Well Don, being a highly practical multi skilled person, I have formed a view on life too.

You drew tantalising close to the truth. And that truth is we have no choice in being born at all. That actually is the " stupid" of life. And from that realisation, we can work outwards, and look backwards. And always, it's somebody else's fault if it goes wrong.

The great cop-out!

Dan

Interesting introspection in the twilight years Don. And as some who has died and been brought back twice! I believe there's is a purpose and a noble destiny. If we are willing to embrace our higher self and nobility! Be the best person we are capable of and treat others as we would want were we stood in their shoes. Albeit, tempered with honest, fair play, justice. You're a few years older than me Don but have lived less, I believe.

My life was a fortunate one as inferred in Chinese philosophy. You, on the other hand, had advantages that few enjoy?

What have you done with it? Retreated into a world of literature?

Is the world a better place because you were part of it? And has your contribution advanced humankind or just aided its exploitation by the robber barons?

Only you can know and only the man in the mirror knows the honest answer to that or be able to judge you!

My life was one that included routine daily brutality, starvation and extreme disadvantage. Yet I lived on through it when I should have been dead several times. And I'm here to tell you there is an afterlife that includes hell and terror beyond description or human understanding.

A nightmare reality I would never ever care to revisit! But still capable of making human mistakes! Ditto every other human extant on the planet!

And for me, reinforces a belief, we are, all of us, fallen angels trying to return back to that from whence we sprung and given we are fallen angels embued with enormous power if we combine as a single mind, with a single angelic purpose?

And the reason demonic power wants us a divided rabble!?

That said, at the end of the day the only thing we have absolute control over is the thoughts we care to entertain in our heads! Think, there's great power there!
Alan B.

Don - given that you seem to either not believe in God at all or don’t regard God as having any relevance to our existence, I am surprised that you think life is for anything at all.

If the universe, including humanity, has just unintentionally happened into existence then it would follow that the universe (and humanity) has no ultimate significance or purpose.

Of course, anyone can make up a purpose for themselves and try hard to achieve it. But apart from their own personal satisfaction in possibly achieving that goal, it does not really matter what they do with themselves.

One made up goal in a goalless universe is as “good” or as “bad” as any other made up goal.

Hitler made up goals that he wanted to achieve. We usually want to think that his goals were “bad” but since there is no state that the universe is meant to be in, then his goals are only “bad” relative to our made-up goals.

We have no basis for saying that our goals are better than his, closer to the target so to speak, because there is no target we are all aiming for.

Unless there is such an identifiable target then all we do is completely relativistic. It makes no more sense to say that Hitler was a bad man than to say that Nelson Mandela was a good man.

You may have a measure of satisfaction with what you have done in your life but in a godless universe in the end it all matters for nothing. You may as well just have surfed and got stoned.

Dear Don,

You opine;

“Does it have a purpose? I think so. The human species has done extraordinary things in the last ten thousand years, and my hope is that it will go on doing so indefinitely. We are really special, but the tensions within us are always there. Let us recognise and tame the tensions.”

You say you have no religion, perhaps no appreciation of a higher being, yet your words betray you.

You claim we are really special. They are three possible judges of that, ourselves (which doesn't mean that much nor does it deliver a purpose), a God/creator (which is understandable if we consider ourselves the pinnacle of his/her creation), or an alien intelligence who viewing our species now or in the distant future decides we are of note.

From your words I think you may be stuck with the second, unless of course you want to contend our art and culture are appreciated by other species.

Jesus Christ will be your judge or Saviour Don.

“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.
18 “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. 19 And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. 20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. 21 But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.” John 3:16-21

Don,

I appreciated your article and your musings over the content of Levinson's book. I read it years ago.

I didn't receive direction for my life from its content as it is bound up too much with what happens while on this earth.

I have found that the Christian life and world view provides a framework for meaning in life through, (1) An understanding of the origin of life; (2) What brings meaning; (3) The boundaries for morality, and (4) Where life is heading (our destiny). Where will we be one minute after our last breath?

Meaning in life for me has come through the emphases of the Psalmist (16:11), "You (Lord God) will show me the way of life, granting me the joy of your presence and the pleasures of living with you forever".

I cannot see or experience fulfillment in life without the presence of the Lord God and his plan for the universe, reality, and me.

