Why are we afraid to die if it's inevitable?

[Karl]

And I don't have to wear a diaper yet.

Only because you haven't met the right dominatrix.

[Jim D.]

Back on topic. People are afraid to die because they haven't learned how to live right now.

[Marblehead]

Back on topic. People are afraid to die because they haven't learned how to live right now.

 

And this is in part because our ego does not reflect the truth of who/what we are.  We want to be more than just another animal on the planet that must comply with the processes of nature.

[Tatsumaru]

 

It's not difficult to define, you just don't know what it is. Consider this - if you are your mother's information, and your mother is her mother's information and so on, where do "You" start in all this? It's not a trick question. To say that the banana is part of you, but isn't you is to say that the elements that constitute you are not you. Thus you believe that you are a combination of elements, but you are not in any of those elements which means that somehow you arise from not you which is conceptually wrong.

 

You have misrepresented what I said.  The banana becomes a part of me.  I do not become a banana.  And for sure I did not become my mother's daughter.  I am a product of, not a replica of.

Maybe you, like scientists, believe that you are a system that is the sum of it's components, but cannot be reduced to its components, because the components outside of the system would behave differently. This is why I gave you the example about removing fingers and hands and limbs, because that dissipative system that the body appears to be, isn't you.

 

Maybe, but I doubt it.  Perhaps I accept stimulate the way my body is designed to perceive the universe.  I don't take anything away and I don't add anything to it.  What you see is what you get.  If I have only nine fingers that all it means, that I have only nine fingers.  Now, if I didn't have a head there wouldn't be any me.

 

Excuse me, I'm just noting the contradictions in your statements. Fighting is not one of my goals, although I think politeness is overrated. Some posts ago you said that you are not just the brain, but now you said that if your head is removed, there wouldn't be any you left, which means that all of you is in the head/brain. Which means that you think that awareness arises from matter. You seem to be changing your ideas of what the you is and I'm just trying to understand you better.

 

 

 

Finally! I love my ego = I don't want to wake up.

 

Well, you love yours too.  That is very obvious.

 

To enjoy separation is to enjoy the dream.

 

You lost me with that one.

There is no such thing as spiritual atheist - an atheist is a belief in no god, spirituality is belief free.

 

Of course there is.  I just told you that I am one.  And you just associated spirituality with religion and that is the biggest mistake of all.

Plus you seem to believe that Tao is God which contradicts your other belief. Lol!

 

You have no idea how I view Tao.  And just to set your understanding straight, I use Tao as a verb, not a noun.  The is no thing "Tao".  Therefore there is no contradiction.

 

You have reached the point where you are trying to attack me instead of what I am saying.  That's not a good manner of discussion.

 

 

Ego = separation. As in  I versus rest. I have to survive, competition.

Love my ego = love my separation.

When did I associate spirituality with religion ever? In fact I stated the exact opposite - I said spirituality is belief free. I associated atheism with religion.

 

You just said you are a Taoist, but your statements do not appear to be Taoism-related.

For example you said that "what you see is what you get" and that awareness arises from matter:

 

“Dualistic thinking is a sickness. Religion is a distortion. Materialism is cruel. Blind spirituality is unreal”- Lao Tzu.

“Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth” - Lao Tzu

 

I'm not attacking you why would you assume that? I'm just commenting.

 

At least I have some.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

 

 

 

Is all consciousness energy?

 

Yes.

 

What about the still consciousness?

 

Still yes.

 

Energy is movement, so what about stillness?

 

Energy without a load on it.  There is perfect balance and no energy flow is detected.  But the energy is still there.

 

Think about it

 

I did.

 

Energy is movement, thus no-movement is no-energy. There is not still energy as there is no still electricity and still movement.

 

Back on topic. People are afraid to die because they haven't learned how to live right now.

You cannot learn from the past how to live in the now. You can only let go of the past and uncover the now. However there is a problem. The you that you think you are is also in the past, thus the you that you think you are cannot live in the now. Waking up is a suicide (of the false self).

