Same difference i think, rigsy; figure one out, you figure the other by default; i'm not hung up on which.
You're probably right, i think all existential ideas must pivot on the nature of man. Seems to me that Darwin beautifully articulates process; "meaning" is a higher order categorical space that evolution discounts by integration, failing to recognise (or perhaps struggling to understand), IMO, that "meaning" is the finest meme child of "process". Yes, i think the meaning of life, whatever it may be, must be fundamentally and universally teleological; of which our individual purposes constitute a first person kaleidoscopic subset. Big questions this, rigsy; i'm thinking on the fly here, so if you want to rip into them, yes please, feel free :) On Jul 5, 4:16 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Or is it the meaning of death? The ethics are similar to pagan > searches for behavior/reward in many ways. What about Darwin as guide? > Do you think the "meaning of life" is static? > > On Jul 5, 3:59 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > In my humble and very limited opinion MM, no single book encapsulates > > the search for the "meaning of life" quite like The Holy Bible does. > > > On Jul 2, 6:58 pm, Meandering Mind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Anyone have any book/article recommendations on what has influenced their > > > meaning of life regardless of whether or not that you found a meaning. I > > > really don't have very much of a history of reading around this topic and > > > want to get started somewhere. Sometimes it feels like my thoughts are > > > too > > > frantic and circular to get anywhere, so I need something to get off the > > > same track that I travel. > > > > Thanks :D.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
