LIFE AFTER DEATH

A. The part that, (say!), doesn’t count.

No thing can exist unless it is perceivable. Neither Life nor anything else, can 'be' unless it is identifiable in some way.
My “word-tool”, (the ‘human grunt-offspring’), identifies the object I am seeing, as ‘chair’. In general terms, I “agree” - (following an earlier period of indoctrination!) - to define what I generally perceive/sense….as “REALITY”.
Without Word, there can be neither ‘chair’ nor anything else. To assert that “Existence”, (i.e., ‘chair’), is around in any case, begs this question: “but what proves that the chair is/was there if ‘homo sapiens’ is not?” Mind you, if you dare[!] to propose that ‘Word’ was around before “the big bang”, (or any other ‘kick-off hypothesis’), you’ll have to ask, ‘then who or what was doing the talking at the time?’!
Whatever I accept as being, is and remains so, for as long as I am able to think it.
Life simultaneously is, is over with, and, of course, never could have [otherwise] been.
______________________________
“I THINK∴ IT IS NOT”
(“Well…….more-or-less”)
The human unceasingly creates absolutely everything out of absolutely nothing at all; but his chez d’oeuvre is so successful that he believes EVERYTHING was there before HE was ! In other words, he cannot accept that what he is "discovering" could not be ‘a find’, because it is not provable that anything can be ‘found’ that he didn’t create in the first place.
______________________________
∴ “IMMORTALITY”!
(“There’s no escape, dash it; I’m stuck with it.”)
The ‘here-and-now’ lasts for so long as my awareness does. I won’t ever know when I didn't wake up again. I can fear death, I can sense its imminence, I can describe a person as ‘dead’, but I can never be a witness to my own death. I will never know when I am here no longer, i.e., actually dead.
The proof that ‘not here’ is exactly the same as ‘here’ - (or if you prefer, that there is no ‘not here’) - lies in the impossibility of being able to picture what it is like to not be here. (Of course; because one can’t not be here: there is no 'not here' !)
If, in spite of everything, I have an irresistible yearning to ‘experience’ Death itself, (or if I’ve truly had enough of what I feel I’m enduring), the nearest I can ever come to doing so, is by deliberately throwing myself off a carefully chosen cliff. (I say ‘carefully chosen’, because a miscalculation on my part, (with me ending up in the hands of people trying to keep me alive), would be a come-down from which I’d probably never recover!)
Thus this day is forever, and is my last. (Tomorrow is only a presumption and cannot itself actually 'be’). TODAY, therefore, could well be considered the ideal moment for finally resolving outstanding issues!
______________________________
ROLE CALL
(“You name it; I’ll take the part.”)
On awakening [if!], my body’s brain, (including, of course, its memory), instantly re-constitutes (acknowledges) my ‘existence’. Thoughts, when not under conscious control, (i.e., during sleep), are referred to, as (and why not indeed), ‘dreams’. Even if some of these (automatically generated body pulsations), are later partly recalled, they cannot in any way be discussed on a rational basis, for they were not consciously and logically formed - as are actual thoughts, which they are not). Any ‘relevance or significance’ attached to them therefore, is open to infinitesimal varieties of interpretation or 'psychological' speculation. (One notch above tea-leaf reading or Tarotology).
______________________________
THE FRAME’S THE GAME.
(“And all the men and women, merely winners.”)
Oh yes they are! Just ask anyone, "if you were given a choice would you have missed this particular trip?!"
So…..quote: “the human race, inhabits a planet, within a galaxy in the bowels of endless space……...etc.” Well, it will do - as an acceptably agreed frame: but the only “proof”, of the contents and substance of this concoction, is ‘humans declaring/agreeing that it is so‘.
___________________________________
B. The part that counts.
Realising that what is happening is equally not happening, has no effect on my personal relationships with, or attitude towards, all that is around me: (what the frame is made of, doesn’t affect the painting…… I trust!). No, I’m still the same creature who longs, longs, LONGS to be viewed as a jolly nice fellow, but knows full well that whenever it comes to push and shove - he’s not: (well, not very often!)
Part of the fun of The Human Being Game, is endeavouring to ‘ascertain how it all came to be’. (To reach the conclusion that one’s own perpetually self-activating in[ter]vention brings about what ‘comes-to-be’, would be, to say the least, a game-spoiler! It’d threaten to take away the comfort blanket of the human race; i.e., “what you can touch, is”.)
