Humans seek to transcend nature via culture
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement.--Yates
“What will come of my whole life…Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?”—Tolstoy
In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Denial of Death, Ernest Becker suggests that we all create an artificial world to avoid confronting the hopelessness of the human condition.
The basic premise of The Denial of Death is that human civilization is ultimately an elaborate, symbolic defense mechanism against the knowledge of our mortality, which in turn acts as the emotional and intellectual response to our basic survival mechanism.
Meaning is number ONE. What wo/man fears most is extinction, which includes insignificance.
Wo/man wants assurance that their life has somehow counted; if not for her or his self then at least within the overall scheme of things. If there is some kind of “judgment day” then I want to be in ‘that number’ that matter. While alive I want to know that “I am somebody”.
Religion is our primary means for responding to that basic need to be somebody. Otto Rand says that all religions spring up “not so much from…fear of natural death as of final destruction.”
“It is culture itself that embodies the transcendence of death in some form or other, whether it appears as purely religious or not…culture itself is sacred, since it is the “religion” that assures in some way the perpetuation of its members.”
Our dichotomy of sacred and secular aspects of social life is an egregious error. There is no such thing as a distinction between sacred and secular in the symbolic affairs of sapiens. Sacred is that which transcends the natural world while secular is that which is of the natural world. In the world of symbolic affairs such distinctions do not hold.
“As soon as you have symbols you have artificial self-transcendence via culture. Everything cultural is fabricated and given meaning by the mind, a meaning that is not given by physical nature. Culture is in this sense “supernatural” and all systemizations of culture have in the end the same goal: to raise men above nature, to assure him that in some ways their lives count in the universe more than merely physical things count.”
Self-transcendence, i.e. transcending nature via culture, does not provide a simple means to deny the primacy of death; the terror of death still lurks beneath the veneer. We have shifted the fear of death onto a new level of anxiety; we must “now hold for dear life onto the self-transcending meanings of the society in which we live…a new kind of instability and anxiety are created.”
In our attempt to deny evil, i.e. death, we bring a new and grotesque form of evil. “It is man’s ingenuity, rather than his animal nature, that has given his fellow creatures such a bitter fate.” Wo/man has, through ingenuity, heaped great evil on the world; far greater than could ever be created by our animal nature.
Quotes from Escape from Evil—Becker
QUOTE (coberst+Nov 4 2009, 11:25 AM)
Humans seek to transcend nature via culture
Self-transcendence, i.e. transcending nature via culture, does not provide a simple means to deny the primacy of death; the terror of death still lurks beneath the veneer. We have shifted the fear of death onto a new level of anxiety; we must “now hold for dear life onto the self-transcending meanings of the society in which we live…a new kind of instability and anxiety are created.”
In our attempt to deny evil, i.e. death, we bring a new and grotesque form of evil. “It is man’s ingenuity, rather than his animal nature, that has given his fellow creatures such a bitter fate.” Wo/man has, through ingenuity, heaped great evil on the world; far greater than could ever be created by our animal nature.
Quotes from Escape from Evil—Becker
There is a pattern of these incredibly insightful thread-starters that get to a certain point and then make some wildly skewed or lump-sum conclusion. This seems to be such a post/thread.
Most of what you're saying is right. Death is such a strong facet of human culture because it is simultaneously a representation of the unknown, of darkness to use a visual metaphor, and of ultimate termination.
To claim that death is more than a cultural idea, by treating it is a natural phenomenon. is elevating culture to the status of nature, which it isn't. Culture is the way humans give meaning to nature. No such thing exists in nature as an "unknown" or "termination." Both of these are concepts that only have meaning relative to human cognition. A tree may exist independently of human cognition, but "the end of a tree" is a narrative concept that entails making a story for the tree. Likewise the subjective experience of whether a tree is known or unknown is irrelevant to the existence and life of the tree independent of human consciousness of it.
Physics recognizes the inherent indestructibility of matter and energy, unless there are new theories that now contradict this. Conservation of matter was replaced with interchangeability between matter and energy, but both theories rule out the possibility that physical matter/energy "ends." Defining something as "ending" requires a conflation of form and content such that a change in form is considered as an end of content. The identity or status of an entity is taken as the entity itself.
