Topic awaiting preservation: The meaning of life revealed! (Page 1 of 2)

Or not :P

Saw this section so i thought id post something heh.'


So whats your meaning/goal in life, if you have one, or do you just not think/give a shit?

I just wanna be happy. That's it.

I try not to think of things like that, it distracts me from my planning for world domination.

Life? Happy? In the same sentence? Wow, what a concept...


My goal? To live until I die.

________________________________________________________________
-- Jack of all trades, master of that which has my attention at
the moment.

Unoriginal Cell 693

to make peace with the paradox
that is, surely, at the core
of the meaning of "life"

I used to feel my purpose in life was to be another cog in the machine of progress. To make a difference that could be felt by many.

Since that time, I've come to realize the majority aren't worth helping through progress and probably wouldn't appreciate it anyway.

In this way, I've become that which I despise; a person only caring first and foremost for his and his own's personal welfare, without reverence for the whole of the global scape.

Now if my ambitions for happiness help the global scape in any way, it would be only in consequence.

So to sum up, my goal is money.
Because money can't make you happy, but it sure as hell pays the bills.
And when the bills are paid, I can sit around and watch cartoons all day long, and the man can't touch me.

Fame, I think. On a small scale. I want a large number of people to remember me for one reason or another.

To understand...

I already have peace, and life, and I don't care that much about money, or fame...

42



[This message has been edited by counterfeitbacon (edited 10-29-2002).]

Read Ecclesiastes

. . : slicePuzzle

dont you ever wonder if there's more too it tho? like things that you do, whats the point of doing them, in the end do they even matter at all?

See my post...I think that sums it up nicely...

To Understand...

Oh yeah, and this...

Currently, most people use the term symbiosis to describe interactions between the symbiont (the smaller organism) and the host (the larger organism) from which both partners benefit; this is also called a mutualism. If there is negative effect on one of the partners, it is called a parasitic symbiosis and if there is no beneficial or negative effect it is a commensal symbiosis.

parasitic symbiosis :

When one organism lives at the expense of its host...normally a true parasite does not kill its host.

Though sometimes it is hard to recognize that the surrounding 'host' is important...we all rely on it to survive...and are therefore, if we wish to avoid being parasitic, obligated to care for and nurture it.

It is this realization that has brought me to 'organize' my code of honor along these lines...


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 10-29-2002).]

So in essence we really get to choose either being a parasite or part of a host?

I often think when i see older people doing things like driving busses or i dunno what i would consider, *mundane* tasks which i could never do for my life, but they seem happy and content doing what they are doing. Somehow i cant come to grips with how i could be content with this sort of stuff, i'd rather to something bigger, or you know do something what i would consider more substantial.

the way that you say it, arent we all just parasites anyhow? i guess parasites to each other, so what is the host then?

maybe im just confused with what your saying :P

42

Just kidding, here's my real opinion...

I don't know why life exists. I guess it exists just because it does. What we do with the life we have is our own problem.

S^abaal ud T'a johtizuc^ ult'a Fedaro.

We know that, just merely seeing what everyones opinion was and what they've decided

H][RO: I've known and still know a lot of people who toil at the mundane. Most of them would fall into the 'artist' category, painters - sculptors - musicians. It has been and will continue to be the plight of most artists/musicians to reluctantly embrace the mundane in order to buy paint, paper, canvas, stone, instruments etc. in order to support their habit. That seemingly happy old guy performing the mundane could well be thinking the next guitar he's adding to his collection thanx to his regular paycheck. Getting paid for what you want/like/enjoy doing is not the norm. Would be nice if it was. <bg>

"the way that you say it, arent we all just parasites anyhow? i guess parasites to each other, so what is the host then?"

Work from the ground up!

Well, I won't pretend that I can some up the meaning of life in a trite little package. If I were to have to pick a goal, though, I would have to say that, above all else, my goal in life is to make a difference. When it comes time for me to leave the stage, I hope that I will have made a difference in the lives of those I leave behind.




Cell 270

Well, I thought that I had explained it pretty well...however, if not...this

quote:

---

No man is an Island

---

Thus, to avoid being parasites, we must also give back to the host (you could consider host as many different things here...a group, a community, a land, or life as a whole...), instead of just taking and taking...

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
-- Conan

Curse yoiu krets.

Yo ubeat me to it.

My goal in life is to live for 1000yrs. Considering the fact I have not met any vampires yet, I do not know if this is going to be possible. If you guys know any vampires, please give them my e-mail address. Thanks.



teamEarth ~~ Cell 816

I hate people.

