The Couch

There is no death for me

Comments on There is no death for me

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/09/10 - 8:50 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:
Lib, if you are talking about your own death, then, there is never an experience of death.

how do you know this?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/09/10 - 12:23 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

how do you know this?


Yeah, you are right, as one cannot generalize it for an axiological agent 'X'--though, it seems that induction might well be true, in some cases{though, need not be true in this 'specific' case}

Death means my end. Death means that I, as I know myself, no longer exists. Death means my no longer being able to sense and reflect; therefore, death means that I will say to myself " See I no longer exist". But who says this? Me, myself; therefore I am extant. So, it is impossible for me to witness the event of my 'death'; in other words--it does not exist.

Can I extend this, with any success, for you? Can I propound that for any agent 'A' this is likely to hold true?

Yes--provided--the agent does not have a different meaning of death. In that case, aforesaid lines of reasoning will not hold good.

Suppose you say that " death of some particular aspect of my personality; some disease; some relation --is equivalent to my death"--then, yes, death exists for you--you will witness your death.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/09/10 - 4:48 PM:

induction might well be true, indeed. but wouldn't it also be fair to induce that death is real even if we couldn't experience it firsthand?

my thoughts, though, are that when one comes to the end of one's life, there might be a particular sensation of "letting go" that is unique to the experience of death. an involuntary surrender not like any other.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 1:46 AM:

but wouldn't it also be fair to induce that death is real even if we couldn't experience it firsthand?


This is true and I have already admitted it about the event called ‘death of others’. My stringent assertions about the death were in the sense you have other experiences of your own—like your marriage, your getting a job, your encountering something strange; in that sense, you will never encounter death.

my thoughts, though, are that when one comes to the end of one's life, there might be a particular sensation of "letting go" that is unique to the experience of death. an involuntary surrender not like any other.


Indeed. I have read though, that spiritual surrender, becoming like a Tathata, is very similar to and almost as intense as the surrender near death. If you follow, lines along which we have talked, about our own death, then, if it is fictional—what would surrender mean when you are approaching the death --in that case ?

This surrender -as you suggest it is, acceptance of ‘what is’. It is really very beautiful in itself. It is very different though, from a surrender occurring through a spiritual transformation(if anything like that exists and we assume that it could be as profound as the ‘letting go’- you mentioned occurs near your death)—because, only when you could observe your death approaching—you may have a chance to feel it, but what if, your death(whatever that means to you) comes all of a sudden and you do not get, even a second to realize that you are, finally, giving it all up, all the attachment, all the effort of ‘becoming’, all the effort of maintaining something?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 8:51 AM:

Thinker wrote:
This surrender -as you suggest it is, acceptance of ‘what is’. It is really very beautiful in itself. It is very different though, from a surrender occurring through a spiritual transformation(if anything like that exists and we assume that it could be as profound as the ‘letting go’- you mentioned occurs near your death)—because, only when you could observe your death approaching—you may have a chance to feel it, but what if, your death(whatever that means to you) comes all of a sudden and you do not get, even a second to realize that you are, finally, giving it all up, all the attachment, all the effort of ‘becoming’, all the effort of maintaining something?

my theory is that everyone experiences it at the time of death, whether willfully, reluctantly, or kicking and screaming, however brief or extended the moment may be, the sensation is unique to the experience of death. and because such a sensation could not be experienced any other way, i disagree with the idea that no one experiences their own death. i believe it's likely that some people do, if not most, if not all.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 1:00 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

my theory is that everyone experiences it at the time of death, whether willfully, reluctantly, or kicking and screaming, however brief or extended the moment may be, the sensation is unique to the experience of death. and because such a sensation could not be experienced any other way, i disagree with the idea that no one experiences their own death. i believe it's likely that some people do, if not most, if not all.


If you identify the idea of death as a unique sensation of ‘letting go’ or surrender, then, may-be it is experienced by everyone but I have not suggested that I define death like that, though, I agree regarding the surrender being part of the process. As I define death , it seems impossible, at least for me. There is no way I can ever say to myself “ Lo! Here I am fully dead!”.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 1:19 PM:

"surrender" is a misleading word to use because it suggests that one deliberately lets go. i'm suggesting that it's more of a sensation of getting sucked in, where you feel with certainty, "this is it, this is the end". because such a sensation would not occur at any other time during one's life (maybe a vague approximation, but nothing exactly like it, nothing with the full weight and certainty of impending death), i think it's fair to call it the experience of death.

your position seems to be that death is fictional, based solely on the premise of not being able to say to yourself, "lo, here i am, fully dead". this latter fact indicates to me quite convincingly that death is NOT fictional. one could not make such a declaration when one is, in fact, dead.

