Written by If death is defined as non-experience, the cessation of all senses or all awareness, it can not be experienced in any way for the one said to be dead.
If you die, it would appear simply as a dreamless sleep. No matter how many aeons pass, or phases of probability, you can know nothing of it, until some moment is hit where you are awake again or receiving information.
It isn’t true death that is frightening, because there is literally nothing to it, it is waking up again which is frightening, and practically guaranteed.
You practice every day with your sleeping. The dead are dead to you, but know nothing of death, and from their perspective, they, like you, only ever wake up, no matter what is said or done in between.
You will never experience death, you can only ever experience life, which is experiencing anything.
‘I’ does not die, I cannot know death.
Yeah, certainly. I am always dealing with immortality and the issues of forever.
I does in some sense die from time to time as it transforms, what mystics and philosophers refer to as ‘ego death’.
I consider every moment a death, any sort of change, from sleeping to waking, from typing one letter to another the one moment gone “as is” apparently and another moment in its place. We live by Death, Death itself a word for the One, known as Destroyer as well, and we can never encompass or experience it, as it is Non-Experience, Non-Information, literally Like Nothing, made of Nothing, there is Nothing to see, it can only be known through apparent Change, Activity, influence on Information or its generation and elimination of experiences.
Speak speaking from a near death experience in which I had the choice to either return to my body or leave the earth completely, our awareness is not dependent on this physical body… the body is more like a veil or shroud around our total awareness.
I perceive us as mummified in matter. And when this shroud wears away and falls off, we resurrect.
life is not Life and death is not Death.
[hr]
The wise serpent sheds many skins before it “dies”
We are our bodies.
We are our bodies.
Or are we brains in vats? How would we know?
If I lose a finger or an arm, surely I am still the same “me”. At what point of loss of body do I become not me?
One of the neatest lucid dream experiences I’ve had was learning how to accrete the sensory organs I remember from waking life into the astral environment for greater interaction.
Very excellent posts and I love the language, mummified in matter, so cool!
I think a great thought experiment is the one you suggested, keep simulating imagining cutting off body parts and sensory. Its also part of a thought experiment where there is a clone sent to Mars or something an exact duplicate. In all these thought experiments it leads one to at least feel there is something else that is the real “me” since one feels that in the destruction of their original body a duplicate clone wouldn’t cut it or possess the experiencer, the one seeing. For example, without killing the first one, creating a duplicate while one is alive wouldn’t be me, the thing seeing would be cut off from that body.
That which percieves is that which is perceived. When the body dies, there is no ‘I’, ‘I’ is performed as a body and as the ‘I’ is constructed beyond the body from without, it is impossible to say truthfully where it is, in fact, we are so deeply embedded in culture and language which determines what we are that soul, or ‘I’ is but an illusion of complexity.
I only know experience, so long as there is experience, that is all I know of me, no matter an associated visible body or lack of one or some other form, at the same time though I agree that most people believe we are a body rather than just an all inclusive screen of experience which only suggests the existence of certain systems or bodies.
Then inquiry starting from experience has too many limitations to be of use, we should look at Being instead.
Please explain furrher, this is great. I agree too. How do we get beyond these limitations, what is the distinction being made with Being and Experience?
Speak speaking from a near death experience in which I had the choice to either return to my body or leave the earth completely, our awareness is not dependent on this physical body… the body is more like a veil or shroud around our total awareness.
I perceive us as mummified in matter. And when this shroud wears away and falls off, we resurrect.
life is not Life and death is not Death.
[hr]
The wise serpent sheds many skins before it “dies”
Please share this experience in the religion and spirituality section!
Yes, I would like to hear all about it, I read so much literature about near death and put of body experiences, it is one of my central areas of interest.
I had a dream that there was a character called Freud who accampanied another similar armored combat anime character. Freud wore glasses and smoked cigarettes. The excited character insisted we are all zombies, and I asked if Freud was always accompanying zombies and was the origin of these ideas regarding the undead being popularized. I then asked what of God? To which Freud responded God is therapy.
Earlier in another dream it said the purpose of evil is that you fight it you fools!
Please explain furrher, this is great. I agree too. How do we get beyond these limitations, what is the distinction being made with Being and Experience?
lol – that’s what I am trying to figure out by reading Heidegger. That’s for another thread I am sure.
@”Arkilogos” NDE’s are certainly an interesting aspect of experience, it provides some evidence for survival after death, but it is not conclusive.
Yeah cause the body was still alive I guess or was alive again so people can claim the brain or something was still secretly working or something.
Regardlesd though I believe whatever we are sincerely told about experiences in their apparent details of the experience and that the experience happened as described.
Yeah cause the body was still alive I guess or was alive again so people can claim the brain or something was still secretly working or something.
Regardlesd though I believe whatever we are sincerely told about experiences in their apparent details of the experience and that the experience happened as described.
For sure. I just read an interesting thing about how mountaineers have NDE’s when thry believe they are about to fall from a great height.