So I know that my purpose in life isn't to make their time in it any less miserable. This also rules out Sales and anything in the service, customer-oriented businesses (though I probably have a great future in HR or torture, but I repeat myself).

As genis, I am pretty much out to make my own life as pleasant as possible. It's selfish and despicibile, but its an acheivable goal

I also feel as Webshaman does that we should not be parasitic. Therfore I propose that 40% of the existing human population should be immediately euthenized. This shouldn't be random but should be chosen from the people who are the largest drains on earthly and societal resources (I have no illusions that I may be in that group, and I still agree with it). Then it should be illegal for any one person to produce more than 2 progeny in their entire lives. infractions should be punished by death to the offender and the extraneous progeny.

I would also outlaw religion. It causes too much strife in the world. Human interactions and morality should be based on empathy and compassion, not invisible fairies that care more about you sex lives than worldly suffering.

Here's an oldie, but pretty much sums it up for me:


Just wanna be happy.

The problem with the question "What is the meaning of life?" is not that the answer is hard, but that the question is flawed. There's no right answer, and no answer is better than any other, except maybe it's "better at achieving the intended goal." It's a very simple question, because there is no wrong answer. When we get into the best way at achieving the intended goal, however, it gets much more difficult, but we don't have to come up with the most effective way to *attempt* to get to our goal, and it doesn't really matter if we get to our goal. We may not like if we don't accomplish our goal, but who says that the point of life is everyone getting what they want? This answer is simple...but in a complicated way.

Where should I begin?

Well... One doesn't need to do anything. One can choose any path to live out their life... They could also choose a path which ends their life [intentionally]. No path is better than another. Destroying oneself is as good as saving oneself. Helping others is as good as destroying them. Being sad is as good as being happy. All things being equal, what path does one choose? Well, you're here. You can't choose no path. Sitting and doing nothing is a path, and killing yourself is still a path... I'll start from the bottom.

..At the simplest level, I see not good and evil... but creation and destruction. Creation isn't good or evil, and destruction isn't either. So, which is one to choose? That's left up to personal preference, but I'll explain my choice.

I have chosen creation, not because it is better, but because I can make the most "sense" out of that decision. There are many things that I see as problems with destruction [as much as there can be a 'problem' at this level]. In order for there to be destruction, there needs to be creation... After all, what is one to destroy if nothing was created? Also, in order to be able to destroy something, one needs to create instruments of destruction... even if you are that instrument, you were created. So, destruction requires much creation... Destruction is very hypocritical. However, destruction is still not a worse choice, and being hypocritical is not a bad thing. Yet, this is the reasoning that I have been able to make out of the situation, and I am fine with my decision.

There are times when some destruction may be required in order to create... Mining destroys grounds, for example. So, one is left with the problem of determining how much they wish to destroy in order to create [or in the other case, create in order to destroy]. Personally, I am not very much of a destructive type, and I would probably avoid destruction, in a life-form sense, as much as possible. I do not care to cause anyone to be killed if it can be reasonably avoided. Causing much destruction, even if it is moderated can cause many affects to others.. I do not really wish to put stress on others and cause dissatisfaction, but that does not mean that I will completely or at all abandon or change a mission in order to avoid slight discomfort to others.

So we have established that I make my decisions based upon creation, but what kind of decisions are they? Well...I do not see my happiness as important, not to say that I have low self-esteem or otherwise think lowly of myself. I do not see my own happiness as a good goal to devote my life to. It is a very self-centered, self-important, greedy stance. It values oneself above all others, and that is not how I feel, and it does not seem to serve creation well. Over time, I have become a considerably unemotional person... I still have them, and I can still somewhat use them, but they do not play much of a role in my life, and I continue to try to make them play less of a role. The "darker" emotions have become more difficult to pull out, ones such as depression, sadness, rage, etc., because I have too strong of reasons to not waste my time on such illogical feelings. The way I think about things now doesn't allow me to really think in very "depressed" or "enraged" ways.