When a body dies, it goes through a process of transformation called "decay." In actuality it becomes food for its own digestive system and cell respiration until it becomes food for other organisms. It is not destroyed, but rather transformed.
What happens to consciousness when the body dies? This is the issue for religion and it involves faith because no one can inhabit death in order to make empirical observations and report them to the living.
Assuming that consciousness is a form of energy, it must also transform rather than cease, but what it transforms into may be so simple that it is unsatisfying for the mind to consider the transformed state as a sufficient continuation of the magnitude of importance it has attributed to its subjective consciousness.
Going to sleep is actually a profound shift in state of mind/body. A significant portion of brain shuts down to allow the body to devote energy to rest and repair. I like to dream but if I don't it is of little consequence to me. I find out when I wake up whether I dreamt or not, and go on with my daily activities about the same either way. If death is nothing more than a dreamless sleep that allows the body to shut down completely to re-integrate its materials into the ecology, how is that different from sleep? If you don't wake up again with the same memories and mind you went to sleep with, is this really the end of "you?"
While living, your mind-body and its consciousness effect many actions and experience and record many things as memories. Your mind has the tendency to regard its development as positive. You feel like you are gaining knowledge and wisdom from your life experience as you refine your thoughts and reflections through the course of time. You try to record this knowledge/wisdom outside yourself for the benefit of others, and you do other activities to create things and engage in recreation to bring positive experiences to yourself and others. Because these things all happen with the aid of your consciousness and living, functioning body, your mind learns to value itself and your body and lament the idea that it would cease to live and contribute positive value by doing so.
But the question is whether the actions that a living being expresses ever can actually "cease." Since matter/energy cannot be destroyed but always continue through a perpetual path of transformations, an organism's "life" is actually like energy that creates ripples in a pond. Outside its body, a duck literally creates ripples as it swims, the ripples shake grass and leaves with their wake. The energy it sends out dissipates but does not disappear. Inside the duck's body energy is also converted from food to cellular activity to physical movements, and other expressions such as sound and nerve activity, sensory perception, etc. All of these are transformations of energy continuities, the same as outside the duck.
If the duck loses its sight, or becomes paralyzed, etc. those parts of it die, but other parts of it continue to live. So why is it that our minds lead us to believe that if our foot dies or we lose our vision, that we have not died completely, but if we lose all our senses and consciousness, by going into a coma, for example, we have died. In fact, I even know people who think that when their consciousness, mind, and senses die that the world ends for them. Why don't they recognize that their actions and life continue to have an effect on the world after they can no longer witness it?
I was going to go into the function and use of religion to get the mind to go beyond its obsession with contemplating its own death as a cessation of its energy and effects in the world of its life, but this post is already far too long and I need to do other things. I may come back to this issue, though, because people don't seem to understand how, the mind can gain a more objective view of itself as a source of energy that continues affecting the world regardless of its own ability to perceive and witness the effects, either after death or before (both contain realms of the mind's sphere of influence that is unknown to itself). For it to move toward such objectivity, however, it has to learn techniques for neutralizing the idea of death as cessation, which also involves shifting away from fetishizing itself as the host of sensory perception, sensual experience, thought, physical activity, etc.
By doing this it can begin to contemplate life without death, but it can't and won't as long as it is more interested in serving the self-interest and desires of the body than it is in knowing an objective truth as it appears free of bodily sensation and experience, including emotion. It's not that objective truth is good and bodily and emotional knowledge are bad. It's just that be learning to distinguish them, it becomes possible to overcome the fear and pain that comes with short-sighted fetishization of death and reification/elevation of the ego to a status that actually blocks consciousness in may ways.
That's all for now. Sorry for being long-winded.
Self-transcendence, i.e. transcending nature via culture, does not provide a simple means to deny the primacy of death; the terror of death still lurks beneath the veneer. We have shifted the fear of death onto a new level of anxiety; we must “now hold for dear life onto the self-transcending meanings of the society in which we live…a new kind of instability and anxiety are created.”
In our attempt to deny evil, i.e. death, we bring a new and grotesque form of evil. “It is man’s ingenuity, rather than his animal nature, that has given his fellow creatures such a bitter fate.” Wo/man has, through ingenuity, heaped great evil on the world; far greater than could ever be created by our animal nature.
