Life after Death - Why Bother?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by ardy »

Dennis Mahar wrote:Being is a priori to language.

What does language do?
weaving understandings, thinkings, formulas, scripts for the possibility of a 'bullet-proof' shining forth.

belonging to language?
for the sake of?

pep talks?
tips?
pointers?
Yes Dennis language ties us up and as soon as you open your mouth you have lost it. Still what can we do? We could be like you and let a stream of conscience flow out and not give a damn about understanding or communication [which I appreciate BTW]. OTOH we can and do offer up more and more language and get further and further away from what we want to say. Death lives in the background of all of us and language is a curtain that we use to hide the reality from ourselves.

Funny thing! the other night I dreamt I fell off a cliff and far from my daytime saying that I don't give a damn about dying, the screaming fear of slipping over this cliff totally overcame me in my dream, and made me wonder if my waking 'dreams' are less real than my sleeping dreams..... I think I should change it to be 'I don't give a damn about dying as long as I'm not there to experience it'.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Funny thing! the other night I dreamt I fell off a cliff and far from my daytime saying that I don't give a damn about dying, the screaming fear of slipping over this cliff totally overcame me in my dream, and made me wonder if my waking 'dreams' are less real than my sleeping dreams..... I think I should change it to be 'I don't give a damn about dying as long as I'm not there to experience it'.
dreams are incredibly intelligent.
ushering in transformational possibilities.

the 'I' in the dream, as usual, quakes with fear at the portent of groundlessness.
be kind for the little bugger,
it wants to let go and comes to it.
it worries about 'what's in it for beingness'.
it's trying to protect like a guardian for being.
Be with it, this dearly beloved wonder of wonders.
It is for flourishing albeit with trepidation.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But most of what you are is not born in that sphere and will not leave either after your death.
Diebert - aren't you making an assumption based on your own mental processes? The reality of who I or you are is beyond you and I. This statement is the basis of just another religion. If you are just moving the goal posts where does that take you?
Lets just rewind for a minute here and understand that any assumption of a life after death is intimately coupled to any assumption to what this life before death is about. This is a reasoned, firm understanding based in logic. And for the time being I'll assume logic is sufficient as opposed to merely "assumption". Of course the way to arrive at such understanding is bit more complex than some logical declaration: it's a road.

Anyway, many of the issues around the fact of bodies dying has to do with identification with that body. But even here what "you and I" are transcends the bodily. Even our conception of our body, looks and internal organs are through abstraction and chaotic senses: all mirrors darkly. The order that one distills with the body awareness is just one layer of a complex of being. Just a functioning body is not a whole identity. The fictional self only arises as part of a supplied narrative, supplied by community, culture , ritual, habit and such patterns. Even animals have their own versions if complex enough social interactions are in place to organize "selves" that way, even when it's diffuse. And certainly the last ages the individual body awareness has grown in a very particular way through our cultures. It always was there but the focus has changed significantly.

So when I'm talking about anything "beyond you and me", I'm starting at a very physical and experimental level. Beyond the head, beyond the body, beyond what happens in this room. The boundaries are vague because identities are all about where to put goal posts: but who is putting them where for what reason? And aren't they being shifted all day long at will? Isn't that what makes us layered beings?

The wise man, however, has already found himself reflected in the universe which will not go anywhere or come from somewhere. The uniqueness of the individual, inner thoughts, feelings, specific memories somehow embedded into locality and circumstance, for the best or the worse, aren't they all assumptions? Perhaps, more likely even, it's all fairly common and repetitive, even our innermost stuff. Why assume it's not? Probably because this exclusive knowledge is asserted first? The deeper one descends and explores one true nature the more one will see we're not that private after all. But to function as individual assertions have to be made and language needs to be conflicted and limiting.

