Printable View
Why don't you go and die when you know that's where you end up?
If you could stop the time, would you stop it to prevent youself from dying?
Do you want to live forever?
Are you afraid of dying?
Why do you feel dying is wrong?
Do you just live for the moment?
Are you just being an animal?
Who said you're going to die?
Do you want to accomplish something?
Are you not interested?
What does future mean to you?
Who do you think you are?
What's the point in life?
I live to slosh, then I will turn into a beautiful Carpit :cool:
Is there something else besides sloshing? Damn I knew my life was incomplete.... please please tell me that i dont have to make the bed between sleeps or shower between mud rolling adventures. Cheese anyone?
Lol aside from all the jokes...no one knows the answer to that question, its a very subjective thing. And it may change. I mean some may say that the point of life it to contribute positively to the society in which you live...but others would say that after you haev kids, the new point is to guide them so that they can contribute positively...etc.
At the most basic level, for all life, not just human, to point is to create more life. To guaruntee the continuation of the species to help contribute to the ecosystem as a whole. Its all symbiotic :). Trees and plant need carbon dioxide expelled from us to flourish, and we need the oxygen they expel to flourish, and so on.
But if you are limiting the conversation to the point of human life, my vote is for waking up and playing frisbee golf
:)
to leave a life to its fullest, but dont forget there is another one after..
Blah..its all pointless in the context of the grand game.
In fact, the grand game is pointless.
-C
Always thinking ahead, Bonker. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Bonker Gudd
I live to slosh, then I will turn into a beautiful Carpit :cool:
sex machines, is that what it is all about? Do we exist just because we are more likely to survive? The point in life being to adapt to our environment? Besides this mechanical behavour, you have a consciousness that disagree with this simple meaningless purpose.Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
At the most basic level, for all life, not just human, to point is to create more life. To guaruntee the continuation of the species to help contribute to the ecosystem as a whole. Its all symbiotic :). Trees and plant need carbon dioxide expelled from us to flourish, and we need the oxygen they expel to flourish, and so on.
But if you are limiting the conversation to the point of human life, my vote is for waking up and playing frisbee golf
:)
This sounds like the same thing in disguise. There's a common good you want to contribute to in civilisation so that it can advance further. What are we aiming for?Quote:
Lol aside from all the jokes...no one knows the answer to that question, its a very subjective thing. And it may change. I mean some may say that the point of life it to contribute positively to the society in which you live...but others would say that after you haev kids, the new point is to guide them so that they can contribute positively...etc.
to eat cheese!
/me grabs some montery jack with jalapinios (sp)
Well, I was talking about the basis of all existance in scientific terms, not philosphical. But, I don't really know off hand, what the real reason is.
:)
That's not the spirit, the more you say that, the more you remind me of animals or stupid machines
The truth is, you are right, I really don't care that much;).
I just try to live my life, and if I'm meant to figure out the answer to the universal question, I'm sure I'll come across it in my many travels.
PS - If I do come across it, I'll be sure to give you an email
:)
Well come on Kedaman, what kind of an answer did you expect? Theres no one perfect answer to it. On a basic level....yeah the point of life is to procreate, but past that, we have the intelligence to better ourselves (the definitions of that can be endless). I dont know what your expecting...this is a question without a perfect answer.
Hmmmm, did u not read the earlier post? :pQuote:
Originally posted by nishantp
this is a question without a perfect answer.
PS What's a carpit? :pQuote:
Originally posted by Bonker Gudd I live to slosh, then I will turn into a beautiful Carpit :cool:
The big hole you throw your car into, duh. :DQuote:
Originally posted by beachbum
PS What's a carpit? :p
I have given this a brief amount of thought. Here are a few intuitive thoughts on this issue.
Pre-historially, we relied on living and dying in order to grow our pysical/and or mental potential. Through the process of living and dying, random mutations providing an advantage were genetically reinforced through the process of natural selection.
I question the need to die and consequently reproduce in the near future, probably over the next 1000-2000 years, or however long it takes for us to become capable of take responsibility for re-engineering ourselves (physically and mentally) as required.
