The spirit of life

[AnIndependentTexan]

All life has a common link. To understand life one must first understand the basic needs of all life. Once you separate the needs from desires then you'll have the true image of life. Find the heart of all life and you will understand the nature of humanity.

[bloom]

1. "you will understand the nature of humanity"

Have you found it?

[AnIndependentTexan]

3. my answer

If I told you yes I have as a answer would you believe me?

[VioletLake]

7. It's not as simple as that.

The onus is on you to provide a compelling case for your assertion. How else do you expect to be taken seriously?

We're listening.

[AnIndependentTexan]

10. Yes there is a onus as you put it on me, but....

If I'm taken seriously isn't based on which way I answer. Seriousness comes from the nature of being skeptical. There is always going to be someone who even if you say yes jumps on you as being off the wall.

I believe in the ability to have a choice. If you believe the answer is correct then you are going to believe. If you believe the answer is wrong a wall will be built and it will not be taken seriously either way. For me to be taken seriously on anything I must be willing to allow others the chance to have input.

I won't force anyone to believe I have the answer. If you believe the answer is yes then your heart already knows the answer. My question is what do you believe about what was said?

[VioletLake]

13. I think it's a lot of noncommittal nonsense.

"If I'm taken seriously isn't based on which way I answer. Seriousness comes from the nature of being skeptical. There is always going to be someone who even if you say yes jumps on you as being off the wall."

Sure, if you say so. :eyes:

"I believe in the ability to have a choice. If you believe the answer is correct then you are going to believe. If you believe the answer is wrong a wall will be built and it will not be taken seriously either way. For me to be taken seriously on anything I must be willing to allow others the chance to have input."

What answer? You still haven't gotten to that. Need more input first?

"I won't force anyone to believe I have the answer."

The implication seems to be that you're capable of forcing people to believe that you have the "answer," but don't choose to apply the requisite pressure. Okey doke...

"If you believe the answer is yes then your heart already knows the answer."

Sure, if you say so. :eyes:

"My question is what do you believe about what was said?"

See the title of this response.

[AnIndependentTexan]

16. yes but again there is a reason why

I'm still learning and there is a lot to learn about. The moment I say that I know the answer is the moment I close myself off from learning.

[VioletLake]

18. We're all learning.

That aside, you are, in so many words, making the claim that you know the answer.

[AnIndependentTexan]

20. Remember you asked if I knew the answer

We might have been a better word then you. I'm not really claiming to know the answer. I'm just open to learning more.

[VioletLake]

22. The implication is nearly the same

substituting the word "we" for "you."

"Find the heart of all life and WE will understand the nature of humanity."

I'm open to learning more too, that's why I'm challenging you. Perhaps I can coax it out of you. ;)

[AnIndependentTexan]

27. Not for sure about the coaxing

I'm not very good at being coaxed, however, I am good at listening. I could say right now in my own heart I believe I have the answer. Then again nobody would believe me.

The truth in my answer would have to be that I am a observer of life.

[VioletLake]

29. If you make yourself more amenable to coaxing,

perhaps people will eventually believe you. I look at it this way: I have "the answer" to gain and nothing of substance to lose (in my coaxing).

[AnIndependentTexan]

34. for me

I look at it this way. Coaxing has different meanings as well. To coax something out of a person means you are trying to bind them to your will. If I open myself up to being coaxed that would open the door for me to being mislead.

When I use the term listening it is in reference to being open-minded. If I listen then my mind is not closed. My substance is neither lost or gained because for me it was never about substance. What people believe is always open to themselves because one can never force their belief onto another.

[shadowknows69]

35. um

this is precisely the reason that philosophy is not a very lucrative field to go into unless you already have a book deal.

[VioletLake]

37. Why are you offering you ideas publicly

if you're not willing to discuss them in depth? That's what I mean by coaxing. All good conversations have this in common.

Yes, there is a battle of wills of sorts, but it doesn't have to be mean-spirited. It's a healthy challenge.

You post your vague ideas and fantastic claims, and I try to find out where you're coming from. Is that unreasonable?

[AnIndependentTexan]

39. notice how we have each used a word that has different meaning

I think I have been willing to listen and willing to discuss this in depth. Isn't that the point of posting a idea to discuss it? If I wasn't willing to discuss what we are talking about then I would have stopped at the start of this post. I've been open to listening and what we are doing right now is talking.

Remember I never said one must believe what I posted. I also said there are those who are going to build up a wall no matter what I say on it. If you believe in something you believe in something. If you don't then that is how the wall is built. Question is there a wall between us right now on the meaning of what we are talking about?