Of course it's easy to type or read this line of reasoning but spirituality is to actually embody and live that outlook to the degree one learns to see unity and connectivity as clear as anything else is seen. When this vision would be ingrained deeply enough and the turning of the body allows clarity of mind, there will be no death to taste. But that's not the immortality most humans are busy with in their religions but even there, to some degree, it's telling this story in easier to understand symbols - and easier to misunderstand. Luckily such misunderstanding dies for sure in man.
SeekerOfWisdom
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 12:23 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by SeekerOfWisdom »

ardy wrote: OK let me stamp on your foot and see if your appearance is definitely not you! It is too easy to get caught up in all these ideas which really take you nowhere. Until I experience something different, I will try to eat when I'm hungry and sleep when I'm tired - frankly I find doing this almost too hard. To sit and contemplate reality and a re-incarnation, as Buddha stated that he was the umpteenth Buddha and the previous one was Fred Blogs is a form of delusion that all humans can be subject to.

The only way life after death means anything to me is in terms of my water and carbon that I leave in the ground.

All of that only shows how little you understand and how much you cling to errors in understanding.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by ardy »

SeekerOfWisdom wrote:All of that only shows how little you understand and how much you cling to errors in understanding.
All of that shows how much you are linked to the voice in your head, and how little you understand about life and death.
User avatar
Fox
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:02 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Fox »

No,

Ardy, Life becomes a prison for some---

You cannot throw words like arrows at a person with highly intelligent-mannerisms. There, is a war out there, Ardy. I'm facing---battles. I'm closing in on the 'enemy...';
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by ardy »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Lets just rewind for a minute here and understand that any assumption of a life after death is intimately coupled to any assumption to what this life before death is about. This is a reasoned, firm understanding based in logic. And for the time being I'll assume logic is sufficient as opposed to merely "assumption". Of course the way to arrive at such understanding is bit more complex than some logical declaration: it's a road.

Anyway, many of the issues around the fact of bodies dying has to do with identification with that body[Agree]. But even here what "you and I" are transcends the bodily. Even our conception of our body, looks and internal organs are through abstraction and chaotic senses: all mirrors darkly. The order that one distills with the body awareness is just one layer of a complex of being. Just a functioning body is not a whole identity [Agree, it is only a vehicle]. The fictional self only arises as part of a supplied narrative, supplied by community, culture , ritual, habit and such patterns. Even animals have their own versions if complex enough social interactions are in place to organize "selves" that way, even when it's diffuse. And certainly the last ages the individual body awareness has grown in a very particular way through our cultures. It always was there but the focus has changed significantly.

So when I'm talking about anything "beyond you and me", I'm starting at a very physical and experimental level. Beyond the head, beyond the body, beyond what happens in this room. The boundaries are vague because identities are all about where to put goal posts: but who is putting them where for what reason? And aren't they being shifted all day long at will? Isn't that what makes us layered beings? [The goal posts become firm once you have a hold on who you are.]

The wise man, however, has already found himself reflected in the universe which will not go anywhere or come from somewhere. [Total Agreement] The uniqueness of the individual, inner thoughts, feelings, specific memories somehow embedded into locality and circumstance, for the best or the worse, aren't they all assumptions? [No - a video is capable of showing it to be a real experience and not an assumption]Perhaps, more likely even, it's all fairly common and repetitive, even our innermost stuff. [Agree] Why assume it's not? [Why assume it is anything? As a default, the Null hypothesis holds]probably because this exclusive knowledge is asserted first? The deeper one descends and explores one true nature the more one will see we're not that private after all. But to function as individual assertions have to be made and language needs to be conflicted and limiting. - [Don't understand this statement if you are saying that language where there are disagreements with others is a sign of individuality then I agree, if you are saying something else - please explain?]

Of course it's easy to type or read this line of reasoning but spirituality is to actually embody and live that outlook to the degree one learns to see unity and connectivity as clear as anything else is seen.[True] When this vision would be ingrained deeply enough and the turning of the body allows clarity of mind, there will be no death to taste. [I think this is questionable at best, even Jesus lost his faith in those last moments]But that's not the immortality most humans are busy with in their religions but even there, to some degree, it's telling this story in easier to understand symbols - and easier to misunderstand. Luckily such misunderstanding dies for sure in man.
Diebert - agree with most of this see underlined above.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by ardy »

Fox wrote:No,

Ardy, Life becomes a prison for some---

You cannot throw words like arrows at a person with highly intelligent-mannerisms. There, is a war out there, Ardy. I'm facing---battles. I'm closing in on the 'enemy...';
Fox life is a prison for many. They struggle for something beyond the basis of Maslows triangle or even their needs, then find themselves in old age, wondering where did my life go? We have silly people killing themselves over not being in the public gaze as much as they used to.