Quotes from Escape from Evil—Becker
There is a pattern of these incredibly insightful thread-starters that get to a certain point and then make some wildly skewed or lump-sum conclusion. This seems to be such a post/thread.
Most of what you're saying is right. Death is such a strong facet of human culture because it is simultaneously a representation of the unknown, of darkness to use a visual metaphor, and of ultimate termination.
To claim that death is more than a cultural idea, by treating it is a natural phenomenon. is elevating culture to the status of nature, which it isn't. Culture is the way humans give meaning to nature. No such thing exists in nature as an "unknown" or "termination." Both of these are concepts that only have meaning relative to human cognition. A tree may exist independently of human cognition, but "the end of a tree" is a narrative concept that entails making a story for the tree. Likewise the subjective experience of whether a tree is known or unknown is irrelevant to the existence and life of the tree independent of human consciousness of it.
Physics recognizes the inherent indestructibility of matter and energy, unless there are new theories that now contradict this. Conservation of matter was replaced with interchangeability between matter and energy, but both theories rule out the possibility that physical matter/energy "ends." Defining something as "ending" requires a conflation of form and content such that a change in form is considered as an end of content. The identity or status of an entity is taken as the entity itself.
When a body dies, it goes through a process of transformation called "decay." In actuality it becomes food for its own digestive system and cell respiration until it becomes food for other organisms. It is not destroyed, but rather transformed.
What happens to consciousness when the body dies? This is the issue for religion and it involves faith because no one can inhabit death in order to make empirical observations and report them to the living.
Assuming that consciousness is a form of energy, it must also transform rather than cease, but what it transforms into may be so simple that it is unsatisfying for the mind to consider the transformed state as a sufficient continuation of the magnitude of importance it has attributed to its subjective consciousness.
Going to sleep is actually a profound shift in state of mind/body. A significant portion of brain shuts down to allow the body to devote energy to rest and repair. I like to dream but if I don't it is of little consequence to me. I find out when I wake up whether I dreamt or not, and go on with my daily activities about the same either way. If death is nothing more than a dreamless sleep that allows the body to shut down completely to re-integrate its materials into the ecology, how is that different from sleep? If you don't wake up again with the same memories and mind you went to sleep with, is this really the end of "you?"
While living, your mind-body and its consciousness effect many actions and experience and record many things as memories. Your mind has the tendency to regard its development as positive. You feel like you are gaining knowledge and wisdom from your life experience as you refine your thoughts and reflections through the course of time. You try to record this knowledge/wisdom outside yourself for the benefit of others, and you do other activities to create things and engage in recreation to bring positive experiences to yourself and others. Because these things all happen with the aid of your consciousness and living, functioning body, your mind learns to value itself and your body and lament the idea that it would cease to live and contribute positive value by doing so.
But the question is whether the actions that a living being expresses ever can actually "cease." Since matter/energy cannot be destroyed but always continue through a perpetual path of transformations, an organism's "life" is actually like energy that creates ripples in a pond. Outside its body, a duck literally creates ripples as it swims, the ripples shake grass and leaves with their wake. The energy it sends out dissipates but does not disappear. Inside the duck's body energy is also converted from food to cellular activity to physical movements, and other expressions such as sound and nerve activity, sensory perception, etc. All of these are transformations of energy continuities, the same as outside the duck.
If the duck loses its sight, or becomes paralyzed, etc. those parts of it die, but other parts of it continue to live. So why is it that our minds lead us to believe that if our foot dies or we lose our vision, that we have not died completely, but if we lose all our senses and consciousness, by going into a coma, for example, we have died. In fact, I even know people who think that when their consciousness, mind, and senses die that the world ends for them. Why don't they recognize that their actions and life continue to have an effect on the world after they can no longer witness it?
I was going to go into the function and use of religion to get the mind to go beyond its obsession with contemplating its own death as a cessation of its energy and effects in the world of its life, but this post is already far too long and I need to do other things. I may come back to this issue, though, because people don't seem to understand how, the mind can gain a more objective view of itself as a source of energy that continues affecting the world regardless of its own ability to perceive and witness the effects, either after death or before (both contain realms of the mind's sphere of influence that is unknown to itself). For it to move toward such objectivity, however, it has to learn techniques for neutralizing the idea of death as cessation, which also involves shifting away from fetishizing itself as the host of sensory perception, sensual experience, thought, physical activity, etc.
