Back when my pursuit of the arts of war was a more integral part of my existence, I used to come across articles written by a Grand Master who enthused that the universal purpose of life was 2 b happy. See it deh. Simple, succinct. Profound, even. But then, what is happiness, and is the pursuit of it really our purpose on this mortal coil? I mean, if I and I happiness comes at the expense of I and I, am I justified in this pursuit? It is after all my universal purpose from which I shdn’t b denied.
Even as I penetrate this, something’s off. Happiness can manifest in many ways; a debauched weekend, post coital bliss, familial contentment, or the benefits of an enlightened existence. Happiness itself is both elemental and conceptual. It can spring up on us by surprise in spite of ourselves, or can even b a state we will into existence. Every1 knows at least 1 person who has told themselves that they are happy with a particular situation enough times until the belief is held. Perception becomes reality, or rather desire becomes perception becomes reality. Cld even go as far as 2 say many of us have indulged ourselves thus.
Emerson came at the ting thus: “The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honourable, to be compassionate, to have to make some difference that you have lived and lived well”. That’s a good look right there… or is it? As much as this sounds like a universal truth, it’s somewhat subjective (like happiness!). It’s also dependent upon the context in which the statement is applied. If eugenics was acceptably applied (many revered 20th century leaders were believers in this, including the beloved Winston Churchill), wld the systemised culling of our own b neatly housed under this definition? And beyond that, Emerson’s’ statement implies that function and purpose r the same thing, in which case whatever your designated function, in whatever skism u r contracted 2 (yes, even the social contract, which is the dominant imposition), your practise of said function is the fulfilment of your purpose. Some heads hold this as absolute.
Uh…..yeah.
Now, depending on whatever principles you hold dear, either 1, or both, of the above perspectives contravenes moral rules in some way... not 2 get 2 deep on morality, perhaps a next time, but even if this is the foundation on which I and I can judge purpose, then that ground cld be a little shaky. More than a little as, according 2 greater minds, morality may well b of a transient nature.
Some of the ancients believed that the purpose of a thing was within the thing itself, and wld lead it 2 its final destination, or resting place. Now language being what it was, and concepts of existence being different from what we perceive now, purpose was something within, something integral, not just a quality, but that which exists in order for the thing itself 2 exist, and relative 2 the reality in which it exists.
This purpose thing still bugs me. Happiness. Usefulness. Honour. Love. Destruction. So many others, all wherein I and I can reside. But 2 what end? There it is. The rub, as they say. Peep this. I and I pree this, and the reality (if there is such a thing) or realness is that as much as the truths talked abt and many others promote (positive) purpose, all these things r still functionary. They r facilitated by other functions in order 2 allow other things to happen. In this they r higher, or deeper, functions, but they still exist in order to facilitate more specific things. If I’m happy, it allows me 2 affect those around me, enrich relationships, and so forth. 2 b utilitarian aids efficiency, promotes productivity, reh teh teh… Purpose within purpose? Nah b, function within function.
The ancients mighta been on 2 something. Purpose at creation, but actually not just of a thing, but the thing itself. The origin, the root. The place where the Vibe and the Pressure meet the Universe. Nature.
Yeah, I hear u, “Corrd, big hole yuh a miss, cause naturally, people function on the baser instinct, and then learn 2 function within the fam. Without the learning, chaos Iyah!”. Indeed. But remember, purpose is born of nature, on a core level, conception level. Not only born of, but that which it aspires 2, a true revolution, that eventually comes back 2 itself. The realness. Nature, as both beginning and end, facilitated by the functioning of purpose.
Nature. True nature, not 2 b confused with the baser instinct, which is reactionary and evolutionary, like that which is observed in the natural world. Man is different though, sentient, self aware, intellectual. Yet baser (natural) instinct is the simplest way in which man functions, and can’t b dismissed. If this natural self is the base, where does our nature take us? To what end?
I’ma drop it like this. Man’s true nature is 2 overstand his natural self.
Function (and purpose) becomes relative 2 nature, guiding I and I 2 a higher high. Alpha and Omega.