Since the author did not ask what life is for, but only "What is human life for", the answer is trivial:

Would you rather live as some animal?

There is no other purpose. All that man created or ever will, is short lived, none of it will last.

Animals can potentially have all that man has and even more, except for one thing: the intellectual capacity to abstract. Animals can plan and be very intelligent, but they only go after concrete outcomes. They can have emotions like us, including compassion, but those emotions are always directed towards concrete physical others - they never argue about abstract ideas like us here, they never ask for example what life is for. Like us, animals can be very wilful and persistent, but only towards concrete objective goals. Some animals can count, add and subtract, but they can never have a concept of infinity, how less so the abstract different levels of infinity as depicted by Cantor's set-theory.

This unique human capacity to abstract is what sets us towards imperceptible goals, and ultimately towards the final goal of finding and re-uniting with the divine.

So long as we have to live, we rather live, unlike animals, with this capacity to choose and prioritise the abstract and intangible over things which our senses can perceive: with this capacity, first we choose a variety of abstract ideals such as appreciation, recognition, fame, power, valour, beauty, creativeness, smartness, victory, heroism, understanding, success, etc. Then the time comes when we turn to use our capacity to abstract to prioritise goodness, charity and righteousness. Finally we use this capacity to find God within. Once we discover our infiniteness within, we are finally free from this compulsion to be born as finite beings who pursue finite things.

Even if are not yet seeking God, even if you still use and develop your capacity to abstract by pursuing lower ideals, you need to be born as a human, not an animal. This is what human life is for.

except for one thing: the intellectual capacity to abstract.
Yuyutsu,
You forgot another one, the ability of great stupidity ! Animals don't appear to be cursed with that.

To Don.

I think there's two or three basic ways to look at the purpose of human life.

One is to look at it from a personal perspective. What is the goal or the point of a person's life sort of approach. This can be even more personal for the point of one person's life is different from another's. (Such as a father's point of life will likely include something about protecting and raising their kids, or about making them into healthy mature adults; but someone who isn't a parent might not have this purpose in their life for anyone). Or the point of life on an individual level can be made into a generalized assumption, or a generalized argument. Such as the point of life is to be happy, to spread your DNA to the next generation, or to find God. (Three examples are widely different perspectives I've heard about the purpose of life. One from a practical point of view and not full of theories or explanations; one from an academic and evolutionary perspective reducing the point of life to the theory of evolution and only that; and one from a religious perspective.)

The trouble with an individual but generalized view is that some people will miss the mark on life's general purpose, whatever that purpose is. Some aren't happy, at least not all the time; some don't have kids and miss the mark from an evolutionary perspective; and others remain without a religion and don't find God. Any generalized purpose of life will also show people who aren't measuring up to that measurement, and the question can be asked, "does their life have no point?" "No purpose?" Or worse, "is their life a failure?" Troubling questions to assign to large populations of people.

(Continued)

(Continued)

A second approach to the purpose of human life is to take humanity as a whole instead of as individuals finding purposes. The point of mankind on that level as a group, could be something along the lines of taking care of the world around us, to think and discover new ideas, new inventions, or again to raise up a new generation to take the reigns and responsibilities that the old one leaves behind.

The third group of perspective for a purpose of life seems to mix the other two groups together and strive for a personal purpose as well as a group purpose from humanity.

In my opinion the propose of life is on the individual scope. It's to find God and to look after one another. But that's just my two cents and conclusions in the conversation.

Good topic Don.

Hi SR,

I'm surprised that you didn't mention a fourth possible purpose to life: since we've all been nurtured by others in our formation, then it is sort of obligatory for us to devise purposes in our lives which add to the good lives of others.

Marx surely intended this sense of purpose in his focus on universal human liberation ? Certainly, his project hasn't gone too well in any of its multitude of expressions - the road to hell is paved with good intentions, he wrote, not to mention by some complete bastards - but his aspirations still guide us, so long as we stick a sign on them saying 'Proceed With Caution: Beware Complete Bastards'.

Yes, we're all born purposeless, but have abilities to find purpose, or purposes - to develop interests in all manner of things throughout our lives. Ideally, we aim to do no harm, but as Bill Hayden remarked, to contribute more benefits and happiness for others than we receive. As life's purpose, that sounds okay to me.

