They aren't " just are," MB ! They do, take and give, interact with others, with the environment, with the universe at large. The verbs I've used may be read as in " process," not the intention - centred manner or terms in which humans understand. One needs to " be " the tree, to appreciate those verbs.
On Apr 16, 5:16 am, 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