In this case birth, sex, reproduction, and dying all become redudant or maybe a better way of looking at it: optional. Perhaps then we will be able to turn off the genetic switch inside ourselves that causes death and move into complete control of our destiny?
I guess this point is partly raised in the movie "Blade Runner".
I call that my garage... i really should get around to cleaning it out one day.Quote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
The big hole you throw your car into, duh. :D
I expect you to come up with something, because that's what information is all about. If you don't want to know or don't know and don't care then go on living your meaningless life, even if you ignore the fact that you are a machine, a drip of water in a endless ocean that is one day going to dry out.Quote:
Well come on Kedaman, what kind of an answer did you expect? Theres no one perfect answer to it. On a basic level....yeah the point of life is to procreate, but past that, we have the intelligence to better ourselves (the definitions of that can be endless). I dont know what your expecting...this is a question without a perfect answer.
If sex becomes unnessesary, our social functionality will decay, the evolution will stagnate and we become fragile, either die out or become outevolved. Alternatively we will encapsulate ourselves from our environment, probably creating one ourself that is safe for us.Quote:
I have given this a brief amount of thought. Here are a few intuitive thoughts on this issue.
Pre-historially, we relied on living and dying in order to grow our pysical/and or mental potential. Through the process of living and dying, random mutations providing an advantage were genetically reinforced through the process of natural selection.
I question the need to die and consequently reproduce in the near future, probably over the next 1000-2000 years, or however long it takes for us to become capable of take responsibility for re-engineering ourselves (physically and mentally) as required.
In this case birth, sex, reproduction, and dying all become redudant or maybe a better way of looking at it: optional. Perhaps then we will be able to turn off the genetic switch inside ourselves that causes death and move into complete control of our destiny?
I guess this point is partly raised in the movie "Blade Runner".
I am very disappointed at everyone here. Nobody mentioned knowledge, all the information we carry. Isn't that worth anything? What about our intelligence, is that only a tool to survive?
:( I tried my best, you know.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
[B]I am very disappointed at everyone here.[B]
Kedaman...take care of yourself...you sound depressed. Look this is a subjective thing. To you one answer may be adequate. To others it may not be. I dont think of life as meaningless. I think finding the meaning of life IS life itself. Its a quest. Knowledge and intelligence help us along the way. You may not think so, i cant read your mind. I may be wrong, but it sounds like you were actually expecting someone to come up with an answer that it perfect (or seems so to you...), but i think everyone must come up with there own answer to this question. [time to hide behind me age...:p ] I dont think i can fully appreciate what life is at my age of 15, i may find out someday.
And in the humourous words of crptcblade, ill e-mail you if i do.
So I want everyone to speak freely what they think, I won't jump around and check their compability with the rest of the reality.
No answer is perfect? Bull****! All pieces of information is perfect in a context. So, just post! I don't care if you haven't found your "perfect" answer yet, just post what you think.
Maybe I'm sounding a bit aggressive now, but I assure it's just excitement :p Now don't come up with any boring stuff now ;)
Kedaman
How does it follow that without sex, our social functionality will decay? I am sure you socialise with people you are not reproductively attracted to, for example posting on VB world. Simply put social interaction is not purely undertaken for the purpose of reproducing; consequently I do not see how you can justify such a statement. Please explain.Quote:
If sex becomes unnessesary, our social functionality will decay
How will evolution stagnate based on what I said? If we are able to re-engineer ourselves, we will not have to wait eons for natural selection to help us evolve, so rather than stagnating I see "evolution" accelerating not by way of natural selection but by our design. This means truly stepping up to take responsibility for our future. Of course until we develop the ability to re-engineer ourselves, we have no way of turning off our own mortality.Quote:
, the evolution will stagnate
For example if the world becomes covered with water due to global warming, we could wait for natural selection to allow us to develop the ability to breath underwater a la Kevin Costner in Water World in which case we rely on genetic mutation and thus the cycle of life and death and natural selection, alternatively we could re-engineer ourselves to breath underwater. Surely the later would reduce the chances of our species becoming extinct via an accelerated form of evolution.
In the same way that we no longer need body hair to keep us warm, I consider no longer needing to reproduce and die in order to evolve, a higher form of humanity.