By doing this it can begin to contemplate life without death, but it can't and won't as long as it is more interested in serving the self-interest and desires of the body than it is in knowing an objective truth as it appears free of bodily sensation and experience, including emotion. It's not that objective truth is good and bodily and emotional knowledge are bad. It's just that be learning to distinguish them, it becomes possible to overcome the fear and pain that comes with short-sighted fetishization of death and reification/elevation of the ego to a status that actually blocks consciousness in may ways.
That's all for now. Sorry for being long-winded.
QUOTE (coberst+Nov 4 2009, 11:25 AM)
Humans seek to transcend nature via culture
Humans seek culture and a revised order, when faced with observably larger human populations, that seems obvious that nature alone, cannot itself sustain.
Humans ARE nature. Both seem highly resourceful and resilient.
It would be unwise to ponder unknowns like death, without exhaustive study.
It is understandable to be in such an ALIVE condition, and not occasionally question one's actions, to be wary of missing opportunities of life extension.
One can take rest in the assurance that life's existence is an impossible occurrence in the first case, leaving all with the fantastically high Reno odds that recurrence is the probable norm.
Growing old might only be a stable way of assuring future generations a hand up.
Because of what little we know of it, life's purpose may very well be concluded--in the womb.
Humans seek culture and a revised order, when faced with observably larger human populations, that seems obvious that nature alone, cannot itself sustain.
Humans ARE nature. Both seem highly resourceful and resilient.
It would be unwise to ponder unknowns like death, without exhaustive study.
It is understandable to be in such an ALIVE condition, and not occasionally question one's actions, to be wary of missing opportunities of life extension.
One can take rest in the assurance that life's existence is an impossible occurrence in the first case, leaving all with the fantastically high Reno odds that recurrence is the probable norm.
Growing old might only be a stable way of assuring future generations a hand up.
Because of what little we know of it, life's purpose may very well be concluded--in the womb.
I have been studying for years trying to answer the question "Why do humans do the things we do and can we do better?"
It is conventional wisdom for those who are versed in psychology and whom I have read that our most dominating motivation for what we do is our consciousness of our mortality. Most of this is unconscious forces because we do a very good job of repressing this motivation because we can not handle the anxiety produced.
The most glaring example is that we have created soul, then gods, then God, and then religion because of our inability to handle our mortality.
It is conventional wisdom for those who are versed in psychology and whom I have read that our most dominating motivation for what we do is our consciousness of our mortality. Most of this is unconscious forces because we do a very good job of repressing this motivation because we can not handle the anxiety produced.
The most glaring example is that we have created soul, then gods, then God, and then religion because of our inability to handle our mortality.
QUOTE (coberst+Nov 4 2009, 09:05 PM)
I have been studying for years trying to answer the question "Why do humans do the things we do and can we do better?"
It is conventional wisdom for those who are versed in psychology and whom I have read that our most dominating motivation for what we do is our consciousness of our mortality. Most of this is unconscious forces because we do a very good job of repressing this motivation because we can not handle the anxiety produced.
The most glaring example is that we have created soul, then gods, then God, and then religion because of our inability to handle our mortality.
How does psychology then answer the question of where humans arrive at a sense of mortality? Where do we get the idea that we're going to die from? Why does it make sense to us that it is an ending?
These probably sound like silly questions to people who take the answers for granted, but as I noted in my last post, cessation and unknown-ness are aspects of death that are not inherent in the physical process itself. They are spiritual projections. So why do people project these things onto the idea of death, then, prior to fearing it and repressing the fear?
It is conventional wisdom for those who are versed in psychology and whom I have read that our most dominating motivation for what we do is our consciousness of our mortality. Most of this is unconscious forces because we do a very good job of repressing this motivation because we can not handle the anxiety produced.
The most glaring example is that we have created soul, then gods, then God, and then religion because of our inability to handle our mortality.
How does psychology then answer the question of where humans arrive at a sense of mortality? Where do we get the idea that we're going to die from? Why does it make sense to us that it is an ending?
These probably sound like silly questions to people who take the answers for granted, but as I noted in my last post, cessation and unknown-ness are aspects of death that are not inherent in the physical process itself. They are spiritual projections. So why do people project these things onto the idea of death, then, prior to fearing it and repressing the fear?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 4 2009, 05:43 PM)
How does psychology then answer the question of where humans arrive at a sense of mortality? Where do we get the idea that we're going to die from? Why does it make sense to us that it is an ending?