Thanks, Don.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Good observations!

«In my opinion the propose of life is on the individual scope.»

In my opinion too. Collective objectives are only a means, not an end in themselves.

«It's to find God and to look after one another. But that's just my two cents and conclusions in the conversation.»

Only two cents? This is not only your private conclusion, but also the conclusion of scriptures.

Looking from personal perspectives, scripture declares that life has four goals: gain, pleasure, righteousness and liberation.

Gain is not limited to money and material goods, but also includes name and fame that last even after one's death (though not forever).

Pleasure includes the sensual, emotional, mental and intellectual.

Righteousness is about doing the right thing at all times, avoiding harming anyone and includes, as Joe (Loudmouth) suggested, the repayment of our debts to society, our parents, ancestors, teachers and the environment as well as the angels that perform the various functions of nature.

Though commonly the opposite, righteousness should come first, before gain and pleasure. Gain and pleasure are nice to have but only when they do not violate righteousness. Otherwise the gain will be short-lived and pleasure will turn into suffering.

Once someone attained a high degree of righteousness, they are ready for the final goal and the desire for liberation will sprout in their hearts. Finding God is another way to describe the same, because freedom from fear and suffering will only occur once we find God and establish our identity with Him, thus know that we are infinite and without any limitations so nothing can affect us.

«but someone who isn't a parent might not have this purpose in their life for anyone»

Indeed.

"For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" [Isaiah 56:4-5]

Dear Loudmouth,

I was a little rushed when I wrote the post and should have extended my points a little further. However my main question is what is the backdrop that allows us to deem ourselves 'very special'?

Perhaps we can look at it this way. Not to say there isn't but let's say there were species we are sharing the planet with who could look at the human species and pass judgement on our level of 'specialness' and decide if our achievement warranted the label of extraordinary, what do you think their judgement would be?

We kind of instinctively know the fallacy involved in judging ourselves, which is in part why we have put in a God to deliver that service for us. Unfortunately his/her judgement can be rather harsh.

Don seems to want the accolades for our species without clearly articulating if they are justified. Perhaps they might be in the sphere of human endevour but our stewardship responsibilities toward the planet we have been far from impressive.

eunuchs
Yuyutsu,
Now there's a great example of the supremo's love !

SR,

I don't think that humans are 'very special', but we may be the only species which has the ability, and the obligation to be 'relatively special', to contribute more than we take from the world.

Maybe that should be part of the terms of any hypothetical social contracts - that in return for support from our fellow humans and the freedoms and equality which we (should) enjoy, we owe back to humanity and to the non-human world at least as much.

I don't see any need for a god, or anything supernatural, in all that. The future of all of the world and its problems are very much up to us. Maybe that's what Don has been getting at ?

Cheers,

Joe

To Loudmouth.

Did you mean to address me about the forth option instead of SteeleRedux? If so I think I addressed that as part of my opinion for what really is the purpose of life is to look after those around us, and to find God. Looking after those around us seems to be what you are talking about for a forth option to try to add to the lives of others. That said, the three option I gave were more or less three ways of looking at the question of purpose for humanity. One being individual purposes for men and women. A second being more on global purposes for humanity. Kind of like asking what is mankind's place in the world. And the third option being a mixture of the other two options. Adding to the lives of others would fit in the category of individual purposes.

As for Marxist thought, I didn't mean it in that way. More or less as a brotherly love love sort of thing and good will to all men. Not about turning into a communist state where everything is shared and watching out for corruption and abuses by dictators or otherwise is the reality of history.

As for your and SteeleRedux's points on mankind being special or not, here's a thought to add to it.

If mankind is special among all the animal of the world, does that mean we get special privileges to not hold up the burden to care for it? If on the other hand, if mankind is not special and is equal to non-humans in the animal kingdom, does that negate our responsibility to take care of the world around us. My figuring is that regardless if we are special or not we have the ability and therefore the responsibility to take care of the world around us. A responsibility that we as a whole are neglecting.

To Yuyutsu.

Glad to hear that you agree with my thought that the purpose of life is to find God, and to care for one another. I think we've come to the same conclusion, even though it's stemmed from two different world views. At least that's how I interprets what you're saying.