there are, of course, many other indications that death is not fictional, but while you have acknowledged them, you seem to be excluding these from your premise, and from your definition of death. perhaps a better question for you to ask would be, "what if death is not fictional?" i think it would make good subject matter for a separate topic, so we can turn our attention in this thread back to its hosts.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 1:38 PM:

"surrender" is a misleading word to use because it suggests that one deliberately lets go. i'm suggesting that it's more of a sensation of getting sucked in, where you feel with certainty, "this is it, this is the end". because such a sensation would not occur at any other time during one's life (maybe a vague approximation, but nothing exactly like it, nothing with the full weight and certainty of impending death)


It is alright.

, i think it's fair to call it the experience of death.

The experience of death can only be an experience when i am no more, which is, inherently contradictory and hence does not exist. Even when there is an experience of some sudden force taking over you, you are there, as an experiencer. Even when you say to yourself: “ This seems to be the end’—you are there to say this and hence there is no death. Just talk about the moment you call death, if it exists and then, things may become clearer.

your position seems to be that death is fictional, based solely on the premise of not being able to say to yourself, "lo, here i am, fully dead".

Not based on this ‘being unable to say’ lib, but rather based on something, of which, it is an example taken as the help for explicating it.

this latter fact indicates to me quite convincingly that death is NOT fictional. one could not make such a declaration when one is, in fact, dead.

Who is dead? If I am observing some- one else and saying—“I am convinced that death is there because see, he is not able to say that he is dead”---yes, it is correct-“He is dead”—from my viewpoint. This in itself, though, does not prove anything about my experience of death. Yes, you may say about me—“See Thinker13 is no more able to say anything, because he is dead”—but that is my death for you, your experience of parting from someone, which does not apply on someone, for his own parting. The simple fact is: You will not part from yourself. Now if you can experience parting from yourself, then, what you regard as ‘self’ is not you.

there are, of course, many other indications that death is not fictional, but while you have acknowledged them, you seem to be excluding these from your premise, and from your definition of death. perhaps a better question for you to ask would be, "what if death is not fictional?" i think it would make good subject matter for a separate topic, so we can turn our attention in this thread back to its hosts.

“There is no death for me”—is already there in The Thinking Spot and was created for addressing the same idea.
Mummo
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2010

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 5
Avatar Mummo
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 6:55 PM:

Thinker13 wrote:


Yeah, you are right, as one cannot generalize it for an axiological agent 'X'--though, it seems that induction might well be true, in some cases{though, need not be true in this 'specific' case}


What are you even talking about?

Sorry, but I'm horrendously skeptical of your use of "axiological" and "induction" here, in the context of a discussion on death.....
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 10:09 PM:

Mummo wrote:


What are you even talking about?

Sorry, but I'm horrendously skeptical of your use of "axiological" and "induction" here, in the context of a discussion on death.....


Thanks for showing up Mummo. Your concern is, as always, much appreciated. I am very sorry for having caused you this pain using 'axiological' and 'induction', in this ection, where discussion on death is on-going; as lib has suggested--you may post your remarks in a topic "There is no death for me"--in the Thinking Spot, which I created long back.


Thanks so much Mummo, for your awareness, concern and attentiveness.smiling face
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 10:16 PM:

Here it is.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 10:27 PM:

[posts #16 through #35 have been moved here from another thread]

thank you, thinker for your consideration hug
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/10/10 - 10:33 PM:

thinker wrote:
Not based on this ‘being unable to say’ lib, but rather based on something, of which, it is an example taken as the help for explicating it.

i'm not sure what you mean. could you clarify?

thanks
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/11/10 - 12:45 AM:

libertygrl wrote:
[posts #16 through #35 have been moved here from another thread]

thank you, thinker for your consideration hug



Welcome lib.hug
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/11/10 - 12:49 AM:

lib wrote:
i'm not sure what you mean. could you clarify?

thanks


Yes sure. I wanted to say that the sentence "Lo! I am dead(fully or partially)"--was not the sole premise(as you were suggesting in the very next post)---based on which I said that "There is no death experience for any idividual". It was taken up as an example. More subtle could be sense that "I am".
Mummo
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2010

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 5
Avatar Mummo
#41 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/11/10 - 2:07 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:
Mummo wrote:


What are you even talking about?

Sorry, but I'm horrendously skeptical of your use of "axiological" and "induction" here, in the context of a discussion on death.....


Thanks for showing up Mummo. Your concern is, as always, much appreciated. I am very sorry for having caused you this pain using 'axiological' and 'induction', in this ection, where discussion on death is on-going; as lib has suggested--you may post your remarks in a topic "There is no death for me"--in the Thinking Spot, which I created long back.