______________________________
WILLY-NILLY
(“I fired my first god as soon as I found out.”)
If I decide to ‘set high standards’, it’s because I prefer to see myself reaching for the ideal of MAN, (or GOD or SAINT, etc.), rather than docilely settling for the generally uninspiring image of Homomal; (‘animal-with-voice’). For I, (as Homomal), given the appropriate setting and circumstances, can easily demonstrate that I am just as callous, ignorant, cruel, avaricious, as any of those whose actions I may now abhor and view with dismay and repugnance. (Not too digestible a notion, eh?!)
I choose, (not expect), to try to rise above this when and as I can, because I choose to prefer my new god (me) not to allow me to ‘get away with anything’.
______________________________
THE UNHAPPENING
(“But mummy, if it didn’t happen, how can it still be happening?!”)
Total comprehension of the nature of the “UNhappening”, can only be achieved by imagining oneself outside existence, (i.e., to not be experiencing it); BUT what's MANDATORY is, accepting that in order for anything to 'happen' it must be identifiably perceivable, . (How else can 'happening' be happening?!)
Fortunately, my expectations of both life itself and of myself, (as taught me from ‘go’), no longer dominate my actions. (No one ever let me down; only my expectations did!) Knowing that I am solely responsible for ALL occurrence - (my perception decides on the relevancy of anything and everything) - I choose my moral/ethical obligations and commitments, without deferring to anything or anyone else. However, I am also just as free to decide to be bound by any principles I admire and respect - as is, say, the person who believes that “IT is all here anyhow”.
______________________________
HOMO PENDULI (me!)
I desire
I acquire
I possess
I treasure
I display
I incorporate
I routinize
I desire Desire.
______________________________
A NEW WORLD BORDER
(“He who endures enough pain, will welcome Death as a lover.”)
Let’s suppose I find myself seriously depressed by the amount of self-laceration engaged in by Homomal as a whole, (salaciously reported in daily, if not hourly, statistics-laced “stories”): well, I am bound by the rules and restrictions of this frame, but I do have the choice of switching frames.
If I'm prepared to abandon just about all the ‘comforts of civilised living’, (and, fully aware of the likely difficulties and risks involved), I am perfectly free to find an uninhabited spot on the planet, and go there with whatever resources I can manage to assemble. I then will have shifted to a new and separate frame, (as, say, any ‘off-gridder’). There, I can decide that, for instance, the Earth is triangular, round, or indefinitely flat; that stars are no more or less than a skin-deep ‘night-canopy’; that the world - with all its imperfections - is PERFECT, (which it is!); and so on and so forth. (Incidentally, I have no proof - have you? - that the land I walk on is anything but flat).
If I have children, I can teach them about both frames, and precisely why I choose to live in Frame B rather than Frame A. They’ll be able, later on, to go and thoroughly check on Frame A, and maybe decide which they prefer. As neither frame has been touted as ‘the better one’ - [they just have different price-lists] - my offspring, (unlike my earlier school-fellows), will never be able to feel that the teaching was ‘slanted’.
______________________________
THE ETERNAL ENJOYMENT OF THE UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.
The overall malaise of the human race in Frame A, will no longer be mine. I shall cut myself off from any communication in Frame B, (except perhaps, with strangers!), rather than engage in the self-vindication, manipulation, double-dealing and self-betrayal, unavoidable in the former one. Having quitted the one frame however, I shall very happily carry with me, the indelible memory of its great classical composers, idealists, artisans, adventurers…...and a couple of people I know [all about] personally, in Denmark, Canada, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic.
Give-and-take is one thing; buy-and-sell is another: I will have no friends rather than catch myself, (even momentarily), reverting to previous ‘practices’. In dialogues with strangers, the worst of me - (the most pathetic, is a better term) - such as self-aggrandizement, whitewashing, ‘explanations’, and so on - will not compulsively rear its head, as it did amongst ‘friends’.
I will live alone, (if I must), rather than alone-with-someone.
I’m ready.
I’ve practised what I preach!

