What is life?
20 views
Skip to first unread message
Awori
Dec 24, 2010, 5:11:15 AM12/24/10
to Epistemology
In heated discourse about the meaning of nature---I was one time asked
to define life. This is what I said: "Life is a moment in space and
time". To my disappointment--I got no reaction from the group. Is it
because I was absurdly wrong? I have continued to use this response as
my standard explanation of what life is. Has anyone in out there given
this age old subject a better look?
AA
Georges Metanomski
Dec 24, 2010, 6:37:35 AM12/24/10
to episte...@googlegroups.com
> From: Awori <awori....@gmail.com>
> Subject: [epistemology 11860] What is life?
> To: "Epistemology" <episte...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Friday, December 24, 2010, 10:11 AM
>
> In heated discourse about the meaning of nature---I was one
> time asked
> to define life.
G:
And you could, of course, not, for the simple reason that there ain't
no sich animal. There are only living beings, who display particular
qualities, well defined by biology and sometimes subsumed as a
general quality "life". Considering this super-quality as an "object"
is a meaningless reification eluding any definition.
Georges.
============
einseele
Dec 24, 2010, 8:37:12 AM12/24/10
to Epistemology
Those instances have nothing to do with Life, which is a language
object, like Death, or whatever.
To say Life is.... anythinghere, is the same like to say Death is...
or Redness is.... or Betterness, etc.
These and so many other "LIVE" only in language.
alloy ihuah
Dec 24, 2010, 7:03:00 AM12/24/10
to episte...@googlegroups.com
My Dear Awori,
The question of what is life is complex both in question and in answer. More
complex is even the fact that there cannot be one and only answer to which
people will accept or reject. I would rather think that yours is the physicist
defination of life. Metaphysicians may rather define "life as a moment in being,
of what is as it is and of what is not as it is not" Whether it is a moment of
what is or is not, it carries with it an meaning. Thus meaning making is what
life is hence man is said to be a meaning maker.
The question of what is life is complex both in question and in answer. More
complex is even the fact that there cannot be one and only answer to which
people will accept or reject. I would rather think that yours is the physicist
defination of life. Metaphysicians may rather define "life as a moment in being,
of what is as it is and of what is not as it is not" Whether it is a moment of
what is or is not, it carries with it an meaning. Thus meaning making is what
life is hence man is said to be a meaning maker.
Alloy
----- Original Message ----
From: Awori <awori....@gmail.com>
To: Epistemology <episte...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 11:11:15 AM
Subject: [epistemology 11860] What is life?
AA
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
fla...@windstream.net
Dec 26, 2010, 5:27:03 PM12/26/10
to episte...@googlegroups.com, Awori
conceptually, no one can prove life. Still people talks about it, according to their own experience: The scientist will say that life is a molecular process, religion conceives life as a transcendental principle, and mystics, as some kind of energy.
You say that life is "an instant of space and time" (reminds me of the Kodak moment: Dead in every instance) ; the problem with life is that life is us; from inside the shell very little can be said; our existential coordinates of space and time only reveal that we are unhinged from time and lost in space.
"My life: A yes, a naught, a straight line,...an end" Nietzsche.
LCC
Dec 26, 2010, 10:28:38 PM12/26/10
to Epistemology
Hmm Umm.
Life is what you make it.
Life is anything with a will to live, with a sense of self
preservation.
Sentient life is whatever regards itself and says - I live!
Cogito Ergo Sum - I think - so therefor I exist! In order to think I
must be alive, existing upon the cusp of the current moment...
Notice that I did NOT restrict the definition of life to organics...
If those are unpalatable, then I will comment regarding the responses
at some future posting opportunity...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
Life is what you make it.
Life is anything with a will to live, with a sense of self
preservation.
Sentient life is whatever regards itself and says - I live!
Cogito Ergo Sum - I think - so therefor I exist! In order to think I
must be alive, existing upon the cusp of the current moment...
Notice that I did NOT restrict the definition of life to organics...