Why do we become fragile? How does being able to re-engineer ourselves lead to the conclusion we become more fragile? I would have thought the opposite to be true; any weaknesses could be more readily overcome in a much shorter time frame, making us much stronger.Quote:
and we become fragile, either die out or become out evolved.
Why would we die out? I said that birth, sex, reproduction, and dying become optional, not that they are not possible any more. I think you mistakenly assumed I meant that we lose the ability to reproduce and therefore could die out. This is not what I meant at all.
Who/what would out evolve us if we were undertaking an accelerated version of evolution? Certainly not by any life form that still requires natural selection to evolve.
I am saddened with the lack of thought you put into the first post which attempted to delve a little deeper. Perhaps it was not the direction you wanted the conversation to progress, if so please state your agenda more explicitly next time and I won't waste your time by bringing up issues that you do not wish to consider.
Perhaps if you provide your own thoughts on these issues you may be able to lead the discussion the way you would like it to progress?
In an evolutionary sense, yes intelligence has turned out to be a very successful tool to survive, chosen by natural selection. In the future perhaps intelligence and information we have amassed about ourselves and the world around us will enable us to do away with natural selection and let us take greater control of our own future. However, our knowledge has to reach critical mass for this to occur. I believe we are very near to reaching critical mass.Quote:
I am very disappointed at everyone here. Nobody mentioned knowledge, all the information we carry. Isn't that worth anything? What about our intelligence, is that only a tool to survive?
By raising the possibility that we may not be forever bound to live and die, I was hoping to extend the discussion past our own mortality. That is the concept I wish to contribute.
Nucleus
Okay your arguments are very good, but I have a different view on how evolution might progress so that might have contrasted yours.
I don't think our biological form will be part of it. Re-enginering ourselves biologically will be useless. I do though think re-enginering our mental capabilities is our future.
I think also that you are underestimating sex and mortality. Natural selection may be slow (so that's why it's biological nature should be dismissed) but it evolved us out of one-cell organisms. Would an organism controlling its own genetic structure be able to do that, especially mentally?
I forgot to say that the biological part would have to die to be re-enginered, which makes me wonder what you refer to with inmortality, but I take it that we are talking about our mental beings.
Evolution will stagnate at mental level, we might be able to live under water, in extreeme temperature, without oxygen in space and consume almost anything to convert to energy but what's the point? The priority to survive isn't too much of an issue anymore. If we reduced the consumption of the resources needed for our biological forms, would we stagnate? I don't think so, I think our mental evolution is going to continue.
The weakness you refer to is actually our biological forms. That is what makes you fragile, that is whats maintenance cost becomes a problem at an extreeme, that is why we die out, our mental capabilities aren't enough for us to handle our physical abilities.
Generally you underestimate your successors.
I have read somewhere that life itself is the physical manifestation of the embodyment of knowlege itself. If that is true then perhaps it is our purpose (and the purpose of all other living things) to embody ever more knowlege into our beings (not necessarlly consious knowlege) so that we might live in any environment that the universe cares to through at us (become the universal life form where the whole universe is our niche).Quote:
I am very disappointed at everyone here. Nobody mentioned knowledge, all the information we carry.
Perhaps then we might have reached divine status.
point of life - DRINK
Why don't you go and die when you know that's where you end up?
As we have a life, we are lucky to have what we have and we should live it to the fullest
If you could stop the time, would you stop it to prevent youself from dying?
No, its the natural path for us... If we were meant to start cloning people etc, why would we be given the ablitiy to reproduce
Do you want to live forever?
No, That would be self torture... the world would slowly fill and people effectivly would have to be killed off I dont see anyother way we could cope with it.
Are you afraid of dying?
No, It is going to happen one day, I fear that it happens early in life but beyond that i dont fear it.
Why do you feel dying is wrong?
I dont think it is wrong.
Do you just live for the moment?
50/50, Yes we could die tommorow... But what if we dont... we have a life ahead and we should make it the best we can, which can involve time.
Are you just being an animal?
eh?
Who said you're going to die?
No-one has... Its genrally the natural pattern.
Do you want to accomplish something?
Yes I do and they are personal
Are you not interested?
in what?
What does future mean to you?
