Purpose of Life

Slowing down seems to be quite an issue in the US, where the frantic pace of life seems to be wearing people thin, and yet so few seem to be clear on where they are headed with so much hustle and bustle. Like Stephen Covey says, they climb a ladder all their lives, and reach the top only to find it was up against the wrong wall!

Here in South America it is the other way around; sometimes I think we need to turn the tempo up a few notches. Life is so much more laid back and people are so much more important than the job at hand or than “things”, that the latter two often get the short end of the deal. There must be a happy medium somewhere between the two cultures!

However, somehow the idea of slowing down makes me uneasy, not just because I am a firm believer in pacing oneself by finding and maintaining one’s Optimum Stress Level (OSL), but also because my interest in “Future Studies” has led me to conclude that we are fortunate enough to be alive in this incredible period of history when we can experience first hand the monumental, earth-cleansing whirl-wind cause by the final death and disintegration of a corrupt old world and simultaneous birth and integration of a wonderful new world. And we can choose to be either the victims, spectators or protagonists of this fascinating drama.

Some say that the writings of their religion say: "We are born, we try to have a good time, we die, finis!" and that they are not looking for any major change. I challenge this and invite them to question it, as it is a way of thinking that is very typical of first-world, opulent societies (15% of us), but is preposterous and even offensive to third-world, impoverished societies (85% of us). If "trying to have a good time" is truly the purpose of life, then it would that imply one or both of the following:

(1) Those who are able to "have a good time" have a moral responsibility towards those who are unable to do so because of the vicious circle of poverty (in all senses);

(2) Those who nevertheless are unable to "have a good time" for any reason might just as soon die, be killed, or kill themselves as not fulfill their purpose for living.

Not that I am against having a good time. "If you can't do what you like, then like what you do." But I think that either or both of the above alternatives would be the logical consequence of raising it to the status of the purpose for life.

Number (1) ultimately challenges its own basic assumption as it would eventually imply that the purpose in life is to ensure that all human beings enjoy the right and ability to have a good time, and number (2) is just plain untenable. So we are back to square one.

Also, many people, myself included, feel there is a vast difference between simply "having a good time" and achieving true happiness. And what is needed to achieve the one and the other are worlds apart.

I would be more inclined towards achieving true happiness as a purpose in life. Personally, I just hope and pray that someday before I die I will be enabled to do something that pleases the Blessed Beauty. That's all that really matters...

Someone wrote: “...our beliefs are hooked to the core of our being and a key part of our feelings about why we are here.... If we are wrong we are potentially pissing our lives away....”

That is why I find this type of discussion not only intensely exciting, and perhaps at times even emotional, but also essential to the very act of living. I don't think that achieving our purpose in life is cut and dried - black or white.

There must be infinite shades of gray, meaning that most everyone fulfills his/her purpose to some extent, and that most no-one could claim to have fulfilled it to the highest degree possible. The movie "Vertical Limit" can be summed up in the Indian Moslem's wise words: "We are all going to die; the important thing is what we do beforehand," or something to that effect.

Regarding whether or not the human condition is above nature, the first point to get out of the way is the question as to whether or not there is a "human spirit" or "rational soul" (both of which refer to the same thing). Because if there is, it would by definition put us above nature. End of debate.

However, there seem to be those who need desperately to believe that there is no such thing. This despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, not to mention the positive effects that such a recognition has ultimately had throughout history on both the individual and society as a system.

The way I figure it, if there is no soul, those of us who believe there is and try to act accordingly would be no worse off for our mistake, whereas if there is a soul, those who believe their life is finite and act accordingly might come to regret it.

However, if such an unfounded belief makes those people feel more at ease, I have no intention of trying to take their pacifier away from them. (See also discussion of science and technology as, in a sense, putting us above nature.)

(June 21, 2003 )