Most Logical After Death Scenario

[Pam Seeback]

Nothing exists.

All discussions are pointless.

I'm beginning to think that you're our recently departed Dennis Mahar in disguise.

You might have missed the sarcastic criticism in that post?

If I did, I am not sorry. Sarcastic criticism is a cheap and divisive form of communication.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If I did, I am not sorry. Sarcastic criticism is a cheap and divisive form of communication.

Well, sarcasm being the "lowest form of wit", I guess it's more fair to say it was just meant to be witty. However, inability to sense sarcasm, if persistent, can indicate troubles with certain mental processing or just cultural differences. That's why in itself it might be interesting to wonder why you didn't catch it. I mean, clearly the poster takes the opposite viewpoint in all his other posts so far, in style and content?

[Pam Seeback]

Dr. Diebert Freud, I do believe your shrinking of my interpretation of RZoo's words, be it right on or be it way off comes from a compassionate heart, and for this reason, to me, you will always be a lemon drop and not a lemon.

Remember, I live in the crack of contradiction's reconciliation. Perhaps poetry is my canvas, not philosophy. Can I find a logical reason for posting this quote by T.S. Eliot in a thread entitled "Most Logical After Death Scenario" in relation to your subjective analysis of my mental processes? I could try, but I won't.

Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things. - T.S Eliot

[RZoo]

Diebert van Rhijn is correct. Some people around here (ie. Glostik91) don't seem interested in discussion for the sake of clarity or exchanging ideas, only in posting "wisdom" in the form of single sentences that pedantically challenge anything they can find in their interlocutor's post, while rarely addressing the actual content or ideas or providing any counter ideas of their own (ie. "Causality doesn't exist."). From that perspective, you can understand what I mean by "all discussions are pointless". :-)

[Glostik91]

Glostic91, I was addressing RZoo, the words I quoted were his, not yours.

Ok, my mistake. You have to give me credit; it was a bit ambiguous.

[Glostik91]

People die every day, and the sun still rises. What difference would my body dying make to those still alive? Does the whole world die with me?

What I tried to do is suggest a fundamental difference between your own experiences of sunrises and the academic science of the solar system. Your own experiencing, your own reality is constructed in a very particular way with many causal links naturally to lets call them "shared perspectives". But that world, that experience is still private, "idiot", and hardly related to any supposed "true" or "objective" reality. Just enough to communicate about it I guess. Solipsism is nonsense but assuming your way to make sense of the world is completely "shared" is just as much. So yes, the whole world dies with you and what remains was something you hardly knew anyway and will keep changing just as well.

I have to question the relevance of what you're talking about. The topic in question is what is the most logical after death scenario. I gave a credit that 'most logical' itself doesn't make sense because logical things are either logical or illogical. There isn't a spectrum of logic. You rightly stated that any question of what an absolute universe may look like to me is a flawed question. The topic in question is not what is the absolute after death scenario. I believe we can accept it was a poorly worded question, and come to an agreement.

So you claim the sun still comes up after your death but you also reject causality? Perhaps I misunderstood you here.

If a thing exists, it must be caused. Causality is by definition uncaused. Therefore causality doesn't exist.

[Glostik91]

Diebert van Rhijn is correct. Some people around here (ie. Glostik91) don't seem interested in discussion for the sake of clarity or exchanging ideas, only in posting "wisdom" in the form of single sentences that pedantically challenge anything they can find in their interlocutor's post, while rarely addressing the actual content or ideas or providing any counter ideas of their own (ie. "Causality doesn't exist."). From that perspective, you can understand what I mean by "all discussions are pointless". :-)

When one plays chess, it may seem to some like the moves are meaningless even until the final checkmate.

[Bobo]

Yes, also what is the difference between 'the sun' and 'causality'.

[Glostik91]

Yes, also what is the difference between 'the sun' and 'causality'.

Causality supposes that things fall into separate categories. You have one thing, a cause, and a second thing, an effect. In reality there is no separation between cause and effect. The cause is the effect, and the effect is the cause. In an absolute sense cause and effect is an unnecessary duality and ultimately non-existent.

The sun however, well it depends on what we're talking about.

[RZoo]

Diebert van Rhijn is correct. Some people around here (ie. Glostik91) don't seem interested in discussion for the sake of clarity or exchanging ideas, only in posting "wisdom" in the form of single sentences that pedantically challenge anything they can find in their interlocutor's post, while rarely addressing the actual content or ideas or providing any counter ideas of their own (ie. "Causality doesn't exist."). From that perspective, you can understand what I mean by "all discussions are pointless". :-)

When one plays chess, it may seem to some like the moves are meaningless even until the final checkmate.

Chess doesn't exist.