P.S. In your use of the word coaxing how do you know I haven't been doing that as well to build a point?

[VioletLake]

41. Believe what?

You haven't offered anything of substance to believe in.

"P.S. In your use of the word coaxing how do you know I haven't been doing that as well to build a point?"

I didn't make that assumption. But now that you mention it, I'll look for your point. ;)

[AnIndependentTexan]

44. my point is the moment you asked do you have the answers?

You were looking for a belief of something. To me learning is not a belief, but a question. You needed proof of someone's authority on the matter before you opened yourself up to a different thought or idea. That was were the wall was built. I couldn't answer your belief or need to believe in my authority on the subject. Because of this the wall was made stronger were the focus became not of learning, but to prove the authority of the idea.

[VioletLake]

46. I need proof of someone's authority when they present me

with unsubstantiated claims like yours. If there's a wall, you built it in to the thread.

If you want to learn, present your ideas accordingly. If you want to teach, well, you know, do a better job. I'm open to both approaches. It shouldn't take all this coaxing to figure out that you're just trying to learn and not to teach. :eyes:

Respect doesn't come free.

Good night kiddo. (I hope you don't mind if I call you that this once; I feel a certain kinship to you. ;) )

[AnIndependentTexan]

50. don't worry

I have a feeling if anyone tried to bring up a idea like this it would be there. Don't worry either about the kiddo part because I am pretty much 23. I still have a lot to learn.

[VioletLake]

51. I just turned 40. sigh

But I don't look a day over 28. ;)

About the kinship comment: I saw a thread you posted recently on being transgendered. I don't know if you've read my blog so I don't know if you know that I'm transgendered too (m-f transsexual). I made the transition about 20 years ago when I was in college. I know lots about the subject. Just wanted to let you know that I'm just a PM away if you ever need someone to talk with about that.

Back to the subject of the thread for a moment since I thought about it a little last night while I was falling asleep. I hope you don't mind if I explore your initial thoughts a little.

All life has a common link.

I can agree with that.

To understand life one must first understand the basic needs of all life.

I don't really have any objections with that.

Once you separate the needs from desires then you'll have the true image of life. Find the heart of all life and you will understand the nature of humanity.

This is where you lose me. You seem to be saying: find only the basic needs that all life forms have in common and one will understand the nature of humanity. In your responses, you define these basic needs as breathing, eating, and drinking.

So in effect, the "true image of life" that you're painting for us looks like this: The nature of humanity is breathing, eating, and drinking. Sounds a little simplistic and impoverished, doesn't it? As a philosophy, it's spirit-less and heart-less despite your diction.

The spirit of life is breathing, eating, and drinking? The heart of all life is...?

Let's assume that the nature of humanity is simply breathing, eating, and drinking. If that's the "true image of life," then it's safe to say that anything else is a "desire" - as you like to say - and a luxury that there is no natural entitlement for.

That would be a wonderful philosophy for a reptile, but we're human beings, friend. Hey, even lions are entitled to more. Since lions are at the top of the food chain, they can afford to sleep half the day. Do you suppose they need the sleep, or are they just fulfilling a desire? Try to take that lion's sleep away and see what happens. :mad:

What it comes down to is this: the problem with your philosophy is that it dehumanizes the human being. It devalues all the entitlements that we learned - at immeasurable cost - to give each other. I'm talking about entitlements based on needs that aren't apparent to some people until they find themselves in a "cage."

For what it's worth, I believe that the nature of humanity is to transcend its beastly nature. I also believe in your humanity, A.I. Tex. :)

Edit: paragraph formatting

[DrWeird]

2. Mmhmm. We're all a bunch of naked monkeys.

With high opinions of ourselves.

[immoderate]

24. And a little tequila doesn't hurt.

--IMM

[orpupilofnature57]

4. unfortunately the desires of the shrubs make them blind to the..

Needs of not only the needy,but of the world in general.

[AnIndependentTexan]

5. but is it not our own desires that blind us as well?

All one needs to survive is food to eat, water to drink, and air to breath. Everything outside is a desire.

[VioletLake]

8. What about sex?

Is that a need or a desire?

[orpupilofnature57]

11. A desire that can over ride the need for,eating ,drinking,brea

well two out of three ain't bad

[AnIndependentTexan]

12. sex would be a desire to reproduce

The desire itself is still the same even if it moves to just pleasure. It is still a desire to have emotional contact.

[VioletLake]

14. sex is evidence of the need to reproduce. n/t

[AnIndependentTexan]

15. But do you have to reproduce in order to live?

[VioletLake]

17. For a lot of people it is a necessity.

As it is for most living things. There's obviously a built-in drive. Is it a desire or a need? Really, it's both. Discussing the distinctions between the two is interesting and perhaps fruitful, but there are no absolute truths to be learned from ripping them apart.

