Your post doesn’t make any sense…
So would you say that the 13 families, trillionairess…are preserving their competences by being inbred?
I think the word you want is “complexities”. Life tries to to preserve its “complexities” by reproduction, not it’s capital, acceptance, or appreciation.
Yes.
Exactly.
It is based on information.
There are many different information memories (storages), two of them are biological (genetical and neurological) - genes and memes (short-term and long-term)-, all others are cultural (artificial) like all culturally made things, for example books / libraries, pictures, photographs, audiotapes, videotapes, memories of computer, robots, androids.
Yes, but life, being life, is flux. How can it always make sense to someone, depending on the circumstances and what comes to one.
True, we ourselves have to try to make sense of things, give or find meaning to them but there are things which happen that cannot and do not make sense.
I think that there are times when we have to just realize that it can’t always make sense and if we find it does, we’re not really looking objectively - perhaps just rationalizing.
And what happens to a word when it’s repeated over and over again, like a mantra, especially when it is used as a fixed object to describe something dynamic? It may become catchy, but over time, it also loses its original meaning. What airs and status does it acquire as it slowly fades, and what does it end up representing in the end, and to whom?
…or vsvrsa. 
Are you talking about the word “flux” Pandora?
I don’t think that it is so much about the word, itself, but of its influence and effect on the person.
Flux, flow - they’re words which conjure up imagery and that imagery may become the person - the person may become more flow, more fluidy lol less like someone who’s mind is written in stone or who is not flexible.
I think that if you listen, holding the word flux flow or any word which has meaning to you can speak to you in a sense.
If we think of the word “light” or hold the image of a flickering, burning candle in our minds what do you think can happen? I suppose it might also depend on the person. If we look out at the moon in a night sky or watch the stars, what is capable of happening to the person? I think that they can take on the attributes, qualia of what they’re looking at. That’s why it’s important to choose just what we want to look at.
Will he? Okay, just nitpicking on words alone, which word, by itself, does strike you as more representative of the concept of fluidity, flux or fluid? And why use one over the other, and repeatedly so? Some words are overused and to the point where they acquire a life of their own, they now have more ring than a substance. Take the popular word nihilism, for example -to a believer, the word nihilism means a world view void of God, so a word, a phrase, or statement, if used and overused repeatedly, becomes vulnerable to hijacking, and can end up meaning anything a person wants. What I’m really doing here is pointing to a potential carelessness in using words.
Right, and what does light represent to a believer. Undying faith? Hope?
And what will the believer likely see in a night sky? An affirmation of his beliefs.
Or vice-versa. I’m referring to the dangers of confirmation bias where a person sees what he wants to see and not even realizing it.
I would say more so how because, by seeing alone, some people see things into it also.
If you consider this, especially the tendency of each organism (living being) and each super-organism to avoid the loss of competences, then many current problems, also and especially the feminism or the plunder and destruction of our planet, can be understood and explained in an easier way.
It is a systemic evolution theory or philosophy.
If you meant that the way that I suspect, you are very right. The focus upon sustaining and/or maintaining rather than upon aggressing, alters perspective and incentive. Although there are a few situations wherein one must aggress in order to merely maintain.
The truth is that people are only inspired to aggress when inspired from others, as often their “friends” as their “enemies”. And that too is a old philosophy concerning how to get Man to make “progress”. There was always a better way. It merely wasn’t discovered in time to prevent gross aggression from becoming the normal and expected (aka “wars”).
The meaning of life can or not make sense, depending on whether it’s perceived, understood or experienced. Perceiving it does not guarantee that it makes sense, unless it’s experienced and finally understood within the context it is bracketed.
In it’s bracketed existential sense of the most probable reference. This most probable meaning is attained by a process of eliminating all others, starting with the least probable. If all others can be eliminated except the most probable , then it’s meaning is almost certain within that context, or, situation.
I guess you mean a subjective experience and understanding of a certain situation that is considered as being the said sense. Is that right?
Yes but ! more: meaning becomes certain if the sense of the experience and the context (situation) are most probable .
For example put a person into a situation,. about which most people in that situation would feel
predictably, then the !meaning of that sense of feeling would become certain knowledge. The least possible meanings are eliminated to gain knowledge.
Life !always makes sense out of the most probable situation
and it most likely known reaction to that sense.
