Life & Death (II)

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Life and death are deeply intertwined.

Death has raised the standard of life. It continually pressures the living to rise to the occasion.

Without death, life would have stagnated long ago.

To discredit death, to attack it, is to deny part of existence. To undermine part of existence.

One can’t truly appreciate life as it is, without also appreciating all which has moulded it and defined it.

It’s not in the spirit of life to be overwhelmed and call defeat. Rather, to live, is to flow along the river of affect and flourish in it’s streams. To revel in the journey, the experience, the opportunity.

That which is incapable of doing this, isn’t well adjusted to living. But we are powerful beings, and can readjust accordingly. Once again rise to the occasion.

Second Father

What is Death’s perspective?

Death doesn’t have bad intent for me. He is not my enemy, just misunderstood.

Death loves me just as much as my mother, Life.

However, he will take the role of the strict enforcer if necessary.

He doesn’t seek to be liked. He seeks to do the right thing.

He isn’t prejudiced against my current state.

He looks at a wider scope.

He says, ‘You like how you are now. I know. But you must grow, you need to be strong. I’m going to break you down. When you pick up the remnants, you’ve an opportunity to build the strongest version of yourself yet.’

Or, ‘I have many children to attend to. You’ve had your time, it’s time to step aside and give others the room to spread their wings. Be brave, we’ll come back for you’.

Or, ‘You’ve journeyed with your mother for some time. Now it’s time for you to come with me on a journey. I’ve much to teach you.’

Life is a precious gift, and to our knowledge, it has scope. It’s not endless.

To desire something with all your heart and being, yet to say no to it, is truly a great crime.

When one is told they can’t do all in one life time, what is the reaction?

To order and prioritize one’s interests, values, desires, hopes, dreams.

Why?

Because if one understands what one values most, one can decorate each day with one’s highest interests, goal, values.

What is implied by the motivation to prioritize your time?

That you love life. That you respect it enough, to want to do it right, in spite of whatever adversity is thrown your way.

If I were to describe the most fundamental aspect of my being, it would be of one who loves existence. That is my core and inspires and molds EVERYTHING I do.

Stressing over death and it’s impact, is again a perfect illustration that one is a healthy loving being. Well adjusted to living.

Suffering highlights malpractice. When one suffers, it’s because a core need is being neglected or abused.

Suffering is a blessing - Assuming one can resolve the source.

To deny your highest ideal, is to say you’re not worth it, or life’s not worth it. Both of these are wrong. We’re all beautiful, powerful beings and life is a gift beyond measure. And we can give that gift to others. We can create a new living being, a universe - can give a gift of immeasurable value to others. And live amongst others - sharing, maximizing and respecting the gift. To grow and journey together, hand in hand, hearts in unison.

This is the value of Life.

Again, I love all of you and I hope you can share the meaning of these words with me.

====

(This was a copy & paste from my response to Magnus Anderson in this thread On the Value of Death)

2

To create something, one must contemplate it; imagine it, sense it, characterize it, feel its presence, give it function and purpose, befriend it. The heart leads the mind and the mind leads the hand. The more such is done, the more real the creation becomes. It gains actual substance. And if anthropomorphized, becomes alive, with actual intelligence and intent formed by that of its creator (Ancient Hebrew 101).

To contemplate Death, is to betray Life by creating its formerly non-existent adversary, Shiva.

To Live is to attend to the existent and adjust it to more harmonious existence, Vishnu. When one is contemplating non-existence, Death, one is not attending to existence, one is not living. The beginning of death is in the very thought of it.

That is why you see so many threads on death and suicide.
Think about it.
… again,
… and again
… and again
… help it become more real.

“Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise… until it is too late to choose otherwise.”

2.75

3

One must face their fears, in order to overcome them.

To make with peace death, is to make space for life.

It is a very loving act to the self, to make peace with mortality.

And it leads to understanding of what one lives for.

4

No one is actually afraid of death itself. What people are afraid of is loss. Loss comes and goes as does gain. So if you are going to make peace with something make peace with the tides coming and going concerning gain and loss.

But never fight a battle until you have already won it. In that effort, you will make mistakes and have to try again from your new situation that you hadn’t intended. But equally never presume that a loss really is a loss until the losing is already over, because equally, you will make mistakes in presuming a loss before your game was really over. At all times attend to the reality of the actual situation without presumption and you will be as alive as anyone could be. There isn’t actually any room in the living mind for death to earn attention.

5

Death is the greatest representation in contrast to life, of gain and loss.

Those who seek to make peace with Death are, as you say, trying to make peace with gain and loss in general.

This is what I disagree with.