[RZoo]

If a thing exists, it must be caused. Causality is by definition uncaused. Therefore causality doesn't exist.

If causality doesn't exist and for a thing to exist it must be caused, then nothing exists.

Q.E.D.

Causality supposes that things fall into separate categories. You have one thing, a cause, and a second thing, an effect. In reality there is no separation between cause and effect. The cause is the effect, and the effect is the cause. In an absolute sense cause and effect is an unnecessary duality and ultimately non-existent.

Existence vs. non-existence is also an unnecessary and fictional duality.

If you can't form a sentence without using unnecessary dualities and separate categories then you are in a comical position to attack or criticize their usage.

[Glostik91]

Chess doesn't exist.

haha

[Glostik91]

If a thing exists, it must be caused. Causality is by definition uncaused. Therefore causality doesn't exist.

If causality doesn't exist and for a thing to exist it must be caused, then nothing exists.

Q.E.D.

Would you please clarify what you mean by nothing?

Existence vs. non-existence is also an unnecessary and fictional duality.

If you can't form a sentence without using unnecessary dualities and separate categories then you are in a comical position to attack or criticize their usage.

Yes you are wise to point out that existence vs. non-existence is also ultimately an unnecessary duality. Unfortunately one must get wet in order to pull someone from a raging river.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. But, of course, only those who have personality and emotions know what it means to want to escape from these things." - T.S Eliot

Is the same not true for alcoholism or depression? Perhaps it's all about having so much and craving a bit less of it, this "it" being good or bad.

“Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit.” ― Oscar Wilde

"Every artist is a woman and should have a taste for other women." ― Picasso

[Diebert van Rhijn]

things are either logical or illogical. There isn't a spectrum of logic.

Okay, I just interpreted it as a question of quality or likelihood. Like "most valid reasoning" in deductive arguments. But to become sound it will become a question of premises being true or not. Here the after death scenario discussion becomes quickly problematic and we probably can agree on that!

If a thing exists, it must be caused. Causality is by definition uncaused. Therefore causality doesn't exist.

Okay, causality is not a thing but what is its relation to reality then? Can we safely ignore the notion as unreal? If causality would be something like an "absolute", it would mean it has to be reality itself. Reality cannot be unreal like existence cannot be said not to exist. Ultimately it defies the categories here. But that is in itself a special category of category defying things (to our mind). Personally I think the term "absolute" comes in handy.

[Glostik91]

Okay, I just interpreted it as a question of quality or likelihood. Like "most valid reasoning" in deductive arguments. But to become sound it will become a question of premises being true or not. Here the after death scenario discussion becomes quickly problematic and we probably can agree on that!

Indeed we can.

Okay, causality is not a thing but what is its relation to reality then? Can we safely ignore the notion as unreal? If causality would be something like an "absolute", it would mean it has to be reality itself. Reality cannot be unreal like existence cannot be said not to exist. Ultimately it defies the categories here. But that is in itself a special category of category defying things (to our mind). Personally I think the term "absolute" comes in handy.

A relation is always causal in nature. You are essentially asking me this:

Causality is not a thing, but what is causality's [causal nature] to reality?

Your question is logically inconsistent.

Perhaps a story would be beneficial.

A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Diogenes, introduced himself and said, "If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as motion." Whereupon Diogenes immediately got up and left.

[RZoo]

Yes you are wise to point out that existence vs. non-existence is also ultimately an unnecessary duality. Unfortunately one must get wet in order to pull someone from a raging river.

What is there without the river? No language, concepts, thought, ideas, reasoning, logic - perhaps no consciousness - perhaps death? And why do you take this as favorable to being in the river, perhaps to diving in and swimming as hard as you can?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A relation is always causal in nature. You are essentially asking me this:

Causality is not a thing, but what is causality's [causal nature] to reality?

Your question is logically inconsistent.

Aha! Here's where I think you erred before with your statement: "causality doesn't exist" or even the earlier "the sun still comes up after death". A negative relation ("non-existence") is still a relation, inversed perhaps but that doesn't matter. You are still asserting existence by including one thing or excluding another. It's the same defining movement essentially.

What about this: causality does not exist and does not not exist, it's not both and not neither. This keeps the logic of it not possessing any causal nature. It would however open up the idea that causality is one way to describe existence itself, since any thought of existence introduces causality. It becomes absolute in its reality - beyond causation but not "uncaused" either.

A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Diogenes, introduced himself and said, "If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as motion." Whereupon Diogenes immediately got up and left.

Thereby demonstrating Diogenes knew enough about relative motion! But more importantly he rejected abstraction and was more interested in dealing with simpler and more fundamental experiences like all coming and going.