Thanks so much Mummo, for your awareness, concern and attentiveness.smiling face


How is my concern "always much appreciated" when this is my first post? Condescension isn't necessary.

You still haven't addressed how these concepts apply to what you're saying (if they do). Or are you simply more interested in obscurantist pretense over clarity? raised eyebrow
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#42 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/11/10 - 4:15 AM:

Mummo wrote:
How is my concern "always much appreciated" when this is my first post? Condescension isn't necessary.


May-be it seems like condescension, but rest assured it isn't. As I always appreciate all the concerns, you may accept that statement; still, if you persist on pointing its inaccuracy, or say -suggest that you outrightedly reject it; then, my dear, non-condescending friend Mummo, I sincerely apologize for behaving like that; I really apologize for my lack of proper communication and so and so on.

You still haven't addressed how these concepts apply to what you're saying (if they do). Or are you simply more interested in obscurantist pretense over clarity? raised eyebrow


Yeah, If it seems that I am interested in the obscurantist pretense, in obfuscating some crystal clear concepts like death, in wasting your precious discussion time in discombobulating(a newly learned obscurantist pretense) some simple issues; in redundant sophistry- it may- wellbe true for you. It depends on how you judge me.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#43 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/11/10 - 8:48 AM:

hi mummo, welcome to the couch.

Mummo wrote:
How is my concern "always much appreciated" when this is my first post? Condescension isn't necessary.

it's also not necessary to attack one's intentions when the meaning of a statement is not clear. from what i know of thinker, he is one who is genuinely interested in discourse, so your interest in the topic is no doubt appreciated. your assertions of condescension and "obscurantist pretense" are not going to accomplish much in the way of furthering the topic. if you have a question about what he meant, why not just ask for clarification without attaching an accusation to it?

as for why he didn't answer your question directly the first time, it's fairly clear to me that he was trying to relocate the discussion to another thread because i had asked that we do so. his response was to ask you to post your remarks elsewhere so he could respond to them. this is what i was thanking him for.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#44 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/11/10 - 8:48 AM:

thinker wrote:
More subtle could be sense that "I am".

i don't understand how this latter statement fits into the premise, could you please clarify further? thank you.
Mummo
banned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2010

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 5
Avatar Mummo
#45 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/11/10 - 4:22 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
your assertions of condescension and "obscurantist pretense" are not going to accomplish much in the way of furthering the topic.


I didn't assert anything, but, yes, I do believe clarity would certainly further this topic.

libertygrl wrote:
if you have a question about what he meant, why not just ask for clarification without attaching an accusation to it?


I did, and he didn't respond, which you acknowledge yourself here:

libertygrl wrote:

as for why he didn't answer your question directly the first time, it's fairly clear to me that he was trying to relocate the discussion to another thread because i had asked that we do so. his response was to ask you to post your remarks elsewhere so he could respond to them. this is what i was thanking him for.


And yet, as I said, he didn't respond to them.


Thinker13 wrote:

May-be it seems like condescension, but rest assured it isn't. As I always appreciate all the concerns, you may accept that statement; still, if you persist on pointing its inaccuracy, or say -suggest that you outrightedly reject it; then, my dear, non-condescending friend Mummo, I sincerely apologize for behaving like that; I really apologize for my lack of proper communication and so and so on.


I didn't point out its inaccuracy or reject it. I can't tell if it's inaccurate any more than I can tell the composition of a painting through a kaleidoscope, nor "reject" any aesthetic value it might have -- I just can't see what it is.

Thinker13 wrote:

Yeah, If it seems that I am interested in the obscurantist pretense, in obfuscating some crystal clear concepts like death, in wasting your precious discussion time in discombobulating(a newly learned obscurantist pretense) some simple issues; in redundant sophistry- it may- wellbe true for you. It depends on how you judge me.


And, libertygrl, if this person does not seem to be engaging in condescension here in particular, then either your conversational radar is horribly distorted or this person has serious (mis)communication issues.

Anyways, I'm not interested in participating in a forum with this much nonsense, wherein asking for clarification on two concepts used whimsically by the OP her/himself leads to having to further clarify simple things like intentions and whatnot as seen above, and furthermore getting nowhere in a messy nuisance while being told to pretend to be polite and sensitive about it.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#46 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/11/10 - 4:30 PM:

Mummo wrote:
Anyways, I'm not interested in participating in a forum with this much nonsense...

very well, take care.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#47 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/12/10 - 3:47 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:

Any ideas?