I believe to live well, one must first make peace with gain/loss. This is done by contemplation of it. Therefore, to consider death, is living.

Why?

Because one is overcoming perhaps the greatest inhibitor to living.

Self preservation and growth are fundamental aspects of life and living. As alluded to above, contemplation of gain/loss (in the form of death), is just that. A necessity to healthy living.

It is risky to fight a battle you haven’t already won. If one is open and prepared to take that risk, for a value greater than that which one is risking, and there’s an imperative to act sooner rather than later, then I would disagree that your suggestion is the right course of action.

Yes.

I disagree.

You can mean the completely alive mind, but I’d say the mind with death internalized, is alive.

Reference above.

6

Ben JS

I kind of think that the question must be asked: Whose death?

Why would someone need to make peace with gain?
Maybe we can’t really make peace with death - but we can with Life.

7

Oh, I see it now, why schmoe took this to kts. Advertising.

8

phoneutria,

I explained in no uncertain terms why I communicated with Satyr.

I’ve written many threads, and I’ve only chosen two that I’ve communicated at KTS. Both regarding the same issues - Fear/Love.

I want you to be aware that I had full expectation of being attacked at KTS, as I’ve been on all journeys there. It’s not fun for me - I don’t personally gain lots from it, quite the contrary, it’s taxing with likely minimum results.

I don’t want your opinion of me to affect your opinion of the ideas expressed by me. I say the ideas ought be judged on their own merit.

And I ask you, if you’ve an issue with any of the ideas, please address them and I’ll do my best to respond - I worry if you don’t respect me, you wont respect the ideas, thus, I must defend my integrity. I want to engage about the ideas respectfully, not argue about personal credibility.

Please, do me that courtesy.

====

Arc,

I reference death as it’s own entity. One that encompasses all death. So to answer your question directly: Every death that has occurred, or will occur.

As James called attention to, when I speak of life and death, I’m also tackling the issue of gain and loss.

James’ description - tides: the cyclic rise and fall of sea level caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and moon. - We can’t split gain & loss. One can’t open the door to either, without the other entering.

Everything we gain, we’ll lose - by virtue of our structure.

There are those that reject gain, so as to minimize the pain of loss.

Some who are so scared of gaining the feared, that they’ll isolate themselves from the loved.

This is a problem of gain, not only of loss.

Life & Death (I)

If you’ve a problem with loss, you’ve a problem with the gain. Vice versa.

When I speak of peace, I’m saying to not be in active war. What is the relevance in stopping war?

One sheds the unhealthy practice of dedicating all resources to fighting a battle that’s futile. One frees up the resources to focus on what one values.

I love life. I love being alive. I don’t want to be at war. I don’t value war. I did it because I was scared of losing life.

Why was I scared? Because I hadn’t yet lived how I wanted to live.

Why hadn’t I lived so? Because I was too weak from being at war - I was wounded and depleted. Crippled.

Why was I at war? Because I didn’t know any other way.

In order for me to live how I value - a vibrant life -, I must make peace with death / loss. Otherwise, to accept gain, will break me. Why? Every gain would become another battle.

And I must choose my battles wisely.

====

9

War is how nature keeps populations healthy and determines who is the fittest to reproduce.

That should not be confused with those who are struggling with their own inferior genetics, and who can see the endgame coming, but cannot accept it. For them the real war ended long ago with them as the losers. Modern society now sustains them and enables all kinds of misguided beliefs.

10

Nature as a whole does not have intent. It is not a conscious entity. Nature is an abstract category created by man to lump related phenomena together. Therefore, nature as a whole has no interest in who lives or dies. Living and dying are neutral relative to the concerns of an abstract entity.

Components of nature however can have intent, i.e. living organisms. The intent of living organisms evolves with said organisms. It is healthy for organisms to grow and adjust in response to the demands of the environment, internal and external.

War is an act of the living, based on the will of the living. If one determines war to be obsolete, there is no greater power to override one’s will. It is one living being’s will, against the will of other living beings - that is all.

You appeal to nature, and say it has determined war to be relevant. No. It is only certain people, who have determined war to be relevant. I put it to those people, that war is not relevant. That we have better alternatives.

If you disagree with my proposition, it is on you to respond directly on my points against war, or provide reasons for the relevance of war. You say it is nature’s intent, I have responded to this claim.

I put it to you the fittest human beings see the relevance of cooperation and harnessing the potential of those around them.

Inferior genetics is a copout by those who are too ignorant to solve the issue. Genetics rarely determines anything, it generally only contributes to the likelihood of a result. The result is determined by a myriad of influences in the environment, genetics being but one component.

Any adversity can be overcame. If there’s a will, there’s a way.