If your battles are with yourself then that is good over evil if they are with other humans then you are wasting your breath. In these forums if you don't state what you think there is a price to pay for telling people what you think they want to hear.
troutman99
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 1:27 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by troutman99 »

because life on earth is a test...
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Ardy, with a little delay:
ardy wrote:
diebert wrote:The uniqueness of the individual, inner thoughts, feelings, specific memories somehow embedded into locality and circumstance, for the best or the worse, aren't they all assumptions?
No - a video is capable of showing it to be a real experience and not an assumption
Making a video of something does not generate any added "reality" to an event. I'm not sure if I need to explain why. Whatever is shared with others demands some form of agreement, reasoning, underlying assumptions, interpretive framework and ontologies to be in place. The video does not change a thing although it can facilitate the ease of the process: as medium it provides some sort of common substrate in which agreements can be reached a bit faster.
ardyt wrote:
diebert wrote:Of course it's easy to type or read this line of reasoning but spirituality is to actually embody and live that outlook to the degree one learns to see unity and connectivity as clear as anything else is seen. When this vision would be ingrained deeply enough and the turning of the body allows clarity of mind, there will be no death to taste.
I think this is questionable at best, even Jesus lost his faith in those last moments
Historical characters are no argument. This is about a logical assertion: the eternal has no place and time, no relativity, hence the name "absolute". Therefore when it's being said clarity of mind would mean "immersing oneself in the Infinite" or becoming "aware of the absolute", it necessarily follows that there's no death in that vision. But from the position of the "dead", the historical, the symbolic consciousness we're usually identified with, this looks like absolutely nothing and deadly instead and therefore avoided.
fontana
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:51 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by fontana »

Ardy, what a great subject. When I died briefly last year, I experienced "nothing" also. But, my memory of the event was clouded by alcohol and prescription drugs. Of course, when one is dead why can we assume that memories are possible. I, like many people here, agree that we came from something and we will continue to be something when our bodies fail. The idea that we could just somehow vanish into absolute nothing seems as unlikely as the stories that religions promote. It shouldn't be long before science will be able to measure the process of our physical transition from life through death. First we need to tackle the problem of identifying what we are without the human body during life. Using logical insights brings only brings me to a conundrum. Using scientific tools and measurements should bring someone to the answer, eventually.

Still, your subject brings up another good question. If there is no afterlife then what's the point of life at all? Living for each moment has value for me because there is inherent beauty with or without eternity. Finding a valuable purpose in life is its own challenge. Seeking the answers to all the riddles of this universe seems to be enough to go on. Then sharing beautiful experiences with others helps quite a bit. And when none of that works, imagining a huge asteroid hitting the Earth and bring us all to our inevitable doom helps too.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: This is about a logical assertion: the eternal has no place and time, no relativity, hence the name "absolute". Therefore when it's being said clarity of mind would mean "immersing oneself in the Infinite" or becoming "aware of the absolute", it necessarily follows that there's no death in that vision. But from the position of the "dead", the historical, the symbolic consciousness we're usually identified with, this looks like absolutely nothing and deadly instead and therefore avoided.
I'd like to explore what you've said here as it goes to the core of the question of whether or not conceptual consciousness exists in the absolute. I say it does where I believe most here say it does not.

