Why are we living? LO30767

From: Don Dwiggins (d.l.dwiggins@computer.org)
Date: 11/09/03

Replying to LO30754 --

Dear At,

It's hard to express how good it is to "hear your voice" again.

To add my bit to the dialog on the question you asked in LO30754; I'll
hang it on the following thought:

> I ought to have stopped now. But i still have to tell that i see clearer
> than ever before that life is the "umlomo" (centre or mouthpiece) of the
> associativity pattern of wholeness, i.e.,

> "material world" * life * "spiritual world"

> Without life these two worlds cannot be connected into one whole.
> Death breaks these two worlds apart by removing life as the "umlomo"
> of the associativity pattern of wholeness. Is this the answer to the
> question "why are we living?", i.e., are we living to manifest the
> wholeness of the universe?

In Buddhist practice, there are meditations to draw one out of one's
narrow "spiritual skin" and connect with all life, worldwide, past,
and future. Such connections offer one answer to the question, in that
they give the self a larger context to see it in. Thus, they also
provide an umlomo, relating human life to all life. On a more
familiar scale, we see such mediators all around us; for a simple
example, a parent with dependent children has no need to ask the
question about his/her own life.

> I wonder because of all the human slaughter on this world. If this is
> actually the answer, then inflicting death can never be justified.

And yet, we cannot live without inflicting death on our fellow
creatures (as you've described so well in your articles about The
Digestor). Also, our continuation and growth as a species depends on
the death of individuals; we each have a life to give, then a death to
give. (Mary Renault, in her novels about Theseus: "The King Must Die"
and "The Bull from the Sea", gives some interesting perspectives on
this.) Perhaps the question at hand should be seen in conjunction
with another: "why do we die?" (This line of thinking should not be
taken to justify all killing; wanton, cruel, or senseless destruction
have a negative effect on the wholeness of life.)

Without worrying about the literal truth of the Gaia hypothesis, an
answer (to both questions) that works well for me, as I am now, is "to
contribute to the growth of the life of Gaia".

A learner in the love of life,


Don Dwiggins d.l.dwiggins@computer.org There are only four questions of value in life, Don Octavio. What is sacred? Of what is the spirit made? What is worth living for? And what is worth dying for? The answer to each is the same: only love. -- From _Don Juan DeMarco_ (1995)

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.