The meaning of life

[Harbal]

By the way I could PRESUME that when you wrote, 'Or do you mean something else?', that, besides me just answering the ACTUAL QUESTION that you posed and asked me, you ALSO want me to EXPLAIN what that 'something else' IS, EXACTLY. BUT, I do NOT like to ASSUME NOR PRESUME absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

Furthermore, EVERY 'thing', including EVERY human being, IS 'created', and thus it could be said or argued is 'placed here', and what the 'predetermined function' IS, EXACTLY, does BECOME KNOWN, but 'predetermined' does NOT mean what most of 'you', in the days when this is being written, PRESUME 'it' means. Also, 'strive' is CERTAINLY NOT the word I would USE here.

Look, Age, it must be obvious to you by now that I want you to explain the nature of the "purpose" you say human beings have. Why on earth would you think it presumtuous or assumptive to just tell me what that "something else" is, when I clearly want to know? So please just explain, and don't forget to include what you mean by "predetermined".

[Age]

So, are you here TELLING 'me' that 'you', human beings, are NOT ABLE TO KNOW "yourselves"?

If yes, then this HELPS in EXPLAINING WHY, hitherto to the days when this was being written, NONE of 'you' could YET answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly AND correctly.

Yes, the days when this was being written, nothing is known.

But, LOTS WAS KNOWN.

It is only upon reading back on what was written was something apparently known.

BUT, this is ALSO NOT True.

Looking back is research, and research is another form of necrophilia..in other words, thinking about dead stuff.

one does NOT have to LOVE 'death' to 'think about death'.

[Age]

EXCEPT FOR 'I', Consciousness and Life, thy 'Self - Thee Knower AND Seer of ALL.

NOPE, this is not entirely true....WHY, because, the I ..the Consciousness .. the Self ... the Knower and the Seer are all known concepts....and that which is known as a concept knows nothing.

But 'they' are NOT just 'known as concepts' but 'they' are ALSO 'concepts' of 'that', which IS KNOWN.

Concepts do not know,

NO one that I KNOW of has EVER said concepts do. So, I am NOT sure WHY you keep going back to these sort of REDUNDANT comments.

concepts are known by the only knowing there is which is this immediate unknowing known.

BUT, according to your OWN so-called "logic" here "dontaskme", 'this immediate unknowing known' is a 'known concept', and thus 'this immediate unknowing known' can NOT know ANY 'thing', as 'known concept', to 'you', ONLY know nothing.

WHY do 'you' CONTRADICT "your" OWN WORDS here, SO OFTEN?

[Dontaskme]

But, LOTS WAS KNOWN.

Nothing is known until knowing becomes known as and through it's conceptual conception which is an artificial overlay upon unknowing.

one does NOT have to LOVE 'death' to 'think about death'.

Nothing is either dead nor alive, but thought itself.

[Dontaskme]

NO one that I KNOW of has EVER said concepts do. So, I am NOT sure WHY you keep going back to these sort of REDUNDANT comments.

They are in response to your redundant comments.

No one known, can make a redundant comment, it would appear redundant, since the no one known knows nothing.

[Belinda]

Age wrote:

Any one can USE ANY 'thing' ANY WAY they like. 'you' are ALL, literally, FREE to do so. However, WHEN 'you' USE words absolutely ANY WAY 'you' like, then do NOT be to surprised if "others" have NO idea NOR clue as to what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' are SAYING, and MEANING.

That's the Humpty Dumpty question and it deserves an answer.
It's socially accepted that the transmitter of a message is responsible for its clarity. The lexicon should be chosen to suit the social situation which may include foreigners or children and others who have not learned sophisticated metaphors, or professional jargon.

Poets typically use novel symbols in their language. Even poets must consider their audience and use symbols that chime with common experiences. However it's reasonable that everyone in an internet discussion can look up a dictionary or the basics of an academic discipline such as linguistics. To be precise, sociolinguistics.

[Belinda]

Age wrote in reply to me:

you are absolutely FREE to SAY, and even CLAIM whatever you like. But HOW can 'its existence' precede 'its essence' WHEN you just SAID and CLAIMED there is 'NO essence'?

The essence of a thing or an event is a social construct. The essence is added after the event . The socially approved essence of anything may evolve into something else. For instance cabin trunks were essentially containers you packed your things in when you were going on a sea voyage. Now, cabin trunks are socially accepted as essentially coffee tables. Less trivially, Christians were once essentially those people who had sound moral codes , whereas now (among many social groups) Christians are essentially religious eccentrics. Language and its meanings change as society changes. Sometimes this happens spontaneously and sometimes changes are arbitrary e.g. some utterances are illegal. Sometimes clever people such as politicians, poets, or novelists deliberately change public consciousness.

[Age]

By the way I could PRESUME that when you wrote, 'Or do you mean something else?', that, besides me just answering the ACTUAL QUESTION that you posed and asked me, you ALSO want me to EXPLAIN what that 'something else' IS, EXACTLY. BUT, I do NOT like to ASSUME NOR PRESUME absolutely ANY 'thing' here.