The future is where my life will be
Who do you think you are?
Im Simon, I hope... I dont check everyday so I hope so :p (please explain that question keddie)
What's the point in life?
Is there a point to life? who said there is? and is there meant to be a point for everything?
If there is no point to us being here... why did god or whatever put us here... what if our existance was based on "points" and god decided not to put us here because there was no point? we would be pretty lucky then eh?
I think life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.
No, really, I think life is like The Truman Show. People are watching my every move hour after hour. And I thought that before The Truman Show came out... and ideas must come from somewhere, you can't just invent something completely new, so that leaves me in an awkward position, mentally, not physically.
Obviously some people will think I'm crazy, but I don't know you are trying to hide the fact that I am actually Truman. If someone came up to me and said "THIS IS ALL FOR YOU, IT'S NOT REAL!" and then people came from nowhere and took that person away, it would be no surprise to me.
Dreamlax
I just want to say that Truman show was a great movie, I'd be surprised though if someone came up with that and said it to me. If there's someone who's suddenly going to come up with that, it's going to be me, for sure.
Honeybee & simon, be patient :p
Oh ***** yeah! I loved the Truman Show. I believe it was a sign to point me in a better direction, sort of saying "Yes, you are Truman".
And now that I think of it, I probably would be surprised, but it wouldn't make me think as much if I didn't think this way, but still had seen the Truman Show.
Therefore my purpose (or yours Kedaman) is to be the worlds greatest actor. What is your greatest fear Kedaman? Whatever it is, that is the way out of the studio.
Simon
Hmm, I'm having troubles understanding what you say here, basically because I don't know how embodyment is defined. Is embodyment of knowledge the way to project your mind? By not nessesarily consious do you mean subconscious? Can you explain more, I'm interested.Quote:
have read somewhere that life itself is the physical manifestation of the embodyment of knowlege itself. If that is true then perhaps it is our purpose (and the purpose of all other living things) to embody ever more knowlege into our beings (not necessarlly consious knowlege) so that we might live in any environment that the universe cares to through at us (become the universal life form where the whole universe is our niche).
Perhaps then we might have reached divine status.
Simon & Honeybee be patient again :p
Dreamlax
My current greatest fear is to wake up without intention. I want to be the one pointing myself out of here ;)
kedaman has gone FUX0RING XRAZY!!!!
:rolleyes:
Kedaman
When I said re-engineer, I did not mean to restrict self-evolution to the physical form. Where did you get the impression that I meant this? On the contrary when I say re-engineer I mean to include our physical bodies as well as our cognitive ability. I would agree that refining our mental ability is important, but I also consider it limiting to restrict re-engineering to solely focus on our mental abilities.Quote:
I don't think our biological form will be part of it. Re-enginering ourselves biologically will be useless. I do though think re-enginering our mental capabilities is our future.
There is no denying that natural selection was powerful enough to create us from one celled organisms, this I understand and respect. However as you say it is slow and the other thing I dislike about it is that it leaves evolution to an element of randomness. Personally I am attracted to moving into a position where we are able to take increased responsibility for our continued evolution as well as dramatically speeding up the evolutionary process.Quote:
I think also that you are underestimating sex and mortality. Natural selection may be slow (so that's why it's biological nature should be dismissed) but it evolved us out of one-cell organisms. Would an organism controlling its own genetic structure be able to do that, especially mentally?
I don't quite understand the point/question you wish to make here. Are you saying because natural selection was instrumental in creating us, this is the only evolutionary path we should take in the future?
As I understand it at the present point in time, it is not possible to re-engineer a living human, as this would require every cell to have its DNA coding altered. I believe we are currently able to alter DNA coding in a single cell if we so desire. Consequently genetic engineering is currently focused on gametes/zygotes rather than re-engineering living humans. The specifics might be wrong but I think the gist of the above is loosely correct.Quote:
I forgot to say that the biological part would have to die to be re-enginered, which makes me wonder what you refer to with inmortality, but I take it that we are talking about our mental beings.
Consequently at the present mortality is still required.
I am looking into the future where genetic engineering is not restricted to altering the start to new life, but will enable us to re-engineer living human beings. Conceptually this means working out a process to change every cell in a living human. By no means a small feat, but to me it is plausible given that it is an extension of what is already currently possible.
