I don't think there would be much of the Amazon rain forest if it were not for the protective element of the forest canopy providing the precise growing environment for the cornucopia of medicinal rich flora aside from other riches such as fruits, nuts, oils and sustainable resources like rubber, chocolate etc.... Considering the devastation resulting from the loss of this bio-active natural resource (now in progress) and it's pharmacopoeia, one would have to wonder if there is not an ascribed purpose. Further examination will reveal that planetary functionality is extremely suited to our survivability (prior to our decimation of it) so we could easily ask "why are we here?" or "why is everything so set up for us to live here?" What are the other implications of "purpose with intent"? IF clouds, rain, wind, storms, grass, trees, lakes, rivers, streams, mountains, terrestrial and aquatic life etc. is "purpose with intent" , then what is the origin of the intent? Obviously we are the recipients of such purpose and at the top of the food chain. We tap into any and every resource regardless of the ramifications, be them positive or negative, detrimental or advantageous. Were we dumped out of a parallel universe because of our deviance in self control, immoral tendencies and overall defiance of natural law? Are we the results of a species cleansing in some other cosmos? Considering that we conduct ethnic cleansing here I find it highly possible that species cleansing is a viable theory.
On Apr 15, 7:16 pm, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > I will argue that purpose does require intent, but not in the way > several posts on this thread have implied. A tree can have a purpose > without itself being sentient or having intentionality, but only if > someone else with sentience and intentionality put that tree there for > a particular purpose (e.g. God). > > I think Gruff's original point was that it doesn't make sense to talk > about purpose without assuming intentionality. But we can still > ascribe purpose to trees without ascribing intentionality to trees - > you just have to look to the person or process that put those trees > there, if any. > > (Of course, as to my personal views, I don't think there is any > intentionality behind any particular tree - because I don't believe in > a divine spirit that set down the trees - and so I don't think trees > have a purpose; they just are.) > > On Apr 15, 4:49 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "One's intent is not always the others purpose,..........", Monk. > > That is exactly the point; not equating purpose with intent in Vam's > > reply to Gruff. That was the whole idea, for the sake of thread flow > > at the least, to establish purpose as non synonymous with intent/ > > drive, which you seem to be reinforcing with that comment. The tree > > has purpose in that it serves a purpose without intent or personal > > drive. We did not create the tree nor give it purpose, it is there as > > one component of a intricate network within the composite of our > > planetary confine. It is an integral unit that contributes to the > > sustenance of life, is a vital precondition of living organism > > survival and further a desideratum of humanity for the sake of > > emotional gratification, in fact much of the time we plant in order to > > provide pleasure stimuli. The vast assortment of arboretum species > > allows for selective personal gratification. Still there are those > > who would rather raze the land with total disregard for importance of > > tree purpose. Keep hugging your tree. it may save you during a flood. > > > On Apr 15, 2:40 am, monkebus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I hug my tree daily, but I don't agree that we have established that > > > "purpose is not synonymous > > > with Intent " One's intent is not always the others purpose, though we > > > like to tell ourselves that as we stack our random thoughts while our > > > brains try to give those thoughts purpose and intent other than > > > consuming, eliminating, or reproducing. > > > > On Apr 15, 12:58 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes, but now that Vam has established that Purpose is not synonymous > > > > with Intent and Drive, we can clearly see that trees have Purpose, > > > > whether they enjoy having it or not is irrelevant as they still > > > > provide enjoyment for many species irrespective of intent. Have you > > > > talked to your tree lately? > > > > > On Apr 15, 12:04 am, monkebus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Trees are an intricate stack of cells that consume, eliminate, and > > > > > reproduce. But they don't stack things for their own enjoyment or the > > > > > enjoyment of others like we clever humans do. > > > > > > On Apr 14, 11:45 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Nice breakdown with purpose, intent and drive, Vam, it puts it in a > > > > > > much clearer perspective. > > > > > > I think this also coincides rather well with my post on the 10th > > > > > > 7:53pm, especially the trees. > > > > > > > On Apr 14, 10:46 pm, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Rocks become sand and clay, Gruff ! > > > > > > > > I see that as being its purpose. Imagine how else would we have > > > > > > > created our dwellings, worn clothes and eaten juicy melons ! > > > > > > > > In my view, the " purpose " need not be synonimous with intent or > > > > > > > drive. It may just lie in " consequences " or " usefulness," to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > rest of the creation down the line. > > > > > > > > Along these lines, trees are very much laden with purposes ! > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 4:09 am, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Purpose presupposes sentience. Rocks have no purpose other > > > > > > > > than being > > > > > > > > a rock, if one can call that a purpose. I can't. But sentient > > > > > > > > creatures can have purpose. Purpose I believe is a choice, at > > > > > > > > least > > > > > > > > in creatures of higher intelligence, and since we are the > > > > > > > > highest > > > > > > > > intelligence in the known universe we have the greatest ability > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > create and choose purpose, which we do. Our purpose -- at > > > > > > > > least as > > > > > > > > far back as cave art -- is self defined, and given that much I > > > > > > > > suspect > > > > > > > > ever since our minds became elevated above all others we have > > > > > > > > chosen > > > > > > > > our own purpose. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
