Because in evolution, once you reproduce offspring, you become obsolete.
Barry, you should ask fundamental and basic questions like *Why.?* does a
boner arise in the first place. In plants pollen is desiminated by wind or
insects. That's the purpose of evolution to produce the next generation.
--- On Sun, 5/23/10, TurquoiseB <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Subject: [FairfieldLife] What is *important* in life?
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 5:30 AM
As should be obvious by now (but probably isn't), my
personal definition of "What is important in life"
revolves around "What could be construed as important
to other sentient beings, not just the person shouting
the word 'importance' as if it meant anything to other
people, on some obscure Internet forum that no one
reads anyway.
Given that definition, I suspect that there should be
by definition a "payoff" for those willing to believe
the definitions of "important" proposed by those with...
uh...lesser (or higher) standards than my own.
The "bottom line," in a spiritual context, seems to me
(with my low standards) to be, "If I *believe* this
declaration of 'How things work and how they *should*
work' being proposed by those who believe it accurate
*as* the definition of accurate, what's in it for me?
If I accept, for example, the oft-opined view that
"sexuality after 60" is a questionable thing, where
does that leave *me* as an aging spiritual seeker
approaching sixty far faster than I wanted, and still
WAY able to spring a woody over someone woody-worthy?
If I accept, for example, the oft-opined view that
one's own personal views on the nature of enlightenment
and its attributes can be defined by those who claim to
represent that point of view, where does that leave
those of us who suspect that their "definitions" of
such exalted states of consciousness reflect their
own hangups and samsakaras far more than they do
reality?
Granted, I represent the "outlaw" faction here at FFL.
I, after all, empathize far more with the characters
on "Firefly" and "Serenity" than I do with the characters
in the Bhaghavad-Gita or other sources referred to as
"Vedic," and thus "inherently and indisputably cool."
I accept *nothing* as "inherently and indisputably cool."
Is that bad?
