Death

[Avatar]

Well said Fist. (And just as well you're shoring up your reputation...post derth is causing it to slip... )

--A

[The Laughing Man]

on topic...i don't know WHAT is going to happen to me when i die. here's a nice thought. it doesn't matter so much to me anymore. i DO, however, get the stinkin suspicion i'm gonna have to do this WHOLE thing AGAIN!!! arg.


*lucimay lights another Camel Light and blows a grit ol big smoke ring*

[lucimay]

best picture taken of me in years

[The Laughing Man]

[Xar]

Ah, resurrecting old threads is a joy sometimes I found this one, and I decided I would share my thoughts on the topic.

I've been thinking a lot about death, and given my personal interest in various religions, I've been studying how death is perceived in them, and what each religion expects of the afterlife. It's been an interesting study - an ongoing study, as well, given that I don't expect it to finish until I get my proof first-hand It needn't even be morbid; indeed, the concept of death needn't be scary.

I'm not afraid of death; it will eventually come for all of us, so being afraid of it would only ruin the time we have. Rather, it gives meaning to life - it makes your life all the more precious and worth living, knowing that someday it will end. When the moment will come for me, I won't be afraid of dying; I will be grieving because I will be leaving this world, which, for all its problems and dangers, is beautiful beyond belief.
I believe the greatest meaning we can give to our lives comes from our capability to love others, and from our desire to learn in order to better understand the world around us. The more we learn, the more we can look around us and wonder at the beauty that is in it; it gives us an added dimension to our sight, a capability to see greater things. When you listen to a piece of classical music, who enjoys it more, the person who never learned about this sort of music, or the person who is able to hear all the hidden nuances and themes interwoven in the music? When you look at a bountiful tree, doesn't your wonder at its perfection increase when you know how complex are the systems that allow it to exist?
And of course, as I said, to love others. It is, in many cases, the greatest thing you can do with your life: to touch the lives of others in a positive way, maybe providing the input they needed to steer their lives on a more positive track. At least twice in my life I have discovered that kind words and genuine care for people changed their lives for the best afterwards; if at the end, all that is left of us is other people's memories of us, then I wish to leave fond memories of me behind, and to leave this world with the hope that I made the difference for at least one person.

Beyond this, whatever lays after death is a concept that's different for everyone, as we've seen in the thread. I believe it to be an afterlife, a place where we can finally rest from the travails of life, a place of serenity. It's not by chance that, in the world I created for my stories, death is gentle and kind, a guide that leads the souls to a realm of peace and serenity, where all hurts are soothed, rather than a grim reaper who takes souls to cast into torment.

[Zarathustra]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I'm going to just jump in there.

I don't believe in a spirit or soul. Hell, I'm not even sure I believe in a Self. I think that our ego or Self could be an illusion brought on by our consciousness being "funneled" through a singular perspective of a biological organism with sensory organs and a brain that has been conditioned by evolution and society to condense sensory input into a distinct, singular view.

However, there is ample evidence that we can transcend the ego, the self. We can dissolve this singular view and take on a higher consciousness. I've acheived this partially myself through meditation and drugs. So even though the self may be illusory, the consciousness which is conditioned and "tricked" into believing in a self is real.

So where does that leave us? Is our consciousness part of a larger, universal consciousness that transcends our individual manifestations in matter? Well, that sounds suspiciously New Age and supernatural to me . . . until I remember that matter itself is in a sense illusory. Matter is not actually pointlike, determinate, and solid. Instead, it is a wave of probability which is collapsed by consciousness.

So clearly there is more going on than meets the I. Modern physics is opening the door for a new kind of naturalism, one in which matter is much more dependent upon consciousness, rather than the other way around.

I think it is very possible that much of reality is illusory, and that we are all part of a universal consciousness which transcends our individual instantiations. Thus, our deaths may just be an end of the illusion, and we could survive--albeit in a form much different from our present delusion.

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying this world isn't real and that there is another Yonder World outside it. Rather, I'm saying that we are looking at this real world incorrectly.)

