Origin and return

[Marblehead]

besides we give boats and cars human names and shower them with love so they must be alive

That too is a horse of a different color.

 

It is, however, a demonstration of the rediculosity of labels.

 

(Hehehe. The spell checker didn't like my word "rediculosity".)

[Brian]

You wanted "ridiculousness."

[3bob]

Oh, I forgot to mention that we also converse with our cars and boats and feed them various hydro-carbons thus more "truths" that they are alive.

[dust]

Why has the conversation turned towards defining life, now? Can't remember.

 

As "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter", it's not something that has strict boundaries. And for me, this inability of even modern science -- which is all about definitions and imposing boundaries -- to define 'life' is simply further evidence of the/my Taoist view that there are no real boundaries between anything. It's all a matter of perception.

[Marblehead]

You wanted "ridiculousness."

Hehehe. No, I really wanted "rediculosity" to be a word. Therefore I created it.

 

Isn't it wonderful what our imagination can do?

[Marblehead]

Oh, I forgot to mention that we also converse with our cars and boats and feed them various hydro-carbons thus more "truths" that they are alive.

I think I have mentioned this before but as long as the rocks in my rock collection don't start walking around the house I suppose everything will be okay.

[Marblehead]

Why has the conversation turned towards defining life, now? Can't remember.

Because I inserted the thought that all living things will die. You know, if we can find just one living thing that never dies we will have proof of the possibility for immortality. Some people never give up on hope. (Personally, I rely on money.)

[Marblehead]

It's all a matter of perception.

Yep.

[manitou]

Why has the conversation turned towards defining life, now? Can't remember.

 

As "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter", it's not something that has strict boundaries. And for me, this inability of even modern science -- which is all about definitions and imposing boundaries -- to define 'life' is simply further evidence of the/my Taoist view that there are no real boundaries between anything. It's all a matter of perception.

I think the reason the conversation turned toward defining life is because it all arises from the dust and returns to the dust. Origin and Return.

[dust]

Yeah.. it just seems that, though I don't find Taoism generally at odds with modern science, I do find the tendency of science to limit and define things at odds with the (my) Taoist view that everything is a great togetherness. Perhaps chapter 32 of the TTC illustrates my point (though different translations offer different ideas)

[steve]

Every life origin will return to non-life.

 

How certain are we that it ever left?

 

I think this is a really valuable area of inquiry that manitou and others are pointing to.

An analogy of this is space.

It is difficulty for us to conceptualize "absence" but not only is there empty space but there is full space.

While we feel that solid objects "take up" space - the space remains there along with the object that appears to be occupying it.

In fact, the "solid object" is that space, it is simply that our sensory apparatus that permits us to see, hear, feel, taste, and so on, defines the energetic content of that space in ways that make it seem to us as solid.

It is similar to silence, silence seems to be filled by sound but the silence remains there always, behind the sound, hosting the sound, sound is silence unless there is a tympanic membrane to vibrate connected to neurons that transmit signals to a brain for interpretation.

In a similar way, while we are dreaming our life, we are really never separate from that which is the essence of both life and non-life.

[manitou]

 

Hehehe. Okay, I read the second paragraph. You got spooky again. Oh well.

Well, you know that I'm kind of a spooky old thing...

[Brian]

<sings>

Love is kinda spooky with a groovy little girl like you...

</sings>

[Marblehead]

How certain are we that it ever left?

So far I think it is still at 100% but that might change in the future.

[Marblehead]

<sings>

Love is kinda spooky with a groovy little girl like you...

</sings>

And you leave those little girls alone. Remember, 15 will get you 20.

[manitou]

 

While we feel that solid objects "take up" space - the space remains there along with the object that appears to be occupying it.

In fact, the "solid object" is that space, it is simply that our sensory apparatus that permits us to see, hear, feel, taste, and so on, defines the energetic content of that space in ways that make it seem to us as solid.

It is similar to silence, silence seems to be filled by sound but the silence remains there always, behind the sound, hosting the sound, sound is silence unless there is a tympanic membrane to vibrate connected to neurons that transmit signals to a brain for interpretation.

In a similar way, while we are dreaming our life, we are really never separate from that which is the essence of both life and non-life.