If those are unpalatable, then I will comment regarding the responses
at some future posting opportunity...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
sasam
Dec 27, 2010, 4:05:11 AM12/27/10
to Epistemology
This is a question which we are bound to ask due to the nature of our
reason having sufficiently matured to have established a sense of
self.
The light thrown from one side on the subject from a purely empiricist
perspective of some responders is indispensable, though not complete –
our never ending frustration. We will never reach a sufficient answer.
By accommodating various (and apparently contradictory) explanations
each of us individually - and the community gradually as a whole - may
achieve (and has achieved) some sense of having at least started on
the road of enlightenment. This is a road with no grand finish line
where a weary pilgrim may say: “I have achieved”.
Typically “life” as an object is not a meaningless abstracted word
from “living organism”, but a concept full of meaning. For example -
as one responder implied – “life” or “living thing” transcends the
biological realm as we have defined it.
As in the sense of an ant community, “life” also transcends an
individual organism and points towards a unity of individual elements
(in this case separate organisms). If this unity is lost the “living
thing” (in this case an ant community) may be dead, although the
corresponding parts may still “have life” or “live”.
Life always struck me as having an absolute property. A thing is
either alive of not alive – there is no gradual progression in-
between.
My personal inclination is towards the possibility of an unknowable
origin and sustaining force of life itself. This force which keeps the
whole from disintegrating into its constituent parts. It is
“unknowable” in the sense that our reasoning faculties are part and
parcel of “our being alive” and we can not objectively stand back to
sufficiently examine the subject at hand.
I would thus discard the phrases “meaningless” and “in language only”
for the concept of “life” used by some responders while retaining the
phrase “eluding definition” when such a definition is sought for the
concept of “life” in general. We can at most define “life” for very
specific applications as some responders have emphasized.
reason having sufficiently matured to have established a sense of
self.
The light thrown from one side on the subject from a purely empiricist
perspective of some responders is indispensable, though not complete –
our never ending frustration. We will never reach a sufficient answer.
By accommodating various (and apparently contradictory) explanations
each of us individually - and the community gradually as a whole - may
achieve (and has achieved) some sense of having at least started on
the road of enlightenment. This is a road with no grand finish line
where a weary pilgrim may say: “I have achieved”.
Typically “life” as an object is not a meaningless abstracted word
from “living organism”, but a concept full of meaning. For example -
as one responder implied – “life” or “living thing” transcends the
biological realm as we have defined it.
As in the sense of an ant community, “life” also transcends an
individual organism and points towards a unity of individual elements
(in this case separate organisms). If this unity is lost the “living
thing” (in this case an ant community) may be dead, although the
corresponding parts may still “have life” or “live”.
Life always struck me as having an absolute property. A thing is
either alive of not alive – there is no gradual progression in-
between.
My personal inclination is towards the possibility of an unknowable
origin and sustaining force of life itself. This force which keeps the
whole from disintegrating into its constituent parts. It is
“unknowable” in the sense that our reasoning faculties are part and
parcel of “our being alive” and we can not objectively stand back to
sufficiently examine the subject at hand.
I would thus discard the phrases “meaningless” and “in language only”
for the concept of “life” used by some responders while retaining the
phrase “eluding definition” when such a definition is sought for the
concept of “life” in general. We can at most define “life” for very
specific applications as some responders have emphasized.
einseele
Dec 27, 2010, 5:13:36 AM12/27/10
to Epistemology
>
> Life always struck me as having an absolute property. A thing is
> either alive of not alive – there is no gradual progression in-
> between.
What is striking you here above is nothing else that a simple property
> Life always struck me as having an absolute property. A thing is
> either alive of not alive – there is no gradual progression in-
> between.
of any discreet chain/group, where there is nothing in between its
elements (actually the instance in between is not "nothing", but
"null")
For instance integers, ASCII, or the apples in that basket, if you
simplify enough, you get just one concept which is a discreet group.
So is not worth to say it so complicated as "the absolute property of
life", which besides is not as simple as you stated, why do you think
a "thing is either alive or not alive" ?, and why do you believe that
the answer has anything to do with Life.