[Avatar]

Well, I certainly agree that reality is essentially an illusion, but I think that it is an illusion of self. In other words, everybody's reality is what they want, or are forced, to believe is true.

However, I think that the self, the "I" the individuality of every person is the highest form. Identity, I think, is everything. If you are not a self, an awareness, then you are not you. If no sense of self remains, then you are nothing. You do not exist.

We are our selves. We certainly percieve the world, if not incorrectly, then at least extremely subjectively, but if by chance we did survive in some altered form, if we had no self remaining, if we were not aware of our individual existence, then "we" don't survive at all. Awareness, self-awareness, is existence.

--A

[sgt.null]

Av: subjective reality is a cop out. we all live on this planet. what we do affects others. my reality is more valid than yours? does that excuse me to take your stuff?

[The Laughing Man]

I feel it is a matter of determining that your "self" is your current self, the Human named Avatar born in a town in SA on Earth....this is your temporary human identity, and what I feel is important to ponder is that "we" are speaking of: instead of accepting your incredibly refined earthly definition of self, but "revert" or "expand" your definition of "self" to include an incredibly expansive, multifaceted "awareness" as it is defined from it's Source....consider awareness as an energy, and that energy has been lent to you from it's central source, and you possess a piece of it in some encapsulated form...and being aware of all things, you can then become all things...why remain so narrowly defined when you can be so much more?

Any movement of the assemblage point means a movement away
from an excessive concern with the individual self. Shamans believe
it is the position of the assemblage point which makes modern man a
homicidal egoist, a being totally involved with his self-image.
Having lost hope of ever returning to the source of everything, the
average man seeks solace in his selfishness.

[Avatar]

...and being aware of all things, you can then become all things...why remain so narrowly defined when you can be so much more?

Because if no sense of self remains, then "I" won't be more. "I" won't exist. If "I" don't know that I'm more, then I'm not.

(I'm very attached to my self. )

--A

[sgt.null]

i must not have that energy, as I've no idea what you are talking about? the spark that is our soul?

[Zarathustra]

Identity, I think, is everything. If you are not a self, an awareness, then you are not you. If no sense of self remains, then you are nothing. You do not exist.

When a person has “multiple personality disorder” (or, “dissociative identity disorder”), do they no longer exist?

I'm being sarcastic, of course, but the question may still provoke some productive discussion. I think it is too simplistic to assume that our existence consists of a sense of self. There are components to consciousness that are distinct from self-consciousness (e.g., objects of consciousness, phenomenological structures of consciousness, etc.). Also, there is the phenomenon of "ego death" in eastern philosophies. This is something that people actually experience, so it may be a bit premature to dismiss it purely on conceptual grounds.

[The Laughing Man]

close enough sarge

who says you forget who you are now? take your current definition of self and expand it beyond it's earthly bounds and definitions....but I believe this just means that current self is but one tiny part of the larger "me", and that this larger "me" is but a sliver of the greater "I".

[Avatar]

When a person has “multiple personality disorder” (or, “dissociative identity disorder”), do they no longer exist?

Of course not. Every identity has it's own sense of self.

I'm being sarcastic, of course, but the question may still provoke some productive discussion. I think it is too simplistic to assume that our existence consists of a sense of self. There are components to consciousness that are distinct from self-consciousness (e.g., objects of consciousness, phenomenological structures of consciousness, etc.). Also, there is the phenomenon of "ego death" in eastern philosophies. This is something that people actually experience, so it may be a bit premature to dismiss it purely on conceptual grounds.[/quote]

I don't dismiss the "ego-death," or the submission or eradication of self. I just don't find it at all desireable. Existence doesn't consist solely of a sense of self, of an ego, if you like, but without it, you are not yourself. It's a fundamental component of identity, and it requires the knowledge that the self exists.

Without that knowledge, you are not the collection of experience, cognition and whatever that interfaces with the world as Malik. And if you are not yourself, you are somebody/something else. The ego is necessary to be aware of yourself as a distinct entity in the universe.

