Writer's Block: Bare necessities

[seawasp]

[Error: unknown template qotd]


Air, Water, and Food.

Comments

[queenoftheskies.livejournal.com]

That's a good three.

[anghara.livejournal.com]

That's three things you can't EXIST without. LIVING without things is a different can of worms.

For myself, the TRUE answer, and the more relevant to the spirit of the question, would probably be love, cats, and coffee...

[seawasp]

Living, in your context, is a subset of existing, though. So if you don't fulfill the existence criteria, you certainly won't manage the living bit.

Now, if you make it possible for me to UPLOAD, then I can do the living without the food and water and air; I guess then it'd be electrical power, computational power, and storage space.

[anghara.livejournal.com]

*sigh* Yes, living is a subset of existing. BUT THE QUESTION PRESUPPOSES YOU EXIST. Otherwise you could not have been asked the question.

Which means that if you aren't missing the point entirely you are certainly putting your OWN point on it, and one which I don't think was remotely intended by the question's original askers. It goes without saying that we would ALL answer the same way if asked which three things underlie our continued state of being here and being alive. Which means in turn that what they wanted to hear was answers which told the story of what, *given the fact that you are alive and sentient and breathing etc and already have all the things which are necessary for this state of affairs to continue*, would make that state of existence a richer and better experience, things that would make "living" a thing of joy rather than a chore or mere instinct.

A cabbage exists, and for its existence it needs sunlight, soil, and nutrients. But nobody asks a cabbage what makes life worth living for it. IT DOESN"T THING ABOUT IT. It gets on with the busienss of existing right until the time it's made into coleslaw which makes it all moot. But YOU are not a cabbage. You are a human being. Assume that you are a human being who is alive and who therefore already possesses the basic requirements for this state to continue. Now do what the cabbage cannot, and think about that life, and answer the question in the spirit in which it was intended. Or should I rephrase it? What three things would you not want to "live" without?

[seawasp]

*sigh* Yes, living is a subset of existing. BUT THE QUESTION PRESUPPOSES YOU EXIST. Otherwise you could not have been asked the question.

Which means that if you aren't missing the point entirely you are certainly putting your OWN point on it, and one which I don't think was remotely intended by the question's original askers.

Most certainly. I always reinterpret questions in the manner that most amuses me. In this case, answering it literally was amusing because most would be giving the predictable answers -- beer, love, chocolate, friends, etc., etc., etc.

[seawasp]

And yes, if you rephrase it that way, it is much more likely that I would answer that question the way intended (though not certain, because then there's the question of what you mean by "things" - objects? States of being? Capabilities? For instance "the ability to read" or more broadly "the ability to communicate"? Or do you want to limit it to individual tangibles like coffee -- but then your prior answer of "love" doesn't fit...)

Yes, I analyze almost everything like this. It's how I write.