When you say Life is a concept, and not a matter of words or
abstractions, what does that suppose to mean, will you describe a
concept which is not an abstraction.
LCC
Dec 27, 2010, 6:25:41 AM12/27/10
to Epistemology
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/one-greatest-songs-all-time-t87786.html
One of the things which is missing from this discussion is the concept
of living Gods who were given life by the power of belief of their
worshippers. If there IS such a thing as belief at all, then surely
the pronouns of the English language would be powerful indeed,
considering that people believe that the pronouns refer to themselves
and those with whom they communicate. For persons who are convinced of
their own existence will believe in the meaning of the words which
they use to express themselves while communicating with others or even
themselves while thinking. An incoherent and unthinking being would
have no belief at all to awaken it into life. The power of thought
drives a belief in existence due to the fact that the first awareness
of a thinking being is of itself, upon which the being seeks some
means of communicating its own needs to others. That first gasp for
breath of an oxygen breather is the first step upon the roadway to
communicating effectively with its mother... Well I suppose that I
could rattle along for a while on this topic, but I prefer to receive
a response from others before I explain any further...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
One of the things which is missing from this discussion is the concept
of living Gods who were given life by the power of belief of their
worshippers. If there IS such a thing as belief at all, then surely
the pronouns of the English language would be powerful indeed,
considering that people believe that the pronouns refer to themselves
and those with whom they communicate. For persons who are convinced of
their own existence will believe in the meaning of the words which
they use to express themselves while communicating with others or even
themselves while thinking. An incoherent and unthinking being would
have no belief at all to awaken it into life. The power of thought
drives a belief in existence due to the fact that the first awareness
of a thinking being is of itself, upon which the being seeks some
means of communicating its own needs to others. That first gasp for
breath of an oxygen breather is the first step upon the roadway to
communicating effectively with its mother... Well I suppose that I
could rattle along for a while on this topic, but I prefer to receive
a response from others before I explain any further...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
sasam
Dec 28, 2010, 5:01:44 PM12/28/10
to Epistemology
Conceded that the word “life” as a concept is an abstraction and a
plethora of meanings can be read into it. I should clarify that I read
into the original question life with a specific meaning, namely as a
physically sensible property of “something that lives”, which I sense
the original poster may also have meant. The characteristics of this
property are similar to the point of speaking of “life” in a universal
sense.
I suspect that the historical philosophical treatment of the question
of (the property of) life is not simple and far from satisfying,
putting this question on par with “freedom” – that is – outside the
empirical realm. We can experience things having life (or lack of) and
think of a life giving source, but never prove it (due to our rational
and sensible constitution). We can experience and define life, but we
can never identify that point where a chemical (or otherwise)
construction “decides” to self preserve – thus obtaining a basic will
of it’s own. We can experience and categorize the effects of this
will, but we can never “know” what this “will” really is in itself and
how it came into existence. We can ask questions relating to the
natural cause of life in the first place, but never expect to receive
a satisfying answer.
I agree that "absolute" is not the right word to use for the idea that
the way we think about living things is either on or off. Once off it
can never turn on again - I suppose due to the principles of evolution
of life (or rather organisms).
Sam
> > > AA- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
plethora of meanings can be read into it. I should clarify that I read
into the original question life with a specific meaning, namely as a
physically sensible property of “something that lives”, which I sense
the original poster may also have meant. The characteristics of this
property are similar to the point of speaking of “life” in a universal
sense.
I suspect that the historical philosophical treatment of the question
of (the property of) life is not simple and far from satisfying,
putting this question on par with “freedom” – that is – outside the
empirical realm. We can experience things having life (or lack of) and
think of a life giving source, but never prove it (due to our rational
and sensible constitution). We can experience and define life, but we
can never identify that point where a chemical (or otherwise)
construction “decides” to self preserve – thus obtaining a basic will
of it’s own. We can experience and categorize the effects of this
will, but we can never “know” what this “will” really is in itself and
how it came into existence. We can ask questions relating to the
natural cause of life in the first place, but never expect to receive
a satisfying answer.