[roger]

The reason we fear death is because we're afraid of what might happen AFTER we die.

Edited July 5, 2016 by roger

[Marblehead]

Excuse me, I'm just noting the contradictions in your statements. Fighting is not one of my goals, although I think politeness is overrated. Some posts ago you said that you are not just the brain, but now you said that if your head is removed, there wouldn't be any you left, which means that all of you is in the head/brain. Which means that you think that awareness arises from matter. You seem to be changing your ideas of what the you is and I'm just trying to understand you better.

 

Okay.  Let's try this again.

 

I have never denied that I contradict myself on occasion.  I have never allowed that to bother me.  It shouldn't bother any one else either.

 

Regarding the "I", that is, what "I" am.  I am a combination of everything that has been absorbed by my body and brain (mind).  So it is true that "I" am not just my mind (brain).  "I" includes my fingers, my hair, skin, and on and on.

 

However, we know that if I were decapitated there would no longer be an "I".  What was once "I" would be incomplete parts no longer making a whole.

 

If one of my fingers were cut off "I" would still be a functioning whole but slightly deformed.

 

 

So anyhow, to the limit of my understanding, yes, awareness arises from matter.  I mean, really, how could we even think if we didn't have a brain.  We couldn't even remain alive.

 

However, I can't go too far with this because there are animals that have no brain.  All they have and need is a nervous system that performs their needed functions.

 

The "mind" is a product of the brain - both conscious and unconscious.  Our brain allows for self-awareness and this allows for the distinction between "I" and "other".  Just as a new-born child eventually learns that its mother is not a part of it.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

 

Ego = separation. As in  I versus rest. I have to survive, competition.

Love my ego = love my separation.

 

I view this opposite of how you do.  Ego = complete.  Therefore, I love my completeness.

When did I associate spirituality with religion ever? In fact I stated the exact opposite - I said spirituality is belief free. I associated atheism with religion.

 

Hehehe.  I get very defensive when anyone even implies that my Taoism is a religion.  I am an Atheist.  Atheism is not a religion.  It is a non-religious, non-deist philosophy of life, or belief system, if you will.  But I did want to make it clear that I do not believe that spirituality resides only within religion.  A person can be spiritual without being religious.

 

You just said you are a Taoist, but your statements do not appear to be Taoism-related.

For example you said that "what you see is what you get" and that awareness arises from matter:

 

Well, it appears that what I said was what I intended to say and that it is in fact very Taoist.  If you are trying to link me with Religious Taoism you are making an error.  Manifest reality is what it is.  Sure, constantly changing but still, you see a tree, that is what you get (the picture in your mind), a tree.  And indeed, I did say that awareness arises from matter.  Show me anyone who is self-aware and yet has no brain.

“Dualistic thinking is a sickness. Religion is a distortion. Materialism is cruel. Blind spirituality is unreal”- Lao Tzu.

“Recognize that everything you see and think is a falsehood, an illusion, a veil over the truth” - Lao Tzu

 

First, let me state that I do not believe those translations are valid.  Lao Tzu did not say those things.  However,

Dualistic thinking is human.  It is the way our brain functions naturally.  There were no religions during Lao Tzu's days for him to call a distortion (but I do agree with the statement).  He never said materialism is cruel.  He did say excess by the ruling classes is cruel.  I do not recall Lao Tzu ever stating that spirituality is unreal.  He didn't really speak much about spirituality at all.

 

The second line is funny.  So very wrong it is funny.  That had to have come from a Buddhist.  It is not Taoist in the least.

 

I'm not attacking you why would you assume that? I'm just commenting.

 

You feel you were not attacking.  Fine.  But fair warning, I am very opposed to getting personal on this forum.  I will respond in like manner.

We should be talking about your thread and opening post concept instead of my belief system.

 

You are a Buddhist and I am an Atheistic Taoist.  Our belief systems are very different.  But we will hold similar concepts.