Clearly, there is no one medical or physiological cause; the experiences occur for persons in a great variety of medical conditions. An interesting counterexample to explanations in terms of the “dying brain” is found in the NDEs experienced by mountain climbers in the midst of what they expected to be fatal falls (Heim 1892); it is hardly credible that these experiences can be reduced to either drugs or oxygen deprivation.
According to Heidegger, the question of the meaning of Being, and thus Being as such, has been forgotten by ‘the tradition’ (roughly, Western philosophy from Plato onwards). Heidegger means by this that the history of Western thought has failed to heed the ontological difference, and so has articulated Being precisely as a kind of ultimate being, as evidenced by a series of namings of Being, for example as idea, energeia, substance, monad or will to power. In this way Being as such has been forgotten. So Heidegger sets himself the task of recovering the question of the meaning of Being. In this context he draws two distinctions between different kinds of inquiry. The first, which is just another way of expressing the ontological difference, is between the ontical and the ontological, where the former is concerned with facts about entities and the latter is concerned with the meaning of Being, with how entities are intelligible as entities. Using this technical language, we can put the point about the forgetting of Being as such by saying that the history of Western thought is characterized by an ‘onticization’ of Being (by the practice of treating Being as a being). However, as Heidegger explains, here in the words of Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, “an ontic knowledge can never alone direct itself ‘to’ the objects, because without the ontological… it can have no possible Whereto” (translation taken from Overgaard 2002, p.76, note 7). The second distinction between different kinds of inquiry, drawn within the category of the ontological, is between regional ontology and fundamental ontology, where the former is concerned with the ontologies of particular domains, say biology or banking, and the latter is concerned with the a priori, transcendental conditions that make possible particular modes of Being (i.e., particular regional ontologies). For Heidegger, the ontical presupposes the regional-ontological, which in turn presupposes the fundamental-ontological.
Haha they were so scared, as I would be, they leaped straight out of their skins like a cartoon.
Another weird thing I read about NDEs is they did a study looking for Muslims having them like in the Earthquakes and went through numerous resuscitations and found pretty much that for whatever reasons Muslims don’t even have these experiences while both Western and possibly Far Eastern people do. Muslims apparently are not granted the impression of having detachable consciousness lol. So that really made it seem like some cultural expectation mechanism thing.
[hr]
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc461694/m2/1/high_res_d/28-2%206%20Art%2008%20Kreps.pdf
They seem to be so rare compared to Western ones where Western people are jumping out of their bodies right left and center
we are our bodies:
i read somewhere in an islamic text that the soul gets formed at 40. its supposed to be the sum of your bodies experiences and your spiritual partake in life. the latter is very often subconscious and helps create your lifepath. your life experience creates the world and situations befitting your spiritual level and goal.
i worked with that for a while (couple of decades) and for me it quite works. in my experience your spiritual blockages have a lot to do with dna, heritage and walk of life. since i started working on them before 40 i can say its this way, but who knows it can be something totally different and just works because i wanted it this way.
Being:
in the quran there are rules about a marriage between a man and a woman. some of these rules concern the household. it is said that the man is totally responsible for the care of it and the womans job is to be.
i worked very and i mean very hard to get to that point and then some. Being isnt easy everyone wants something of you never giving you room to totally relax and be from deep in your core being. most people wouldnt even be able to handle seeing you while being. the thing is with being that it doesnt need anything just you totally open, naked, accepting. i think that that is also the reason why in islam its promoted within a marriage. you really need protection in that state. the world isnt ready for it not in the spiritual not here. it creates envy, hate, jealousy, etc.
now when your less weird then me you might be able to be when doing what you love. your deep inner being then can radiate tru your actions. like being in flow and losing time while having fun. being is like looking at a hummingbird feeding from a flower. totally free from connections hanging in the air. im not that far yet 😉
[hr]
I only know experience, so long as there is experience, that is all I know of me, no matter an associated visible body or lack of one or some other form, at the same time though I agree that most people believe we are a body rather than just an all inclusive screen of experience which only suggests the existence of certain systems or bodies.
then from what point of being do you experience? what are the glasses tru which you experience? and what is the purpose of the body if not for experience?
” then from what point of being do you experience? what are the glasses tru which you experience? and what is the purpose of the body if not for experience? ”
Great questions and the writing is wonderful again!
1.then from what point of being do you experience?
2.what are the glasses tru which you experience?
3.and what is the purpose of the body if not for experience?
in my view, all I have access to is a flat layer or sheet called experience, it contains everything I am aware of and thinking of and feeling in a moment, it “informs” me of who I am supposed to be and what is part of my experience which is anything appearing in or on the sheet which is all I am, like a photograph moment to moment.
1.then from what point of being do you experience?
