I think PMT posted a post for Wes on the "How we behave thread" instead of on the "The meaning of life thread".
Maybe we should take it all to the "Meaning of life" thread, in order to avoid future mishaps. I'll post it on both threads and send you PM's, just in case.

I just thought I shall let ya'll know.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What is the purpose of life? In order to find the answer to this age old question, one need not look any further than the question its self.

 

It is true.

 

ROSA:

First of all, I would like you to know that English is only my third language and I've been speaking it actively only for the last three years or so.

.....The consensus seems to be that learning even one language, other than your native tongue, increases your ability to learn others. Do you agree?

It is so hard to figure out the right emotional intensity when speaking a foregin language.

.....In addition, words may have negative connotations and/or local, or regional acceptability.

.......(I have the cutest article about Finnish as a world Language:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~jshermun/intercultural/wlanguage.html is where I found it.

.........It is quite humorous, because, as you know, Finnish is reputed to be very difficult language -for newcomers, of course; but I understand it has amazing curse words. [See, something for you too, Wes!] It is quite humorous, because, as you know, Finnish is reputed to be very difficult language -for newcomers, of course; but I understand it has amazing curse words. See, something for you too, Wes! J)

And whenever I try to give compliments or be nice in English, I am never sure whether I am being really corny or actually emotionally as I want to be. So I try to shift into some sort of intellectual humor, because I'm more sure about that. I'm working on my Emotional English though, I hope you'll see some progress in me soon. You and Wes are just such a sweet inspiration for me.

.....Aw shucks.

.......On the serious side:ROSA WROTE: I am often afraid of the spooky places my system thinking brings me to. And I have decided that this is not IT, this is not what I want to consider myself to be. It's just one part, and a spooky one. Most useful, but spooky.

.......This part of your email explained so much to me about your style. You seemed to me, stuck on formulas and such, and when I see this, it often gives me the impression that it is a sidestep from thinking for yourself; and yet! And yet, I say, there was something about you that was telling me there was more, and I just figured that whatever was keeping you from sharing that “more” was your own business, which I would know only if you chose to tell. I am relieved actually that it has to do with language, and that makes it so reasonable. Whew. I thought-wrongly, of course- that maybe you had an “owie” that was keeping you so distanced from sharing more of yourself. I pretty much take folks as they are, and much to prefer to wait for answers to personal things, should they come. [“owie” -Not really a word; used to mean a place that hurts a little.]

Also, not to forget Hegel: This bold man went all the way, and systematically worked out the apocalypse of the Western world. Some don't take him seriously. Some are crazy for him. But he managed to fool everyone who thought him to be a philosopher. Hegel wasn't a philosopher, he only played the role of a philosopher, very devotely and precisely, but still played. He managed to keep reality from rational fancy in his personal life. Now that's something I look up to.

........True to a point; however, I must disagree with your deducing that he was never a philosopher. As with many, he was in his forties before he began to get it together, so to speak, (not untypical for philosophers), but he influenced many philosophers who came after him; and, is said to have stimulated historical analysis. That came from his philosophy. He can be said to have been radical, incomplete and controversial, and that he settled in later years into a rather frumpy (so it seems) individual, but age kind of does that to one who has spent his youth in a philosophical/psychological dither, or not. What do I know?

........In any event, let us not write him off, without thinking about the times in which he lived, and he was German. In those times, how many Germans thinkers were not a bit harsh. They lived in harsh times; they had hard lives, and are not inclined to be romantics or gentle bunnies, but disciplined, self-denying and determined. Am I being racist? Here I shall give you another excerpt from the prologue to my poem, “Their Bones Lie Quiet Now.”

“Now, it is we who may, if we choose, search out those things that inspire and challenge. However, those of us who honor their courage and persistence may sometimes travel between obscurity and inspiration in all those many pages passed down to us. Yet, we honor all those who make these journeys possible.” So, rest well, Hegel.

Kant kinda lost it, I think.

