Chumly, interesting response: "No, not unless or until I can fully embrace all the forces of the universe. I am not convinced anyone else can either, regardless of their claims and perceptions, but I'm not immune to being convinced otherwise, if it can be directly shown."
By "one-with-the-universe" I refer not to the Cosmos quantitatively. That would require you expand yourSELF to the size of the Cosmos or shrink the Cosmos to your size--I think "rationalists" try to shrink it to the size of their brain.
No-one can show you your unity with all that which is "not you". Only you can see that you and "all else" (that you perceive) is one. You ARE your experiences, not a subject to which they happen. The connection between you and your experiences (the so-called "objects" of your experience) is qualitative, not quantitative--and realized intuitively (i.e., immediately, directly), not by means of discursive debate. I cannot show you your unity (what the zen buddhists call your "big mind," as opposed to your "little mind" or "separate" ego-self).
Phoenix32890 wrote:neologist wrote:Yeah, but all those things aside, if you were to croak right now from some wayward aneurysm or misplaced meteorite, would that event be welcomed as a friend or lamented as an enemy?
Silly. If you croaked from an aneurysm, or a meteorite, it would be so quick that you would not have to waste one minute of your precious time on deciding how you feel about it.
Zap.......................It's over! 
In actuality a body hitting the earth could take quite some time (minutes, days, perhaps even years) for it to be globally lethal to all humans.
Hi JLNobody,
I'll have to think a while on what you said before I can respond in kind!
Chumly wrote:Phoenix32890 wrote:neologist wrote:Yeah, but all those things aside, if you were to croak right now from some wayward aneurysm or misplaced meteorite, would that event be welcomed as a friend or lamented as an enemy?
Silly. If you croaked from an aneurysm, or a meteorite, it would be so quick that you would not have to waste one minute of your precious time on deciding how you feel about it.
Zap.......................It's over!
In actuality a body hitting the earth could take quite some time (minutes, days, perhaps even years) for it to be globally lethal to all humans.
I think we were talking about a personal sized meteorite. LOL. But
Phoenix, what about one's family in the case of the sudden death? . . .
I've said this in many ways before, but before I can consider my inevitable after-life condition to be either good or bad, I have to decide whether I consider my before-birth condition to have been either good or bad. Since I can't answer the latter (and, very loosely speaking, I was there), I give no attention to the former. As far as I am concerned I can imagine no plausible difference between them (viz., after-life and before-birth). But I call the fomer "death" while feeling no warrant to do so with the latter.
But we are not just talking about being vs. nothingness, are we? Our living and dying generally affects those surrounding us; family, friends and others who care for us. Am I right that this question can't be answered in a vacuum?
By that do you mean that it can't answered once the whisky bottle is empty?
With me, I would be lucky to be conscious once the whiskey bottle is empty. But get serious, Chumly
Phoenix32890 wrote:edgar- Of course I would rage, and attempt to hang on to my existence for as long as reasonably possible. But at some point one must become comfortable with the inevitable.
Exactly how I feel about it.
Phoenix, why would I want to hang onto my existence as long as possible? Time is not itself my standard; I do feel that whether I live another 30 or 15 years the moment of my demise will probably seem to have passed by with equal speed. I think of my "longetivity" in terms of the number of things I can accomplish and experience. A gross atemporarl yet quantitative standard, I confess.
JLN, I agree; it's the quality of life that matters, not the length.
I like the way Dr. Meilaender states it:
"Since for humans to have life means to know that death is inevitable, learning how to die is a lesson we all must learn. In this endeavor our culture gives us conflicting signals about our dying. On the one hand, death is understood to be an enemy of our control over our fate, and is, therefore, an indignity; and on the other hand, death is understood as a natural part of life, a friend whose coming we should embrace. well."
I'm waiting for someone to say that death is a friend because god will take him/her to heaven.
Wait then. Why are you waiting? I am not going to say that.
I'm waiting 'cause no one has said it yet.. . .
What if no one does, then what.
neologist wrote:I'm waiting for someone to say that death is a friend because god will take him/her to heaven.
I think we executed those people.
Lash wrote:neologist wrote:I'm waiting for someone to say that death is a friend because god will take him/her to heaven.
I think we executed those people.
I knew something like that might happen if I stayed away for a while.
Was it ugly?
Quality of life determines it? I don't think so. I have not had a particularly great time of it, but, I am not ready to concede that death is desireable or even okay.
Interestingly, the bible refers to death as an enemy. (1 Corinthians 15:26)