1000 people working together will produce better results than 1 working alone.

You think a single man could build a city? That in a lifetime a single man could develop all the technology that currently exists? Produce all the knowledge?

We reap the rewards of cooperation in all aspects of our lives, regardless of if one denies it or not.

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Isaac Newton

11

It’s understood by all that evolution happens with or without human will. Some claim that we shouldn’t look at how humans evolved naturally, and have devolved artificially, and should let nature take its course as to our genetic fitness without our wills interfering - as if some how our wills wouldn’t interfere through less direct routes anyway. Others realize that we may as well look at how humans have naturally evolved for the vast majority of their history and how they have relatively recently started to devolve, and that if nothing else those who support this devolution should be exposed as cowards.

12

Yes, and if it is not the living that will evolution, then there is no will for it.

We’re talking about whether war is the best means of evolution, and if alternatives to war are better suited to us.

Ecclesiastes claims that war is nature’s way of evolution, thereby implying, there’s only one way for evolution to take place, that nature intends for war. That if one removes war, evolution will stop. That war is the best way to evolve, because war was a catalyst in the past for evolution.

I say, firstly, nature doesn’t have will. Nature isn’t a conscious entity. Therefore, war is not justified by virtue of nature. Nature does not care for war, or lack thereof.

Next - There are better ways for living beings to evolve than to rely on war. War drains resources and inhibits progress in meaningful areas. War goes against the interest of living beings, because it undermines what we value, ourselves / other people / environment. We will evolve regardless of whether war takes place, and quite faster because we’ll be able to embrace the potential of cooperation on wider scopes previously never considered due to war.

So the argument for war, and that those who seek to avoid war are genetically inferior is ignorance. War has passed it’s used by date. It has nothing to offer. We can achieve better results, faster, without war. It holds us back.

That is why I argue against it.

Who says this?

I certainly do not.

There have been many lessons learned and perhaps still to be learned from how and why we evolved as we did in response to our environment.

I say we do not need to rely on such crude methods as ‘random’ mutations in combination with mass death and destruction (War) to determine what ought perpetuate, what has value and so on.

We can understand ourselves consciously - our objectives, our threats, our support, our hope - then devise strategies and means to realize our will based on our own power to do so. Based on our own terms, not the terms of an abstract entity.

Truly wise and strong beings don’t need to appeal to some greater being ‘nature’ to validate their claims.

This is a subjective assessment - it relies on one’s values and objectives.

Firstly, everything man has done on his own will, is natural, because man is natural, therefore all man’s actions are natural. Artificial is a subcategory of natural.

Now, I say to you our artificial influence has not broadly set us back. It has not been a devolution. Rather, an evolution.

We can now fly, travel underwater, over water, on land at high speeds. We can see in the dark. We can see wavelengths impossible with the naked eye. We can see further with far more detail, we can see things smaller with far more detail. We can hear greater or lesser at will. We can feel more or less at will. We can move things heavier, higher, faster. We can communicate further and faster. We can learn more effectively and understand ourselves more effectively. We can heal ourselves more effectively. We can gather resources more effectively. We can harness power beyond ourselves more effectively.

These are just some examples of we’ve done artificially that how increased our capacity. This is evolving, not devolving.

And what does nature have to say about our actions? Not a thing. Nature is neutral. It’s people who care. People who have an issue with artificial evolution. Thus, they must make a decent argument against it. For again, it’s one man’s will against another’s.

If you think your statement is objective, you’re ignorant. Your words are riddled with personal prejudice. The arrogance displayed is laughable.

Present the devolution you refer to. Give examples.

Devolution is a value judgement relative to an objective.

If two have different objectives, they will rationally disagree on what is evolution and devolution.

State your objective, Stuart, or tell me Ecclesiastes’, since they’re unwilling/unable to state it, even upon request.

13

Nature is not some Platonic abstraction. The word nature comes from the latin, nātūra, meaning birth or origin. It is inescapably intertwined with who and what we are. You can trace that all the way back to the ancient Greeks. The question is why the modern need to distance oneself from it?

The interior environment of the body is simply a microcosm of what goes on in the exterior world. The body attacks and replaces the unhealthy cells, less they grow in number and become a threat to the organism’s survival.
Liberal hypocrites are sustained on such violence, yet simultaneously decry it as wrong and evil when they witness it in the wider world.

Wrong, war and conflict are necessary for life. They are the very foundation of the organic world.
The simulacrum protects the modern human from this reality, but this being itself also an opportunity for exploitation.
Without conflict you would instantly die, as the cells of your body would stop fighting infection and disease. Take away the military that protects a nation, and see how long before envious eyes begin regarding it.