[AnIndependentTexan]

19. I'm more open to talking about it

I find it interesting as well. For me I've always considered the three basic needs as in a single person view. As a single person the view it is a desire, but you are right in that it is a need as well. If you take it to a society level then reproduction is needed in order to keep new generations within that society.

[VioletLake]

21. Without reproduction of some sort,

life would only last 1 generation. Of course one can survive without sex and other "desires," but what is life worth without them?

Are you just a breathing, eating, drinking, shitting beast? ;)

[AnIndependentTexan]

25. actually for me

I pretty much have no desire for sex. I like females, but for me it is more about a romantic relationship then just the desire to have sex. I rather have talks and socialize more then have a baby with a girl.

It all comes down I guess to what your own basic desires are.

[VioletLake]

28. Pretty much? :)

You insist on rigid definitions. That's your prerogative. But consider this hypothetical:

Imagine that I put you in a cage and gave you only air, food and water. How long do you think you would be able to survive? What part of freedom is need and what part is desire?

Add: What other things would you find yourself "needing?"

[AnIndependentTexan]

32. True, but here is another outlook of that

If you have the cage then say that I allow you to lock me into that cage. By allowing you to lock away my freedom it is not a need you can take away from me. I'm always free to stop you at anytime. I have a choice in the matter.

[VioletLake]

33. "I have a choice in the matter."

Not in my hypothetical you don't. The assumption is that I have the power to literally lock you up (or kill you trying). But why resist if I promise to offer your bare minimums?

Your alternate hypothetical only attempts to sidestep mine. Nice try. Let's get back on track here.

[AnIndependentTexan]

36. How is this a sidetrack?

In your view you claim yourself as a God capable of striping apart a man. In my view I see choice in what is done to me. By allowing my will the lose of it's freedom then I have other choices as well.

My own will is always there no matter what is done to me. I still have life, but how I live that life is up to me because I still control what I do with that life and how I respond to that cage.

[VioletLake]

40. I'm not making any such claim.

It's a hypothetical situation for you to consider. :eyes:

You don't seem to understand that people can be "caged" against their will.

"My own will is always there no matter what is done to me. I still have life, but how I live that life is up to me because I still control what I do with that life and how I respond to that cage."

You wouldn't last very long though, and you would find that you "need" more than air, water and food to survive. BTW, is the "will" a desire or a need? Do we need air, water, food, and a will, or just air, food and water? Can we do without the will?

What's that will about? :think:

[AnIndependentTexan]

42. my will is my desire

I understand people can be caged, but they still have a will or desire. At that moment they are caged they can choice to end their life or choice to live their life. The will to live is something that can never be taken away even if the freedom is taken away. A weak desire to live will give up and a strong desire to live will find a way to survive.

[VioletLake]

43. Again, you insist on rigid definitions.

That's your prerogative. I believe that trying to brand everything as either a need or a desire is a fool's errand. But that's just me.

It's getting late and I'm repeating myself. :boring:

[AnIndependentTexan]

47. sleep well

Actually it is just two different prospectives. It isn't creating a ridig on the definition or sidetracking, but giving a different prospective or outlook.

Sorry if I kept you up, but hope we get the chance to talk again if you want to. I'm trying to keep it as healthy as possible.

[VioletLake]

49. It was a pleasure. Thanks. n/t

[orpupilofnature57]

26. thats an archaic idea in 2004,we dont have to worry about under pop..

For at least the rest of time on the planet.Posting on D U shows that the need to express, can override the need for sex, bye.

[VioletLake]

30. bye

:hi:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. The Continuum Concept

http://www.thewellspring.com/Cat/Adult_books/continuum_concept.html

[orpupilofnature57]

9. EXACTLY,shrub assaults all three items.Mine isn't misanthrope

[Walt Starr]

6. I think a connectivity view, or networked view of life and the universe

rather than a mechanical, or the "watchmaker's" view, is needed to really have a common foundation.

[indigobusiness]

23. That's pretty astute...

for a heathen.

[sweetheart]

31. What self understands

But one that is asserting its independence from life to "know"
something. Methinks you use the word understand broadly, that
perhaps immersion in this moment of "I" knowing is itself
complete. That verification, theory, aggreement and conception
are but devices of the ego that cannot ever understand what
is the very surrender of its roots of existance.

... that life simply is.

[bloom]

45. I think it sounds like

you're smokin' pot.

[VioletLake]

48. Hey, I resent that!

I'm smoking pot too :smoke: