Being towards an end

[Age]

Right now you haven't yet reconciled your own death, those near death are beyond that stage, so are freed up to focus on what they consider to be of primary importance.

How does one "reconcile" their own death?

Getting to the fifth stage of grieving (your own death).

Why would one want to 'grieve' what has not yet occurred?

Also, and by the way, 'you' do not 'die' anyway, so there is no 'your own death', to even 'grieve' over at all, anyway.

[Age]

How does one "reconcile" their own death?

Getting to the fifth stage of grieving (your own death).

Did you watch the video I posted? How does one reach the 5th stage of grieving something that has not yet happened?

I wondered the very exact same thing in your second clarifying question here "gary childress".

I now hope it will get answered and clarified.

[Age]

Getting to the fifth stage of grieving (your own death).

Did you watch the video I posted? How does one reach the 5th stage of grieving something that has not yet happened?

I think most personalities can't.

So, you come here and state:
Right now you haven't yet reconciled your own death,

That person then goes out of their way to ask you to clarify;
How does one "reconcile" their own death?

you then allude to some thing by saying;
Getting to the fifth stage of grieving (your own death).

They then ask you;
How does one reach the 5th stage of grieving something that has not yet happened?

And then, absolutely ignore 'that question' and make some Truly 'superiority' remark like;
I think most personalities can't.

'We' do not care what you think, or do not think, here. you came here, made the claim that "gary chidress" has not yet reconciled its own death, which implies that you 'know' 'how to', you were then asked, 'How does one reconcile their own death?

So, I suggest you 'now' do the courtesy of explaining how "gary childress' and everyone else can reconcile 'their own death', or just admit that you 'do not actually know'.

[Gary Childress]

I remember the following phrase I wrote down from a lecture from the professor who taught me the philosophy of Martin Heidegger:

"Temporality is the horizon of the meaning of being."

Will you explain what this means, to you?

To me it has always had some vague reference to finality and an end. I can't really say a great deal concerning what it means to me. It could just be a vague statement that sounds profound, I suppose. Perhaps something to make us think that the writer (Martin Heidegger) knew something that others do not. Otherwise, he didn't seem particularly interested in explaining his philosophy very clearly to others from what I can recall learning of him. He didn't seem like an educator, more of a mystifier, muddying the waters to make them look deep. (To use one of his own statements concerning others.)

[Age]

Did you watch the video I posted? How does one reach the 5th stage of grieving something that has not yet happened?

I think most personalities can't.

Well, I don't know if I 'accept' death or not. I guess I'll have to find out when the time comes.

It has been said that, 'one is dying from when they begin', so what is it, exactly, that you are waiting for here before you begin to 'accept', what was Wrongly but commonly referred to as, 'death'?

Obviously, if one waits 'too oong', then that one will never get to 'accept' what is said to be 'inevitable'.

I don't think about it all the time but when I do, it has an uneasy quality to it. In the meantime, I stay away from window ledges, wild carnivorous animals and runaway trollies.

To me, the 'wildest', that is most crazy, the most dangerous, and most animal to watch out for, and thus to 'stay away from', is the adult human being animal.

[Age]

I remember the following phrase I wrote down from a lecture from the professor who taught me the philosophy of Martin Heidegger:

"Temporality is the horizon of the meaning of being."

Will you explain what this means, to you?

To me it has always had some vague reference to finality and an end. I can't really say a great deal concerning what it means to me. It could just be a vague statement that sounds profound, I suppose. Perhaps something to make us think that the writer (Martin Heidegger) knew something that others do not. Otherwise, he didn't seem particularly interested in explaining his philosophy very clearly to others from what I can recall learning of him. He didn't seem like an educator, more of a mystifier, muddying the waters to make them look deep. (To use one of his own statements concerning others.)

Yes, for some it is much easier and simpler for them to heard, listened to, and accepted.

Then there are others, like me, who have never ever been heard, recognized, listened to, nor recognized for who and what 'I' Truly am.

i never learned how to teach any thing, so i have to spend so much time to learn how to teach, and how to 'educate'.

[LuckyR]

Did you watch the video I posted? How does one reach the 5th stage of grieving something that has not yet happened?

I think most personalities can't.

So, you come here and state:
Right now you haven't yet reconciled your own death,

That person then goes out of their way to ask you to clarify;
How does one "reconcile" their own death?

you then allude to some thing by saying;
Getting to the fifth stage of grieving (your own death).

They then ask you;
How does one reach the 5th stage of grieving something that has not yet happened?

And then, absolutely ignore 'that question' and make some Truly 'superiority' remark like;
I think most personalities can't.

'We' do not care what you think, or do not think, here. you came here, made the claim that "gary chidress" has not yet reconciled its own death, which implies that you 'know' 'how to', you were then asked, 'How does one reconcile their own death?

So, I suggest you 'now' do the courtesy of explaining how "gary childress' and everyone else can reconcile 'their own death', or just admit that you 'do not actually know'.