My argument is that when the veil of 'self' (attachment to what you call historical or symbolic consciousness) is removed, "all that is left" is consciousness of concepts. In other words, to die to the idea of self is to enter into the eternal life of conceptual consciousness. And one knows one has entered in into eternity when they cease being aware of (emotional) residue, the self-shadow of "hanging on."
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by ardy »

fontana wrote:Ardy, what a great subject. When I died briefly last year, I experienced "nothing" also. But, my memory of the event was clouded by alcohol and prescription drugs. Of course, when one is dead why can we assume that memories are possible. I, like many people here, agree that we came from something and we will continue to be something when our bodies fail. The idea that we could just somehow vanish into absolute nothing seems as unlikely as the stories that religions promote. It shouldn't be long before science will be able to measure the process of our physical transition from life through death. First we need to tackle the problem of identifying what we are without the human body during life. Using logical insights brings only brings me to a conundrum. Using scientific tools and measurements should bring someone to the answer, eventually.

Still, your subject brings up another good question. If there is no afterlife then what's the point of life at all? Living for each moment has value for me because there is inherent beauty with or without eternity. Finding a valuable purpose in life is its own challenge. Seeking the answers to all the riddles of this universe seems to be enough to go on. Then sharing beautiful experiences with others helps quite a bit. And when none of that works, imagining a huge asteroid hitting the Earth and bring us all to our inevitable doom helps too.
Fontana: My view is that the idea of a life after death is a construct of the ego that cannot face the idea that the end is the end. Why is it hard to accept that? Isn't that all you experience in reality day to day. You kill bugs with fly spray, you don't expect them to live on in some existence do you? Why is this only us and the things we care a lot about ie a loved dog or horse maybe..
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by ardy »

Movingalways: I agree with most of this My argument is that when the veil of 'self' (attachment to what you call historical or symbolic consciousness) is removed, "all that is left" is consciousness of concepts. In other words, to die to the idea of self is to enter into the eternal life of conceptual consciousness. And one knows one has entered in into eternity when they cease being aware of (emotional) residue, the self-shadow of "hanging on."
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:In other words, to die to the idea of self is to enter into the eternal life of conceptual consciousness.
If you are seeing "eternal life" as the Heavens with its laws of God or the universe, aeons of aeons (but that's still not eternity), the whole symbolic realm, causality or even "our Father or "God the Creator" -- then you really talk about entering the "heavens". But heavens just as any realization or earth are not for ever. For most people it's conceptually uncountable time and from that perspective it's timeless perhaps.
And one knows one has entered in into eternity when they cease being aware of (emotional) residue, the self-shadow of "hanging on."
Just having stopped being aware of it does not verify anything. It's difficult to describe the knowing and entering of what has no description (by definition). But perhaps we can start by describing what can be known, heaven and earth (not the planet) - or to use the Gnostic phrase: born of water and of spirit. So far you talk a lot about baptisms by water. What I don't hear much about is the baptism by fire. Water spirits do not count!
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Leyla Shen »

D: Of course it's easy to type or read this line of reasoning but spirituality is to actually embody and live that outlook to the degree one learns to see unity and connectivity as clear as anything else is seen. When this vision would be ingrained deeply enough and the turning of the body allows clarity of mind, there will be no death to taste.

a: I think this is questionable at best, even Jesus lost his faith in those last moments

D: Historical characters are no argument. This is about a logical assertion: the eternal has no place and time, no relativity, hence the name "absolute". Therefore when it's being said clarity of mind would mean "immersing oneself in the Infinite" or becoming "aware of the absolute", it necessarily follows that there's no death in that vision. But from the position of the "dead", the historical, the symbolic consciousness we're usually identified with, this looks like absolutely nothing and deadly instead and therefore avoided.
All that is just Diebert's way of saying that if you think about it, you come to accept death rather than spend a lifetime in its shadow. Although, one certainly could be forgiven for thinking he's saying exactly the opposite; something on the order of "death does not exist because it is eternal".
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:All that is just Diebert's way of saying that if you think about it, you come to accept death rather than spend a lifetime in its shadow. Although, one certainly could be forgiven for thinking he's saying exactly the opposite; something on the order of "death does not exist because it is eternal".
Another way then, especially for you: from a dead perspective one can and should contemplate death and all the dead things since those studies are sobering and reflective. From a living perspective, the present view, death simply does not exist since nothing "comes and goes" in and out of that perspective.