Does an animal or vegetable want to be killed and consumed?
Nature has a will, to sustain itself for as long as it can against an indifferent universe. In this war the weak and unfit are necessarily left by the wayside and the strong and fit are projected forward.

Newton was a ruthless prosecutor of counterfeiters when he held the position as Warden of the Royal Mint. I doubt very much he would have had any sympathy with your views.

14

There is no issue to be ‘solved’.
When we talk about the issue of cancer we are talking about removing it, not living in harmony with it.

The same for genes, except the solution is provided by the nature of the being itself, in its death or failure to reproduce.

15

Are you a bird or a fish or a bat?
Then why the fuck do you want to behave like one?

Because to do so requires us to degrade our intelligence - the very thing which sets us apart from the animal kingdom - and this has been the real achievement of the modern era.

This profits one who basis a philosophy around rhetoric and the emotions.

16

There are multiple things nature refers to. My claim of nature being an abstraction refers to the following definition of nature:

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth

Since this isn’t the nature you were referring to, that specific claim of mine is not relevant to what you said.

However, many of my other claims are. As I’ll soon address.

I agree.

A remark: What was relevant in the past, is not necessarily going to remain relevant in the present. If the conditions of the environment change, then so does the optimum method of interacting with it.

I do not distance myself from my nature. I respect it, love it, learn from it, and act in accord with it. I do it justice.

Therefore, your question is not appropriately directed.

Needless violence, unhealthy violence is what I speak against.

If a family gets the flu, is it healthy for the father to kill his children, his wife then himself?

Ought he rationally do it?

I’d say, likely not. It is an unhealthy application of violence. Violence has it’s place, but it isn’t the solution to all dilemma.

War and conflict have prolonged our existence, but they are not the only components that have led us to where we are, and I do not consider them the most fundamental aspect of our existence.

One must first exist, before one can engage in war or conflict. Therefore, an environment that enables one’s existence, is more fundamental than the ability of an already living being to maintain that existence via war / conflict.

In this instance, there is just cause for defense. Not all situations have a threat that needs to be resolved with violence.

Again, violence isn’t the answer to all dilemma.

If people have their needs met and trust in them remaining met without threat, then they’ve no reason to make conflict.

Artificial scarcity is enforced on some nations, and it leads them to attack others as a means to enable their own flourishing.

This isn’t necessary.

If there’s no threat, conflict isn’t necessary, defense isn’t necessary.

Not every element of the universe is indifferent, i.e. the living.

It’s ideal for the living with mutual interests to cooperate against threats.

Unless the strong will to compensate for the weakness of others, thereby enabling the existence of both, with the potential to strengthen the weaknesses of the others.

Counterfeiting directly undermines the objective of the Royal Mint. It is an attack on the integrity of what the Royal Mint aims for.

This is an entirely different context than the quote.

The quote is about expanding on the wisdom of others. The power of public knowledge. Using the wisdom of others as a foundation to reach greater heights. To do this, does not disrespect or undermine the breakthroughs of the past. It perpetuates their spirit.

You’re clearly ignorant of the meaning, hence why you made such a foolish response.

(Going to sleep - I’ll respond to your other pitiful remarks later.)

17

Imbecile, this is exactly what a genetically inferior being does to nature when it is allowed to open its mouth and spew forth it’s bile.
The stench fills the air of one desperately trying to falsify reality.

Newton was already a genius when he said that, as were those who shoulders he stood on.
You, on the other hand, are distorting his words like a typical counterfeiter, making them apply to one who has done fuck all except plead to mother nature to be granted an exception.

PS: grouping physical phenomena under a linguistic label does not make them collectively an abstraction, you imbecile.

18

Good description of human sheep.

19

Bad genes are a threat.

20

To admit to being a part of largely devolved species without offering evidence of how one is not personally inferior is far from arrogant.

Truth is the objective, even when it hurts, try to understand.

Rather than explain how to qualitatively define intelligence, aesthetics, and general health, lets just start with a basis of comparison we both agree on and go from there.

The question of whether a human subgroup’s desire or need to produce the technology you applauded earlier is a sign of quality aside, we both agree that the human subgroup that can produce that technology is superior. Don’t try to deny that, you used that technology as your prime example of human evolution. The human subgroups that have contributed little to the development of that technology can be compared to those who have and there we have a basis of comparison of evolutionary divergence in quality.

The next step is to find which subgroups (or races to simplify) are the former and which are the latter. After that look to statistics to see if the former subgroup is growing in comparison to the latter. Then if reasoning based on objective observations of past and present cultural impetuses match those statistics, we have a clear example, perhaps one among many, of devolution of the human species as a whole.

I’ll let you get started with finding the statistics.