Correct me if I'm wrong but based on what you've said, the four purposes in life all contribute to finding God. Is that right? These making the goal to find God the more important purpose of life, and to care for one another is part of that to reach that goal.

Though we a free on the conclusion for a purpose, I'm coming at it from a completely different view. Goes along the lines the whole law from God rests on two concepts. To love God with all your heart, mind, and strength; and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. The idea is that these two concepts are what everything else hinges on.

However, one other aspect is that these two concepts reinforce eachother. By knowing God, a person is better able to love their neighbor. By loving their neighbor, a person is taking care of most of the teachings from God that relate to how we are to treat others.

Though we agree with the two purposes of mankind, I think we would put a different order to them. You might say to care for each other as part of greater purpose of finding God. Whereas I would say that finding God is doable without having to be perfect ourselves, and in finding Him, it helps us to be better then we were before (it's a growing process) to care for one another.

Loudmouth,

<<I don't see any need for a god, or anything supernatural, in all that. The future of all of the world and its problems are very much up to us. Maybe that's what Don has been getting at?>>

So, are you capable of creating gravity for the whole world, keeping the universe travelling and the earth rotating around the sun? How about the nitrogen and oxygen you breathe every day to keep you alive? Are they up to you to create? Are you happy to conclude that these issues 'are very much up to us'.

Can you create tulip bulbs that, when planted, flower like these (all by your own creation): http://www.picfair.com/pics/08621838-tulips-floriade-canberra-act-australia. How do you plan to create an entire universe from nothing as your humanistic achievement?

Hi Ozpen,

No, I can't create tempests or leviathans, as God blustered at Job in his attempt to make Job grovel (check out the last couple of pages). Gravity and the universe were there before we came along and will be still there when we've gone. None of that needs a god. We're alone, in that sense, in the universe with all its buzzing, swirling physical laws.

So we (should) do the best we can while we can, hopefully putting more back in than we take out, and using whatever talents we have to make the world a better place for those who come after us.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

<<Gravity and the universe were there before we came along and will be still there when we've gone. None of that needs a god.>>

That's one point on which you and I agree with God: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).

Gravity and the universe were there before human beings were created (Genesis 1:26 ff). God agrees.

So the heavens and the earth had already been created by God (from nothing) before Adam and Eve.

You have not presented any evidence how gravity and the universe came into existence. Yours is a materialistic, deterministic world.

I find it irrational to think that God has provided the evidence to contradict your view (see Romans 1:18-25; Psalm 19) but you have closed yourself off from pursuing that evidence.

<<I can't create tempests or leviathans, as God blustered at Job in his attempt to make Job grovel>>

That's a red herring that you raise by cherry-picking content of a few verses. Get real with your exegesis of any text.

<<We're alone>>

Are you making a truth claim with that statement? Can you verify it or is it only your opinion or an assertion?

Dear Loudmouth,

You opine we have “the obligation to be 'relatively special', to contribute more than we take from the world”.

Mate, aren't you falling into the same trap as the author? An obligation to whom? Ourselves? If so aren't we just looking after the 'selfish meme'?

Perhaps we are the only Earth based species to be inflicted with a sense of mortality and an appreciation of the infinite. The existential angst that has inspired writers like Camus and indeed even some of our biblical scribes have certainly produced the great religions and literature of our civilisations, much of it of course lost to time.

When we are only deemed special to ourselves then the degree of specialness by definition is severely restricted.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Correct me if I'm wrong but based on what you've said, the four purposes in life all contribute to finding God.»

The aims of Righteousness and Liberation contribute to finding God.
The aims of Gain and Pleasure do not, in any normal sense.

«to care for one another is part of that to reach that goal.»

Yes: when you care for another, it helps you to see God in them.

«I'm coming at it from a completely different view.»

Which is absolutely fine: the reality of God can be seen from so many different angles/viewpoints, yet it is always the same God.

«the whole law from God rests on two concepts. To love God with all your heart, mind, and strength; and to love your neighbor as you love yourself.»

Succeed in any of the two and you have found God.
But can you?
Not without God's grace!
Still you should try, as hard as you can, inch by inch, fail 776 times and still try the 777's. As you do, your mind is being purified more and more, yet the final purification can only occur by God's grace.