I'm not saying that you can't exist without it, just that you might as well not be, because it wouldn't be you. It would just be "something."

--A

[sgt.null]

esmer: well we believe that we were created by God and were meant for a greater purpose. we are to be brothers. all of us. so i guess that is kind of collective.

i'm not good at philosophy.

[Zarathustra]

Esmer, I've done a little bit of study on shamanism, myself. And I think our views on this issue are similar. I think it is very possible that the matter of our brain is similar to a radio--to pick a crude analogy. It is a bit of hardware that can tap into a greater signal (consciousness), and filter that signal through its particular circuits and speakers, so that each individual radio has its own particular "sound" or interpretation of this signal. Like I said, it's a crude analogy because radios aren't aware of themselves, and this selfawareness greatly strengthens the illusion of separateness.

I have no idea how to justify this "belief." It's not really even a belief. I just have had some transcendental experiences that have made me think that I'm just "borrowing" this consciousness for a while, and that it is actually part of a much greater whole.

[wayfriend]

I have no idea how to justify this "belief." It's not really even a belief. I just have had some transcendental experiences that have made me think that I'm just "borrowing" this consciousness for a while, and that it is actually part of a much greater whole.

You seem to grok 'Thou art god', as Mr. Smith once said.

[wayfriend]

esmer: well we believe that we were created by God and were meant for a greater purpose. we are to be brothers. all of us.

Do you have an idea what God needed with a bunch of brothers? (no smiley, I'm persuing your thread.)

[Avatar]

Interesting post Malik. Hmm, see, I don't have a problem with a collective consciousness in a sense, but I think it's a socially, (and genetically to an extent), created phenomenon.

I don't believe it has some existance apart from us really. If every person on earth died, it wouldn't carry on.

I'm not sure if that is because we produce it, or merely because we are imagining it, but nonetheless...

And even if each "consciousness" were part of a greater whole, it doesn't mean we as individuals are. Not as an identity. And as I said, identity is what make us.

*shrug* Personally, I've always been ego-centric. I am aware of myself as an individual more strongly than I am aware of anybody or anything else. I am sufficient unto myself.

Even experiments with substances reportedly simulating that ego-death that you mentioned haven't ever had that effect on me. I'm always me, you're always you, and everything else is always everything else.

Maybe people don't like always been themselves?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

good point Av...I'm sure it's true in somes cases.

Esmer, I've done a little bit of study on shamanism, myself. And I think our views on this issue are similar. I think it is very possible that the matter of our brain is similar to a radio--to pick a crude analogy. It is a bit of hardware that can tap into a greater signal (consciousness), and filter that signal through its particular circuits and speakers, so that each individual radio has its own particular "sound" or interpretation of this signal. Like I said, it's a crude analogy because radios aren't aware of themselves, and this selfawareness greatly strengthens the illusion of separateness.

I have no idea how to justify this "belief." It's not really even a belief. I just have had some transcendental experiences that have made me think that I'm just "borrowing" this consciousness for a while, and that it is actually part of a much greater whole.

sounds reasonably interesting....

I've always found this fascinating on the idea of separation...

"Do you know any who are exactly like us?" I asked.

"A few," he replied laconically.

I asked him then to give me all the information he could, for I was vitally interested in the topic; to me it was of crucial importance to know names and addresses for purposes of validation and corroboration.

Don Juan did not seem inclined to oblige me. "The new seers went through that bit of corroboration," he said. "Half of them left their bones in the corroborating room. So now they are solitary birds.

The conditions of the solitary bird are five:
The first, that it flies to the highest point;
the second, that it does not suffer for company, not even of its own kind;
the third, that it aims its beak to the skies;
the fourth, that it does not have a definite color;
the fifth, that it sings very softly.
--San Juan de la Cruz, Dichos de Luz y Amor

it seems we were intended to pursue our own personally legitimate, yet collectively "unjustifiable" path to a complete evolution, and potentially succeed in solving The Riddle of Life, I believe its ultimate challenge. We are on paths of intent specific to our personally intended organism, in that we have the ability to direct our intent, using our intent, with intent.