Do all children prefer to have immortal egos?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:28 am

I would have liked this thread to be based on a poll, but I guess we dont have that option anymore.

Anyways, I want to see if the majority of the people on this forum were all similar as children, in that they prefered literal immortality.

-------------------------------------------------------------

It would be great if as many of you people as possible could not only vote, but elaborate a bit about your choice as well.

Personally, I liked the idea of an afterlife when I was a child, and as I got older I sought for scientific explanations for how my consciousness was somehow immortal. When my parents told me about heaven and hell - I scorned the idea of hell saying that I thought it was a stupid and that there was no way God would do that.

Anyways,

Here are the choices:

a) As a child I disliked the idea of an after life, and as I got older I wanted there to be an after life and sought out reasons to believe

b) I liked the idea of an afterlife as a child, and as I got older, I searched for and was excited by explanations of immortality that seemed scientific

c) As a child I liked the idea of an afterlife, but I was eager to disprove it as a possibility

d) As a child I always disliked the idea of an after life, and to this day I dislike it

e) I always like the idea of an afterlife, but despite I like it, I don't belief in it because I think disbelieving in that sort of things is strong

f) Immortality never once crossed my mind as a child

or

g) immortality was a concept that the brain never took.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:45 am

I believe in Dick Clark, so I suppose that it must be possible to live forever in this life as long as you periodically drink water from the Holy Grail.

I don't think I answered your question.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:47 am

Sorry to do this, but what if immortality was never even a childhood thought?

Steven Coyle · Post by **Steven Coyle** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:07 am

A)

I vividly recall lying on the bed with my mother as a young child, listening to her stories of the Christian afterlife. Though simplistic and innocent, the notion of eternity blew my mind; frightening and exhilarating at once. My mother was pregnant with my younger brother at the time, and both the idea of creation and destruction filled my impressions with a strong sense of wonder. Looking back, the combination of storytelling and child birth was a good introduction to paradox and imagination.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:19 am

Kowtaaia,

Sorry to do this, but what if immortality was never even a childhood thought?

doesnt matter, that just makes it more interesting.

Do you find the prospects of life-everlasting exhilerating? For instance, after the death of you physical body, having some sort of spiritual essence liberated and set to continue working and playing with reality indefinitely.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:23 am

Kowtaaia,

didnt the sort of thought that I just expressed in my most recent post cross your mind at all as a teenager?

Greg Shantz · Post by **Greg Shantz** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:26 am

I remember being terrified of the idea of living forever, as a child.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:31 am

Cory Duchesne wrote:Do you find the prospects of life-everlasting exhilerating? For instance, after the death of you physical body, having some sort of spiritual essence liberated and set to continue working and playing with reality indefinitely.

Only when watching sci-fi. :)

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:40 am

Cory,

When death comes, you are finished.

beebuddy · Post by **beebuddy** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:48 am

Duuuuuust in the wind... All we are is dust in the wiiiind.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:54 am

Cory,

When death comes, you are finished.

[laughs] ok, kowtaaia, yes that is the likely scenario.

But the point of this thread wasnt to argue whats true. I'm just trying to understand if the desire for literal immortality is a universal drive in humans.

Please don't think I need someone to convince me the afterlife is not real.

Personally, I do not value the belief one way or the other. I am perfectly fine with 'absoulte cessation' - an extinguishing.

But as a child and as a teenager I prefer to live forever.

But I was terrifed of god though! I remember praying to him as a child not to show himself. I wasnt dumb enough to think he was some old dude with a beard, but I thought he might be some sort of supernatural face of light or something. It just freaked me out and I prayed to him never to reveal himself to me.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:55 am

Greg wrote:

I remember being terrified of the idea of living forever, as a child.

why?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:04 am

Cory,

Take the first 'kow' post in this thread and remove the word 'childhood'. :) Just call the 'immortality thingy' a conditioning that the brain never took.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:11 am

Kowtaaia,

Take the first 'kow' post in this thread and remove the word 'childhood'. :) Just call the 'immortality thingy' a conditioning that the brain never took.

why didnt your brain take it?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:29 am

That's a very good question. There was a wonderful lack of parental conditioning with regard to the hypothetical and for some reason or other, the birth of ego was completely conscious. So, there was never any delusion with regard to personal reality. Ipso facto.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:55 pm

Kowtaaia: That's a very good question. There was a wonderful lack of parental conditioning with regard to the hypothetical and for some reason or other, the birth of ego was completely conscious. So, there was never any delusion with regard to personal reality. Ipso facto.