[Tomas]

Scenario A: State of Nothingness

Scenario B: If there was anything beyond nothingness it would be some kind of eternal life stream. You would be re-incarnated as "energy" and not the physical matter as we are now. You'd flow as energy through the cosmos, no longer as an individual but as a single entity of something much greater.

/thread

When one dies all is gone.
Eternal Rest.
For ever and ever.
Ta-ta!

[Glostik91]

Aha! Here's where I think you erred before with your statement: "causality doesn't exist" or even the earlier "the sun still comes up after death". A negative relation ("non-existence") is still a relation, inversed perhaps but that doesn't matter. You are still asserting existence by including one thing or excluding another. It's the same defining movement essentially.

What about this: causality does not exist and does not not exist, it's not both and not neither. This keeps the logic of it not possessing any causal nature. It would however open up the idea that causality is one way to describe existence itself, since any thought of existence introduces causality. It becomes absolute in its reality - beyond causation but not "uncaused" either.

Thereby demonstrating Diogenes knew enough about relative motion! But more importantly he rejected abstraction and was more interested in dealing with simpler and more fundamental experiences like all coming and going.

Your way of putting it intrigues me.

I think this is what you might be getting at, and please correct me if I'm wrong. On paper nothing exists, but in experience everything exists. I can talk about the sun all day long, but nothing I say is the sun. Only when I stand in its radiance will I understand. Likewise explaining the color blue to a blind man is utterly futile. Yet give the man sight, and it becomes utterly obvious. To sit and form a principle of causality will end in confusion and contradiction, yet the sheer ability to perform such a task is the experience of causality itself.

Perhaps it is this mind/body gymnastic we struggle with that gives irony its sting.

What can bring the two together? Must I accept that logic and experience will always be at odds?

[Glostik91]

What is there without the river? No language, concepts, thought, ideas, reasoning, logic - perhaps no consciousness - perhaps death?

I'm afraid I don't know exactly. All I know is this river has been flowing a long time, and I suspect it will be flowing for a long time in the future.

And why do you take this as favorable to being in the river, perhaps to diving in and swimming as hard as you can?

Categorical Imperative.

[RZoo]

Must I accept that logic and experience will always be at odds?

In other words, must you accept that life is a mystery that's beyond a nice, neat, tidy comprehension by your mind? No, there are always religions and similar delusions offering a comfortable way out. ;-) If you're rigorously logical and honest, though, that seems to be the conclusion: logic implodes back in upon itself (all truth is tautological), language is a model of experience (inherently limited and only contains utility, not truth), logic is a tool (know its limitations), etc.

And why do you take this as favorable to being in the river, perhaps to diving in and swimming as hard as you can?

Categorical Imperative.

This is what happens when one irrationally and delusively worships logic or "truth" above all else: he is willing to sacrifice life/reality/experience (his participation in; himself) and the consciousness/reason/thought/communication (tools/means of participation) that were once crucial for his development. For what? For death, for nothingness, for an ounce of security and safety? Silly human. Maybe he even believes that humanity as a whole ought to make this sacrifice, that it's some kind of moral law (categorical imperative?). With this belief he turns his solitary sickness into a new religion. It at least gives him a reason to stay alive in this wicked world - temporarily, he tells himself - as a prophet, to save the rest of mankind!

[ardy]

My elder brother 'died' for several minutes prior to being found. He is very religious so I was keen to find out what happened, his answer surprised me "Nothing". My mother also claimed that after she was gone she would make every effort to come back, she died in 1985 and still nothing.

The default must be a bit like switching off a light bulb, but all is silly speculation tied into the ego with the strongest bonds imaginable.

[Russell Parr]

This is what happens when one irrationally and delusively worships logic or "truth" above all else: he is willing to sacrifice life/reality/experience (his participation in; himself) and the consciousness/reason/thought/communication (tools/means of participation) that were once crucial for his development. For what? For death, for nothingness, for an ounce of security and safety? Silly human. Maybe he even believes that humanity as a whole ought to make this sacrifice, that it's some kind of moral law (categorical imperative?). With this belief he turns his solitary sickness into a new religion. It at least gives him a reason to stay alive in this wicked world - temporarily, he tells himself - as a prophet, to save the rest of mankind!

I mostly agree with this. But your scenario still paints a better future for humanity than what we have now, in my opinion. I'd personally rather live in a world full of monks than the greedy, indulgent, insatiable leeches that plague the earth today. We might all get bored to tears, but we wouldn't be bombing or taxing the hell out of each other either.

That said, a student seeking enlightenment doesn't sacrifice his life or consciousness.. only the delusional habits that inhibit him from understanding reality at the most fundamental level. The rewards for this are unfathomable for the average person, due to the fact that his delusional habits pleases the ego in ways that almost always go unchecked, thus keeping him closer to his animalistic nature more than he would ever humbly admit.

