The purpose of life

[freethinker]

This is a question that comes up often, in Scn. and elsewhere: what is the purpose of life? Some get by just fine without answering that question; others sink into "anomie" because they can live, but there're just not sure why they are doing so.

I searched for the answer in many places, even watching the movie, A Dog's Purpose twice (great film). And I think I've finally got the answer:

(1) To follow your dreams

(2) To help others, and

(3) To have fun.

Some people want to leave the world a better place than when they found it. This would fall under (1) above.

Some say that the goal is to do something that will have an impact on the future; something that will outlast your lifetime. Having children is one way to do this. But if your children don't make the world a better place, then together the only thing you all have done is NOT made the world a better place in a longer time frame. If your children have children and so on, forever, you have accomplished a sort of infinity, but still, if there are no accomplishments aside from that, what have you done?

I'm sure different people have different proportions of (1), (2), and (3) they're attempting.

Comments, anyone?

Helena

It's to get your f**king ethics in you counter intentioned, daisy picking, wonder off the path, bowling champ.

 

[DagwoodGum]

The purpose of life is to discover the purpose of life. Don't hold your breath.

Kind of like trying to determine the moral of the story before you've finished the book isn't it?
Maybe were all here because God can't find anywhere else to stick us that we haven't already ruined while she puts on the finishing touches on a less destructible, as in non nuclear universe.
Maybe Ron headed there as an advisor/consultant being he knows All About Radiation!?!

 

[Teanntás]

Could have just said To survive. Same Hubbardian reductionist rhetoric or pablum for pinheads that says nothing while implying everything...

One of the attractive things about Michael Newton's Life Between Lives is that it suggests that we have set ourselves purposes - that there is free choice involved. Has anyone here experienced this ?

 

[strativarius]

Kind of like trying to determine the moral of the story before you've finished the book isn't it?
Maybe were all here because God can't find anywhere else to stick us that we haven't already ruined while she puts on the finishing touches on a less destructible, as in non nuclear universe.
Maybe Ron headed there as an advisor/consultant being he knows All About Radiation!?!

Well, as Bill says somewhere else, the problem of whether god does or does not exist can never be solved. As to the matter of 'us' ruining the place, it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment, while us humanoids, with our far superior intelligence, seem hell bent on polluting, and, in the fullness of time, destroying it.

And if some kind soul could show me where and where not to put the commas in the above paragraph I will be forever grateful, because to be honest it has driven me completely 'round the bend!

Now where was I? Oh yes...

Maybe at some point Gaia will say 'Fuck all this' and destroy us instead - which I think will probably be a good thing.

Edit: No, I don't capitalise the 'g' in god. When somebody proves that god exists I'll start capitalising, until then, to me, god remains little more than an ancient superstition. Sorry if I've offended any of our religious esmb'ers, but that's how I see it.

 

[RogerB]

Kind of like trying to determine the moral of the story before you've finished the book isn't it?
Maybe were all here because God can't find anywhere else to stick us that we haven't already ruined while she puts on the finishing touches on a less destructible, as in non nuclear universe.
Maybe Ron headed there as an advisor/consultant being he knows All About Radiation!?!

Dag, umm, did you borrow this line from some transgender ex-Trumpian who's screwing up trying to tell us God is a GIRL who has screwed up but won't screw?



/

 

[RogerB]

One of the attractive things about Michael Newton's Life Between Lives is that it suggests that we have set ourselves purposes - that there is free choice involved. Has anyone here experienced this ?

Yes I have. I wrote of one particular instance here some years ago:
The death at Bronte 1963
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?9333-Ascension-Experience&p=198701&viewfull=1#post198701

What it takes is you being willing to stay aware, control your attention and direct it toward what you want to accomplish.

Most folks suffer during the dying process (disease or getting killed or going through a fear or regret scenario) . . . as I discussed with my forum members: "Death is no problem. It is actually very peaceful and calm . . . it is the dying that is the bitch!"

Most Beings, not having any tech on the subject, get confused and dispersed, lose control of their "faculties" and get taken over by old wrong answer solutions and involuntary replications thereof.

