I apologize if this article is slightly confusing, and late. The origonal draft didn't make it through the moderators quote-screens. So I did violence to it, but if you remember the article I am responding to it should still make sence.  In article 1850@geneva.rutgers.edu, jsledd@ssdc.sas.upenn.edu (James Sledd) writes: >Hi Xian Netters,  God bless you  What, no hello for heathan netters?  I feel all left out now. :(  [deletia- table of content, intro, homosexuality]  > >INCREDIBLY CHOPPED UP POST  [deletia- incorrect attributions]  Uh, you have your attributions wrong, you were responding to my article, so Dan Johnson should be the 1st one.  >In article 28388@athos.rutgers.edu, jayne@mmalt.guild.org  >(Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:  [deletia- no free gifts speil nuked by moderator fiat.]  >I find that I am dissatisfied with the little purposes that we can >manufacture for ourselves.  Little in the cosmic sense.  Ah, in the _cosmic_ sence.. but who lives in the cosmic sence? Not me! Cosmicly, we don't even exist for all practical purposes. I can hardly use the Cosmic Sence Of Stuff as a guide to life. It would just say: "don't bother."  Luckily for mortals, there are many sences of scale you can talk about. In a human sence, you can have big purposes.  >  Even the >greatest of the great pharos are long gone, the pyramids historical >oddities being worn down by the wind, eventually to be turned into dust.  But the influence of Aristotle, Confucious, Alexander, Ceasar and countless others is still with us, although their works have perished.  But they have changed to course of history, and while humanity exists, their deeds cannot be said to have come to nothing, even if they are utterly forgotten.  >Mankind itself will one day perish.  One day, surely. (well, unless you believe in the Second Coming, which I do not)  But in that time we can make a difference.  > Without some interconnectedness >that transcends the physical, without God, it is all pointless in the >end.  In the end. But it must be the end; until then, there is all the point you can muster. And when that end comes, there will be nobody to ask, "Gee, I don't think James Sledd's deeds are gonna make much of a difference, ulitmately, ya know?".  But they will have already have made a difference, great or small, before the end.  Why must your ends be eternal to be worthwhile?  >  Most people are able to live with that, and for them little >purposes (success, money, power, effecting change, helping others) >suffice.  Little is in the eye of the beholder, of course.  >  I suppose they never  think about the cosmic scale, or are at >least able to put it out of their minds.  I don't doubt it. But I have thought about the cosmic scale. And it does not seem to mean much to us, here, today.  >To me, it is comforting to know that reality is an illusion.  I would not find this comforting. But perhaps it is merely my definitions. Here's what I think the relevant terms are:  "Reality"	That which is real. "Illusion"	That which is not real, but seems to be. "Real"		Objectively Existing  For "reality" to be an "illusion" would mean, then:  That which is real is not real, but seems to be.  Or:  That which objectively exists, does not objectively exist, but does seem to objectively exist.  From which we can conclude, that unless you want to get a contradiction, that no things objectively exist.  But I have a problem with this because I would like to say that *I* objectively exist, if nothing else. Cogito Ergo Sum and all that.  Perhaps you do not mean all that, but rather mean: "Objective Reality is Unreachable by humans."  Which is not so bad, and so far as I know is true.  >  That the >true reality underneath the the physical is spirit.  Have on. If reality is an illusion, isn't True Reality an illusion too? And if True Reality is spirit, doens't that make Spirit an Illusion as well?  If I am not distinctly confused, this is getting positively Buddhist.  >  That this world is a school of sorts, where we learn >and grow, and our souls mature.  That is one hell of a statement, although perhaps true.  Do you mean to imply that it was *intended* to be so? If so, please show that this is true. If not, please explain how this can give a purpose to anything.  > That gives a purpose to my little purposes,  How does it do that?  Wouldn't the world=school w/ intent idea make the world a preparation for some *greater* purpose, rather than a purpose in itself.  > and takes some of the pressure off.  What pressure?  >  It's not so necessary to make this life a success in human terms >if you're really just here to learn.  It is not necessary to be a success in human terms, unless your goals either include doing so or require doing so before they themselves can be achived.  Indeed, many people have set goals for themselves that do not include success in human terms as _I_ understand it. Check out yer Buddhist monk type guy. Out for nirvana, which is not at all the same thing.  >  It's more important to progress, >grow, persist, to learn to love yourself and others and to express your >love, especially when it's dificult to do so.  Honest effort is rewarded >by God, he knows our limitations.  Why is learning to love a goal? What happens if you fail in this goal? To you? To God? To the mysterious Purpose?   [deletia- question about immortailty and my answer deleted because it was  mostly quote.]  >TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS/INVITATIONS TO DISCUSSION >1. What is the nature of eternal life? >2. How can we as mortals locked into space time conceive of it? > >Possible answer for #2: The best we can do is Metaphor/Analogy >Question 2A  What is the best metaphor?  I'll have a crack at that.  (1) The nature of eternal life is neatly described by its name: It is the concept of life without death, life without end.  (2) No. We can put together word to describe it, but we cannot imagine it.  (2a) No metaphor is adequate next to eternity; if it were we could not understand it either. (or so I suspect) --- 			- Dan Johnson And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0