Death

[Immanuel Can]

"If...life is an emergent property, it seems to me that all life must be examples of the same principle, and that one life emerging is necessarily the same as any other."

Hello again, Henry. Nice to hear from you.

You're right to point out that perhaps James has misunderstood a term. "Emergent" means "appearing suddenly and (apparently) without cause from an uncausually-related source," as when Materialists claim that somehow consciousness just magically "emerges" from unconscious materials when they are combined in some peculiar way. (This is a highly implausible suggestion, a dodging of a serious problem with Materialism, and clearly just a case of Materialism resorting to magical explanations.)

In any case, even if it were true (and we have absolutely no reason to think it is) it does not at all follow that "one life emerging is the same as another." That has to be recognized as a complete non-sequitur. If it were true, then *all* lives would be exactly the same thing, which is also clearly untrue. So James would have to do a lot to patch that statement up -- unless he meant something different that we do not yet understand.

Good catch.

[henry quirk]

Manny,

"Nice to hear from you."

Been busy...still am.

#

"Good catch"

Sometimes I'm firin' on all cylinders...

[Bernard]

Bernard: I have no ill-will here. But let's try to stay away from supposing evil motives from one another, or accusing one another of misrepresenting. What I'm attempting to do, and what I hope you're attempting to do, is to examine each others' views. The views we can criticize, but we need not fall to criticizing each other -- for I freely admit I do not know your motives or your personality, so to judge you would be wrong for me, as it would be wrong for you to judge me without knowing me. But our views are being placed in plain sight, for all to see, and for the very purpose of mutual examination. So until further notice, I'll imagine you to be a person of good will, but one with a different view from my own; and I invite you to believe the same about me.

Of course

Your view, as expressed by you, is as follows...


You say that death is not a random force or happening. Fine: but that then suggests the only alternative to randomness, which would be purposefulness. Yet you do not say who is doing the purposing here. You say it is "in perfect concord with life" and "in accord with the demands of life." It seems to me an anthropomorphism of the concept "life," a treating of an impersonal force as if it were some sort of purposing agent. I have to question that: what do you mean when you say "life" can "demand" anything?

It is not so much that we anthropomorphise life but that life morphs us anthropoids. Yah, essentially life is impersonal, but that does not preclude it from being purposeful. I see it like this: Existence is PRIMARILYcomposed of living things, its not that life emerges out of matter, but more the case that matter emerges from life, though that isn't quite a correct statement either. If you consider though that the primary ingredient of existence is living things then you'd have to regard life as the ruling principle of anything that occurs, and that we are therefore surrounded by an infinity of impersonal directives of purpose and intent from living things vast and tiny. It is that endlessness of intending and purpose that I regard as life in general - infinite activity of infinite living things. All this intelligence and consciousness operating together is existence, and if you like, the laws of existence. So for me purpose and intent is synonymous with existence, and whilst only a tiny fraction of that intent is accessible to us perceptually - and therefore functionally, personally - the rest has immense bearing upon us as general pressure of consciousness, and has therefore implacable directional effects upon us in terms of destiny and the order and design of our lives.

Do you mean, "Life happens to be the contrary of death"? If so, it would be a true yet very trivial statement that no one would doubt or deny -- but it would add no knowledge to the present discussion, so I can't think you mean that. But if you mean more, then it seems you must mean something like "Life has an ability to *intend* something, or it has some sort of *will*." And this does not seem clear at all, so you'd have to explain why you think it's true. It seems to me that if "life" is an impersonal force, it can neither 'want' anything nor 'intend' anything -- it just *is.* That is all one can expect in a materialist or evolutionary universe, unless you're positing some sort of Deist 'god' or something like that. So see if you can clear that up for me, if you would be so kind.

It only makes sense to regard that life intends, if you regard life as infinite - or living things as infinite in number, and totally the substance of existence. You can't deify infinity because that would be to bind it to a form of determined size which infinity clearly isn't. However there is a way to verify all this: refer to yourself. You are life! You are intending like any other living thing, and if living things are the true substance of existence, then all that there is out there is really only at bottom intending or intention.

No death isn't random - life makes sure of that!

Here's the same sort of anthropomorphic statement again. How can "life" "make sure" of anything? You seem to be hanging everything upon this, since (unless I'm misunderstanding) you appear to think it's consoling, or informative of how randomness is banished from death. I'm listening, but you really need to fill this idea out for me, because I'm not seeing how an impersonal force (i.e. "life") can have any cognition at all.

I need to keep rephrasing this for myself as much as for you: The cognition emanates from living things, but it becomes totalised in various ways. Human cognition is one way it gets totalised - we call it commonsense, and that affects you and I in personal ways, and often in impersonal ways. But the effect of the total cognition of, say, stars is going to affect us in impersonal ways. We have no idea what form their cognition takes, let alone be able to access it. It acts upon us though as a mass of intent or consciousness which we are only subliminally aware of. I hope this isn't too extravagant for you as a proposition, that is; the consciousness of stars. But if you can conceive of endless packets of totalised cognition then its no big jump to get an appreciation of the effect that this infinity of living things has upon us.

Your second message adds...

Obviously if you are not there anymore there will be no one to need consolation. Maybe you miss something in all this: that which is you will die to become a different self. You will have no memory of your previous self but you will still be you as distinct from me or anyone else...You see, you may have been once me or I may have been once you, but it makes no difference to you or I as long as you are you and I am I. BEING is the thing!

To say a person is "distinct" from everyone else is again a fact no one would doubt; but if you mean only that, then again I'm afraid it adds no light to the situation. Of course we're all "distinct": the problem is, after death we're also distinctly *gone.* You seem to suppose that my consciousness will somehow be recycled (a soul?), and come back as another person with no memory of my previous life...but I can't imagine that's what you mean, since you've given me no reason to think it's true. Surely it is not an empty, sentimental meditation of the sort that relatives throw out a funerals, so I must think you mean something by it: can you explain why you think souls get recycled in this way?