/

 

[DagwoodGum]

Dag, umm, did you borrow this line from some transgender ex-Trumpian who's screwing up trying to tell us God is a GIRL who has screwed up but won't screw?



/

When I say that god is a girl I should tack on "too" because prior to the creation of this universe with its animal life forms that need to procreate in order to multiply there wouldn't have been either male nor female but rather both simultaneously.
I think this is wherein people get confused about their own sense of sexual identity.
Prior to a procreative realm of existence there would be no separation into one or the other.
But it was observable on the emeter that males & females have differing electromagnetic properties in that they occupy differing TA ranges and as a male I don't feel drawn to someone that occupies the same range as I do.
Repelled by, but there is no attraction in either direction, it's all the wrong energy from one end of the spectrum to the other. .
But I see that there is a growing percentage of young people that fly in the face of that with the "alternative lifestyle" propaganda.
My Scientology male friends for the most part ended up gay after suppressing it while they were in, plus they tended to revert to raging drug abuse.
None of these tendencies did I know about while in, the "never discuss your case out of session" thing.
I guess it's all about finding a cheap thrill to replace Scientology with, though there was nothing cheap about the thrill of Scientology.

 

[RogerB]

Good post above Dag, and also happy you saw the humor in my attempt at it in my earlier response to you . . .

In actuality, we spiritual Beings are sexless and equally capable of "outflow" and "inflow" . . . and we do have a long history of this through the spiritual universes prior to this silly physical universe.

The difficulty occurs from several things, but these in particular: a) having the mental record of our past existences that can be triggered into involuntary replication and, b) being effect of the bodies we are stuck in, the fact that the biochemical differences between them can respond to and be affected by the spiritual "polarity" triggered from our spiritual histories.

Medical science will tell you the male body is more acid than the female and one is positively "charged" while the other is negative pole of the pair.

R

 

[DagwoodGum]

Good post above Dag, and also happy you saw the humor in my attempt at it in my earlier response to you . . .

In actuality, we spiritual Beings are sexless and equally capable of "outflow" and "inflow" . . . and we do have a long history of this through the spiritual universes prior to this silly physical universe.

The difficulty occurs from several things, but these in particular: a) having the mental record of our past existences that can be triggered into involuntary replication and, b) being effect of the bodies we are stuck in, the fact that the biochemical differences between them can respond to and be affected by the spiritual "polarity" triggered from our spiritual histories.

Medical science will tell you the male body is more acid than the female and one is positively "charged" while the other is negative pole of the pair.

R

Excellent points you make.
I'd add that I never really saw into what the gay thing was all about until it turned out that the majority of my male clam friends who had always gone way out of their way to ridicule gay people that would come into the morgue, turned out to be gay themselves as was quickly manifested when they went reverse polarity sexually as they got off lines. I began to consider that they had female lives in restim along with all of the associative attitudes, emotional feelings & sensations that they'd had in those opposite sexual polarity lives. Most of them are deceased now and the few others have dropped out of touch. But it occurred to me that there seems to be a very small percentage of gays in Buddist cultures where there is the automatic acceptance of past lives and all that it would tend to make one more cognizant of...

 

[screamer2]

Well, as Bill says somewhere else, the problem of whether god does or does not exist can never be solved. As to the matter of 'us' ruining the place, it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment, while us humanoids, with our far superior intelligence, seem hell bent on polluting, and, in the fullness of time, destroying it.

And if some kind soul could show me where and where not to put the commas in the above paragraph I will be forever grateful, because to be honest it has driven me completely 'round the bend!

Now where was I? Oh yes...

Maybe at some point Gaia will say 'Fuck all this' and destroy us instead - which I think will probably be a good thing.

Edit: No, I don't capitalise the 'g' in god. When somebody proves that god exists I'll start capitalising, until then, to me, god remains little more than an ancient superstition. Sorry if I've offended any of our religious esmb'ers, but that's how I see it.

And if some kind soul could show me where and where not to put the commas in the above paragraph I will be forever grateful, because to be honest it has driven me completely 'round the bend!