=================================================================

Deep stuff Keith.

But things do exist when they are not perceivable, when you consider the narrow bands of our perceptions against the almost infinite variations of eg. wavelengths, molecular structures, and unknown unknowns which may be perceptible by humans in the future, but not right now, or even perceptible to 'others' right now, only we do not know it, to be able to say whether or not it is perceptible.

You may be right if you remove the time dimension from the equation.

And if possibility of new existences from void or other dimensions / planes, has any value of probability, then what does not now exist may be perceived some other time or place, but not now.

Is or isn't the fridge light on when you shut the door ? Regardless of all testing, we still can't be 100% guaranteed sure every time, because what if . . . .
Is there really a new tomorrow, or is it ground hog day with new fabricated memories, or are memory synapses fickle and variable, merely giving the impression of a different day ?
Similarly is our collective agreeance on what is, only a detailed fabrication surrounding a single existing ego ?
If I disagree with all the rest, am I really just disagreeing with my own fabrication, and not yours ?

Now I am going to lie down (or do I) and fabricate a new tomorrow.
Unless someone else is fabricating my existence and my world, and I am imaginary.

Quote your source, please. Plagiarism is so cheap.

LOL perfect

Halleluljah!
Someone actually bothered to respond. (Most don't take up the challenge.

Delighted.

Your Point: ""But things do exist when they are not perceivable"".

Quote from mine: """To assert that “Existence”, (i.e., ‘chair’), is around in any case, begs this question: “but what PROVES that the chair is/was there if ‘homo sapiens’ is not?!"""

The answer is that NOTHING proves it.

To GalaxyStarz
Me.

It's also on LinkedIn, under:

E=W
___

A

I generally won't respond to an opening post
that exceeds four paragraphs.
Especially, when word for word, it's stolen
intellectual property.


Cite your sources.

"""I generally won't respond to an opening post
that exceeds four paragraphs."""

I can now safely assume that there are exceptions to this rule!



"""Especially, when word for word, it's stolen........"""

You flatter me sir. I'm a supremely talented forger am I? Oh thank you.

Please tell me you don't serve Kool -Aid to your guests

a simple web search for the first sentence land only on the LinkedIn page of one Keith perreur-lloyd. if this is plagiarism, this poster is impersonating that person in full and so yeah, all those polite replies would be justified.

(biting off only as much i could possibly chew ...)



Assuming you literally mean "word" there: Imagine - I and my dog, while walking on the street, are being chased by a bull, I'm pretty sure my dog would react to the chasing by running (as I would) or barking at the bull. All in all, the bull seems to share my reality about the existence of my dog (also of himself and myself ) and the dog seems to share my reality about the existence of the bull (again, also of himself and myself). Heck, we all seem to share the same reality that each of us exist and are in our particular states of motion in similar or different directions. Does this mean Canis Lupus Familiaris and Bos Taurus have Words of their own for the shared realities and perhaps those not shared as well?

Also, is this any different from what is generally called solipsism ?

Now the thought of whether the stray dogs barking on the streets are discussing this same question and wondering about whether Homo Sapiens might have words for things of interest, like bones and shoes ... that might keep me awake tonight more than their barking itself usually does.

Without Word, there is no Existence.

CHALLENGE IT!

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to define the terms.

The archeological find in Turkey that suggested earlier humans defies words cuz there wasn't any, only icons of animals. Did they not exist then?

Is this one of those "it only exists because I can see it" type thoughts? There's plenty of crap in the universe that exists without us knowing...I posted an article about a newly discovered mineral from a meteorite, it existed long before humans we're ever around, we just didn't know about it...

Try this - "BIRGUY74"

Some day, you won't be around. You can speculate that there will be SOMEONE around, (or something); but one can't claim to PROVE this without oneself being around to do so.

Quote: My 'word-tool', (the ‘human grunt-offspring’), identifies the object.......

Unless something/one is around to identify the claimed-to-be-in-existence object, how can it BE?

Quote: ...in order for anything to 'happen' it must be identifiably perceivable: how else can 'happening' be happening?!

posted twice; one removed

To "notbeold"

You: "But things do exist when they are not perceivable....."

Quote: .....he cannot accept that what he is "discovering" could not be ‘a find’, because it is not provable that anything can be ‘found’ that he didn’t create in the first place.

Unless someone/thing is around to say that someone/thing is around, what makes its 'being around-ness' possible?!

To Up2youandme

If you so; yes.