I think I have addressed this above as by re-engineering I did not mean to exclude evolution of our mental capabilities.Quote:
Evolution will stagnate at mental level, we might be able to live under water, in extreeme temperature, without oxygen in space and consume almost anything to convert to energy but what's the point? The priority to survive isn't too much of an issue anymore. If we reduced the consumption of the resources needed for our biological forms, would we stagnate? I don't think so, I think our mental evolution is going to continue.
I do not understand what you mean to say here.Quote:
The weakness you refer to is actually our biological forms. That is what makes you fragile, that is whats maintenance cost becomes a problem at an extreeme, that is why we die out, our mental capabilities aren't enough for us to handle our physical abilities.
Kedaman
To embody something is to give something physical form.Quote:
I don't know how embodyment is defined.
What I am saying is that maybe our DNA encodes knowledge in the form of replicating genes. Those genes in our DNA that cause particular environments to make copies of that gene are the embodyment of knowledge itself.
I don't really know what I'm getting at here. It's just a new concept that I'm toying with and would like to understand better. So please, feel free to ignore me. ;)
Point of life? Pff... Thats simple...
Porno!!
:D
Kedaman, I just noticed you have a thing for Marle from Chrono Trigger... Your avatar always depicts her... (Well, not always, but you had that AniGif awhile ago of her...)
Simonm
I came across this during my psychology degree. Basically matter requires chemical stability and self replication. Out of the initial primordial(sp?) soup, DNA and genes emerged as the most effective way to continue this. Our bodies are mere shells to transport theses genes and to continue their replication. You'll find a better description of this in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.Quote:
What I am saying is that maybe our DNA encodes knowledge in the form of replicating genes. Those genes in our DNA that cause particular environments to make copies of that gene are the embodyment of knowledge itself.
I don't really know what I'm getting at here. It's just a new concept that I'm toying with and would like to understand better. So please, feel free to ignore me.
Me, I prefer lager;)
nucleusIt's clear that you didn't get the point of my post at all. Basically you think that your current vision will be the future sooner or later, as I see it, it will never happen, because there's a big barrier just in front of you that says "you won't pass here before you can solve your resource problems" and there's probably no way to solve it in the nearest 50 years besides screw the whole idea. I'm talking about mind uploading.
tomcatexodus
Yep, Marle it is :)
Simon
Knowledge, is something subjective you know, that can't be stored in some kind of DNA string or database or whatever, you can't say you jump from physical matter into knowledge and then eh have that as a embodyment of who knows what you're talking about :p Maybe it's stuff that just isn't compatible with my way of handling information.
Anyone else that think sex is the point of life
I don't blame you
Honeybee I'm in the middle of processing a reply to you
Simon I know you can wait ;)
What specifically makes you think that?Quote:
Originally posted by DiGiTaIErRoR
kedaman has gone FUX0RING XRAZY!!!!
:rolleyes:
I disagree. Its stores the info needed to create a human being (dog, cat self replication etc..)Quote:
Simon
Knowledge, is something subjective you know, that can't be stored in some kind of DNA string
Subjectivity comes into the interpretation of that knowledge.
Honeybee
The current situation of yours might just be because it's not likely for it to change. You won't commit suicide due to genetical information, but with enough information to counter it you can commit suicide as well. The point is that there is so much underlying information that you never get to understand. You are imprisonated by your own mind. "People who really are in their senses" are just innocent unknowing animals that don't qwestion anything, they eat their world without thinking about it.
Who said you cannot stop time? Who said it wouldn't be better if you just did? Have you met any 400 year old guys lately?
If i say that I one day is going to kill you, more specifically fourth june 2004, dead seriously would you just go say "I can accept that" and then live with it without feeling any fear? the ones with blood cancer that are going to die are certainly convinced they are going to die and can therefore accept the "fact", but would you be convinced that I'm going to kill you? It's fear that you wont get to do everything you want to have done, not fear what is beyond death. Now what do you need all those stuff done when they won't matter as soon as you die? I think it all ends up in one pile, but for now continue...