You might try to edit it in a way similar to the way I imagine Cormac McCarthy (a recognized modern prose stylist) might have approached editing it:

Well as Bill says somewhere else the problem of whether God* does or does not exist can never be solved. As to the matter of us ruining the place it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment while us humanoids with our far superior intelligence seem hell bent on polluting and in the fullness of time destroying it.

If you just can't bear to let fly a paragraph without commas you might try putting ONE here:

Well as Bill says somewhere else the problem of whether God does or does not exist can never be solved. As to the matter of us ruining the place, it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment while us humanoids with our far superior intelligence seem hell bent on polluting and in the fullness of time destroying it.

If one comma is not enough to satiate your sensibility try TWO as here:

Well as Bill says somewhere else, the problem of whether God does or does not exist can never be solved. As to the matter of us ruining the place, it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment while us humanoids with our far superior intelligence seem hell bent on polluting and in the fullness of time destroying it.

You might also make the whole of it more compact and concise such as with this:

As Bill says [(in or at) precise location] the problem of whether God does or does not exist can never be solved. It has always puzzled me why animals appear to live in harmony with their environment while we humans with our far superior intelligence seem to be hell bent on polluting and ultimately destroying it.

A matter of opinion, of course.

*As far as capitalizing the word God: if you do not you are applying editorial discretion as to what kind of god you claim Bill said can be proven to exist. If you do capitalize it you are also editorializing. Either way you go you are editorializing. But what did Bill actually say?

Which way to go is the broader of the two ways to go? I imagine the broader way to go would be to capitalize it. That way one can prove or disprove God as well as call into question whether there are any gods or god but if there were only one god it would likely merit capitalization.

For example: https://www.fastcompany.com/3064681/most-important-economic-theory-in-technology-brian-arthur

 

[strativarius]

And if some kind soul could show me where and where not to put the commas in the above paragraph I will be forever grateful, because to be honest it has driven me completely 'round the bend!


You might try to edit it in a way similar to the way I imagine Cormac McCarthy (a recognized modern prose stylist) might have approached editing it:

Well as Bill says somewhere else the problem of whether God* does or does not exist can never be solved. As to the matter of us ruining the place it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment while us humanoids with our far superior intelligence seem hell bent on polluting and in the fullness of time destroying it.

If you just can't bear to let fly a paragraph without commas you might try putting ONE here:

Well as Bill says somewhere else the problem of whether God does or does not exist can never be solved. As to the matter of us ruining the place, it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment while us humanoids with our far superior intelligence seem hell bent on polluting and in the fullness of time destroying it.

If one comma is not enough to satiate your sensibility try TWO as here:

Well as Bill says somewhere else, the problem of whether God does or does not exist can never be solved. As to the matter of us ruining the place, it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment while us humanoids with our far superior intelligence seem hell bent on polluting and in the fullness of time destroying it.

You might also make the whole of it more compact and concise such as with this:

As Bill says [(in or at) precise location] the problem of whether God does or does not exist can never be solved. It has always puzzled me why animals appear to live in harmony with their environment while we humans with our far superior intelligence seem to be hell bent on polluting and ultimately destroying it.

A matter of opinion, of course.

*As far as capitalizing the word God: if you do not you are applying editorial discretion as to what kind of god you claim Bill said can be proven to exist. If you do capitalize it you are also editorializing. Either way you go you are editorializing. But what did Bill actually say?

Which way to go is the broader of the two ways to go? I imagine the broader way to go would be to capitalize it. That way one can prove or disprove God as well as call into question whether there are any gods or god but if there were only one god it would likely merit capitalization.

For example: https://www.fastcompany.com/3064681/most-important-economic-theory-in-technology-brian-arthur

Thanks for the time you've expended on the matter. As a rule of thumb I generally prefer the 'less is more' approach where commas are concerned, but in the end of course it's a matter of flow and aesthetics.

As far as the paragraph in question is concerned, a comma has to go after the first word (Well) IMOl. You have written the second sentence without a single comma at all, and reading it now that seems good enough for me.

Never mind the 'god' issue. I just can't bring myself to capitalise it and that's that.