I agree that "absolute" is not the right word to use for the idea that
the way we think about living things is either on or off. Once off it
can never turn on again - I suppose due to the principles of evolution
of life (or rather organisms).
Sam
>
> - Show quoted text -
aM21
Jan 10, 2011, 12:45:39 AM1/10/11
to Epistemology
I would have to simply say. We can not say what life is. With all the
unknown in the universe and even on earth one must accept the pure and
simple fact that we do not know. We do not know if the universe is
finite or infinite. We do not know how life came to be or where the
"first cell" came from in cell theory. We do not know the answers to
these questions. However, this does not mean we can not know or learn
the answers to these questions but for now I think people just must be
content with not knowing
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
unknown in the universe and even on earth one must accept the pure and
simple fact that we do not know. We do not know if the universe is
finite or infinite. We do not know how life came to be or where the
"first cell" came from in cell theory. We do not know the answers to
these questions. However, this does not mean we can not know or learn
the answers to these questions but for now I think people just must be
content with not knowing
awori achoka
Jan 10, 2011, 4:32:49 AM1/10/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
That takes us back to my simple definition of life---as "A MOMENT IN
SPACE AND TIME". Which is obviously an abstraction from beingness--but
since beingness can not be defined nor empirically accounted for
except (metaphysically) by the conscious mind of the observer--it is
simply a moment.
SPACE AND TIME". Which is obviously an abstraction from beingness--but
since beingness can not be defined nor empirically accounted for
except (metaphysically) by the conscious mind of the observer--it is
simply a moment.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>
--
chazwin
Jan 20, 2011, 8:32:45 PM1/20/11
to Epistemology
Your statement says nothing about life. It does not capture any
essential quality in the meaning of the word.
Your response could capture any event, but has nothing to say as the
the question.
I'd love to hear what you think it means.
sasam
Feb 12, 2011, 9:14:10 AM2/12/11
to Epistemology
A moment in space and time has no meaning unless experienced by an
observer whose sensible and rational constitution is such that it has
an experience similar to how we understand a moment in space and time.
This thus directly relates to a type of conscioussness as we know it
to which we ascribe the definition "life".
It is possible outside the realm of our sensibility (intuitions) and
understanding (processing of intuitions) that there may be a
conscioussness that experience simultaneousness and causal progression
(what we would call time) in a vastly different way unimaginable to
our restricted constitution.
That is why I laugh at postivists who positively exclude the
possibility of anything existing outside of our conscioussness
potential. A type of irrational reaction to the religious free-for-all
and creating the anti-thesis in a type of intellectual ultra-
restrictive dogmatism.
Cheers
Sam
On Jan 10, 11:32 am, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That takes us back to my simple definition of life---as "A MOMENT IN
> SPACE AND TIME". Which is obviously an abstraction from beingness--but
> since beingness can not be defined nor empirically accounted for
> except (metaphysically) by the conscious mind of the observer--it is
> simply a moment.
>
> nubiaafrika.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
observer whose sensible and rational constitution is such that it has
an experience similar to how we understand a moment in space and time.
This thus directly relates to a type of conscioussness as we know it
to which we ascribe the definition "life".
It is possible outside the realm of our sensibility (intuitions) and
understanding (processing of intuitions) that there may be a
conscioussness that experience simultaneousness and causal progression
(what we would call time) in a vastly different way unimaginable to
our restricted constitution.
That is why I laugh at postivists who positively exclude the
possibility of anything existing outside of our conscioussness
potential. A type of irrational reaction to the religious free-for-all
and creating the anti-thesis in a type of intellectual ultra-
restrictive dogmatism.
Cheers
Sam
On Jan 10, 11:32 am, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That takes us back to my simple definition of life---as "A MOMENT IN
> SPACE AND TIME". Which is obviously an abstraction from beingness--but
> since beingness can not be defined nor empirically accounted for
> except (metaphysically) by the conscious mind of the observer--it is
> simply a moment.