Are you saying the birth of kowtaaia's ego was completely conscious?

Were you born enlightened?

Greg Shantz · Post by **Greg Shantz** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 4:15 pm

Cory Duchesne wrote:Greg wrote:

I remember being terrified of the idea of living forever, as a child.
why?

I couldn't grasp the concept.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:18 am

Is it possible to know? I don't think so.

Therefore we are left with belief. There is more, or there is not more. There is an intelligent setup, or there is not. There is meaning or there is none.

Which of these is personally useful? To which is one predisposed, that is the question.

I have always been predisposed to more, setup, and meaning.

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:42 am

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Kowtaaia: That's a very good question. There was a wonderful lack of parental conditioning with regard to the hypothetical and for some reason or other, the birth of ego was completely conscious. So, there was never any delusion with regard to personal reality. Ipso facto.
Are you saying the birth of kowtaaia's ego was completely conscious?

Were you born enlightened?

The birth of ego was completely conscious. Is ego possession or possessor? What do you realize the ego to be?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:19 am

Greg: I remember being terrified of the idea of living forever, as a child.

Cory: why?

Greg: I couldn't grasp the concept.

So did you find the concept of just being forever extinguished at death frightening as well? Or did you find that comforting in contrast to an afterlife?

And as you got older, did you eventually start finding the afterlife a comforting idea?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:33 am

Carl: Is it possible to know? I don't think so.

point taken, however: do you think the possibility of an afterlife is a more optimisitic scenario than if there is no after life?

Carl: Therefore we are left with belief. There is more, or there is not more. There is an intelligent setup, or there is not. There is meaning or there is none.

Oh, I see. So you think that if we remove the possibility of an afterlife, we remove the possibility of there being meaning?

Carl: Which of these(afterlife or no-afterlife) is personally useful? To which is one predisposed, that is the question.

I have always been predisposed to more, setup, and meaning.

I suppose you find it a bit deflating, cynical and almost sad if the concept of afterlife were to somehow be proven false, no?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:51 am

Kowtaaia: That's a very good question. There was a wonderful lack of parental conditioning with regard to the hypothetical and for some reason or other, the birth of ego was completely conscious. So, there was never any delusion with regard to personal reality. Ipso facto.

Cory: Are you saying the birth of kowtaaia's ego was completely conscious? Were you born enlightened?

Kowtaaia: The birth of ego was completely conscious.

Ok, so I'm assuming you mean: "the birth of kow's ego was completely conscious."

yes, you've said that once already! :)

I would like to understand what you mean.

I think you provide a bit of an opportunity in the comment quoted below:

Kow: Is ego possession or possessor? What do you realize the ego to be?

I think you are basically asking: "is the nature of reality dualisitc or monist?

If you are not familiar with those terms(dualism & monism), the former, dualism, basically means that: consciousness is a non physical & spiritual substance(however that works) and it is seperate from the physical world. For instance, the philosopher Descartes believed that the pineal gland on the physical brain was a sort of antenna or receptor that picked up consciousness/language/awareness, and consciousness he believed was non-physical & spiritual. This particular 'decarteisian' explanation of how consciousness relates to the brain may not be correct - however - a different sort of dualistic explanation might be true instead.

On the other hand we have monism. A monist would see the physical brain as something that produces consciousnes awareness. From the monists perspective, the irritating of nervous tissue somehow produces subjective conscious experience, and memories and thought are simply electrical impulse that can be observable physiologically with instruments.

And so that brings us back to your question. what do I believe the ego to be?

I'm not sure. You see, I'm looking for a teacher on this subject matter, so maybe you or others could help me toward understanding.

You tell me know, what do you realize the ego to be?

kowtaaia · Post by **kowtaaia** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:42 am

Let's approach this from another angle. Do you have an ego or are you the ego? If the ego is something that you have, then what are you?

In your reality comment, you left out 'non-duality', the way it is. :)

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:04 am

Cory asked:

do you think the possibility of an afterlife is a more optimisitic scenario than if there is no after life?

That might depend on the quality of afterlife nothingness is compared against.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:36 am

Kow wrote:

Kow: Do you have an ego or are you the ego?

I would say that I am the ego. To say that â€˜I have an egoâ€™ is to divide the observer from the observed. Such a division is an illusion.

However, I would like to hear what you think the ego is. What do you think the ego is? What is it made of?

Kow: In your reality comment, you left out 'non-duality', the way it is. :)

What is the difference between â€˜non-dualityâ€™ and monism? Give my description of monism another quick read and tell me what you think.