Your claim about "BEING" is also inscrutable. You capitalize it, so I suppose you mean something very important by your reference to it: but I can't think what it is. If "BEING," like "life" is simply an abstract quality and not a person, then how could the continuance of such an abstract property be of any consequence to me? I don 't need a continuance of "BEING" per se, meaning the "being" of other things: I need a continuance of the "being" of *me.* Otherwise, there's no consolation in the fact that the universe continues to exist but without me in it. Death still amounts to the final word.

BEING obviously has no consequence to your *me* if you consider yourself immortal, or perhaps potentially so in some part of the contract of existence that will tell you so... but that little *being* will do fine, because its actually that which one day becomes BEING for an instant when *being* is stripped of all self. I personally find consolation in the fact that i won't go on forever - I would like a horrible sight after 25 trillion years, which is not even a blip of infinity!

[henry quirk]

"...one day becomes BEING for an instant when *being* is stripped of all self."

Without that 'self' (the singular, recursive, perspective) then 'being' is all angel farts and ghost whispers (meaningless, empty, and imaginary).

There is no BEING (universal mind), just a whole whack of jabbering meat.

#

"I personally find consolation in the fact that i won't go on forever..."

Me: I'm lookin' forward to outlivin' everything. I intend to be the one who presses the big, red, reset button for Reality.

[Immanuel Can]

BEING obviously has no consequence to your *me* if you consider yourself immortal, or perhaps potentially so in some part of the contract of existence that will tell you so... but that little *being* will do fine, because its actually that which one day becomes BEING for an instant when *being* is stripped of all self. I personally find consolation in the fact that i won't go on forever - I would like a horrible sight after 25 trillion years, which is not even a blip of infinity!

Okay, that is amusing, I grant you.

But it really doesn't get to the point. What is there about BEING that gives you reason for consolation in the face of death?

You won't be around to enjoy BEING. Not only that, but even you insist you won't continue to be a "self" whenever this BEING comes about. So in what way is your theory any kind of a response to the fact of our mortality?

Where is this consolation of which you spoke? Where is this "joy," to use your word?

P.S. -- Henry, you kill me: for a guy who says he's not some high fallutin' philosopher, you certainly often show that have more than your share of common sense...and a fairly wicked sense of humour.

[henry quirk]

Manny,

'Philosophy' is for suckers and dweebs...me: a manly-man of profound, practical, wisdom.

And: I kill in the Catskills.

[Bernard]

As I say there is no self to enjoy it. Its just pure being for an instant before it gets selfed again. There are many who would say that the self is a necessary interference to pure being - that it is exactly this interference which forges being. But you can't bake your cake and eat it as well, you become the cake so to speak. It's not reasonable.

Its the best I got and it works for me, if only because its positive... and a positive philosophy promotes a happy life. far be it from me to go around knocking other people for how they get by mantally.

[henry quirk]

Then (because I rather enjoy being 'Henry Quirk' [a 'self']) may I never know the joy of 'selflessness' (which, to me, is akin to death).

[Bernard]

Maybe... but you won't ever be able to anticipate it nor be able to recall it because there is no time value available for reflection of experience in pure experiencing.... but, yeh, maybe...

[Bernard]

How pliable, malleable is Henry Quirk?

[henry quirk]

"you won't ever be able to anticipate it nor be able to recall it:"

If I can't recall it, measure it, record it, then how will I (or you) know 'it' happened, or, that 'it' is even possible?

#

"How pliable, malleable is Henry Quirk?"

'I' can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'.

[Bernard]

Simple: you yourself just become impossible, just like the rest of existence - its impossible, but its here.

[James Markham]

Bernard, I think your right, the degree to which one life differs from the next is possibly insignificant in a lot of cases, maybe even to the point that an individual can remain at a particular level for a practical eternity. This is what I believe religious beliefs are born out of, in my mind the common threads of religions are allegorically related to real aspects of fundamental reality. And with this in mind, I think of concepts such as Eden, heaven and hell, as insightful visions of what is possible. So for instance I believe that the stories of Eden are an account of how it's possible to exist free of all human burdens such as knowledge, self responsibility and choice, and I think it's also possible that these ideas are brought to the consciousness of man from some deep rooted subconscious awareness of what is fundamental.

[Bernard]

Yep, its not what others say or write that counts but what one does with such. What do you do BTW?

[thedoc]

So for instance I believe that the stories of Eden are an account of how it's possible to exist free of all human burdens such as knowledge, self responsibility and choice, and I think it's also possible that these ideas are brought to the consciousness of man from some deep rooted subconscious awareness of what is fundamental.

Some time ago I wrote about this, but I'm too tired to look it up right now. The story of Eden is a metaphor or an allegory or something, that I'm too lazy to look up, about how Humans transitioned from animals to human beings. Prior to this mythological story, hominids were animals with no self awareness or a concept of life after death, or even the concept that there was more to a human being than the physical body. After 'The Fall' humans became aware of the idea that there was a spiritual aspect to a person, and believed that this spirit continued after death. Burials of the dead, especially with artifacts that might be useful for a journey or existence in a life beyond the grave, signaled the beginning of this belief. The Biblical account is just one of many stories of this transition. To live as before Eden, is to live as an animal without self consciousness or self awareness. If you want to run around naked, scratching in the dirt for something to eat, go for it, I like my steaks cooked, and on a plate.

A totally unrelated aside. some vegans claim that they will not eat anything that jumps when stuck with a pin or something sharp. But I have yet to have a steak jump when I stick it with a fork. So I'm safe.