Are you telling me that you were completely unaware of death until someone said "YOU ARE MORTAL?" You really are an idiot.
Your speech illustrations a demonstrable lack of thought.
Are you telling me that you were completely unaware of death until someone said "YOU ARE MORTAL?" You really are an idiot.
QUOTE
These probably sound like silly questions to people who take the answers for granted, but as I noted in my last post, cessation and unknown-ness are aspects of death that are not inherent in the physical process itself. They are spiritual projections. So why do people project these things onto the idea of death, then, prior to fearing it and repressing the fear?
Your speech illustrations a demonstrable lack of thought.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 4 2009, 10:04 PM)
Are you telling me that you were completely unaware of death until someone said "YOU ARE MORTAL?" You really are an idiot.
Your speech illustrations a demonstrable lack of thought.
What I'm saying is that humans are cognitively programmed, somehow, to identify entities in relative separation from their surroundings and expressions. Marx called the transformation of human energy (labor) into externalized products "objectification." I.e. Humans turn themselves (their energy/work) into objects, the products of their labor.
When humans look at the sun, they identify it as a separate entity from sunlight. This is not grounded in physical reality, which does not differentiate between the "ball" we see in the sky from the sunlight that scatters, refracts, reflects, etc. From the perspective of an Earth observer, the sun seems too far away to reach while the sunlight is directly present. Yet we are programmed cognitively to distinguish the ball from the sunlight that touches our skin, even if its the same rays that touch our eyes. Is this making any sense?
So this same cognitive pattern causes us to identify ourselves and other organisms as entities separate and distinct from the full expressions of their energy. Someone told me that all the cells of your body are replaced within a certain time period, I think it was seven years. If this is the case, your body dies and is reborn many times in your life. Probably you would say this is silly, that as long as there is continuity of mind, memories, consciousness, etc. then the person has not died, even if parts of the body have, through time.
The opposite effect happens when you view the corpse of someone at their funeral. Then, the body has died but because it's been made to look like its alive, with the person's clothes, jewelry, etc. but people still perceive it as the person, as if they were alive but sleeping. So there are cognitive patterns that construe what is experienced as a discrete entity, and when parts of that entity, its body (hair, fingernails, etc.) and energy (speech, writing, products of its labor) fall outside the boundary of what is defined as the entity's "self."
So the thing we perceive dying is a "self," but the fact that we perceive it as a distinct entity that has continuity and cessation is the result of perceptual cognitive patterning that defines the entity as something other than a repeating sequence of iterations, like frames of a moving picture. You could say every moment that the previous iteration of yourself had died and you took its place. Then death, as we know it, would be just the rebirth of the entity as a fly-nursery.
Obviously you can simplify death and anything else using everyday common-sense approaches to cognition, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of investigating it scientifically?
Your speech illustrations a demonstrable lack of thought.
What I'm saying is that humans are cognitively programmed, somehow, to identify entities in relative separation from their surroundings and expressions. Marx called the transformation of human energy (labor) into externalized products "objectification." I.e. Humans turn themselves (their energy/work) into objects, the products of their labor.
When humans look at the sun, they identify it as a separate entity from sunlight. This is not grounded in physical reality, which does not differentiate between the "ball" we see in the sky from the sunlight that scatters, refracts, reflects, etc. From the perspective of an Earth observer, the sun seems too far away to reach while the sunlight is directly present. Yet we are programmed cognitively to distinguish the ball from the sunlight that touches our skin, even if its the same rays that touch our eyes. Is this making any sense?
So this same cognitive pattern causes us to identify ourselves and other organisms as entities separate and distinct from the full expressions of their energy. Someone told me that all the cells of your body are replaced within a certain time period, I think it was seven years. If this is the case, your body dies and is reborn many times in your life. Probably you would say this is silly, that as long as there is continuity of mind, memories, consciousness, etc. then the person has not died, even if parts of the body have, through time.
The opposite effect happens when you view the corpse of someone at their funeral. Then, the body has died but because it's been made to look like its alive, with the person's clothes, jewelry, etc. but people still perceive it as the person, as if they were alive but sleeping. So there are cognitive patterns that construe what is experienced as a discrete entity, and when parts of that entity, its body (hair, fingernails, etc.) and energy (speech, writing, products of its labor) fall outside the boundary of what is defined as the entity's "self."