Generally people move between dead and living perspectives somewhat nervously. Enlightenment involves mastering both perspectives entirely.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Just having stopped being aware of it does not verify anything. It's difficult to describe the knowing and entering of what has no description (by definition). But perhaps we can start by describing what can be known, heaven and earth (not the planet) - or to use the Gnostic phrase: born of water and of spirit. So far you talk a lot about baptisms by water. What I don't hear much about is the baptism by fire. Water spirits do not count!
Not suggesting I am not aware of my emotional residue, my earthen vessel, what I assume you mean by water spirits, far from it. I've had glimpses of heaven, eternity, but that is all.

Perhaps if you started a thread on baptism by fire you'd hear more about baptism by fire. I know I'd appreciate the opportunity to step into the flame of spirit.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:Not suggesting I am not aware of my emotional residue, my earthen vessel, what I assume you mean by water spirits, far from it. I've had glimpses of heaven, eternity, but that is all.
What I attempted was a little re-framing of those terms. It can take a while before it starts making sense but you might find out it's more useful this way. At least it was for me! The waters are linked to the heavens (sea and sky). Or like in Genesis where Heaven is "a firmament between the waters to separate water from water". This dome or vault contains all the waters, keeping them into place, above as below. Therefore heaven contains the waters, and not Earth, metaphysically at least. It's possible to see in this dome our own skull or various body membranes: the mental, physical, dualist sky but just as well extent it to God's dwelling: universe as creation: feelings and thoughts doing their dance. Trying to distinguish these becomes meaningless at the deeper levels as they are the same thing just moving slightly differently and all are fully caused like everything under the sky. But one can dive into the sky, swimming all the streams and venture deeply into secrets. In this sense we are all heavenly creatures!

For the Earth, as distinct from Heaven, we need to find another image. Not the material or conceptual. Not even the "bare feet in the sand" sense. The Earth is connected to vision, to future, to inheritance or the "Son". Like the Christian metaphor: the only begotten Son was sent to Earth or born on Earth. It's every day that Earth is being birthed in our various views, visions and "faith". It's the horizon which is not the water, the land nor the sky. It doesn't "exist" that way yet we embody it as living, seeing being. This is why it's eternally true that God or Heaven births Man or Earth. As Nietzsche wrote: man is a bridge, a going over and under. He's nothing but vision and at the beginning and end, indeed like a skyline everywhere you look. The Earth is Man is his eye sight. Which is also his light and his "fire".

But we still haven't gotten to the eternal as "heaven and earth will disappear". This is a whole different ball game now and does not diminish or negate anything above.
Perhaps if you started a thread on baptism by fire you'd hear more about baptism by fire. I know I'd appreciate the opportunity to step into the flame of spirit.
The modified terminology I'm introducing is pretty exclusive though. Not sure how many reading here besides you are sensitive for it. But what I basically did was redressing the "genius philosophy" as potentially one of fire and difficulty, as baptism of another kind but only possible after "water baptism" which means one goes deep under but also emerges again. About the thread I'll have to think.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Perspectivism

Post by Leyla Shen »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:All that is just Diebert's way of saying that if you think about it, you come to accept death rather than spend a lifetime in its shadow. Although, one certainly could be forgiven for thinking he's saying exactly the opposite; something on the order of "death does not exist because it is eternal".
Another way then, especially for you: from a dead perspective one can and should contemplate death and all the dead things since those studies are sobering and reflective. From a living perspective, the present view, death simply does not exist since nothing "comes and goes" in and out of that perspective.

Generally people move between dead and living perspectives somewhat nervously. Enlightenment involves mastering both perspectives entirely.
Especially for me? And you wonder why I don't accept that you're my reflection!

What, Diebert, is the meaning of this?