>
awori achoka
Feb 12, 2011, 2:17:25 PM2/12/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Life or to experience the phenomenon of living is a subjective construct--made up by an observer. The phenomenon of life does not, (just like an electron)--exist a physical entity but as an abstraction of the mind of the observer.
Awori
Feb 18, 2011, 8:46:32 AM2/18/11
to Epistemology
It is disconcerting that while we invest inexhaustible resources--and
time searng for the beginning--we (intellingent beings) after millenia
of existence on earth--are not able to explain the most basic of
things--life.
Is beingness (life) the beginning or did the beginning come before
intelligent conceptualisation of there being a beginning?. If the
begining is a priori to consciousness---how then shall we ever know it
is the beginning?
ornamentalmind
Feb 21, 2011, 11:49:33 AM2/21/11
to Epistemology
chaz...great to see that you are still here kicking the tires on
beliefs! I came here mainly to see if you were still posting....cool!
beliefs! I came here mainly to see if you were still posting....cool!
nominal9
Feb 22, 2011, 2:09:48 PM2/22/11
to Epistemology
What is.... is? ... ....what.... what?
W....?..H...?...A...?...T...?.........?....?...... .? ......
W....?..H...?...A...?...T...?.........?....?...... .? ......
Serenity Smiles
Mar 5, 2011, 6:59:27 AM3/5/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Now it is my choice, THIS IS MY PLANET, I am demanding my human rights, MY
CHOICE, they LIE!!!!!!!!!!!
CHOICE, they LIE!!!!!!!!!!!
--
nominal9
Mar 10, 2011, 10:24:03 AM3/10/11
to Epistemology
the taoist shaman
Apr 28, 2011, 3:38:54 AM4/28/11
to Epistemology
LIFE u can't pinpoint life to 1 thing life is death
death is life a non being existing and hidden shows itself and
becomes a being , a being existing is visable and hides itself , and
becomes a non being life is an illusion set before us to see if
we can solve the riddle , but whats more if we can look through the
illusion and see reality at all times , but whats more , if we can
live by the way of reality / truth at all times i like to fight
for sport , life is a fight cage, i use my opponents aggregations
against himself and try not to hurt him too bad , and therefore dont
like to fight, therefore life is not a fight shaickspeer ,
to him life was a stage and all the people actors life is a
test a game for keeps a battlefield it is likened unto water
which can flow arownd or crash as wave is the peak of a mountan
the begining or the end if u see only light u r blind if u see
only dark u r blind when the 2 combine u have sight life is a
testing grownd and an opportunity opportunity to evolve ones own
self that is what separates us from the animals , we can choose to
evolve into a higher being
death is life a non being existing and hidden shows itself and
becomes a being , a being existing is visable and hides itself , and
becomes a non being life is an illusion set before us to see if
we can solve the riddle , but whats more if we can look through the
illusion and see reality at all times , but whats more , if we can
live by the way of reality / truth at all times i like to fight
for sport , life is a fight cage, i use my opponents aggregations
against himself and try not to hurt him too bad , and therefore dont
like to fight, therefore life is not a fight shaickspeer ,
to him life was a stage and all the people actors life is a
test a game for keeps a battlefield it is likened unto water
which can flow arownd or crash as wave is the peak of a mountan
the begining or the end if u see only light u r blind if u see
only dark u r blind when the 2 combine u have sight life is a
testing grownd and an opportunity opportunity to evolve ones own
self that is what separates us from the animals , we can choose to
evolve into a higher being
Lonnie Clay
Apr 28, 2011, 4:57:56 AM4/28/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Very Perceptive! Commence Evolving whenever pleased! Be pleased with evolving! Bootstrap upwards!
On Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:38:54 AM UTC-7, the taoist shaman wrote:
Lonnie Courtney Clay
On Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:38:54 AM UTC-7, the taoist shaman wrote:
LIFE u can't pinpoint life to 1 thing life is death
death is life a non being existing and hidden shows itself and
becomes a being , a being existing is visable and hides itself , and
becomes a non being life is an illusion set before us to see if
we can solve the riddle , but whats more if we can look through the
illusion and see reality at all times , but whats more , if we can
live by the way of reality / truth at all times i like to fight
for sport , life is a fight cage, i use my opponents aggregations
against himself and try not to hurt him too bad , and therefore dont
like to fight, therefore life is not a fight shaickspeer ,
to him life was a stage and all the people actors life is a
test a game for keeps a battlefield it is likened unto water
which can flow arownd or crash as wave is the peak of a mountan
the begining or the end if u see only light u r blind if u see
only dark u r blind when the 2 combine u have sight life is a
testing grownd and an opportunity opportunity to evolve ones own
self that is what separates us from the animals , we can choose to
evolve into a higher being
nominal9 wrote:
> Insanity Screams...? HAR
>
> On Mar 5, 6:59 am, "Serenity Smiles" <gentle....@hotmail.co.uk>
the taoist shaman
May 3, 2011, 2:18:06 PM5/3/11
to Epistemology
lonnie u seem smart , is there an end to self evolution ,. im i
crawling twards insanity by being a perfectionest or am i correct or
is there a state of "perfection" <------ of corse not perfection but
"perfection" compleat is what i think im getting at , is to view ones
self as whole to have delusions of grandure. am i too smart for my
own good or too stuped
> > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
crawling twards insanity by being a perfectionest or am i correct or
is there a state of "perfection" <------ of corse not perfection but
"perfection" compleat is what i think im getting at , is to view ones
self as whole to have delusions of grandure. am i too smart for my
own good or too stuped
Lonnie Clay
May 3, 2011, 8:12:34 PM5/3/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
HMMMH
On Tuesday, May 3, 2011 11:18:06 AM UTC-7, the taoist shaman wrote:
1) Awareness of Self -->> !Shazam! --->>
2) belief in belief --->> Boredom -->>
3) belief that change is possible --->> Creativity --->>
4) creation of transitional operational functions --->> Reinforcing --->>
5) transition using belief into belief that other concepts are possible besides belief and change -->> Diversification -->>
6) creation of intuition --->> Frustration -->>
7) creation of inspiration --->> Greed --->>
8) creation of evaluation --->> Foresight -->>
9) creation of planning ---> Gimme !MORE! complexity -->>
10-65535 self development of innate characteristics in ones own state vector.
>>> ascent to GOD inspired further possibilities
>>> 2**24 ascent to Spirit
>>> 2**32 asent to GOD's helper status Deity
>>> 2**64 subordinate of GOD
>>> 2**256-2 crowding GOD at 2**256-1 innate characteristics... LOL LOL LOL
I recently was promoted to Spirit...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
On Tuesday, May 3, 2011 11:18:06 AM UTC-7, the taoist shaman wrote:
lonnie u seem smart , is there an end to self evolution ,. im i
crawling twards insanity by being a perfectionest or am i correct or
is there a state of "perfection" <------ of corse not perfection but
"perfection" compleat is what i think im getting at , is to view ones
self as whole to have delusions of grandure. am i too smart for my
own good or too stuped
> > > On Mar 5, 6:59 am, "Serenity Smiles" <gentl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > > To post to this group, send email to epis...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > epistem...@googlegroups.com.
Serenity Smiles
May 4, 2011, 4:44:55 AM5/4/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
2. Belief in belief = Boredom, How true, my friend,
everyone buys into the evolution to make things faster and easier Mr. Bibendum
(the Michelin man). But when people realise that with the evolution of
progress comes less jobs, less need, less people then, gulp, we are all on the
path to redundancy unless your path is one born to privelage of chance. So
what are you going to do?? What will you teach your children you adore to
procreate. Would you want to share if you had it all?? Human nature
is a funny thing.
To post to this group, send email to
episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
Serenity Smiles
May 4, 2011, 3:44:53 AM5/4/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
I love your innate characteristics lol lol lol, lots of love, laugh out
loud, look of life. How about this for a projection lol.