Here's a sentence I read here a few days ago. My apologies to whoever wrote it but it caught my eye as a sentence that didn't require any commas at all but received three:

"If I didn't know better, I'd think you were working for the Scientology cult to create the idea that people, who have experienced Scientology but have moved beyond it, are a bunch of drug abusing lowlifes."

What say you screamer? Agree or disagree?

 

[lotus]

When a dog, a tree, a planet can answer the question of ''purpose of life'' I will take a look at it.
There couldn't be a purpose of life only for human beings, it has to suit all form of life since all living forms are life components.

Till it happens, I'd say there is no purpose of life..there is life and I don't have a clue why life is and why I was given this bunch of cells in my brain that made me ask myself (as well as most human beings) ''is there a purpose, is there a life after death, what there is to know ?''

Since I will never ever get an answer I gave up and simply try to enjoy life as I know it's a brief time we are given for once.

Although it appears to me there is an urge that is common in all life forms, which is to survive in persuing life and reproduce to persue specie survival.

 

[Terril park]

Thanks for the time you've expended on the matter. As a rule of thumb I generally prefer the 'less is more' approach where commas are concerned, but in the end of course it's a matter of flow and aesthetics.

As far as the paragraph in question is concerned, a comma has to go after the first word (Well) IMOl. You have written the second sentence without a single comma at all, and reading it now that seems good enough for me.

Never mind the 'god' issue. I just can't bring myself to capitalise it and that's that.

Here's a sentence I read here a few days ago. My apologies to whoever wrote it but it caught my eye as a sentence that didn't require any commas at all but received three:

"If I didn't know better, I'd think you were working for the Scientology cult to create the idea that people, who have experienced Scientology but have moved beyond it, are a bunch of drug abusing lowlifes."

What say you screamer? Agree or disagree?

I agree.

 

[Bill]

it has always puzzled me why lesser animals seem to live in harmony with their environment, while us humanoids, with our far superior intelligence, seem hell bent on polluting, and, in the fullness of time, destroying it.

I wouldn't say that the "lesser animals live in harmony". My view is that nature is a constant battleground -- only the strong and the clever survive. The rest die and provide food for the rest.

Perhaps what you meant was "balance" and that is true. Nature tends to balance out and that balance also includes extinction of species that can no longer live in the changing environment.

Humans do and will continue to change the worldwide environment -- for better or for worse. Eventually, nature will balance it all out, to include human impact -- -- -- or maybe the extinction of humans.

 

[strativarius]

I wouldn't say that the "lesser animals live in harmony". My view is that nature is a constant battleground -- only the strong and the clever survive. The rest die and provide food for the rest.

Perhaps what you meant was "balance" and that is true. Nature tends to balance out and that balance also includes extinction of species that can no longer live in the changing environment.

Humans do and will continue to change the worldwide environment -- for better or for worse. Eventually, nature will balance it all out, to include human impact -- -- -- or maybe the extinction of humans.

Yes, you're right, it's dog eat dog and a deadly battle for survival every day out there in the 'natural world and I suppose I was guilty of just glibly knocking out a sentence without thinking too much about what I was actually saying. The thought I meant to express was that the 'lesser animals' don't go out of their way to kill for the sake of killing in the way that the huntin' shootin' humans do. What's more they don't wantonly destroy the environment the way we do either, but then nobody has yet introduced the concept of corporate greed to the animal kingdom.

 

[strativarius]

I agree.

You know what Terril, illogical as it undoubtedly is, the fact that you've quoted a post of mine and just below my words is an advert for the Freakzone faintly annoys me. Having got that off my chest I have to tell you that you're entitled to your opinion of course but it's screamer's I was looking for, since, to be brutally frank mate, your grammar, spelling and punctuation leave a lot to be desired IMO and I wouldn't really be seeking your advice on the matter.

I'm seeking advice because my grammar, spelling and punctuation is probably crap too, but I'm always trying to improve it.

 

[screamer2]

Thanks for the time you've expended on the matter. As a rule of thumb I generally prefer the 'less is more' approach where commas are concerned, but in the end of course it's a matter of flow and aesthetics.