........I could not say, or pretend to have much of an opinion on Kant, and this is a shame. Reportedly, Kissinger once replied to an inquiry regarding who had most influenced him, “I will answer with two philosopher’s names, Spinoza and Kant.” I was rather surprised with such a response, and still would like to know what the man meant, and in what way he was influenced. To be real about things, some of our greatest influences come from adversity; do you not think so? Given this, while I assume that you agree, Kissinger could have meant that he loved one and disliked the other. I would rather expect him not to be so impressed with Spinoza, with his being such a deliberately worldly man. But then again, what do I know anyhow?

I once more apologize if I came across as ridiculing. Once in the realm of systems, I can forget that I am in the realm of systems, and I come across as a cold bastard.

........Oh, my goodness! Come, come. Cold, heartless, disgusting and wild, maybe, -but never a bastard! J

Heh, the ones I meant were real, very much. I was trying to make a distinction between matters of logical reason and ... some nicer things.

........While we categorize, label, separate, and expound, in our efforts to be exacting and scholastic, we must be ever watchful that we do not become dizzy with divisional definitions. We are all of the same stuff physically, and this leads me to suppose, even aside from experience, that emotionally we are also predisposed to be ever so similar….basically, even as we sing in various keys; and spiritually, whether we grow or shrivel, our choices are similar. I like to stop occasionally and listen to myself. “What did I just say?” I ask. Sometimes, I have to say, no, no, that is not a truth, and then I try to figure out what is wrong with it. Having done this, I happily correct my thought on the matter and thank God that I did not try to pass it off before I cleaned it up, so to speak. As for communicating, I truly believe that our best communication, is logically (tee hee) when we use all our resources; that is, logic, emotions, intuition, spirituality, intellect, imagination, and, of course, our idiosyncrasies. J This, to me, is a goal worth seeking; that is, to communicate with all we have. I am working on it.

So? I'm ok with that.

.......What a relief! (Just kidding.)

The thing is that humans have pretty much invented names for many things, and we wish to name everything, it's the compelling of our logical reason.

.........It is our inclination to judge and control; that is what it is! Logic should tell us that logic is not top dog, because what we call logic is subjective, and made even more so by people like me who always prefers to think that I am being the one that is most logical, or something like that. Please do not leave me alone here; this is an embarrassing place to be.

ROSA WRITES (HAD TO BE CLEAR ON THIS): I know that it is, whatever it is, I don't know what it is, but it is there, and it is telling my logical reason that this very logical reason of mine is not the only thing that I know about.

..........There! You said it! The only question is hmm . . . do you feel comfortable in assuming that all those “tellings” are simply from your logical reasoning? What about intuition? What about—for your benefit—universal enlightenment? If not, I shall not be disappointed, but if logical reasoning is telling you there is more than it, it must be lacking, and feel that it is lacking, and why would it do that as it is always lacking? Jabber, jabber, jabber.

It's foggy metaphysical, I know.

..........Oh my God, stay away from that word.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It scares people.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What does it mean, that word metaphysical. meta = a prefix meaning among, along with, after, behind, and often denoting change, found chiefly in scientific words. physical = pertaining to the body, …pertaining to the properties of matter, as distinct from the mind or spirit. Hokay!
Metaphysical, Philosophy = concerned with abstract thought or subjects as existence, causality, truth, and including the sciences of being.

........You know, it is not really such a bad word, but here come the connotations. Even I have responded rather cautiously when someone presumes that I am “into metaphysics.” “What?” I say, “What do you mean by metaphysics?” I simply cannot trust the underlying status in which they are placing me. I think I am not “into” anything. That is another word that needs watching. If you just watch, or at least this is true in my part of the world, sometimes the first thing one wishes from you are reasons to label and categorize you, so they can control you to some respect, and control their behavior toward you in a way beneficial to them. I do not tarry long with such, but there are those; so, when someone asks if I am “into metaphysics,” and I am suspicious, I just say, “As pertaining to what?” If I think about it, I must admit that would have to be a rather idiotic response, if taken literally; however, with all the superstition on one side and the hyper-intellectualism on the other, I do avoid the swim whenever I can, unless it someone that I trust to be interested, rather than simply seeking grounds to feel superior, or to lock arms with me, assuming that we are New Age buddies. Does this make sense. Although, I am less than a novice when it comes to languages, this should let you know that I am at least aware of the struggle of communication, and the trouble that can be caused by trapped, though incomplete, meanings. Whew!

I'm younger than you and I cannot possibly have made the experiences you made, and I trust you to give me that credit.

..........I was a slow bloomer, IN MANY WAYS, and am still working on getting past being thirteen, so who would I be to sell you short. Sometimes impulse takes over. My senses know that it is a wonder that so many young people bother with me. I am old to them, just as they are young to me. The ultimate theoretic difference, however, as I have oft’ told my daughter is that I have been where you are, in some ways at least, without your ever having been where I am in any way practical, thus explaining one possibility for assuming that the aged are wise, I suppose. When I was –younger (and less sophisticated) than you, of course, I am sure, I sometimes failed to consider the times. So, here we do again. I do not play video games, even for fun with kids or something, because they intimidate me. These born today will doubtless never be intimidated by video games; but with something else that the young of their day will take for granted. In addition, it was harder for my mother generation to adjust than it is for mine, because the changes were more drastic, and part of me kind of yearns to know their time. Do you ever feel like that?

(Anyway, I am off the subject.)

Rosa wrote, "I'm afraid I don't understand the last part of this ..." (referring to my statement: “I do not know where in the heck you are in this thought thing, I think.”)

...........Bless your heart. Had I known that English was not something with which you had used over many years, I would have never been so glib. I was being “light footed” about not knowing where you were philosophically, and this was because of that systems thing, and the computer thing, and we have covered all that now, and so we forget that, unless you want to talk about it some more. Hey! Whatever, but I do apologize for such a trashy sentence. It was, however, not intended to be correct in structure, but humorous maybe. Guess it did not make it, huh?

Hey, I don't think I have trouble with you!

.......Thank you.

You do know Christians, don't you? Well, on the whole, they *wish* people to be happy all the time [I say that they want everyone to be a giggggling robot]; shoot, this is why they are so miserable. I'm often amazed, seeing how they try to push away any emotion that is not "politically correct". It's sick.

........(Flashing light-)I am trying to get all that, but do you really think that Christians are miserable? If so, could you break it down a bit, like which ones are miserable. I can agree with some sects wanting to smile all the time as though simple minded, but I cannot put all Christians into one category. So, would it be that the fundamentalists are miserable, according to you, and that charasmatics are the giggling robots; or, it is the new Christians that are “happy all the time,” because this is rather natural behavior, much like a first job. I shake my head, almost in sorrow, with the enthusiastic expectations of some youngsters
with their first hire.

.......By using “pushing away” any emotion that is not politically correct, I think you mean that is not accepted as holy, or something like that; because, God knows it is not the right wingers that began strive for political correctness, then drove it into the ground and broke it off, debilitating entirely the little good with which it was born. Not that right wingers are any better than any other politically categorized zealots, notwithstanding, political correctness can scarcely be ascribed to them.

Rosa: And I can read Kant and Schopenhauer in the original! Yuhu.)

..........This makes me feel particularly inferior, especially when considering that German is not your first language. I am so excited. Wow. Now, if it were me, having read those two in their original text, I would be so eager to scrutinize commentaries, being fair, of course, and not for argument sake, but just to see the beast at work, so to speak. (By beast, I mean the tendencies to incorporate oneself into what one does, even in spite of oneself. ) Because, I should think that before a commentator gets too high and mighty, that he would have either been able to do as you did, or at least researched sufficiently not to come up with some tedious argument as did J. Thomas Wood on Spinoza’s supposed conversation with his landlady. I had enjoyed a lengthy commentary-type thing that was actually his speech in Amsterdam, at some Spinoza thing. (How is that for being explicit?) Anyway, I thought he was rather good, until I found that, oh-my-gosh oh-so-wordy and full suppositions, commentary on a more or less one-liner. (So, I shall shut up right now, before I become that of which I speak, …or is it too late.)