In the spirit of the present moment, I think it entirely appropriate that a living dead man speak for me:
This is the proper phenomenalism and perspectivism as I understand it: the nature of animal consciousness involves the notion that the world of which we can become conscious is only a superficial and symbolic world, a generalised and vulgarised world; - that everything which becomes conscious becomes just thereby shallow, meagre, relatively stupid, - a generalisation, a symbol, a characteristic of the herd; that with the evolving of consciousness there is always combined a great, radical perversion, falsification, superficial-isation, and generalisation. Finally, the growing consciousness is a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans knows even that it is a disease. As may be conjectured, it is not the antithesis of subject and object with which I am here concerned: I leave that distinction to the epistemologists who have remained entangled in the toils of grammar (popular metaphysics). It is still less the antithesis of "thing in itself" and phenomenon, for we do not "know" enough to be entitled even to make such a distinction. Indeed, we have not any organ at all for knowing, or for "truth": we "know" (or believe, or fancy) just as much as may be of use in the interest of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called "usefulness" is ultimately only a belief, a fancy, and perhaps precisely the most fatal stupidity by which we shall one day be ruinedNietzsche
Between Suicides
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Perspectivism

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla Shen wrote:In the spirit of the present moment, I think it entirely appropriate that a living dead man speak for me
But you are in need of a dead living man to map it to what I wrote earlier. And I do it gladly:
  • the nature of animal consciousness involves the notion that the world of which we can become conscious is only a superficial and symbolic world, a generalised and vulgarised world; - that everything which becomes conscious becomes just thereby shallow, meagre, relatively stupid, - a generalisation, a symbol, a characteristic of the herd
The "dead' perspective. Dead as "in heaven". This is why I linked the heavens to the disembodied, the symbolic world. It can be vulgarized but for most it contains also the mystery, the elevation and the rapture. This is an "underwater" world. It's where we're born into, a confusing world of senses, opinion and at best some rationality, some reason which has it own terrors.
  • Finally, the growing consciousness is a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans knows even that it is a disease.
Because what is attempted is to create a "living" perspective through multiplying dead ones. The quest for immortality or the craving for eternity, a "real", another now. In some way modernity has actually realized this by grouping around the modest flames of sensuality and information immediacy.
  • Indeed, we have not any organ at all for knowing, or for "truth": we "know" (or believe, or fancy) just as much as may be of use in the interest of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called "usefulness" is ultimately only a belief, a fancy, and perhaps precisely the most fatal stupidity by which we shall one day be ruined.
This is why "the Übermensch shall be the meaning of the earth" instead of any false heavens. It's always the future Nietzsche was concerned with, the ability to see, to have any vision at all, man as bridge - not as end. It's no secret we live in an age with lots of images but little vision, which is not knowing since the future cannot be known.

And of course Nietzsche knew something (XLIV. The Stillest Hour). He just doesn't say it out loud because loudness would not be able to contain it.
Last edited by Diebert van Rhijn on Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert, your metaphysics do touch my sensibilities and I would say that I am slowly emerging from the deep of the heavens. Just for the record, my foot in the sand avatar was chosen to represent standing on a singular vision, perhaps I should find a foot in the fire! :-)
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:Diebert, your metaphysics do touch my sensibilities and I would say that I am slowly emerging from the deep of the heavens. Just for the record, my foot in the sand avatar was chosen to represent standing on a singular vision, perhaps I should find a foot in the fire! :-)
Only now I realize your avatar so I was not consciously referring to it. It's nice though as one can wonder where the other leg went. Was it a crane-person looking at the horizon at the shore line? Or if the footprints will stop altogether soon (the "being carried"). It's earthy alright!
fontana
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:51 am

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by fontana »

Ardy.

So, my question is: What happens to us when we die? Where does the energy that makes us up go? Where do we go?

I'm content with a non-romantic answer that we dissipate into en ether and that is it. And I'm with you, it's disheartening when people construct their own truths based merely on fear, imagination and ego.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Life after Death - Why Bother?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

fontana wrote:I'm content with a non-romantic answer that we dissipate into en ether and that is it. And I'm with you, it's disheartening when people construct their own truths based merely on fear, imagination and ego.
You still believe in an ether?? ;-)
Locked