Furthermore, EVERY 'thing', including EVERY human being, IS 'created', and thus it could be said or argued is 'placed here', and what the 'predetermined function' IS, EXACTLY, does BECOME KNOWN, but 'predetermined' does NOT mean what most of 'you', in the days when this is being written, PRESUME 'it' means. Also, 'strive' is CERTAINLY NOT the word I would USE here.

Look, Age, it must be obvious to you by now that I want you to explain the nature of the "purpose" you say human beings have.

Are you AWARE that you have only used these words together like this TWICE BEFORE, and ONE of those times was in reply to someone "ELSE"?

And, if I SAID TO 'you' that I WANT 'you' to explain the nature of some 'thing' 'you' say human beings have, then what is 'it' that you would think or BELIEVE I WANTED, EXACTLY?

To me, the 'nature' of the 'purpose' 'you', human beings, have is, literally, just A Natural INSTINCT WITHIN ALL of 'you'.

Why on earth would you think it presumtuous or assumptive to just tell me what that "something else" is, when I clearly want to know?

LOOK, it is NOT presumptuous NOR assumptive to just ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed and asked.

BUT, it is VERY PRESUMPTUOUS AND ASSUMPTIVE to PROVIDE ANY 'thing' MORE than is ASKED FOR.

So please just explain,

ALREADY HAVE, above.

and don't forget to include what you mean by "predetermined".

WHY do you say, 'don't forget', when this is the FIRST TIME ANY one mentioned to include what I mean by 'predetermined'.

What I mean by 'predetermined' is WHEN 'you', human beings, START to come-to-see and KNOW who and what the 'I' IS, EXACTLY, then 'you' will ALSO SEE, UNDERSTAND, as well as KNOW HOW the 'goal' or 'end result' was ACTUALLY ALWAYS GOING TO HAPPEN, and so WAS ALWAYS DETERMINED TO HAPPEN.

See, although 'you' ALL have 'free will', that is the ability to CHOOSE, ALL of 'your' CHOICES can ONLY be made upon a particular 'set of choices', of which EVERY one of them WAS pre-determined by ALL of 'your' INDIVIDUAL past experiences.

By the way, me just EXPLAINING SOME 'things', here in this forum, will NOT provide ALL of the answers, which are NEEDED for the WHOLE and BIG Picture to be CLEARLY SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD. But, at least 'you', "harbal", do SHOW that PROGRESS can be made by BEING CURIOS and by ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

[Age]

But, LOTS WAS KNOWN.

Nothing is known until knowing becomes known as and through it's conceptual conception which is an artificial overlay upon unknowing.

Okay, well this CLEARED 'things' up here for EVERY one, right?

one does NOT have to LOVE 'death' to 'think about death'.

Nothing is either dead nor alive, but thought itself.

And which one is 'thought', itself?

Dead OR alive?

[Age]

NO one that I KNOW of has EVER said concepts do. So, I am NOT sure WHY you keep going back to these sort of REDUNDANT comments.

They are in response to your redundant comments.

No one known, can make a redundant comment, it would appear redundant, since the no one known knows nothing.

This is just DEFLECTION, AGAIN.

[Age]

Age wrote:

Any one can USE ANY 'thing' ANY WAY they like. 'you' are ALL, literally, FREE to do so. However, WHEN 'you' USE words absolutely ANY WAY 'you' like, then do NOT be to surprised if "others" have NO idea NOR clue as to what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that 'you' are SAYING, and MEANING.

That's the Humpty Dumpty question and it deserves an answer.

BUT I NEVER EVEN ASKED NOR ALLUDED TO ANY QUESTION here.

I just SAID, do NOT be to surprised if "others" do NOT KNOW what you are talking ABOUT WHEN you USE words in WAYS you like.

It's socially accepted that the transmitter of a message is responsible for its clarity.

Well NO wonder those societies you live in, in the days when this is being written, are so Truly CONFUSED and MESSED UP.

How does ANY one of you EXPECT ANY one of you to KNOW how to TRANSMIT A 'message' in A WAY that would be UNDERSTOOD with FULL CLARITY for absolutely EVERY one who comes across 'the message'?

Just LOOK IN this forum, absolutely NO one has transmitted A 'message', which ANY SIGNIFICANT 'meaning' and had 'it' UNDERSTOOD, WITH CLARITY, by ALL of the readers here.

Even this ONE sentence and 'message' that 'you' just TRANSMITTED here "belinda" was NOT DONE WITH CLARITY.

And, to me, IF ANY one EXPECTS, or thinks it is ONLY 'socially accepted', that the transmitter of a message HOLDS the RESPONSIBILITY for CLARITY, then this is just FURTHER PROOF of just how SICK and ABSURD those 'societies' REALLY WERE, back in the days when this was being written.