Spending my life on my own happiness is thus not my goal. It's not really to make everyone else happy, either. I would not let people walk all over me. I inquire, think, and try to express how I feel to others. In the longer run, I intend to attempt to change society. I would like if society could have many changes. I have ideas for a super-government, a mostly benign system which supercedes other governments and enforces very simple rules via machines and cybernetics. It would not force things like "You cannot kill," but rather, it would force people to abide by the rules of their area.. However, it would also give them some privileges, like the ability to travel to other areas with different governments that wish to accept them. Beyond this, I have ideas for a social system... Basically, it's like a government. It's not enough like any currently existing government to consider it one of them, though it seems to share elements with all of them. It would involve using the previous super-government, but in a different way. People would be rewarded for contributing to society, rather than for just being able to sell a product, regardless of it's quality. People would be assured to have food and housing, but the less they contributed, the less they would have.. until they're practically living inside a metal box and eating food cubes. Medical care would also be assured to everyone. Machines would assure that these goals could be met. For example, if nobody wished to farm, a machine could do it for them. If nobody wished to be a doctor, people might end up with a robot, or another artificially created being which for all practical purposes is a robot... Even though most of the doctors would likely end up being robots/golems, eventually, because of how efficient, effective, and thorough they could be made compared to a human. However, and bringing us into another topic, people could choose to only be treated by a human or only to buy human food, if they wanted. I imagine that there would probably be some demand [at least small ones] for human-created products. The society's laws would be based upon personal choice. If a person thought it was okay to kill, then.. well, they could try, but.. they couldn't kill a person who did not wish to be killed. If that person thought it was okay to kill, then they could be killed. However, it would not allow one person who kills just because they like killing to kill a person who thinks it's only okay to kill to protect someone they love from being killed. Also, if a person didn't wish to be protected in any way by the system, they wouldn't be. Both of these systems are too complicated to go into in great detail in this already long post...

So, there is some idea of what my goals in life are. I wish to help others... I learn so I have things to think about. I think so I can understand better. I wish to understand so that I can help better. I help to assist creation. I hope to influence society in order to bring about new ideas on governing, and bring about new governments which in the end will help to assist creation.. in my eyes.

Destruction = Creation...it's just a change of state...nothing more. Nothing is totaly 'destroyed'...i.e. ceases to exist. Just its state is changed...albeit mostly in a chaotic fashion...whereas creation is normally considered a change of state that is orderly.

So, apart from this, they are the same...just perceived differently...

From the hosts point of view though...it does make a difference, if the host is affected by destruction...for its demise then threatens ones own existence. Therefore, it makes more sense to support creation...even if only to ensure ones own survival.

By saying a few things and "All things being equal, what path does one choose?" I was intending to get across the point that you did. We know currently of nothing that can completely remove an object, and I doubt the possibility, but I also accept that it could potentially happen. After all, there cannot be an infinite past, and thus, at one point there was nothing, and there is now obviously..something. By creation, I mean things of structure. Buildings, vessels, art, science, thoughts... Putting things together as opposed to taking them apart. It is personally the most useful "fundamental" level that I can think of.

"makes more sense to support creation...even if only to ensure ones own survival."

Well, I'd like to point out that I don't intend it to even be about my own survival... I suppose if that was just changed to "to ensure survival", it would work. I'd rather live on to create, but if I had a case where I knew I could contribute to creation more by dying than by living.. I would do it. I do not see many circumstances where I could really know how much creation it would cause. I probably could not compare it to how much creation I would create in the rest of my life, because I would not know that, either.. However, I would of course just have to make the decision that I feel is best for the moment, try to get to what seems the best possible outcome, and accept the results.

More on my earlier point, destruction is the end of all creation.. the end of all structure. It would ensure, or attempt to ensure, that nothing is created beyond what is needed to ensure that there is no creation. It would most likely attempt to break everything down into energy and dispel it beyond the fringes of the "solid" universe. There would still be change, but that would be the expansion of that energy through the universe. Creation attempts to do the exact opposite.. rather than breaking everything down into nothing and prevent things from being assembled, it's intent is to build and innovate. It also attempts to prevent the universe from eventually being "dispersed" or "absorbed" [absorbed as in an anti-Big Bang event]. The last two may prove to be futile goals, but then again, maybe they are not. Only an indefinite amount of time will tell.

Is it more clear as to what I was referring to as "creation", now?

quote:

---

I probably have a great future in HR or torture

---

classic. simply classic. who doesn't love a classic?

Thats pretty negative there St. Seneca, although, in a way I agree with you...

...although I do not agree with what he says, and with my own opinions for a better world even, i do have something to say:

- cut the population down to 50 percent of what it is now, or even less
- destroy all communism, socialism, dictatorships, monarchies and Janet Reno's in the world
- Rejoin church and state
- Outlaw Satanism/Occultish practices
- All major repeated felons should get Capital Punishment...
- Only sell guns to people WITHOUT any minor or major felonies

I do NOT agree with all of these rules, specifically rule # 1, 5 and 6, since they go against my own moral beleifs.

