> On Sep 4, 9:41 pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Sep 4, 2:57 pm, Joseph Humming humanisation.org> wrote:

>

>>> On Sep 4, 2:06 pm, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

>

>>>> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:55:59 -0700, Joseph Humming wrote:

>>>>> But we are the creature who understands life. The intelligence honed by
>>>>> evolution has finally borne fruit. We are on the cusp of a global
>>>>> society - and a global awareness. Life has produced a creature aware of
>>>>> life. We - of course - possess something we call a mind; but we are, in
>>>>> another sense, the mind of life itself. And since life is nothing more -
>>>>> or less - than a purposeful arrangement of matter we might therefore be
>>>>> said to be the mind of matter.

>

>>>> Life, of course, demands difference. In order to live 'We' must consume
>>>> as we are being consumed by other forms of life for them to live.
>>>> Intelligence or no, life moves on.

>

>>>> What a certain type of intelligence does, which diffuses the 'we', is to
>>>> think in linear concepts. Usually left to right, right to left and, as is
>>>> the case here, bottom to top. Like the scheme of a pyramid.

>

>>>> Evolution, according to this type of intelligence, implies one thing
>>>> being 'over' another like one layer of bricks being placed upon another
>>>> to construct a building. Each layer becoming closer to a given and
>>>> predestined finality which becomes clearer and more certain as the
>>>> building becomes 'higher' then before. The newest layers being always
>>>> closest.

>

>>>> Meanwhile, life goes on inside and outside of the building . It's
>>>> purpose, it's meaning and it's mind being life. Purpose is seen by that
>>>> which possess purpose, no purpose is seen by that which does not. Life
>>>> moves without this regard.

>

>>>> Or, so say other intelligent 'we's.

>

>>> True - I think. I'm not sure I fully understand you. Even if life goes
>>> on; and we consume as we are consumed; and others do not share our
>>> purpose...even if all this is true, we still have the ability to
>>> create purpose and we still have the ability to act on that purpose
>>> and we still have the right to insist that our "purpose" is no mere
>>> conceit but a legitimate recognition of the sum total of our
>>> capabilities vis-a-vis all the facets of existence.

>

>>> Thanks for the good reply.

>

>>> Joseph Humming- Hide quoted text -

>

>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>> Existence has no purpose. The purpose of life is its existence  so
>> without life there is no  purpose. Thus, Existence patiently waited on
>> life for .validation!. With cessation of life , Existence  defaults
>> into its state of no purpose.
>> Zo zpake Zinnic.the Myztic- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> !
> "Existence has no purose"? Did I say it has? "The purpose of life is
> its existence"? Which existence is that? The one that has no purpose
> or the one that is the purpose of life? Hmmm...I think there's some
> sleight of hand going on here...too much sleight for me anyway! I
> don't think "existence" needs life for validation. It just...exists.
> It might, however, need life - to wit, human life - for celebration,
> or declaration. And this might be a purpose we might (!) take on.
> Indeed, it just might be our purpose full-stop. Matter takes the form
> of "life" and life becomes intelligent enough to know the nature of
> matter. So is this just a voluntary act on our part? Or are we, or
> were we, destined to assume this role? Only asking....
>