«By knowing God, a person is better able to love their neighbor. By loving their neighbor, a person is taking care of most of the teachings from God that relate to how we are to treat others.»

Yes, but HOW do you know God? HOW do you love your neighbour? Succeed in any of these and you are done, then you fulfil the other as well. The fact is that we keep failing, that our love and knowledge remain partial and feeble without God's grace, yet we should keep trying, constantly and pray to God to support us in both.

«finding God is doable without having to be perfect ourselves»

You cannot perfect yourself by yourself, but you must TRY anyway. You are imperfect at the moment just before God's grace redeems you, then the next moment you are perfect. Upon finding God, your care for others becomes perfect too.

Hi NNS,

To paraphrase,

"You have not presented any evidence how any gods came into existence."

Either way, we're here and it's up to each of us to find purpose for our brief lives. I'm happy to contribute what I can to make other people's lives better before I feed the worms.

'Deterministic' ? Yes, according to the laws of physics. 'Materialistic' ? I suppose so, if it means coming to terms with living in a real world, free of magic and gods, and trying to make this material world a bit better before we leave it.

SR,

I meant an obligation, not just to ourselves, but to humanity and the planet as a whole, in whatever small ways we can. If we're special in any way, then it comes with those obligations. It's up to us, nobody and nothing else. Otherwise, there's nothing all that special about us.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Call me dumb if you like but I'm going to ask what you believe the difference is between an obligation to ourselves and an obligation to humanity unless you are using ourselves as a singular rather than a collective term.

An obligation to the planet is an interesting one. Is it primarily because of the intrinsic value of it, or is it a sense of sharing it with other species, or is it so it continues to provide for the human race into the future?

But does these make us special? Does the way a herd of elephants collectively and actively looking after the young of the group engender a feeling that there is a sense of obligation involved? If not why assign this motivation to humans? Why can't this just be regarded as a basic instinct of higher mammals?

As to looking after the planet, looking after it from whom? Ourselves? If so why does our capacity to harm the planet make us special? Or is it when we try and repair or prevent from happening further damage to ecosystems caused by ourselves that we become 'special'?

Hi SR,

I'll repeat: I don't think that individual humans are particularly special.

It depends what you do with your life, how much you or others are central to it. And of course we have obligations to nurture the planet to the best of our abilities, including elephants.

So much for your straw man :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

You write;

"And of course we have obligations to nurture the planet to the best of our abilities"

With respect mate you seem particularly keen to dodge the question. To whom are we obligated and why are we obligated to nurture the planet? Particularly if we are only 'relatively special'.

Don - sorry to hear you have been ill. Now that you are feeling a little better, maybe the process could be helped along if you grab up a new project. Something drawing on reflections, wisdom, and possible useful advice. Angles you have seen to be significant points of view, original interpretations hitherto unshared or not sufficiently developed, etc. One immediate challenge within scope might be to set these 'stages of life' you have identified against the traditional Hindu stages of life for a man - childhood, (rebirth) student, householder and sage. The sage is timed for the fortieth birthday, when the householder retreats from the world to "go to the forest' - which is what I think you are talking about. But in the forest one attracts disciples who seek you out for your wisdom. For myself I have in mind a re-write of the history of the world devised to answer the question : "What is the key psychosocial dynamic that drives human action that shapes the world?". (I DON'T think it is a search to find God.) If you fancy running a dialogue with me on that one I'd welcome it. Otherwise there are numerous other important questions that invite speculative reflection or imparting of conclusions. You have a lifetime of data to subject to fresh analysis. Cheers, Glynne

SR,

In exchange for our brief lives on this planet, we are obligated to do less harm than good to it and everything on it, including to our fellow humans, since in a very general sense, we owe our existence to them, one way or the other.

Why are we obligated? Because it (the planet) and they (our fellow humans, including our ancestors) have nurtured us. In return, we are obligated to our descendants to leave the planet, their environment, in the best condition that we, each of us, can. So, in a very general sense, what our ancestors did for us, we do for our descendants.

And, of course, to learn and enjoy ourselves in the process.

Whether or not we are 'special', is not all that relevant.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

No need to answer if you feel I am being pedantic.

I'm not sure you have articulated where that obligation comes from. Ourselves or imposed by another?