.0023333 cents

To strive.

quote:

---

- cut the population down to 50 percent of what it is now, or even less
- destroy all communism, socialism, dictatorships, monarchies and Janet Reno's in the world
- Rejoin church and state
- Outlaw Satanism/Occultish practices
- All major repeated felons should get Capital Punishment...
- Only sell guns to people WITHOUT any minor or major felonies

---

Personally, I disagree with every one of these.. For starters, destroying half of the population wouldn't make people get along, because the largest group of like-opinions is even smaller than that. Even with just 50%, not everybody would get along, and I imagine that those people would be outraged at what was done to the rest of the population.

"destroy all communism, socialism, dictatorships, monarchies"
While I agree that I would not care to be ruled by a tyrant which I have no control over... If I had the option to leave the country, it wouldn't be a big deal. Some people like some monarchies and like the ease of living under them... and if they had the right rulers that didn't "abuse" their power, it could work well. I'm not saying that I personally would encourage a tyranny, but to take away a people's right to allow it is not really fair. Beyond that, the main problem with attempted socialisms and also communisms is that they haven't really been turned into what they are supposed to be. They have been ruled by tyrants and radicals. I bet that even the Soviet Union could have survived if a) The ruler had listened to his own intelligence [especially referring to Stalin in WWII], b) The controllers weren't so adamant about some things which were very ineffective - they forced people to grow only one product, when having multiple ones, like some crop and livestock, would have allowed them and the country to produce much more effectively, c) They didn't spend so much money on weapons, intelligence, spying, and especially nuclear weapons. However, the pressure from the United States which was obviously developing many nuclear weapons made them feel they had to make them. However, I somewhat doubt that either would have tried/risked an invasion or attack. They also would often replace two similar products with just one of them.. often the more expensive one. There were many counterfeit products as well, which hurt it. Just like in many other countries, even today, they spent so much war, especially because of leaders who felt that they *needed* nuclear weapons. This reminds me much of the people who are starving and dying in North Korea while their government spent money hiding their projects for weapons of mass destruction, and they are still spending lots of money on it.
However, that is just not a product of socialism or communism, it is just something that has happened in extreme levels because of very poor leadership there. In America, even, lots of money is spent to finance luxurious, unneeded, wasteful things for politicians, and it's very much the norm. In Canada and England, tons of money is spent on "Royal" facades of the government when it could be spent on the people in a large number of ways which would benefit the people much better.

"Rejoin church and state"
This one bothers me, also. What religion are we to use? Will it be the same over the entire world? People seem to forget that the overwhelming majority of the world have a different religion than them. In fact, even the largest religions have many denominations... Even they cannot decide upon what their own religion means. So, you want to stop dictatorships, but you want to begin religious propaganda? Even if it was a religion that I believed in, I would not agree with creating government enforced propaganda. There's enough of that already with the kinds of religious, 'patriotic', stubborn politicians we have. How would you feel if your government or the governments of the world decided to rejoin church and state, but they decided on a religion that you didn't believe in? If they demanded that you believed in a certain religion, and religious police was developed, what would you do? It would be basically like the governmental backing that the KKK got, or a situation where they often turn their backs to the problem. I doubt that the government would support a religious police these days, but then again, I doubt that they would rejoin church and state. I hope I'm right on that one.

"Outlaw Satanism/Occultish practices"
There goes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of thought... You seem to want everyone to change to a religion and government that you like. I understand how people feel that way, but don't you care about individualism? Those two religions haven't lead to as much bloodshed as the world's major religions have, in number or percent. If you offed 50% of the population and started making governments back religion, you would have new problems which are much bigger than any cult could cause.

"All major repeated felons should get Capital Punishment.."
I don't believe in capital punishment, really. I understand that it costs some more money to support them rather than kill them, but we'll hopefully be able to reasonably work around that with time. I don't think it's fair to assassinate people if there's a better choice, but I imagine there's always another option than execution. Who determines what a "major" felony is, anyways? How many times before it's "repeated"? I am sure that there are some people who have stolen large sums of money and still contributed to society. <joke>Hey, just look at politicians.</joke> Still, a person could perhaps assist society from behind bars. Maybe they'd make a difference in some person's life. Maybe they are a very intelligent person who tried to contribute but could never get any support for their work, and thus, they stole money. Who knows, but my feeling is.. to kill a person who has been made defenseless when there are so many other options..seems very unfair to me.