[Marblehead]

 

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

 

We were talking about sense.  I said I have some.  Yes, that is supposed to be a good thing.  Especially if it is common sense.

[Marblehead]

Energy is movement, thus no-movement is no-energy. There is not still energy as there is no still electricity and still movement.

 

 

A battery is an object of stored energy.  An electrical circuit holds energy but is not moving if the circuit is not complete.

 

Energy is potential.  It won't move until it is manifested.

 

So don't think that you can grab two bare wires of an electrical circuit without getting shocked just because you have the switch turned off.  It may be that the Yin side of the circuit is the side that is switched.

[Marblehead]

The reason we fear death is because we're afraid of what might happen AFTER we die.

 

That is the most direct and, IMO, correct response so far.  (All of those fears are based on fairy tales though.)

[Karl]

Correct - I am, therefore I think. At least you realize you are not the thoughts. The opposite would suggest that one can rise from nothing and set into nothing, even though nothing doesn't exist. Modern western philosophy is certainly a problem, as Descartes never realized that thought was just another sense.

True consciousness is conscious of true things, false consciousness if conscious of false things. True consciousness it truly existent, false consciousness is falsely existent. This is why you are not the 6th consciousness of thought, because it's not true. It's only an abstraction designed to glue thoughts together and create a sense for continuity that is required for survival in the physical world. But you are not that as you yourself asserted. Identification is not a problem, but identification with illusions is were suffering arises from. I have stated multiple times that absolute truth is inaccessible for the 6 senses, but that doesn't mean it's inexpressible. Please remember - we are not saying what is true here, we are saying what isn't true, so we can surrender the illusion bit by bit. The lower 6 senses are in the past, because everything you register as input is after the fact, thus the lower 6 senses never perceive the present, if you understand this you will understand why they are deceivers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard to believe that a person who is so full of beliefs, actually realized "I am, therefore I am

 

 

 

Yes! Yes! The only part you are missing is that true consciousness is conscious of true existence and false consciousness is conscious of false existence

My thoughts ARE what make me uniquely me, but my consciousness isn't generating existence.

 

As I made very plain existence has primacy over consciousness. The universe has always been and always will be and I am a product of causality within the universe.

 

Thought is not 'another sense'. The senses are perfect receivers as is perception. This is an automatic faculty. We are reasoning creatures and therefore we must think. It is our thoughts (conceptualisation)that can be erroneous. You appear to have moved Descartes demon from the external to the internal.

 

To judge consciousness true or false then you must have some datum. As you have just said that the datum itself (reality) would be false, then there would be no way to judge it. Consciousness can't be in error, it is an axiom. Error is entirely in human thought, because conceptions can float. The old stick in a beaker of water example shows that our sense perception is perfect, but that we might make an error in our conceptualisation of what we are seeing. We then must account for the perception logically. This is the only place that true and false occurs. We must judge our conception with our direct perception. Science is the best method we know of doing that.

 

An illusion is a perception which we have not correctly interpreted conceptually. Hence the illusion of a bent stick in a beaker of water is a result of the refraction index difference between air and water. The perception is perfect, but the illusion is that we 'think' the stick is bent until we know sufficient about the physics involved.

 

You are making errors in the same way. They are conceptual errors. The universe contains no errors, our senses and perception are also error free. We really do see what's out there perfectly. Falsity only occurs in our conceptual storage where we make an error. The only way we can judge an error is by reference to our perception. Does what we think agree with what we see. Consciousness is axiomatic, you can't judge consciousness, it is the faculty of consciousness that allows us to perceive, conceptualise and compare one with the other.

 

The only deceiver is our conception. This is why we need specific kinds of rules to reduce error. Logic is that tool. Logic isn't an invention, it is an ordering of our thought processes. It is the physical equivalent of lifting a heavy object without damaging our bodies.

[Karl]

The reason we fear death is because we're afraid of what might happen AFTER we die.

Not for me it isn't. There is nothing after death. I fear death because I like living.

[allinone]

You can become immortal but that karma will also end one day.

[allinone]

Karl, universe will be destroyed. Or you holding a view of there can't be anything greater than universe?

[C T]

Not for me it isn't. There is nothing after death. I fear death because I like living.

I would like to postulate this way: Long after a star has burnt out the reverberations still continue for a time, and countless 'hooks' form in that aftermath to cause all kinds of after-effects, and so on. This applies universally. Extinction is just a convenient description and sometimes dismissive term to wrap things up neatly in a box. In actuality, the acknowledgement of the constancy of change, this perpetual transformational process, implies the absence of intervals, which then implies that coming into form, sustaining form, and cessation of form happens simultaneously minus even subtle perceptible gaps. In effect, 'you', 'like', 'living', 'dying' and 'death' have no distinctive, individually existing time-frames and independent arisings, just like an absence of a distinct point and independent formative phase where a child crosses a boundary which declares an irrevocable status of adulthood. There are traces of childness in all adults, and vice versa. In a similar vein, I would surmise that death is but a deathness and not an irrevocable state of extinction due to the universal laws that govern transformation which must apply equally to all things seen and unseen. 

[allinone]

naturally we end up in a endless beginnings and ends 50/50 whatever system it is, and if it would be 51/49 then that isn't possible to exist forever i will end up again somewhere else and be there so long as long i don't change 50/50.

[Junko]

Not everybody is afraid of death itself.

[Karl]

Karl, universe will be destroyed. Or you holding a view of there can't be anything greater than universe?

The universe will be destroyed by what ? The universe is everything there ever was and will be. To suggest the universe will be destroyed means that it isn't the universe, that there is something external to the universe which is impossible.

[Marblehead]

The universe will be destroyed by what ? The universe is everything there ever was and will be. To suggest the universe will be destroyed means that it isn't the universe, that there is something external to the universe which is impossible.

 

You don't have as many contradictions in your philosophy as I have.

[Karl]

I would like to postulate this way: Long after a star has burnt out the reverberations still continue for a time, and countless 'hooks' form in that aftermath to cause all kinds of after-effects, and so on. This applies universally. Extinction is just a convenient description and sometimes dismissive term to wrap things up neatly in a box. In actuality, the acknowledgement of the constancy of change, this perpetual transformational process, implies the absence of intervals, which then implies that coming into form, sustaining form, and cessation of form happens simultaneously minus even subtle perceptible gaps. In effect, 'you', 'like', 'living', 'dying' and 'death' have no distinctive, individually existing time-frames and independent arisings, just like an absence of a distinct point and independent formative phase where a child crosses a boundary which declares an irrevocable status of adulthood. There are traces of childness in all adults, and vice versa. In a similar vein, I would surmise that death is but a deathness and not an irrevocable state of extinction due to the universal laws that govern transformation which must apply equally to all things seen and unseen.

 

We aren't talking about matter, but about spirit which does not exist except within a specific arrangement of things. Our bodies will continue for a time to grow hair and nails, but after that our bodies decay into dust, liquids and gas.

 

There is no place for our spirits to go. Once the body is dead, so is the mind. Objectivism holds that consciousness does not exist apart from matter. Death is the extinction of our individual selves. However, our death is not the extinction of all consciousness, only our particular consciousness. Life will go on, we will not. It will be as if we never existed except for the ripples of our actions across time.

[C T]

Not everybody is afraid of death itself.

yes, some are more afraid of unfinished business more than death itself. But aside from death itself, there's often a gnawing feeling of an underlying fear of mysterious transpirations that is the over-arching factor, some mysterious workings which is still mentally disturbing to many. Overcoming this seat of primordial fear is one of the reasons why people take to spiritual practices - not so to actually seek to overcome death but to attain freedom above the mundane nondescript. Death, life, immortality, enlightenment... these are nothing but labels, and those who are stuck at the level of 'labels' will have to work even harder due to an added layer of delusion they need to clear along the way. 