As far as the paragraph in question is concerned, a comma has to go after the first word (Well) IMOl. You have written the second sentence without a single comma at all, and reading it now that seems good enough for me.

Never mind the 'god' issue. I just can't bring myself to capitalise it and that's that.

Here's a sentence I read here a few days ago. My apologies to whoever wrote it but it caught my eye as a sentence that didn't require any commas at all but received three:

"If I didn't know better, I'd think you were working for the Scientology cult to create the idea that people, who have experienced Scientology but have moved beyond it, are a bunch of drug abusing lowlifes."

What say you screamer? Agree or disagree?

Here's a sentence I read here a few days ago. My apologies to whoever wrote it but it caught my eye as a sentence that didn't require any commas at all but received three:

"If I didn't know better, I'd think you were working for the Scientology cult to create the idea that people, who have experienced Scientology but have moved beyond it, are a bunch of drug abusing lowlifes."

What say you screamer? Agree or disagree?

I think it's a matter of style. It could be written in any one of several styles.

There's no clear right or wrong way to write unless you were trained in a defined style that you ordinarily follow or are attempting to follow a defined style. Then you would consult a stylebook such as "The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law".

The main reasons for following a style are to maintain consistency within a document as well as across a publication such as a magazine, journal, or within a body of work. And the main main reason of course is to have your writing published and get paid for it.

Some examples of style guides or manuals of style are:

ACS style for writing in chemistry
AMA style for medical writing
AP style for journalism and most forms of corporate communications
APA style and ASA style for social 'sciences'
Bluebook style for legal work
CSE style for physical sciences
Chicago Style for academic writing
Oxford Style for academic situations such as at universities
USGPO style or AGPS style for government publications

We are all free to pick a style or create one of our own. Be aware that if your chosen style ends up too far off the beaten path your writing is unlikely to be accepted for publication in any curated media.

Style guides are also used to enforce political ideology and impose censorship. For instance:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/illegal-immigrants-have-been-banned-from-the-ap-stylebook

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style

 

[strativarius]

I think it's a matter of style. It could be written in any one of several styles.

There's no clear right or wrong way to write unless you were trained in a defined style that you ordinarily follow or are attempting to follow a defined style. Then you would consult a stylebook such as "The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law".

The main reasons for following a style are to maintain consistency within a document as well as across a publication such as a magazine, journal, or within a body of work. And the main main reason of course is to have your writing published and get paid for it.

Some examples of style guides or manuals of style are:

ACS style for writing in chemistry
AMA style for medical writing
AP style for journalism and most forms of corporate communications
APA style and ASA style for social 'sciences'
Bluebook style for legal work
CSE style for physical sciences
Chicago Style for academic writing
Oxford Style for academic situations such as at universities
USGPO style or AGPS style for government publications

We are all free to pick a style or create one of our own. Be aware that if your chosen style ends up too far off the beaten path your writing is unlikely to be accepted for publication in any curated media.

Style guides are also used to enforce political ideology and impose censorship. For instance:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/illegal-immigrants-have-been-banned-from-the-ap-stylebook

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elements_of_Style

Many thanks for this screamer. I've downloaded a couple from your list that I think are most appropriate and I'm looking forward to investigating.

I'm not a 'writer', but if I were one I'm sure I'd try and develop my own style. As an example, you only have to read a couple of sentences of J. G. Ballard to know who wrote what you're reading, although with him it's a lot about the vocabulary.

 

[strativarius]

Many thanks for this screamer. I've downloaded a couple from your list that I think are most appropriate and I'm looking forward to investigating.

I'm not a 'writer', but if I were one I'm sure I'd try and develop my own style. As an example, you only have to read a couple of sentences of J. G. Ballard to know who wrote what you're reading, although with him it's a lot about the vocabulary.

Having downloaded and read some parts of the University of Oxford Style Guide which you were kind enough to recommend screamer, I now know that the full stops in J G Ballard's name as above are superfluous. Onward and upward!

 

[JustSheila]

The purpose of life is to keep a goal ahead of you and keep working towards it or some other goal so you keep moving.

You don't have to move forward, in fact, usually you move in circles or even backwards. Just keep moving.