When you write; “we owe our existence to them” does it also follow that they owe their existence to us? What does that look like? If it doesn't follow then despite what you say aren't you claiming a form of exceptionalism for us?

Also you seem to be taking more of an indigenous approach rather than a Western one. There is no talk of giving thanks to a higher being but rather a call to honour an obligation to 'mother earth'. Why do you think that is? Are you a Lovelockian by any chance?

Hi SR,

I've answered your questions. It's up to you to understand my answers, but without making leaps of misinterpretation.

I'm glad you raised the red herring of the 'Mother Earth' myth. Presumably you're referring to the modern-day 'tradition' - now more than forty years old - first mentioned by an Aboriginal writer in the person of Dr Gondarra Djiniini in 1977.

No, I don't adhere to such a myth, but I do feel very strongly that - myths and gods and magic aside - we all have an obligation not to pollute (or at least to minimise it) the environment of the earth. Hence, I'm very much in favour of any programs to re-forest and re-vegetate Australia, as well as to counter any excess CO2, even though it is a vital component in all vegetation - as well as programs to clean up rivers, etc.

In that sense, we have no right, each of us, to leave the world more polluted in any way than we found it. That's our obligation, to the earth and to each other. It's an obligation we should be prepared to impose on ourselves.

Yes,I suppose I'm a Lovelockian, if that's what it means.

I hope that satisfies your curiosity.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

The term 'mother earth' is indeed a form of appropriation to describe something which doesn't appear to translate easily into Western thought. It is the same for Lovelock's Gaia, a quite revolutionary concept in many ways but one that is more in common an with indigenous perspective than a traditional Western one, so I am pleased you have taken it up.

Saying 'we respect the land because it provides for us' slips easily into a mothering framing;

“The land is the mother and we are of the land; we do not own the land rather the land owns us. The land is our food, our culture, our spirit and our identity” Dennis Foley, a Gai-mariagal and Wiradjuri man, and Fulbright scholar.

I don't really have an issue with that.

“When people talk about country it is spoken of like a person: we speak to country, we sing to country, we worry about country, and we long for country.”

I'm not sure how divorced this is from your sense of “obligation”.

SR,

Pretty much totally, I would have thought. I don't think there is anything 'spiritual' (whatever the hell that means to an atheist) about the planet, it's a physical body with a multitude of biological etc. processes continually going on, worms, ants, elephants, etc. Nothing much spiritual about any of them, they're busy just surviving and unconsciously ecosystemising, if that's a term.

You are free to believe all the myths you like, if you really do. If Lovelockianism means worshipping some mythical 'spirit', then no, I'm not a Lovelockian. I just want to do as little damage to the environment as possible. And plant a few trees and pick up a bit of local rubbish wherever I can, to make the place a bit greener and more environmentally healthy.

And the Greens don't have a monopoly on that. Certainly not from their inner-city terraces, sipping their kale smoothies and charging their electric cars using coal-generated electricity, but still feeling smug about their virtuous behaviour. W@nkers.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

“You are free to believe all the myths you like, if you really do. If Lovelockianism means worshipping some mythical 'spirit', then no, I'm not a Lovelockian.”

No it doesn't have to mean that at all but a wider sense that we and all other life on this planet 'are all in this together' is something you appear to have garnered and I feel it is quite reasonable to do so.

The notion that we might be the only place in the universe to harbour life as we know it can either drive a sense of exceptionalism or a sense of solidarity and obligation, but not both. You seem to lean toward the latter which is a form of Lovelockianism in my book.

Whether that extends to a sense of an overarching life force which essentially is the sum of all living things is up to you but we need to be able to recognise those who wrote or verbalised our myths were likely trying to find a way to express and make sense of this notion.

It is only when these things are inflicted with doctrine and mantra that they become something else, religion for instance.

Sorry, Steele, I'm not into religion. Except of course for any grand moral parables or principles: love thy neighbour (and even strangers and foreigners: the Good Samaritan story, for example) as one's own, all people are equal, do unto others only as you would have them do unto you, try to tread lightly on the earth, etc.

So my Lovelockianism stops short of 'spiritual' - it's far more practical, even Marxian, than that. In my view, that's precisely why we do have obligations to the environment - because it's insensate, inanimate, and can't be airily assumed to somehow fix itself blabla after what we have done to it. That's up to us.

Joe