• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Do you belive in life after death?

Conscious life as we know it is largely defined by brain processes such as memory and linear thought. This form of existence clearly stops when the brain dies.

If one's sense of self is just one's conscious train of thought/action/experience, then no, there is no life after death. I view myself as not simply the particularity of 'my own' existence, but rather the relationship between the particularity of my conscious egoic existence and the universal, the Thing[-in-itself], the void or whatever you choose to call it. While many see this as a self/other relationship (e.g., my self and god), I don't feel that any definition excluding the universal fully captures my sense of self.

I don't know what happens after death. The closest I've received to an answer from inward meditation and my psychedelic experiences is that, after death, particularity ceases to be and there is only the Thing.

My Lacanian/Zizekian jargon-laden explanation of this is as follows. My self-existence in life is defined by the gap between the particularity of consciousness and the universality of the Thing. These two concepts are essentially reverse sides of the same coin; while they are both fundamentally "the same thing," it is impossible to describe one in the logic of the other. One cannot fully comprehend the Thing consciously, and the Thing cannot coexist with any of the meaning created by conscious particularity.

However, the two concepts are fundamentally linked; attempts to find a sense of self seem to drive humyns to the inevitable conclusion of some idea of the universal Thing, and the concept of the Thing demands the existence of a particular subject to imagine it and thus relate to it. Paradoxically, that relation is impossible, as the two concepts are antagonistic, incapable of synthesis or mediation. The gap between them is that antagonistic relationship. In death, this gap is filled by the impossible intersection of particularity and universality; death ends the particular as such, and, with no particular, the Thing as we imagine it ceases to be. What remains is the impossible truth that the fundamental binary of life between the particular and universal leads us to strive constantly for, but never to reach.

The parallels to various Eastern philosophies are apparent, but my view is more based on ontology. In life, self is defined by this relationship between the ego and the Thing. In death, self is freed from this binary relationship and self is defined as Truth/Good/Nirvana/whatever you want to call it.

Also, a note on conventional Buddhist transcendentalism: I disagree with the transcendental notion of Nirvana as oneness with the universe. The idea that the ultimate enlightened state is a connectedness to existence or being is somewhat misled, in my opinion. The after-death state of Nirvana I am talking about is not so much a oneness with being as it is a transcendence of the very binary of being.

I do find value in the Buddhist approach for actually living one's life, however. Transcendence in the form of freedom from one's particularity is inevitable in the form of death; in life, one must seek an inner balance, a sense of self that does not exclude one side of the antagonistic universal/particular binary by adopting the logic of the other. I manifest this antagonism by remaining a somewhat ironic distance from both my egoic particular self and my conception of the Thing.

Sorry, that was long and full of verbiage. As I wrote I clarified my own thoughts immensely, so I kept writing.
 
I used to be convinced that this was it, but I am now more optimistic that there must be more than this. If not, then we might as well be dead anyway. I've found the near death experience websites very intriguing to read. I'm not saying they're definitely true; but I'm open-minded. :)

I've thought a lot about what the afterlife might be like (assuming there is one) and think it might have similarities to cyberspace in that people would form communities based on shared values and interests without being limited by time and space. In this sense, I've found the internet very democratic because it enables like-minded people to communicate and share ideas much much easier.

I also believe communication in the afterlife would be mainly by telepathy rather than speech which would make misunderstanding much rarer. People could withhold information but find it almost impossible to lie. Consequently, people who didn't gel simply wouldn't perceive each other -- you'd find yourself surrounded by others on a similar wavelength to yourself, just as when visiting your favourite websites. People you knew on earth could continue their relationships/connections if they find that the gelled on that deeper level.

I think what's fascinating about life here is that our characters are continually being developed day to day as a result of our experiences and choices we make here on earth, whereas the afterworld is more a place of consalidation. We come here to grow.

Maybe our real identity is our soul rather than our human personality, though our earthly identity helps form our real identity which is spiritual? Just some thoughts...

I've also thought that if there is a true Source, that at death we would return to the Light. We would each subjectively experience this light as including all the people and things that we loved here on earth. After all, if white light contains all the colours then spiritual light should logically contain all of God's beauty and creation. We as humble beings would probably at least experience this first reawakening back to God as a homecoming and it would seem as though everything we held dear would be inside that light. Once we got there, I would imagine that after a sort of celebration that you would be made aware of your true identity and purpose and would review and appraise your life you just lived and see how it affected everyone else you came into contact with via the rippling effect.

If we are made in God's image, then perhaps every individual is like a cell that makes up an cosmic organism that resembles God, that He created to keep Him company, for Him to love and cherish. We're probably all interconnected in some mysterious and wonderful way. It's all very profound but it seems that when I scratch the surface that there is a lot more than what we can percieve with our senses.

I also think there must be some sort of life force that keeps us together or else we would simply be biological machines.
 
Last edited:
ghtto_cwby said:
Do you belive in life after death? If you do what are your beliefs?
Click to expand...
First, from a 'linear perspective', 'death' follows 'life'. The reverse is an absurdity, by definition.

