fallen camarade
19th October 2004, 17:20
WAAAAY back, when I first started coming on these forums, I made a whole bunch of not-so-popular claims (some things never change..) all at once without even introducing myself. People found my ideas to be odd or senseless, when the reality of it was that my ideas or anyone elses ideas about the origin of life and other such highly debated topics or no more valid than the next thought, because as far as finding answers goes, we are still at the same damn spot we were before. I was very upset when I gave out a theory I had thought of, and everyone simply picked apart choice words instead of really giving a new idea a chance. That is my main issue with some of the people I've come in contact with on here: they refuse to open up to new ideas. One must be careful not to accept everything, but to call yourself a philosopher and not at least hear someone out who has an interesting thought is just bullshit. I will back that thought until the day I die.
I recently found, however, that my old idea was not so far fetched, as a highly respected thinker of the past who went by the name of Gurdjieff bascially said the same thing, except he was much more detailed in his explanation.
Here is a fair piece of the original post I made that got everyone so worked up...
In here, a bunch of idiots say "Oh, the meaning of life is being an intellectual, or being really spiritual" or something like that. What people don't think about is A) humans are not the only living species on Earth B) What ever the "meaning of life" is, had to be true since the dawn of life on Earth, and C) The "meaning of life" might not actually have anything to do with a benefit for the life forms themselves. With this in mind, It has to be something more primitive, it has to apply to all life, and it has to be a part of a "bigger picture". With this in mind, I've come up with a possible idea, which is a sort of mixture of The Gaea Theory, and Epircurus' theories on atomic life.
We are "batteries". Each planet is a giant ecosystem that is balanced by many seperate elements. Each planet relies on different balances of these elements to "survive". Humans, and other life forms, are just an element. There is no meaning of life in the sense that we as human beings ultimately benefit, but the meaning of life, is to maintain Earth's life. We are made up of atoms or something of that sort of nature, and upon death, our corpses nurture the soil, and the other life forms that in order to maintain their species' balance, they must feed on us. Perhaps the brain's energy or something plays into that, but I'm not sure. There is no full way to justify this, but it seems to make sense.
I got a whole lot of negative feedback on this. However, I recently visited the website of Daniel Pinchbeck, my favorite writer and author of my favorite book Breaking Open the Head, and found that I was not so alone in this thought. Pinchbeck is a pretty firm believer in Gurdjieff and did an essay that summarized his basic ideas.
http://www.breakingopenthehead.com/about_the_author_ce2.htm
That link will bring you to the essay. I'd like to know how you all think about these theories. I realize it will require some of you that are thick-headed and radically stubborn to...you know..think outside of your typical ideologies for a second, but I think it's a fairly valid idea that has been repeated in slightly different forms over the past.
A review of my thoughts in comparison to Gurdjieff's would be very helpful, and any thought's on the belief itself would be, I think, an interesting thing to discuss.
I recently found, however, that my old idea was not so far fetched, as a highly respected thinker of the past who went by the name of Gurdjieff bascially said the same thing, except he was much more detailed in his explanation.
Here is a fair piece of the original post I made that got everyone so worked up...
In here, a bunch of idiots say "Oh, the meaning of life is being an intellectual, or being really spiritual" or something like that. What people don't think about is A) humans are not the only living species on Earth B) What ever the "meaning of life" is, had to be true since the dawn of life on Earth, and C) The "meaning of life" might not actually have anything to do with a benefit for the life forms themselves. With this in mind, It has to be something more primitive, it has to apply to all life, and it has to be a part of a "bigger picture". With this in mind, I've come up with a possible idea, which is a sort of mixture of The Gaea Theory, and Epircurus' theories on atomic life.
We are "batteries". Each planet is a giant ecosystem that is balanced by many seperate elements. Each planet relies on different balances of these elements to "survive". Humans, and other life forms, are just an element. There is no meaning of life in the sense that we as human beings ultimately benefit, but the meaning of life, is to maintain Earth's life. We are made up of atoms or something of that sort of nature, and upon death, our corpses nurture the soil, and the other life forms that in order to maintain their species' balance, they must feed on us. Perhaps the brain's energy or something plays into that, but I'm not sure. There is no full way to justify this, but it seems to make sense.
I got a whole lot of negative feedback on this. However, I recently visited the website of Daniel Pinchbeck, my favorite writer and author of my favorite book Breaking Open the Head, and found that I was not so alone in this thought. Pinchbeck is a pretty firm believer in Gurdjieff and did an essay that summarized his basic ideas.
http://www.breakingopenthehead.com/about_the_author_ce2.htm
That link will bring you to the essay. I'd like to know how you all think about these theories. I realize it will require some of you that are thick-headed and radically stubborn to...you know..think outside of your typical ideologies for a second, but I think it's a fairly valid idea that has been repeated in slightly different forms over the past.
A review of my thoughts in comparison to Gurdjieff's would be very helpful, and any thought's on the belief itself would be, I think, an interesting thing to discuss.