The lexicon should be chosen to suit the social situation which may include foreigners or children and others who have not learned sophisticated metaphors, or professional jargon.

I do NOT even KNOW what the word 'lexicon' means or refers to, EXACTLY. But yet here 'you' are transmitting a 'message' DIRECTLY in response to me. So, WHERE is the so-called 'socially accepted RESPONSIBILITY for CLARITY' on 'your' part here?

AGAIN, it comes back to HOW could ANY person transmitting ANY 'message' KNOW, EXACTLY and FOR SURE, what EVERY "OTHER" person KNOWS who WILL RECEIVE 'the message'?

Poets typically use novel symbols in their language. Even poets must consider their audience and use symbols that chime with common experiences. However it's reasonable that everyone in an internet discussion can look up a dictionary or the basics of an academic discipline such as linguistics.

BUT:

1. DIFFERENT dictionaries HAVE and USE DIFFERENT definitions for words.

2. The SAME dictionary can HAVE and USE MANY DIFFERENT definitions for words.

3. The SAME word can HAVE and USE completely OPPOSING definitions.

4. So, WHICH dictionary, and WHICH definition, am I supposed to LOOK UP and USE when 'the message' is coming from 'you', "belinda"?

To be precise, sociolinguistics.

Which MEANS 'what', EXACTLY?

And, AGAIN, WHICH dictionary SHOULD I LOOK IN if I am NOT to ask 'you', DIRECTLY, this CLARIFYING QUESTION?

[Dontaskme]

This is just DEFLECTION, AGAIN.

Yes, I agree, it is very superfluous.

[Age]

Age wrote in reply to me:

you are absolutely FREE to SAY, and even CLAIM whatever you like. But HOW can 'its existence' precede 'its essence' WHEN you just SAID and CLAIMED there is 'NO essence'?

The essence of a thing or an event is a social construct.

AND, HOW BIG or SMALL is A 'social'?

The essence is added after the event .

So, the 'essence' of 'being human' was added AFTER 'human beings' were created/evolved, and NOT BEFORE NOR DURING, correct?

And, WHEN was the 'essence of a dinosaur' added, EXACTLY?

AFTER they went extinct and human beings came to exist? Or, at some OTHER time?

The socially approved essence of anything may evolve into something else. For instance cabin trunks were essentially containers you packed your things in when you were going on a sea voyage. Now, cabin trunks are socially accepted as essentially coffee tables.

IN 'what' country or culture, and, to 'who', EXACTLY?

AND WHEN 'you' say 'now', WHEN do you ACTUALLY MEAN.

See, if the so-called 'socially approved' 'essence' of some 'thing' may evolve, then WHEN and at WHAT MOMENT does one KNOW they have the Right so-called 'socially accepted essence' or NOT?

Less trivially, Christians were once essentially those people who had sound moral codes ,

LOL WHEN has ANY adult human being EVER had a 'sound moral code'?

And, IF ANY one of 'them' HAD a so-called 'sound moral code', then would it NOT have been a VERY 'sound' AND 'moral' 'thing' to do to just SHARE 'that' 'sound moral code' with the REST of humanity?

"christian" has ALWAYS just been a name or label placed on SOME 'human beings' who have a particular way of LOOKING AT and/or SEEING 'the world'. Or, in other words, the label "christian" is just a label placed on SOME 'human beings' WITH SOME PARTICULAR 'thoughts' and 'thinking'.

whereas now (among many social groups) Christians are essentially religious eccentrics.

And, among OTHER social groups "christians" are, so-called 'essentially' some OTHER 'thing'.

So, WHICH one of these VERY DIFFERENT 'social groups' do you suggest 'we' ALL follow and abide by?

After all, it could be argued, that there ARE just as MANY 'social groups' as there are living 'people'.

Language and its meanings change as society changes.

OBVIOUSLY, and IRREFUTABLE.

Sometimes this happens spontaneously and sometimes changes are arbitrary e.g. some utterances are illegal. Sometimes clever people such as politicians, poets, or novelists deliberately change public consciousness.

And SOME 'times' NON so-called 'clever' people DELIBERATELY CHANGE so-called 'public consciousness'.

But, are you here trying to argue FOR or AGAINST your CLAIM that, 'No word has an essential meaning'.

By the way, what do you essentially mean by 'essential' here?

[Age]

This is just DEFLECTION, AGAIN.

Yes, I agree, it is very superfluous.

So, WHY do 'you' write in a VERY 'superfluous' way, "dontaskme'?

[Belinda]

age asked:

By the way, what do you essentially mean by 'essential' here?

The proposition that existence precedes essence (French: l'existence précède l'essence) is a central claim of existentialism, which reverses the traditional philosophical view that the essence (the nature) of a thing is more fundamental and immutable than its existence (the mere fact of its being).[1] To existentialists, human beings—through their consciousness—create their own values and determine a meaning for their life because the human being does not possess any inherent identity or value. That identity or value must be created by the individual. By posing the acts that constitute them, they make their existence more significant.[2][3]