We can 'believe' ('belief' is certainly easier than actual, critical, creative 'thought'!) in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.. whatever. So what? Are you listing absurdities in people's minds? Why?

Perhaps a more relevent question might be 'why' do 'believers' believe what they believe? What 'needs' are being met (or not met) by these 'beliefs' ?
 
^^^ I think they're both relevant questions. To me, the answer to your question is simple: the need for hope and the need for imagination (in this case in the service of hope)

solistus, you bring up an interesting distinction -- that between life and self-awareness. Certainly life as you're experiencing it now ends at death. But your brain and your sensory organs are just a tool the universe is using to look at itself. This is a self-aware universe, and as you sit there and read this, you are testament to the fact that you are currently its eyes and ears. You-the-universe certainly have the possibility of constructing another sentient entity for self-observation. But I think that entity, that self-awareness, only takes the form of 'you' for one short stretch of spacetime.
 
namelesss - Without defining 'linear perspective' or 'absurdity,' I'm not sure what to make of your claims. I assume you're saying that, since life is a term for that which precedes death, life after death doesn't make sense from a literal interpretation and is thus absurd. If that's your point, think of the question instead as 'existence after death.'

MyDoorsAreOpen - exactly. It's pretty clear that much of what we associate with living has to do with the functioning of our bodies and therefore can be expected to stop at death, the fundamental issue of awareness/consciousness remains unanswered. While it's easy to dismiss notions of existence with linear thought, memory, etc. after death - based on our current understanding, these all arise directly from the functioning of the brain - we have absolutely no idea, scientifically speaking, why we are conscious or self-aware. The brain function-related things we associate with life can be done just as well by a machine; the only thing that (as far as we know) machines and other non-living things can't mimic is self-awareness. Thus, while we may rationally conclude that one will lose these brain-given abilities when the machine that is one's body dies, there is no rational basis to conclude that self-awareness will also end at the moment of physical death. Basically, if we don't know what causes something to be, how can we claim to know what will cause it to cease to be?
 
solistus said:
namelesss - Without defining 'linear perspective' or 'absurdity,' I'm not sure what to make of your claims. I assume you're saying that, since life is a term for that which precedes death, life after death doesn't make sense from a literal interpretation and is thus absurd. If that's your point, think of the question instead as 'existence after death.'
Click to expand...
The intended definitions of the questioned words are those of 'common' useage. Nothing very deep.
I was just pointing out the absurdity of the literal interpretation.

Actually, for anything to be 'after' something else, again, a 'linear perspective' is necessary, a very 'specific' and 'limited' perspective. I understand existence to be non-linear, actually, but all moments of existence are simultaneously existent. So, in the 'same' Planck moment, exist all 'moments' of ever existence. It is our perceptions and concepts (perspective) that give rise to the illusions of 'motion' and 'time' (and all illusions that arise form the initial illusion) when seen from a 'particular perspective'.
Perhaps I am offering nothing of value to this topic, but, actually, if the sages that tell of 'karma', 'life after death', 'cause and effect', anything 'after' anything else, etc.. had access to the science and 'tools' to which we have access, the present 'world-view' would be as entirely different as it 'is' in a couple hundred years.

Isn't 'motion' an integral component of the definition of 'life'? Perhaps, due to the 'illusory' nature of the concept of 'motion', the whole 'concept' of life and death (is also an illusion) needs to be 'critically updated'?

I realize that I am speaking of 'unusual' concepts (for many), but 'naive realism' has been successfully refuted decades ago, and it is time to download the 'update'. The 'evidence' of the senses do not reflect an accurate portrayal of the truest basic nature of existence. We now have QM.
 
Whatever happens is natural and inevitable. I think more and more that it's pointless worrying about what we can't change. If death is the end, we won't know any differently; and if there's more, it will probably be beyond our comprehension here.
 
^^ this is true!

I wish there didn't have to be death in this world because I love people and things and have formed attachments but that's 'life'... perhaps when it comes down to it, we as individuals are ultimately insignificant (apart from the rippling effect).

I can get awfully depressed when I think about this too much; but then again, I believe that we have an inbuilt way of coping with the inevitable. As we get older, we grow not only resigned to our mortality but also more accepting of it. We see that the world will keep turning after we're gone and that's sort of comforting in its own way. I can see this in younger friends who share similar ideals to myself and in loved ones such as my younger cousins and niece. Hopefully I will have meant something to them just as my older relations and mentors have meant much to me.

As we all have to go through it, perhaps it's not so awful even if it is indeed the end of everything. It might just be a complete release. As we would be spent, we wouldn't feel as though we were being deprived. I can also see that much of what I've yearned for is probably not that important at the end of the day; We would know it was our time and hopefully go out gracefully instead of bitterly clinging to the very end.

As you can surmise, I am an agnostic. I honestly don't know whether I believe, though I want to! Maybe the answer's 'yes' but for now it will have to be 'maybe'.
 
I think the fact that most people who've had mystical experiences, regardless of their beliefs, have a 'meh, no biggie' attitude towards death says something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top