"Only sell guns to people WITHOUT any minor or major felonies"
Well, there are many states that say this. However, a minor felony seems a bit drastic to me. If the person has been convicted of armed robbery, rape, or murder [especially with a gun or even another weapon], I can certainly see how valid the idea of it is. However, lots of people can probably just go steal a gun, anyways. Yet, it makes them take a lot more risks. They need to know where a good weapon is, how to get to it, and not get caught. Also, they need to not raise suspicion, like by not asking about a friend's gun and scoping out their bedroom... So, it kind of presents an "special" version of the waiting period needed to get a weapon... The anger will hopefully die down before they can get a weapon, but that's not guaranteed. It'd also probably be a good idea to make people have to get their weapon's fired bullets analyzed, and have them come back every so often to get it redone. If I knew more about how long it takes their markings to degrade, I would provide some amount of time.. like every year or two years or five years or every decade... I definitely think some tests need to be done on that. That way, we could possibly also tell how weapons degrade and match a gun that has been fired a lot of times since it killed with the bullet(s) that actually killed. I wish that we didn't have to do such things, but that would require either that people didn't use weapons for harm or that we could trust them to not do it again after a 'slap on the wrist'. It's a complicated issue. Even with all of that, people can alter their gun's shaft with certain tools and chemicals, and remove the point of the whole system... However, people seem to be not so bright about such things, many times.. and they don't think about how their fingerprints, hair, blood, DNA, etc. will be all over the crime scene. I think it would at least help stop or help solve *some* crimes, but I also get the feeling that criminals, specifically mass murderers would just alter their guns. I also think that those who buy weapons and pass them on to criminals would just make a practice of changing the markings on those guns, but if they did it poorly.. that could make them get caught. If this system was done right, I think that overall, it'd certainly be a useful tool. If it was done without people's knowledge [analyzing them just after they get out of the factory, basically..] it could work even better.. but with all of the information that leaks out via the media about crimes and even about how to alter a barrel of a gun [I personally heard how to do it on TV], it would probably not remain a secret or be able to identify every gun. However, it would make another hurdle for criminals to try to jump over, and that would be a good thing. If people were required to get it rechecked every so often, they could identify those who altered their guns illegally and keep track of what guns are 'missing'. I think that, overall, it's a good idea.

Basically, the main points that I'm trying to make is that I don't believe that limiting people's freedom will stop them from doing "evil". I don't think that anyone has the right to say that another person's thoughts are "evil" or that their religion is "evil", and I don't think they should be allowed to stop them from practicing it. That's what many people came to and come to America for in the first place, freedom of thought and freedom of religion. Even if someone does something that you disagree with.. if it doesn't "harm" people who don't want to be harmed that way, why not just let them be? I don't think that anybody beyond those who are quite bipolar can really say that people shouldn't practice "evil" religions, and then turn around, completely violating their own beliefs, and slaughter more than half of the world. I'm not accusing you of this, because you seem to have said that it would be against your morals, assumingly strongly.

I don't believe that anyone has the right to slaughter everyone that they disagree with in any sense. You seem to be religious, and though I don't know your religion, I do not believe I know of a religion which would support mass murder. A person could probably eliminate or brainwash most of the world and make it a more "peaceful" place... but that would not be, in my opinion, a better place. After all, destroying all life would make it even more "peaceful", but it doesn't mean that it'd be "better". That theory and that course of action reminds me very strongly of one idea. The party thought it had noble intentions, and in a way it did, but their ideas did not, in any way, justify their actions. That party was, of course, the Nazi party. They wished to unite the world, but just through propaganda, religious oppression, and conquering. Though I understand your noble intentions, many injustices have been done with noble intentions.

hehe dang long post.. kill 50% of the population?

somehow i think its better that some people DONT question the meaning of life or such things hehe

The idea of cutting the population down was to eliminate some overcrowding, esp in the orient and some parts of europe, then ny and chicago etc etc etc

Me?

To help some one along the way.

yalp.

Personally tho, i would do away with religion, im not a big fan of it and it seems to cause a high % of problems in the world, but thats just me.. i suppose another reason for us to blame things on would pop up anyhow

Ok...there is no real meaning of life...every one have theit own goals to acomplish...but if you read books like "ANNA KARENINA" or any of Makt Twains wise worlds...or any other wise old dude's qutes, stories...they mostly say: we live to help and love each other....I personaly believe its true...we all must pass our knowledge to help other people...you kids...friends...anyone!

"WE LIVE TO FUCKINGT HELP"

I believe that we will never truly define life until we decide upon what can be called life.

S^abaal ud T'a johtizuc^ ult'a Fedaro.

42

Ah - Arthemis... I see you have the answer, but what is the great question of Life, the Universe, and Everything?

Bodhi - Cell 617

Uhhhmmm...What is 6 x 7 ?