Worth Re: [FoRK] Faith and/or Science - Newton et al

[Paul Jimenez]

On Wednesday, Nov 28, 2007, "Lion Kimbro" writes:
>On Nov 28, 2007 4:32 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>> >   In your vision of the future, what do people live for?
>>
>> The sake of living.
>>
>> Life doesn't need a "for."
>
>  So, --
>
>  -- I've always **heard** this idea,
>  but it has never really made any sense to me.

Life exists because it exists. If it didn't exist, it would come into
being as soon as conditions were right. It's not magic, it's the result
of a real-world chemical-based hill-climbing algorithm.  Does a ball
have to have a reason to roll down hill?

>  Like the phrase, "We make our own meaning."
>
>  It's just so... ...vacuous.
>
>  "Yes, I make fairy castles in my head, and
>   that is what I live for."  Being bound in nutshells
>  and declaring ourselves kings of infinite space
>  and so on.
>
>  I literally do not understand it.

If that's the meaning that you think people make, then I
understand your lack of understanding.  Let me try:
People make their own meaning though the actions they
take; they decide for themselves what they want their
lives to mean, what changes - great or small, for good
or for ill - they want to work upon the world.

>  People who live for nothing, just don't seem like
>  a whole heck of a lot of fun, to me.  They seem
>  like plants, or trees, or something.
>
>  "What do you do with your days?"
>
>    "Do? ... ... to what end?"

Why do you equate people making their own meaning with
them living for nothing?  Do you think they require
some external influence in order to have something to
live for?

>  May as well just say, "I survive to survive."

Why is it worse to say "I survive to survive" than
it is to say "I paint just to paint" or "I write just
to write"?

Anyway, I think most people aim a little higher than
simple personal survival.  So how about "I survive to
see my family survive"?  or "I survive to see my
community survivie" ?  Are those better?

>  I mean, at least level up to pure hedonism:
>    "I live for great sex with hookers,"
>  ...at least it's SOMETHING!
>
>  But I think there are higher purposes out there than
>  that.

You exist because every single one of your ancestors survived long
enough to have kids. That's how you got here. Any purpose you set
yourself to - curing disease, being a hedonist, or just being a
good parent - is orthogonal to how you got here. 

The results of your self-directed purpose only have meaning in the long
term in terms of how they affect subsequent generations' ability to
survive and have kids. Curing disease, being a hedonist, and being a
good parent all have such effects either plus or minus at scales
large or small or in between.

>  My theory of meaning is that all love naturally
>  gravitates towards love for all of life, as we grow
>  more conscious of the world.

Piffle.  Loving "all life" is a luxury you can afford
because you're so divorced from the struggle for survival
at that level.  How much love for all life would you show
if you were stuck on a desert island with only live bunny
rabbits to hunt and eat?

The universe goes to the survivors, by definition.

  --pj