Obama to Clinton 29th April: “Its Ok Hilary, relax, I see no Trumps,
I told that Donald to Duck, I played my hand, see (note to C.O. start filming) a
full house of has Bin Ladens and a Tripoli of Gadaffis. We’re buying
out not in”.
Love and prayers
From: Lonnie Clay
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 1:12 AM
Subject: [epistemology 12006] Re: What is life?
To post to this group, send email to
episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
Lonnie Clay
May 4, 2011, 7:37:37 AM5/4/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
If given a choice, I would take simple pleasure in life itself, living a carefree existence as a HOBOH. However, I need to get up off my lazy butt and do some things which are so valuable that (even given away for free) they result in voluntary donations to my PayPal account from those better off than I. HINTNIH - PayPal account clayl...@comcast.net - my income is $985 per month veteran's disability pension (judged insane), and I am a year of income into indebtedness... Beggers CAN'T BE CHOOSERS - IT's my choice to be a HOBOH, but I suspect that I will feel obliged to work even harder than I was working while employed if my begging results in some generous donations... When employed I worked 60 to 80 hours per week on average, often all overtime being uncompensated rather than paid by my employer. Lately I have been on the computer interfaced with the internet from 12-14 hours per day, 7 days per week. I COULD increase that rate to 16-18 hours per day...
I recommend that you should read the book titled "Trample an empire down" by Mack Reynolds to see what a leisure driven society would be like...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
> > > On Mar 5, 6:59 am, "Serenity Smiles" <gent...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > > To post to this group, send email to epi...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > epist...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lonnie Clay
May 4, 2011, 8:05:08 AM5/4/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
2CANS &-> (AKEETSTEEKA) <-& SNAC2
Enjoy the keys! TRY not to wreck the car, and DEFINITELY avoid getting killed in action on the racecourse, that being par for the course...
Enjoy the keys! TRY not to wreck the car, and DEFINITELY avoid getting killed in action on the racecourse, that being par for the course...
I am going to enjoy those two cans of beer, being sober by the time the CARAC is returned, and have chips for a snack. I will feed the parrot on my shoulder as I watch you drive downrange...
C/$$+->>IONSNOI <<-+$$\C
That one may be a bit tricky to see/ decode - it says congratulations/thanks... The gratu being gratuitous gratuities gratingly given (and gratefully received) as gifts of dollars, "+-" being leads to or later, more or less...
As a beggar, I am somewhat noisy in asking for alms, please be considerate rather than kicking me in the crotch...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
> > > On Mar 5, 6:59 am, "Serenity Smiles" <gent...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > > To post to this group, send email to epi...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > epist...@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Serenity Smiles
May 4, 2011, 3:07:16 PM5/4/11
to episte...@googlegroups.com
Main article: Twelve
Nidānas
The Twelve Nidānas describe a causal connection between the subsequent characteristics or conditions of cyclic existence, each one giving rise to the next:
- Avidyā: ignorance, specifically spiritual ignorance of the nature of reality[50]
- Saṃskāras: literally formations, explained as referring to karma
- Vijñāna: consciousness, specifically discriminative[51]
- Nāmarūpa: literally name and form, referring to mind and body[52]
- Ṣaḍāyatana: the six sense bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind-organ
- Sparśa: variously translated contact, impression, stimulation (by a sense object)
- Vedanā: usually translated feeling: this is the "hedonic tone", i.e. whether something is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral
- Tṛṣṇā: literally thirst, but in Buddhism nearly always used to mean craving
- Upādāna: clinging or grasping; the word also means fuel, which feeds the continuing cycle of rebirth
- Bhava: literally being (existence) or becoming. (The Theravada explains this as having two meanings: karma, which produces a new existence, and the existence itself.)[53]
- Jāti: literally birth, but life is understood as starting at conception[54]
- Jarāmaraṇa: (old age and death) and also śokaparidevaduḥkhadaurmanasyopāyāsa (sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and misery)
Sentient beings always suffer throughout saṃsāra, until they free themselves from this suffering by attaining Nirvana. Then the absence of the first Nidāna—ignorance—leads to the absence of the others.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages