It depends on what is meant by life. The Greek term bios means life. To have
an idea of what life then is is to presuppose that there is a valid idea
about life. That is, there must be some 'theoretikos' or look about life.

I seem to remember much of what Zubiri wrote on this topic in an essay on
the ancient Greeks and nature. He claimed that much of what passed as
philosophy then was known as 'bios theoretikos' since there was not much
else to contemplate and observe in those far off days. For instance no one
could contemplate the forms (idios) since they were unknowable. So therefore
what could be contemplated and observed were phenomenon in nature, that is
the forms themselves, and even virtue itself was unknowable, but could be
cultivated in souls that desired the good.

So what is this subject called today: bios theoretikos?

Well the theoria is literally the 'look' of life, or in more conceptual
terms the idios of life, or the form of life itself. To sum that up we might
say that what consists of memory and consciousness we call life. The
contents of consciousness are movements either emotive or cognitive entities
in the field of perception.

Looking therefore at life, or bios, then would necessitate a lot. It would
include almost everything that exists as it was and as it is, that is the
present and the past, what appears and what is concealed. Some call this the
history and destiny of being. in the Greek mind this was called 'ousia' of
which there was concealed presence and unconcealed presence.

Perhaps the modern idea is too restricted. That is, the idea that there is a
theory which is different than the real truth which rests on premises;  or
there is a truth that is plausible and even demonstrable truth regarding
life. Is the idea of theory over/regarding  practice also at fault for the
modern narrow idea that much of knowledge is not even knowledge and is in
fact a plausible hypothesis regarding life?

I quess the answer  may be found in the earliest writings of the ancients.
In regards to the idea that there is life and it exists we must attest that
there is no premise that could be extended to support or deny the assertion
of a simple truth about life. Therefore there is no adequate hypothesis that
would support the idea that life could in anyway be demonstrated. Life
either exists or it does not exist, but not-being or (me on) cannot be said
to exist at all since it lacks any predicate what so ever.

Thus what can be asserted about life must at least admit of a simple
predicate that is also a simple and real truth.

As I said there can be no supporting premise that life exists except in
terms of a simple truth which is universal to all experience that is also
really self-evident. The only way of making a valid claim for the belief in
life is to experience what is not-life. This would entail the simple sleep
of reason, the simple sleep of sleep; about as much as we can know about
what is not life is contained in sleeping when there are no dreams.

To infer that there is life, is to experience life as wakefulness, motion,
etc., and contrast that experience with the opposite which is temporary
unconsciousness, or sleep. If non-being is real then it is like sleep, but
longer in duration. Do people who come out of a coma after a year or more
remember anything? Probably nothing that I know of.

So life is composed of memory and wakefulness, is it not?

There are other ways that we may be able to demonstrate the existence of
life: we can experiment with life, we can create new life, and we can
observe life, but without consciousness itself none of these indirect
methods will be of use, and some life forms cannot adequately observe life
unless it is via a simple contact sense (Aristotle). All sensory forms of
consciousness require contact with some substrate. A rock has a life but the
life of the rock is much different than that of a simple organism even
though the rock could become a elemental ingredient in some higher life. So
really what is life but a simple psychic phenomenon composed of memory,
consciousness of the present and some movement. To infer the existence and
properties of any other basic attributes of life itself is to infer
something beyond consciousness, memory, and movement, and possibly before.
We could infer that there is a possible before and after function of life,
but we have few indications of this orienting function and whether it is
brain or mind function. But what would those other properties and attributes
consist in? Can generation be said to be an attribute of life? Is there and
are their stages or levels of the thinking function beyond mere being? Is
there a true transistion between the ego, the social and metaphysical self
as Arne Naess ultimately claims? What does it mean to share for instance? If
beings are entities themselves with proper boundaries that come only into
contact with each other as a means of self-sufficiency, then what is
sharing, caring and paring got to do with the metaphysical self? This is not
merely consciousness itself but consciousness of others as selfs,
imaginatively, and ethically.

I think that the epistemic community that theorizes about life might agree
that life begets life, it regenerates, but this itself is a result of life,
and it self does no exhaust the idea of life since for one reason some life
may have no capacity to regenerate itself, eg. sterile seeds for instance,
or a species that becomes extinct cannot be said to posses this attribute
indefinately. So that is only one possible attribute: the capacity to
regenerate is not yet determined to be a property of life since there is a
possibility that life will become extinct in the universe leaving no trace
except the scanty remains of fossils. Without consciousness of life there
could be no witness to previous life either.

It is not self evident that life possess all the attributes that life might
want to possess. The history and destiny of being as it is experienced
cannot be said to exhaust itself on life yet. There may be a 'before and
after' function that is the purpose of life of which consciousness is said
to be a servant of. Who knows but there is something divine about the soul,
and Plato once said that in order to be good one only need to look into
one's soul to find the divine first. That is one need to see the most divine
part one's own soul first before that person can find it anyone else or
anything else.

John Foster














-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, April 21, 2000 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: "It's life Jim, but not as we know it."


>I think Jim is a good choice for list moderator. (Thumbs up.)
>And the larger question do we know life exsists and if so how do we know
it.?
>
>Have a good one all,
>Li-
>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%