I'm not sure we mean the same thing. I meant the psychological defense mechanism of rationalization. (The one that turns sadness into melancholy.) When people treat emotions as if they are not emotions, but some sort of manageable and controllable thing, that is, on top of it, bad.

.........Yes, Rosa, I think we are saying the same thing. With my saying, "packing it away," I mean like it is always there, as opposed to working through it and getting it into our mix of healthy psychological achievements. You are just so right on! We are in truth not ---together we say, “not”—controlling our emotions, but controlling our behavior. Yeah, that is it. We want to breathe with out emotions, feel them, even embrace them; they make us who we are. Oftentimes, they are the best indicator of our compassion, or pain. I wrote a poem once about anger, and of being afraid to let it go, because of a kind of fear as to what kind of devastation would befall me if I were to rid myself of my anger. It was not for me only, but in conjunction with my brother and sisters (metaphorically) who were rocking the same concerns.

This is truly not a very good poem, but I respect my effort. (Smile) But, there is some humor to it, I suppose, that keeps it from being a totally pathetic contemplation, even though with a ring of truth:

“I can’t forgive all that is wrong!
Where would my anger go?
I’d lose my guard that works so hard
to keep me feeling low.”

Rosa: I mean, I live, and I am helping to ruin nature, by simply being alive and living I help to kill animals and destroy their habitat. I would think myself a preposterous hypocrite if I would actually say that "I love animals". That's a freakin lie, as long as I eat meat and wear leather and live in a warm house, I am also harming animals, I don't love them if I help killing them and help taking away their habitat.

........(Flashing light-) Whereas, I have no desire to spoil our new understanding, I have to tell you the truth, even if it annoys you and makes you want to stuff something in my mouth, okay? I think you are full of crap on this one, but I scarcely know where to start. It would have to be a dialogue of its own. I say this, in respect for you and your cogitations regarding this matter, I do. Some never give such things much thought, and the fact that you do deserves respect, and I do, but I am convinced that your whole take on this is from some kind of brain washing intimidation by some possibly well-meaning, but misguided folks. I feel myself wanting to pass along some thoughts on this; nonetheless, I leave it here.

Rosa: I thought my jest was apparent in the last one on that list, when I said "Because there are miserable rationalizing smarta**es in this world who can ask: ..." That's what I think of those people today. But I was also critical against myself, and everyone else, who ever bowed/bows down to those rationalizing (and I mean rationalizing also in the sense of the defense mechanism) smarta**es.

........Perhaps at least some of the misunderstanding was because I had no more idea than a goose what you meant by “smarta**es.” In fact, I was a bit lost, but did think I had the general idea. My error, Miss Rosa.

What is a "glob"? My two dictionaries don't have that word.

.........This is because it is not really a word, but comes from globulin. When one talks about a “glob” of something, they mean something rather shapeless and without form, like a hand full of bread pudding dropped on a baby’s plate, could be called a glob. It is a bit similar to a hunk but gives one the impression that is, formless and pliable with an underlying possibility of being disgusting. How is that? The definition for globulin goes like this: Biochem. any of a group of proteins insoluble in pure water.

No, I like you better than that old fella. Wink. That man never wrote a post to me. Sad.

.....Oh goody!