Lots of ideas. I may even have some related to the topic, lol.


Thinker13 wrote:
Death:

My death is an event when I will no longer be there.My death is 'my'end.


What is so interesting to note is :

There is no such event as 'death' for me.I will always be there.grin



Equally, there is no such thing as a 'birth' for me.

We might generalize this to the following form:

There are events that happen to a self that a self is not and cannot be aware of (ie, that the self is not present to).


In order for the self to experience an event, it must be present (to itself) both before and after the event in time. On the assumption that death is the absoltue terminal point for the self's experience, it is impossible for the self to experience its own termination. Hence, thinker rightly concludes that there is not and cannot be an experience where the self knows and is present to the fact that 'Lo! Here I am fully dead!' Nor can there be an experience of its coming to be, if we assume that prior to its origination, it did not exist in any form, and hence, cannot be present before and after it is brought into being.

Of course, the self, as much as it can, will be present to the process of dying right up until the terminal point. But dying is much like any other experience extended in time, and so long as the self persists through time, it will continue to be present to the flow of events which constitute its world.

The interesting point to be made here, I think, is that there are some events that the self is involved in that can only be present to other selfs and not to the self itself.

The birth and death of a self is something that can only be experienced by another external self that is extended in time before and after these events. IOW, birth and death of a self are objective events taking place in the world. The reality of birth and death, conceived of in this fashion, suggests an ontologically objective universe that transcends--and indeed, must transcend--all subjective experiences. In fact, it may be necessary for such a universe to exist to enable the subjective experience that characterizes a self and its world.

Remember who was always about in the quad? According to Berekely, the ever-present consciousness is the sole reason that reality persists, because there is always a being for whom the flow of events is external and subjective (ie, that the being is a witness to or creator of), who is present before and after all possible events.

8)
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#48 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/12/10 - 3:56 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:

Lib, if you are talking about your own death, then, there is never an experience of death. It is impossible.


Indeed.

Unless the self exists both before and after the terminal point of all experience (death) it cannot have an 'experience' of death and death is not an event for it. It is nonsensical to say that a being can experience something it cannot experience; and since death is the end of experience, and hence, the end of the self, it is not possible that the self can experience it.

This is pretty straightforward, and, I reiterate, a feature of the philosophy of Epicurus, if not many others.

8)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#49 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/12/10 - 3:57 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:


Lots of ideas. I may even have some related to the topic, lol.


Long time no see Monk2400, round the globe, you will not stop! ROTFLlaughing





Monk2400 wrote:
Equally, there is no such thing as a 'birth' for me.


This I completely agree with. I was even willing to start a topic "There is no birth for me"-but since 'death' itself, became not only horrendous to explain, but also made me an obscurantist, sophist, lexiphane and what not--I dared not to venture into "No birth for me".



Nice to see your Philosophical musings again.smiling face
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#50 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/12/10 - 4:10 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:

Yeah, you are right, as one cannot generalize it for an axiological agent 'X'--though, it seems that induction might well be true, in some cases{though, need not be true in this 'specific' case}


If I may.

By 'axiological agent' here thinker is merely indicating the nature of the self--the free valuing self whose essence it is to create its own meaning in and through its existence. However, it seems entirely simple to generalize the non-experience of death for any such agent based on some very straightforward concepts:

1) The self exists in time
2) To experience an event the self must be present before and after the event in time, ie, the event is within the timespace range of the self
3) The terminal points of existence for the self (birth, death) are the terminal points for experience
4) Since the self neither exists nor experiences before birth or after death, neither of these events can be experienced by the self--the self is not and cannot be present to these events, even though they form the absolute boundaries of the self's existence in the world (see #2)


In fact, I don't see any induction going on here, as we are not generalizing from experiences to project a possible scenario, but deducing the nature of the self and its existence based on simple well-defined parameters. Hence, the term 'induction' here is misleading, if not mistaken.

The only way for this formula to fail is if the self has existence and experience beyond the normal timespace extension that characterizes its appearance in the world and presence to other selfs--that is, it must have an existence and experience that is perfeclty subjective, outside of the objective reality in which is appears through birth and disappears through death.

And if that's the case then all bets are off.

But here, if we define birth and death simply as absolute terminal points, we dismiss this possibility from the start.

Hence, to try to rebut this position means finding support for the premise that the self exists beyond the timespace scope that we here are defining as its 'lifespan' bounded by a birth and a death--that is, that birth is not the origin of the self and death is not its end. A difficult position to argue, perhaps, unless one delves deeply into idealism and rejects the idea of an ontologically objective world.

8)

Edited by Monk2400 on 08/12/10 - 4:17 AM
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.