[Karl]

You don't have as many contradictions in your philosophy as I have.

In your philosophy, or that you see in mine ?

 

The universe is not some semantic term, or scientific discovery. The universe is our highest conception. It is all and everything. Beyond what we can't know is pointless to consider and would be included in the universe anyway. It isn't such in the case of scientific discovery within the universe, in those aspects of science there are many things we don't yet know. However the universe we do know, not every aspect of it, but it's overall aspect as the universe. It cannot be destroyed because it was never created. This is entirely baffling if you have only ever thought in terms of causality, but all causality is within the universe, destruction of things into other things is all within the universe in its totality.

 

Once you grasp the significance of the statement, then you can realise mans potential. We aren't just flecks of dust in the aether, we are cognitive of the entire totality in one single concept. Our minds are as boundless as the universe, on a par with the universe. Imagine what we are capable of !

[C T]

We aren't talking about matter, but about spirit which does not exist except within a specific arrangement of things. Our bodies will continue for a time to grow hair and nails, but after that our bodies decay into dust, liquids and gas.

 

There is no place for our spirits to go. Once the body is dead, so is the mind. Objectivism holds that consciousness does not exist apart from matter. Death is the extinction of our individual selves. However, our death is not the extinction of all consciousness, only our particular consciousness. Life will go on, we will not. It will be as if we never existed except for the ripples of our actions across time.

I would again postulate that 'individual selves' are nothing more than an imputation, another descriptive modcon as it were. Individual selves dont exist independently, with independence here suggesting that suddenly this self appears out of thin air and later disappearing into nothingness after death. The self is a sum of parts that is transpersonal, imputed, and with no perceptible beginning point, and with no real location. If something has no location and imperceptible beginning point, what is extinguished at death? 

[Marblehead]

In your philosophy, or that you see in mine ?

 

I was going to edit how I phrased that but decided against doing so.

 

The universe is not some semantic term, or scientific discovery. The universe is our highest conception. It is all and everything. Beyond what we can't know is pointless to consider and would be included in the universe anyway. It isn't such in the case of scientific discovery within the universe, in those aspects of science there are many things we don't yet know. However the universe we do know, not every aspect of it, but it's overall aspect as the universe. It cannot be destroyed because it was never created. This is entirely baffling if you have only ever thought in terms of causality, but all causality is within the universe, destruction of things into other things is all within the universe in its totality.

 

Great.  You are beginning to talk more like a Daoist than you did when you first joined DaoBums.

 

Once you grasp the significance of the statement, then you can realise mans potential. We aren't just flecks of dust in the aether, we are cognitive of the entire totality in one single concept. Our minds are as boundless as the universe, on a par with the universe. Imagine what we are capable of !

 

There is no aether.  Yeah, if we don't kill our selves off humans are capable of so much more before our sun begins to die.

 

[Karl]

I would again postulate that 'individual selves' are nothing more than an imputation, another descriptive modcon as it were. Individual selves dont exist independently, with independence here suggesting that suddenly this self appears out of thin air and later disappearing into nothingness after death. The self is a sum of parts that is transpersonal, imputed, and with no perceptible beginning point, and with no real location. If something has no location and imperceptible beginning point, what is extinguished at death?

 

To talk of 'beginning points' is skeptic/sophist philosophy. It's the same thing as saying you can step in the same river twice, that everything is changing and so nothing has specific identity.

 

There was no beginning to the universe, so, it pointless to talk of a beginning of CT. we can move past that point and find causality. We light a candle, the candle burns until there is no more wax, then the flame is extinguished. We can say that the heat from the flame went somewhere and the wax went somewhere else, but the essential universe remains the universe even those these changes have occured. The flame has gone, the candle has gone, the essential elements that came together to make that specific candle and flame have dispersed. The flame doesn't continue as a flame in some ghostly way, neither does the candle. The flame and candle are not reborn, but, we make new candles and light them.