If that's the eternal truth then you die because you failed to understand the opposite. There's no proof you're going to die, all the "deaths" around are just faked.Quote:
Who said you're going to die? Nobody has to say it. It is an eternal truth.
More than that I can't really reply to you because it all goes into the category "I don't care", the people you know as "are in their senses" quite ignorant but I don't blame you.
btw, I won't kill you fourth june 2004 ;)
knowledge is data, DNA is a medium, the information stored in a medium is meaningless without interpretation, in fact there's no information stored in the medium without interpretationQuote:
Originally posted by RSINGH
I disagree. Its stores the info needed to create a human being (dog, cat self replication etc..)
Subjectivity comes into the interpretation of that knowledge.
To live a life and to live to help your loved ones and those around you in need.. while providing humour to your friends... Thats my theory... :)
Kedaman
Agreed BUT
The DNA data is interpreted at a different biological level, not by the human brain. It's just that we have acquired the ability to understand parts of it. It's a human failing to put ourselves at the centre and try to understand things from that perspective. Just because we are now able to decode DNA does not mean that we need to. It's there for a different purpose (the different biological level that I was blathering about).
what about DNA is just there because it's "likely" to be that way. I'm refering to evolution, DNA has preserved because of it. Ok, you could argue there is meaning to DNA but pick a ultimate purpose, what's the whole idea? Doesn't it run down to subjectivity now?Quote:
Originally posted by RSINGH
Kedaman
Agreed BUT
The DNA data is interpreted at a different biological level, not by the human brain. It's just that we have acquired the ability to understand parts of it. It's a human failing to put ourselves at the centre and try to understand things from that perspective. Just because we are now able to decode DNA does not mean that we need to. It's there for a different purpose (the different biological level that I was blathering about).
Say I have a pen on my desk. It's position on it can be interpreted as a number which by radix conversion could contain all the information in say the bible. Does the pen contain all that info? Not if you don't consider it to do so.
Kedaman
The point that I'm arguing here is that DNA is more than just a medium. I am proposing that it is an embodyment of knowlege itself.Quote:
knowledge is data, DNA is a medium, the information stored in a medium is meaningless without interpretation, in fact there's no information stored in the medium without interpretation
Why does our DNA embody knowledge? Because our DNA contains the information necessary to cause certain environments to produce copies of itself. Thus, the environment interprets the information or knowledge embodied in the replicating genes.
The point I'm concerned with is that human evolution is incidental in the sense that we are mere vessells or containers for these genes to propogate themselves. The genes are more important than the individual. It is the survival of these which is paramount. Our evolution along the way benefits the gene in that it can then continue to propogate. Hence the term The Selfish Gene. (The books quite an eye opener)
Oh if I could have used that one in my exams:DQuote:
It's position on it can be interpreted as a number which by radix conversion could contain all the information in say the bible
Me: There're the answers to all the exam Q's in the pen - get it out yourself, I'm off to the pub.
And that aint something because of strange random feature?
I think you're abusing definitions, knowledge is absolutely nothing without subjectivity. You can apply your ideas on DNA but I can apply them on anything, including the pen on my desk. IF i take a picture of my pen on the desk, it's info is copied.
Genes are subjective, they are nothing without a context. DNA is the molecule, not to mix with Genes which are the interpretations of them
I live life to please Jesus Christ because HE has given me a purpose for living!
:)
Kedaman
Quote:
I think you're abusing definitions, knowledge is absolutely nothing without subjectivity.
See the above statements. Firstly you say that "knowledge is absolutely nothing without subjectivity" and in your next breath you say that "Genes are subjective". Does not this then imply, from your own admission, that the knowlege embodied by genes does mean something?Quote:
Genes are subjective, they are nothing without a context.
Not really. Does a pen embody knowledge? Or, more to the point, does a pen cause certain environments to replicate it? No. The pen is not living (I don't think even you would argue against that).Quote:
You can apply your ideas on DNA but I can apply them on anything, including the pen on my desk.
Uh :p That's not what I meant. Genes aren't physical, they are interpretations of parts of the DNA molecule. Who said life is connected to information? As I see it only you can decide what information is, other than that you can only use applied scope.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
See the above statements. Firstly you say that "knowledge is absolutely nothing without subjectivity" and in your next breath you say that "Genes are subjective". Does not this then imply, from your own admission, that the knowlege embodied by genes does mean something?