FINALLY: As regards your English, I am amazed with how well you do. I wanted so much to learn Finnish, because I had planned to go there to visit the friends I had met here in America, but that looks as though it shall never be. My point is, the reason I did not follow up on the Finnish was simply because I could find no place that taught it. I was not interested in the tour thing; I wanted the real stuff. It may have not worked. It is very difficult, and just by what I could pull off the Internet I found that I had opened something bigger that learning Finnish. It made me feel inferior, and yet, my Finnish friends were apologizing to me, --to me! for their English. I sure do love those sweet people. Anyhow, you are magnificent, kiddo. It makes me smile. Good for you, do all you can with your abilities. "Stand up on your hind legs," as my mom used to say.

pmt

 

Life is too important not to take seriously.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

PMT,

I'll get to you when I finish my school work tomorrow. I have an exam and a paper to deliver. I wanted to quote some stuff for you, but that takes more time than I have right now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

cya

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even the catholic church don't believe we should live our lives according to the Ten Commandments anymore!!!

Great movie though eh?!

 

PMT,

I'm finally back home.

I merged the posts from both threads, it's gotten a bit complicated to manage.

I think we're wildly off topic for quite some time here, so you might want to consider starting a new thread or two regarding some issues that were brought up here and that you are interested in.
For example:
--- language acquisition and isues pertaining to it;
--- philosophy and philosophers in everyday life;
--- what it was like to be an author from the age of Romantics;
--- "some of our greatest influences come from adversity";
--- "We are all of the same stuff physically, and this leads me to suppose, even -- aside from experience, that emotionally we are also predisposed to be ever so similar"
--- the essence of human communication or "As for communicating, I truly believe that our best communication, is logically (tee hee) when we use all our resources; that is, logic, emotions, intuition, spirituality, intellect, imagination, and, of course, our idiosyncrasies. J This, to me, is a goal worth seeking; that is, to communicate with all we have. I am working on it."
--- why do we have words: "It is our inclination to judge and control; that is what it is!"
--- young people vs. old: Still a clash of generations? Something else?
--- Are Christians miserable?
--- "I can't forgive all that is wrong!
Where would my anger go?
I'd lose my guard that works so hard
to keep me feeling low."
--- What humans are doing to nature: is it natural, unnatural, violent, normal, ...?
--- perfectionisms of all kinds: where does perfectionism come from, where does it lead to, ...;
--- educated women: "Please do not tell me that you are one of those who feigns to despise that which make her a bit above her fellows in some regard. Women sometimes tend to do this; I have many timee, and it is probably because we feel that we must be humble about any accomplishment(s) that is at all remarkable."
--- "Somewhere along the line, someone got the idea that if one calls himself bad enough names, or admits loudly enough, his bad deeds, or lack of good deeds, somehow it absolves him, or distances him somehow from the wrong in which he is so sure he almost helplessly participates."
--- Wat do you do to preserve nature? -- "My consolation is, (what consolation I have, that is), . . . that if no one caused any more trouble than I do, wasted no more than I do, destroyed no more than I do, this world would be in far better condition than now, and would be so going forward. That is not much, but it is mine and I am keeping it!"

Ah, how much stuff! I picked out some of the topics that I thought could provide some subject matter for new threads -- I'm not sure how much sense does it make, if they are discussed in a thread that actually has nothing directly to do with them.
And frankly, I simply don't manage to keep up with so many different things in one post in a meaningful way.
***

Now I'll go to some of the things from your posts:

I'm afraid there has been a misunderstanding: Who did ever say that I assume that those tellings are from my logical reason? I think I said it clear enough in the previous post.

METAPHYSICS. Greek (can't write accents here) ta meta ta physika = the one that comes after physika / physics. Comes from the title of the philosophical writings of Arisotle; from an edition published in the 1st century BC, in which the writings about philosophy were placed after the writing about nature. Aristotle had nothing to do with that edition, neither with its name. The word metaphysics and the meaning of it first came about more or less incidentally. The rest was put into meaning later.

I'm glad that I have such an effect. Now stop, or you'll have to wear a pink dress, because you will *have* to come to come to my party.

I'm not leaving you alone!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I bet my "little pink boots" that I will be around here for some time. I love that, my "little pink boots", hihi. <3

 

To glorify God (as He is revealed in the Scriptures, alone) by enjoying Him forever, and finding all of my satisfaction in all that He is.

This is just my personal opinion...............

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

w3rd.

best reply of the thread.