As the Universe realigns, its time 2 embrace yourself. Don’t b new 2 this, b true 2 this.
p.l.h.o.
Corrd the Seeker
Even as I penetrate this, something’s off. Happiness can manifest in many ways; a debauched weekend, post coital bliss, familial contentment, or the benefits of an enlightened existence. Happiness itself is both elemental and conceptual. It can spring up on us by surprise in spite of ourselves, or can even b a state we will into existence. Every1 knows at least 1 person who has told themselves that they are happy with a particular situation enough times until the belief is held. Perception becomes reality, or rather desire becomes perception becomes reality. Cld even go as far as 2 say many of us have indulged ourselves thus.
Emerson came at the ting thus: “The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honourable, to be compassionate, to have to make some difference that you have lived and lived well”. That’s a good look right there… or is it? As much as this sounds like a universal truth, it’s somewhat subjective (like happiness!). It’s also dependent upon the context in which the statement is applied. If eugenics was acceptably applied (many revered 20th century leaders were believers in this, including the beloved Winston Churchill), wld the systemised culling of our own b neatly housed under this definition? And beyond that, Emerson’s’ statement implies that function and purpose r the same thing, in which case whatever your designated function, in whatever skism u r contracted 2 (yes, even the social contract, which is the dominant imposition), your practise of said function is the fulfilment of your purpose. Some heads hold this as absolute.
Uh…..yeah.
Now, depending on whatever principles you hold dear, either 1, or both, of the above perspectives contravenes moral rules in some way... not 2 get 2 deep on morality, perhaps a next time, but even if this is the foundation on which I and I can judge purpose, then that ground cld be a little shaky. More than a little as, according 2 greater minds, morality may well b of a transient nature.
Some of the ancients believed that the purpose of a thing was within the thing itself, and wld lead it 2 its final destination, or resting place. Now language being what it was, and concepts of existence being different from what we perceive now, purpose was something within, something integral, not just a quality, but that which exists in order for the thing itself 2 exist, and relative 2 the reality in which it exists.
This purpose thing still bugs me. Happiness. Usefulness. Honour. Love. Destruction. So many others, all wherein I and I can reside. But 2 what end? There it is. The rub, as they say. Peep this. I and I pree this, and the reality (if there is such a thing) or realness is that as much as the truths talked abt and many others promote (positive) purpose, all these things r still functionary. They r facilitated by other functions in order 2 allow other things to happen. In this they r higher, or deeper, functions, but they still exist in order to facilitate more specific things. If I’m happy, it allows me 2 affect those around me, enrich relationships, and so forth. 2 b utilitarian aids efficiency, promotes productivity, reh teh teh… Purpose within purpose? Nah b, function within function.
The ancients mighta been on 2 something. Purpose at creation, but actually not just of a thing, but the thing itself. The origin, the root. The place where the Vibe and the Pressure meet the Universe. Nature.
Yeah, I hear u, “Corrd, big hole yuh a miss, cause naturally, people function on the baser instinct, and then learn 2 function within the fam. Without the learning, chaos Iyah!”. Indeed. But remember, purpose is born of nature, on a core level, conception level. Not only born of, but that which it aspires 2, a true revolution, that eventually comes back 2 itself. The realness. Nature, as both beginning and end, facilitated by the functioning of purpose.
Nature. True nature, not 2 b confused with the baser instinct, which is reactionary and evolutionary, like that which is observed in the natural world. Man is different though, sentient, self aware, intellectual. Yet baser (natural) instinct is the simplest way in which man functions, and can’t b dismissed. If this natural self is the base, where does our nature take us? To what end?
I’ma drop it like this. Man’s true nature is 2 overstand his natural self.
Function (and purpose) becomes relative 2 nature, guiding I and I 2 a higher high. Alpha and Omega.
As the Universe realigns, its time 2 embrace yourself. Don’t b new 2 this, b true 2 this.
p.l.h.o.
Corrd the Seeker
Category:
Corrd the Seeker
|
0
comments
Posts
Comments (0)