Not really. Does a pen embody knowledge? Or, more to the point, does a pen cause certain environments to replicate it? No. The pen is not living (I don't think even you would argue against that).
Interpretations imply a variety of meanings for one combination of DNA. A specific combination will always lead to one result. One gene equates to one result not one of several possibilities.Quote:
Genes aren't physical, they are interpretations of parts of the DNA molecule
However I think we are wandering way of topic to the original question.
What was the original qwestion?
That combination, the equety, that result is all information, such don't exist in physical reality.
First time I've seen this post :
Great way to start the thread :D like you too Kedaman :DQuote:
Why don't you go and die ...
might be funny :p but i was serious (people say you shouldn't kid about death but i'm saying you shouldnt fear it)
no 1 rule of life - ***** happens!
if I die, bummer, but that's it. I'm kinda fascinated in that side of it myself rather than scared, think I'd tend to believe the reincarnation theory, coming back as another baby seems the most logical explanation to me if I believe any of the theories (avoiding all the religious crap)! :D
Reincarnation rocks! Basically i could be everyone without knowing it ;)
Life is what you make of it. There are thousands of people doing what you do for a living. But you will be the only person alive who has sole custody of your life. Your particular life.
Your entire life. Not just your life at a desk, or your life on a bus, or in a car, or at the computer. Not just the life of your mind, but the life of your heart. Not just your bank account but your soul.
People don't talk about the soul very much anymore. It's so much easier to write a resume than to craft a spirit. But a resume is a cold comfort on a winter night, or when you're sad, or broke, or lonely, or when you've gotten back the test results and they're not so good.
Here is my resume:
I am a good mother to three children.
I have tried never to let my profession stand in the way of being a
good parent.
I no longer consider myself the center of the universe.
I show up.
I listen.
I try to laugh.
I am a good friend to my husband.
I am a good friend to my friends, and they to me. Without them, there would be nothing to say to you today, because I would be a cardboard cutout.
But I call them on the phone, and I meet them for lunch.
I would be rotten, or at best mediocre at my job, if those other things were not true. You cannot be really first rate at your work if your work is all you are.
So here's what I wanted to tell you today:
Get a life. A real life, not a manic pursuit of the next promotion, the bigger paycheck, the larger house. Do you think you'd care so very
much about those things if you had a heart attack one evening, or found a lump in your breast?
Get a life in which you notice the smell of salt water pushing itself
on a breeze over Seaside Heights, a life in which you stop and watch how a red tailed hawk circles over the water or the way a baby scowls with concentration when she tries to pick up a Cheerio with her thumb and first finger.
Get a life in which you are not alone. Find people you love, and who love you. And remember that love is not leisure, it is work.
Pick up the phone. Send an e-mail. Write a letter.
Get a life in which you are generous. And realize that life is the best thing ever, and that you have no business taking it for granted. Care so deeply about its goodness that you want to spread it around. Take money you would have spent on beers and give it to charity. Work in a soup kitchen. Be a big brother or sister. All of you want to do well. But if you do not do good too, then doing well will never be enough.
It is so easy to waste our lives, our days, our hours, our minutes. It is so easy to take for granted the color of our kids' eyes, the way the melody in a symphony rises and falls and disappears and rises again. It is so easy to exist instead of to live.
I learned to live many years ago. Something really, really bad happened, something that changed my life in ways that, if I had my druthers, it would never have been changed at all. And what I learned from it is what, today, seems to be the hardest lesson of all.
I learned to love the journey, not the destination.
I learned that it is not a dress rehearsal, and that today is the only guarantee you get.
I learned to look at all the good in the world and try to give some of it back because I believed in it, completely and utterly.
And I tried to do that, in part, by telling others what I had learned.
By telling them this:
Consider the lilies of the field.
Look at the fuzz on a baby's ear.
Read in the backyard with the sun on your face.
Learn to be happy.
And think of life as a terminal illness, because if you do, you will live it with joy and passion, as it ought to be lived.