Anyway, I can confer with your vision of "truth worshiping" that would lead to a sort of living death, rendering us into vegetables with witty catch phrases, which isn't enlightenment at all.

[RZoo]

Hi Russell, thanks for the reply.

This is what happens when one irrationally and delusively worships logic or "truth" above all else: he is willing to sacrifice life/reality/experience (his participation in; himself) and the consciousness/reason/thought/communication (tools/means of participation) that were once crucial for his development. For what? For death, for nothingness, for an ounce of security and safety? Silly human. Maybe he even believes that humanity as a whole ought to make this sacrifice, that it's some kind of moral law (categorical imperative?). With this belief he turns his solitary sickness into a new religion. It at least gives him a reason to stay alive in this wicked world - temporarily, he tells himself - as a prophet, to save the rest of mankind!

I mostly agree with this. But your scenario still paints a better future for humanity than what we have now, in my opinion. I'd personally rather live in a world full of monks than the greedy, indulgent, insatiable leeches that plague the earth today. We might all get bored to tears, but we wouldn't be bombing or taxing the hell out of each other either.

Why do you have such a heavy bias against fighting, war, greed, indulgence, etc? If it weren't for all of those things, we wouldn't exist by a long shot. The eukaryotes would've become monks N billion years ago. Plants, fish, insects, mammals, humans, etc all evolved out of competition, not out of peace and meditation. Cavemen, tribes, societies, and megacities came about by the same forces. On a personal level, things like intelligence require similar conditions to develop; if you or I were extremely "normal" people we'd be out drinking and partying every night of the week and living on welfare, because brains don't grow any more than they're forced to by a hostile [social] environment. Are fighting and greed and stuff really such bad things despite how far they've brought us? Do you regret your own existence, your extraordinary intelligence, and the development of all man-made marvels which hinged upon them? Or would you arrogantly say "that's enough, I've been born, we can stop evolving now!" and seek to withhold an interesting future from our heirs? And what is the value proposition of your bias? Is it all for the sake of a little laziness, comfort, and security in your waning, weakening days?

Even if you could stop them from bombing one another out of sheer boredom (which is unlikely - we'd probably have to use drugs or machines to render all human beings harmless), a world full of monks would not work. I'm sure you've heard the expression "use it or lose it". After a couple generations of not using it (it being our brains and the stuff in them - without competition, mostly all useless stuff), mankind would be rapidly degenerating. It would only be a matter of time until the world full of monks fell apart and started fighting again or we degenerated to the point where some other species of animal started eating us. Or, if we eliminated all other animal species beforehand, perhaps we'd evolve to the stage where killer bacteria start eating us!

And finally, what if the world of monks truly did work and lived happily ever after? Wouldn't that be about equivalent to a work of rocks? For all we know, rocks can meditate all day and feel "bliss" too, and they have the added benefit of not having to cause suffering to other organisms to sustain themselves. Granted that rocks, without legs and faces and beards, wouldn't be as cool as humans, but there'd be no hipster kids around to judge that anyway. Maybe nuking the planet really ought to be your ideal for a world of "monks" (with the slight caveat that you wouldn't be around to be one of them, although I suspect you'd be reincarnated as a fossil or a rock).

What in your view is the better picture of the future of humanity? What's a worthy goal?

That said, a student seeking enlightenment doesn't sacrifice his life or consciousness.. only the delusional habits that inhibit him from understanding reality at the most fundamental level.

Aren't thinking and communicating in false dualities and using fictitious concepts essentially "delusional habits that inhibit one from understanding reality at the most fundamental level"? If not, please clarify what the student sacrifices, and why he shouldn't go the whole way.

The rewards for this are unfathomable for the average person, due to the fact that his delusional habits pleases the ego in ways that almost always go unchecked, thus keeping him closer to his animalistic nature more than he would ever humbly admit.

What "rewards" are obtained by removing things that please the ego? Obviously these "rewards" shouldn't appeal to the ego (or they'd just be another form of what was supposed to be removed), so what then do they appeal to? Sorry, but that's nonsense. The real rewards for the monk are the same rewards experienced by any religious person: precisely their ego is stroked to the maximum by belief in their extreme self-righteousness, even if phrased in words that sound as though they mean the opposite; the feeling that nothing can touch you, that you're an enlightened genius, that you're living in truth while nobody else is, that other people need your compassion and help, that you understand reality (it's no longer a mystery or a puzzle), absolute confidence that you're doing the right thing with your life... oh man, the ego loves that feeling! An honest monk would feel nothing at all, and if he did it certainly wouldn't be all rewards, happiness, and bliss. That's too comical!