Even the most senseless and confusing life can make sense if taken from the knowledge of a most likely and probable response to such a situation. Then it becomes rational and meaningful. The subjectivity has become one with its object and it becomes meaningful, and makes sense.
If you asked a wolf whether it makes sense to have offspring and this wolf could speak, what would the wolf answer?
If you asked a dog whether it makes sense to have offspring and this dog could speak, what would the dog answer?
The wolf and dog might look at one another and in unison they might say: “Yes”. Then they would explain how it makes a lot of sense especially when they’ve seen how their offspring have grown and adapted and learned what they have in order to survive and to perpetuate the species. They think to their selves: “We’ve taught our babies well”.
How much less meaning would it have been for humans had the wolves and the dogs aborted their future offspring. What companionship, what love, what guidance, what awesome beauty would be lacking in this world without the wolf and the dog.
What they couldn’t understand though is how they can value their own more so than many of the human animals are capable of valuing their own.
Yesterday while out walking, I saw this young (?) deer across the street in the golf course right off the main drag. I was so amazed by it. I didn’t want to leave it - kept talking to it from across the street though I’m sure it had no idea of what was happening within me except that it would look over at me at times. So sad that they are obviously losing their habitats.
"Making sense’ is like beauty. It is in the eye of the beholder.
Please do not forget: Not merely desperation and nightmare are associated with the senselessness of life - but also sensemaking celebration of life, lust for life, life in the here and now because of consciousness in the here and now, … and so on.
Probably it is just the negative meaning of life that shows (and hopefully convinces) us that we should prefer the positive meaning of life. So, for example, the more you are reminded of your death, the more you are also reminded of your life in the sense of a positive meaning.
I think that this is also the true meaning of Martin Heidegger’s “Sein zum Tode” (“being to death”), because he did not mean that it is “positive” to die, but he meant that philosophy and science of the 19th century had objectivated the deaths of the others - but not of the self, the “I”. Heidegger’s theory of death stopped the theoretical cynisms of the 19th century (for example: the concept of revolution, the imagination of evolution, the concept of selection, of the struggle for life, of the surviving of the fittest, the idea of progress, … and so on ), because: what they made thinkable was the death of the others - thus: not of the self, the “I” -, and hereby they caused suppression and forgottenness of one’s own death. The theories of the 19th century were a gift for the war industry, because the soldiers should not be reminded of their own death. The military is the biggest guarantor when it comes to suppression and forgottenness of one’s own death. And during the the First World War - thus: in the early 20th century, when those theories of the 19th century were still intact - each soldier thought that merely others but not he himself had to die. (This is also the meaning of Heidegger’s “Man”: the “Man” prevents the courage to the fear of the death - the “Man” means the normal inauthenticity, that each one is the others and no one is him-/herself.)
Do you know what I mean?
Yes, I think so, but from the point of view of Heidegger’s successor, Sartre. It is inauthentic for the average soldier to think of his own death, since only those of others’ death has he been ever concerned about.He simply can not think of his own death, b
ecause he does not understand himself in his own life.
This form of the inauthentic life can be seen in all forms of soldiers’ life, they do not even understand why they are fighting.
There is no meaning for soldiers, except that which subsists in the color of the enemy, and like a bull who
reacts with anger at the color of red waved at him,
his reactions are peripheral and topical. He is not allowed to look beneath the surface, even if he could, and the ones who can and do, are quickly got rid of,
one way or another.
It makes more sense for a general to order his troops to combat, or even a marine Sargent.
The pawns in a conflict, are assigned roles, and even the King, has limited understanding into his authentic
participation. It used to be said of Kings, that God
only knew the reasons for and the meaning of the struggle, but with gods dead, Kings dead, there remains little leeway to throw evaluation back into
those who precipitate conflict, therefore, a very
astute propaganda machine seven to convince that authority rests with the man, the head of the family, to protect those, who are loved and protected by
him. Man is held responsible to develop his
understanding, out of the sense he can make of his own place in the organization of his family, community, and in this way the question of a
apprehension of his take on the meaning of conflict
usually rests on himself, but usually his father, and his father, the tradition.
The meaning of life is dictated by the traditional view of accepted behavior.
They say this is changing, but as with all forms of change, undercurrents of tradition can quickly reverse the course taken, to the most heavily,
historically vested, and probable course of action.