Shuushin23 Apr 2004

Interesting phrase "take place"

"life is a thing in which games take place"

"take place" as "occur", "manifest", "become; become apparent" - it all feels redundant. Games as a thing defined, as having a label and used by language - already exist.

"life is a thing in which games occur(...)" could be:
"life is a thing with games"

Yet, life as a thing has lots of things, in fact, it could be argued that it contains all things (including nothing) - not just games.

So really, it is meaningless to claim it has games. Life has belly-button lint too, but do we really need to state it?

"Life is a thing"

But really, we know life to encompass more than just things, it also contains the set of no-things.

"Life is"

Yet, sometimes it isn't - is that true also? Seriously - if life can contain the thing "no-thing" can it also contain the thing "non life"? And by doing so, does it negate its own existance?

Or rather, does it make it's definition meaningless - or at best - fruitless?

I offer the previous ruminations as proof that defining life is fruitless. As fruitless, at least, as wondering if Foucault would have had nearly the fame he enjoys if he wore a toupee and contacts.