The body is to me a certain Tale which has been made up, I could be given any sort of supposed body or no body, what my real body is, is the experience itself, no matter what the experience may be. So my form if my eyes are shut is a black or dark sheet for example. When I am looking, I am whatever is in my experience, that is what my form is, made up of all those pixels and sensations in that moment. This is a subtle weird point that requires careful attention and is almost counterintuitive since people have become so convinced that there are indeed bodies which is what they see in their flat layer of experience but that is just a story told to them, they are not bodies or have no access to bodies, they are sheets of information, like photos with feelings and sensations in a moment, that is all they access, really see, and actually really are, there is nothing more. What is “brought back” is the experience or idea of being you, a sheet which informs you of things that you are supposed to be.
2.wupt are the glasses tru which you experience?
See, here is the trick, and this can help you and others understand all my writing better hopefully, there is no me who is viewing, I am the view itself, Allah is the viewer. I am the View, the picture in the moment produced, there is no Me behind it, I myself am the View and whatever is in it that flash, and Allah who is like Nothing is the viewer.
3.and what is the purpose of the body if not for experience?
The body is a story told, any other story can be told, the body is a made up thing, you do not need a body really, but no one can experience Non-Experience, and the only Stuff or Matter there really is, is Experience or Information, called Words and Stories. So you could be Made into the Experience (notice the specific wording) of Being bodiless, yet still seeing, hearing, whatever else, it requires nothing, the body is just a certain story told to you, it is not a necessary thing, but what has been made and chosen as an element or idea in the story.
Please see if you can find the time to go through and see that I mention “Shape or Form of Experience” here as well eventually but if taken slowly and with the videos takes one on a great fun journey of intense learning and fun:
http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-505254.html
Treating mind and body separately, multiplies & disseminates experiences – treating them as a psycho-somatic entity (relativity*) enables to integrate experiences.
* see “A Thelemic view of consciousness” (General Religion, Occult and Spiritual Discussion)
Treating mind and body separately, multiplies & disseminates experiences – treating them as a psycho-somatic entity (relativity*) enables to integrate experiences.
* see “A Thelemic view of consciousness” (General Religion, Occult and Spiritual Discussion)
I will interject here to say this is not a matter of relativity, but rather contextuality – http://cogprints.org/2621/1/PhilCogSci2-Contextuality.pdf
that excludes mind which is known to have its own ideas
that excludes mind which is known to have its own ideas
How does it exclude mind?
[hr]
treating them as a psycho-somatic entity
I usually use the term ‘psycho-physiological’, psychosomatic is a medical term usually.
[hr]
From the paper:
8. Contextuali ty and Mind There has been a wide debate in philosophy of cognitive science on the question “where is the mind?”. Apart from people whose context leads them to say that the questi on is malformed ( i.e. people that restrict the word “where” to physical p lace s), the literature has been divided mainly into two streams: people defending that the m ind is on ly in the brain (individualists, e.g. Butler, 1998; Adam s and Aiza wa, 2001) , and peopl e defendi ng that the mind is in the brain, body, and world (active externalists, e.g. Varela, 1994; Clark, 1997; Clark and Chalmers, 19 98; Haugelan d, 1998). We would explain the arid debate be cause, b roadly, the people of each band are in different contexts. The main differe nce between them, is their concept o f mind. If, a ccording to our context, we understand that the mind includes only lo gica l r easoni ng, higher order processing of informa tion, deliberation, etc., then very probably w e would agree wi th the indiv idualis ts. If, acc ording to our cont ext, the min d involves also
sensorimotor coordi nation, a ctive pe rceptio n, enactio n, etc., the n we would a gree with the active externa lists. I f our context co ntains bo th contexts and we do not ha ve any preju dice for contradi ctions, we would agr ee with bo th. The refore , the problem of “where is th e mind” can be reduced t o a differenc e of context. If people understand both contexts, then in some conditio ns they can s peak abo ut the mind in one sense, in other conditions in ano ther sense. And the problem just evaporates.
Psycho-physiological sounds good (might use it in future)
“context” connotes circumstances and as such a surrounding i.e. external affect, which is a physical but not a mental necessity.
I have to admit that i succumbed to the lure of playing with words.
I used to be a arduous student of Nietzsche who expressed his great humour that way (although he had the advantage of German language and being a philologist)
Imagine a “Weltbild” (Self-image) fed with Nietzsche and Crowley …. :angel:
Nietzsche was the first to use the term psycho-physiology and he unites mind/body/spirit in the context of materialism. He doesn’t make a mind/body distinction, we are our bodies.
I would say that philosophically I cannot reason that there is an awareness after death. However when someone I love dies I still speak to them and dream about them. Like when my dad died last year, after his ceremony I heard him talking to me, like he didn’t know where he was and I had to explain to him he had died. It felt like he was in a nether world. I think his best friend was having similar experiences, as he didn’t feel well that day. Since them I have dreamed that he is in a paradise, it looks like India with tigers lakes and trees. Some of the animals came running up to me and I was afraid and he said not to be afraid, because they were like puppies and would not harm. He stood under a big papaya tree, ladden with fruit. After that dream, I felt relaxed that he was okay, in an enviroment he would love. None of this is provable it’s comjecture, but secretly I hold on to it, I believe it emotionally, but we can never know rationally until we go.
^I think that’s as fair as it can be said.