I wasn't addressing you. Gary and I had a perfectly fine conversation and I believe understood each other. Have a nice day.

[Walker]

So, I suggest you 'now' do the courtesy of explaining how "gary childress' and everyone else can reconcile 'their own death', or just admit that you 'do not actually know'.

I'll offer a response to the invitation.

The beginning of the how pow-wow can be now, but the end belongs to Age.
Begin with the known, with what you can imagine, and with what you can’t imagine.

For example:
You know you exist,
you and everyone can imagine lots of things,
and you and everyone else cannot imagine non-existence.

Therefore logically, after death, existence either continues as a form undetected with properties unknown for sure, but testified to within various traditions … or else unimaginable non-existence. This is really the only legitimate fence-sitting acceptable from humble folks.

The reconciliation then boils down to:

Either Life is all there is, or not.
Life is certainly all you can ever know, Age.


What's your take on the reconciliation, given the parameters as you define them, and lack of unlimited information?

[Age]

I think most personalities can't.

So, you come here and state:
Right now you haven't yet reconciled your own death,

That person then goes out of their way to ask you to clarify;
How does one "reconcile" their own death?

you then allude to some thing by saying;
Getting to the fifth stage of grieving (your own death).

They then ask you;
How does one reach the 5th stage of grieving something that has not yet happened?

And then, absolutely ignore 'that question' and make some Truly 'superiority' remark like;
I think most personalities can't.

'We' do not care what you think, or do not think, here. you came here, made the claim that "gary chidress" has not yet reconciled its own death, which implies that you 'know' 'how to', you were then asked, 'How does one reconcile their own death?

So, I suggest you 'now' do the courtesy of explaining how "gary childress' and everyone else can reconcile 'their own death', or just admit that you 'do not actually know'.

I wasn't addressing you.

This is plainly obvious. And, just as obvious is the fact that I already knew this. As can be proved True by the way I talked about how 'you' and "garry childress" were conversing with, and thus addressing, each other above here.

I even, specifically, used the actual words that you two used to 'address each other'.

Also, and by the way, I can point out that "gary childress" asked you for some thing, which you alluded to already having, but you would not give it.

I, obviously, do not need to be addressing either of you directly to just do this.

Gary and I had a perfectly fine conversation and I believe understood each other. Have a nice day.

I, however, noticed some thing, which I thought "gary childress" missed, and that others might miss as well, so I intentionally pointed out 'that'.

[Age]

So, I suggest you 'now' do the courtesy of explaining how "gary childress' and everyone else can reconcile 'their own death', or just admit that you 'do not actually know'.

I'll offer a response to the invitation.

The beginning of the how pow-wow can be now, but the end belongs to Age.
Begin with the known, with what you can imagine, and with what you can’t imagine.

For example:
You know you exist,
you and everyone can imagine lots of things,
and you and everyone else cannot imagine non-existence.

But, it is extremely simple and extremely easy to imagine 'non-existence'. Well it is for me, anyway.

Therefore logically, after death, existence either continues as a form undetected with properties unknown for sure, but testified to within various traditions … or else unimaginable non-existence. This is really the only legitimate fence-sitting acceptable from humble folks.

What?

To me,

The visible physical body just continually changes in shape and form, exactly like it always has. And, just like how matter is always interacting with itself, continually changing in shape, and form, always, and in all ways.

As for the invisible 'thoughts', and the invisible 'emotions',within the visible body, no new ones arise.

The reconciliation then boils down to:

Either Life is all there is, or not.
Life is certainly all you can ever know, Age.

But, I can also 'know' that there is no such thing as 'death'. There is only change, in this one and Only Life.

So, as you say and claim here, 'Life' may well be, 'All-there-is', as well as therefore may certainly be all you can ever 'know', "walker".

What's your take on the reconciliation, given the parameters as you define them, and lack of unlimited information?

I would not use the word 'reconcile' here. And, instead I just say that after one learns and realizes that there is no actual 'death', as some perceive 'death' to be, and that the True Self, within every one, lives eternally HERE-NOW, in the One and only Universe, and Life, and the 'the person' that all of 'you' are also, although had 'a beginning' also do not 'end' as such, as all of 'you' will always have an ever-lasting effect, in this One Life, in one way or another. Either through what the actual physical body created, including any and all off-spring, if any, as well as the 'thoughts' within have an ever-lasting effect as 'they' continue getting past on down, generation after generation.

Which is way it is so very important to only do what is, actually Right, and good, in Life.

Either 'we' do Right, only, which in turn is continually creating and making a much 'better world', and a 'heaven' (like existence) for all 'future generation', or if we do Wrong, then this obviously makes 'this world' not just worse, and 'hell' like, for 'us' and our children, but also for all the future generations, which follow. That is; until, of course, one generation decides to change, for the better only, and then starts actually doing only what is Right, in Life, which then begins the transition to and starts creating and making the much 'better world' for everyone, which is just what absolutely every one once Truly wanted and desired, anyway.