 

 

I think this is absolutely profound, Steve. That's kind of the same thing I was wondering earlier (can't remember if it was this thread). Do you ever wonder if there are other worlds and beings inhabiting this very space, only their sensory organs are different? We could be walking right through them. I could be sitting on someone's lap right now and not know it.

 

And the sound things goes to 'what if a tree falls in the forest and there is no ear to hear it?' Did it make a sound? Even if we set up a tape recorder, it would function as the tympanic membrane and record it.

 

I wish I could remember what type of apparatus Schroedinger set up to determine whether his cat lived or died. But because he devised a way of measurement that did not include an 'observer', the device was unable to tell - the point being that it was impossible without sensory organs. Now, I know someone is going to say 'Duh!' here, but it really was a clever setup that circumvented the sensory, somehow, but one would have inferred that it should have been able to do it anyway; but it couldn't.

 

(And P.S. Brian - isn't it 'Love is kind of groovy with a spooky little girl like you?)

Edited December 5, 2014 by manitou

[3bob]

we have not covered zombie's yet - dead or alive? (or Elvis for that matter)

Edited December 6, 2014 by 3bob

[steve]

So far I think it is still at 100% but that might change in the future.

 

That's the problem...

We thing way too much

[3bob]

dust is a thing thus not origin, that which is in and moves the dust returns to itself where it stands still having never really left except in identification with dust.

[freeform]

Don't you love how a profound and difficult to answer question simply had to turn into a debate about little ideas... I guess that's the problem with a forum, where words are (pretty much) the only way to communicate.

 

The return - that has so many levels. Return to a pre-heavenly state? Return to 'innocence'? Return to death? Return to the spirit realm?

 

I don't take the return as a concept of a final state, but as a process... one that never stops. Return to innocence is one level, return to the source is on another level - but the process of return remains. REturn - suggests a cycle right? Returning to innocence is somehow more profound than just being a child... It's the process of growth and transformation that the return points to.

 

Being innocent, being dead, being in the spirit realm, being in a pre-heaven state are not in themselves 'special' - but the return is. It's a process of growth and transformation, rather than a static state. That's what bring delight.

 

Return is the very 'purpose' of our 'birth' (on every level).

 

PS - I liked the talk about why we practice - practice is contrived and unnatural, right? My take on it is quite the opposite. In fact I believe that we're constantly practicing... You're practicing reading the English language right now... you're practicing sitting (or being in whatever posture that you are in)... Whether we're doing something mundane, spontaneous, wilful, effortless, contrived or not - we're practicing. We can choose what to practice. (Or just allow others to decide for us )

 

PPS - regarding the immortality of life forms... As animals, tardigrades come pretty close... They can survive temperatures from just above absolute zero to many times above boiling. Extreme radiation, the vacuum of space, lack of water are all simply an inconvenience to them. Are they immortal? Not quite - their natural lifecycle is around a year, however they can enter a sort of suspended animation - whether being frozen or completely dehydrated, then they can last indefinitely... certainly over 100yrs.

 

But I do agree that the common definition of 'lifeforms' is very narrow. Planets and even planetary systems share a commonality with our idea of organisms, albeit in a different form to ourselves.

 

PPPS. Clinging to ANY idea and treating it as 'true' or important should be considered entertainment- because that's all it really does, entertain. Kinda like that old and curiously successful iPhone app where you hold a button for as long as possible to get the highest score

Edited December 6, 2014 by freeform

[Marblehead]

we have not covered zombie's yet - dead or alive? (or Elvis for that matter)

I don't talk about zombies.

 

Elvis is alive if we consider: To die but be remembered; that's true long life.

[Marblehead]

That's the problem...

We thing way too much

But then, for most people, the alternative is to sit at the TV or computer and simply believe everything that we read or hear.

 

Better to think, I think.

[Marblehead]

dust is a thing thus not origin, that which is in and moves the dust returns to itself where it stands still having never really left except in identification with dust.

So you are now calling yourself gravity?

[steve]

But then, for most people, the alternative is to sit at the TV or computer and simply believe everything that we read or hear.

 

Better to think, I think.

 

I gave up news several years ago.

Thinking has its place but we do way more than we need, most of us.

[Marblehead]

I gave up news several years ago.

Thinking has its place but we do way more than we need, most of us.

Yeah, I had to take the other side just for a moment.

 

You are right, most of us spend too much time thinking and not enough time living.

 

I do still look at the news on the internet. I want to stay half way informed about what is going on around the world.