Yes, it does. I see, as they say, where you're coming from.
From my perspective, the fear of obliteration does not derive from a fear
of somehow being in a state of uncomfortable obliteration, but of being in
no state at all. Being nothing (yeah, I know you can't "be nothing"), nada,
zip, zilch, nil, rien. If you grant me this view of extinction of self, perhaps
you may see why I cannot imagine how there can be comfort in knowing
that there was a previous time in which that same self did not exist.
And, as you point out, for the sake of this discussion we assume that
death is the end of the self.
Well, that brings us to the buddhist thing, where self is part of a dualistic view... (they can explain this better than I can).
George, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of loss of "self", you're darn tootin', but my fear is re the process, not the after effect.
I don't think that death is the same state as exists before birth. Birth is change (or at least an opportunity for change). Death is allowing those left behind to take advantage of the changes made during life. I am a product of all those who came before me. I was raised within a long line of women who were highly moralistic and believed in service to others. I am who I am because of who they were. I've added myself to that long line and my children are who they are because of all of us who came before them. They are also heavily influenced by all the other long lines who have made changes to the world around them. Their children will be who they are because of how they were raised and by the ever-changing influences of the rest of humanity.
Even though my mother is dead, she still guides me -- as do my grandmother and all those who came before me that I never met. We are all a continuation of what has come before us. We will live on in the influence that we make in the world during our lifetime and in the influence that we will continue to provide for those we leave behind.
ossobuco wrote:...George, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of loss of "self", you're darn tootin', but my fear is re the process, not the after effect.
Indeed. I hope I get the express instead of the local.
I have a friend who I think would be a great friend for Gus. The other day I complained to my friend that I was sick of dealing with phones. He said "yeah, they'll never really replace yelling."
ossobuco wrote:Well, that brings us to the buddhist thing, where self is part of a dualistic view... (they can explain this better than I can).
George, I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of loss of "self", you're darn tootin', but my fear is re the process, not the after effect.
Yep....I do fear DYING....and just hope it isn't too nasty, if it is nasty, and if it is, it won't last too long.
I too fear dying, but not death. I envy people who die at a reasonably old age in their sleep or suddenly from a heart attack or something like that.
Reasonably old age grows in years...
Yes, Osso. For me that's in the late 80s or early 90s. I remember when I was a child and thought, without basis, that I was going to die that 40 would be a great age to achieve.
I do not fear death but would not willingly give up this life as long as I can still enjoy it. I do not believe that consciousness in any form is possible without a functioning brain so the question of experiencing any state of existence before birth or after death has no meaning. My death would affect those I care for and who care about me, but "I" would no longer exist to be aware of anything.
That leads me to the question of why joy or pain matters if the individual who experiences them will eventually die and both the feeling and the memory of it will be gone from the universe forever. (If you believe otherwise, exactly how do you think such information is stored, retrieved and experienced once the brain decays?) Is it unethical for a god to torture a sentient being and then kill it, since its suffering would then no longer exist?
Terry, I share your view, as expressed, especially, in your first paragraph.
Terry wrote:I do not fear death but would not willingly give up this life as long as I can still enjoy it. I do not believe that consciousness in any form is possible without a functioning brain so the question of experiencing any state of existence before birth or after death has no meaning. My death would affect those I care for and who care about me, but "I" would no longer exist to be aware of anything.
That leads me to the question of why joy or pain matters if the individual who experiences them will eventually die and both the feeling and the memory of it will be gone from the universe forever. (If you believe otherwise, exactly how do you think such information is stored, retrieved and experienced once the brain decays?) Is it unethical for a god to torture a sentient being and then kill it, since its suffering would then no longer exist?
Yes, it is unethical, imo.
The pain did exist.
OmSigDAVID, in answer to your questions:
Meaning for ME is defined by what I believe to be true. The IRS wouldn't disappear if I didn't believe in it, but then again, impossible things like awareness without a brain don't necessarily exist just because someone dreams them up.
The fact that drugs, injury, and disease-caused deterioration of the brain causes deterioration of the ability to reason and remember is pretty convincing evidence that a functioning brain is necessary for awareness. Where is the supposedly-eternal mind/soul/spirit of a person with advanced Alzheimer's or severe brain trauma?
Of course pain matters while I'm alive and aware. The question is whether it has any meaning after the person experiencing it is dead.
Dlowan, I think that causing pain to a sentient being is unethical, but I don't know if a fleeting moment of suffering would matter to an eternal god, or to the universe in general (assuming that either has any awareness of our pain). Do we care about the suffering of a child who lived 100,000 years ago?
Terry wrote:Dlowan, I think that causing pain to a sentient being is unethical, but I don’t know if a fleeting moment of suffering would matter to an eternal god, or to the universe in general (assuming that either has any awareness of our pain). Do we care about the suffering of a child who lived 100,000 years ago?
Whether it mattered to the god or not, it was real.
Quote:I do not fear death. I was dead for billions of years before I was born.
I don't think you can die if haven't been born yet and why should it matter you were "dead" billions of years" you still don't know whats out there afterlife and that's what most of us fear.
Rafamen, I think you do not take Terry's meaning accurately. By "dead" he did not mean after-dying; he meant not existing (both in the sense before birth or after life). Is that correct Terry?
I've said a number of times here that "after-life" and "before-birth" are essentially the same, and that we are never in a state of death after dying: this is because there will be no self (subject) to "be in a state of death" (predicate) after one's life/existence ends.
From a mystic's perspective, moreover, the ego-self never exists, either before birth, during life, or after life.