So the thing we perceive dying is a "self," but the fact that we perceive it as a distinct entity that has continuity and cessation is the result of perceptual cognitive patterning that defines the entity as something other than a repeating sequence of iterations, like frames of a moving picture. You could say every moment that the previous iteration of yourself had died and you took its place. Then death, as we know it, would be just the rebirth of the entity as a fly-nursery.
Obviously you can simplify death and anything else using everyday common-sense approaches to cognition, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of investigating it scientifically?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 4 2009, 09:43 PM)
How does psychology then answer the question of where humans arrive at a sense of mortality? Where do we get the idea that we're going to die from? Why does it make sense to us that it is an ending?
Because everything I've ever seen that died never did anything else except decompose.
I have no reason to assume otherwise.
Because everything I've ever seen that died never did anything else except decompose.
I have no reason to assume otherwise.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 4 2009, 10:04 PM)
Your speech illustrations a demonstrable lack of thought.
He thinks when a tree falls in the forest that it makes a noise.
He thinks when a tree falls in the forest that it makes a noise.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 4 2009, 10:49 PM)
Because everything I've ever seen that died never did anything else except decompose.
I have no reason to assume otherwise.
I think it has to do with formation of the ego at some point after birth. Freudian psychology posits that the ego emerges as a defense mechanism against parental discipline (superego). Basically the ego is a mechanism that causes people to consciously perceive and internalize external influence in order to have some control over it. Without an ego, the theory goes, humans would simply receive discipline and react to it behaviorally. Instead, we learn to anticipate it and express ourselves in emotional gestures and words as a means of mitigating punishments and other threats.
So how does this relate to human consciousness of death. The ego perceives death from the perspective of its own death/destruction as protector of the body against punishment. If the ego were to fail, the body would be subject to unbearable suffering at the hands of disciplinary authorities (first parents and later police, prisons, etc.). So the ego tries to survive at any cost. The ego perceives the possibility of the body being destroyed as a fear, because it wants to protect the body, in an abstract sense. The ego goes beyond fight/flight response of adrenaline. It may sense the adrenaline, but the ego tries to translate the reflex of literally running away or exploding in violence into more socially nuanced responses that it estimates are more likely to succeed. In the words of Wilbur the Pig in the recent movie version of Charlotte's Web in response to the question of how to best avoid becoming Christmas ham, "I could just try bustin' through the fence again!" Charlotte represents the wisdom of the ego's intimate knowledge of its keeper, the superego, in saying, "no, once was enough for that."
So without the artificial construction of the ego as an entity of self-consciousness within the human organism, the threat of death would be limited to the direct effect of violence on the body. Therefore death would not be perceived at all, let alone perceived as a cessation of an entity. In fact, I believe the only reason why the perception of anything as a discrete entity at all occurs is because the ego learns to distinguish itself from the parents (i.e. superego). If it would not emerge at all, the id would continue to perceive the "external" world as nothing more than elements of its own bodily existence. Getting fed or spanked by a parent would be indistinct from the need to defecate or scratch and itch. All sensations would be perceived as equal, although some associations might be made between visual cues and learned patterns of sensations. E.g. paddle means spanking, therefore pain.
In that case, it would be impossible for an ego-less being to identify with someone else's death. The person would probably just interact with other people or other entities on a moment by moment basis. Object-permanence would potentially not be established, which would mean that everytime anything left the person's visual field, the loss experienced would be akin to death, except death would be a relatively meaningless occurrence because it would happen so often every day. Likewise the person wouldn't perceive herself/himself as a continuous entity with past/present/future so the prospect of anything, including death would be absent.
Long explanation, but my point was that I don't think death is something natural that is perceived as an objective phenomenon. I think it is a result of the ego's experience of entity-ness in itself, which it projects onto others it recognizes as other "entities." The psychological attribution of continuity and prospective self-existence are what is responsible for the idea of death when a body dies. Without the ego, the body's death is just a physiological event that has nothing to do with anything except the expressions it displays in dealth, i.e. silence, stiffening, smelling bad, etc. Only because of our egos do we perceive these expressions as radically distinct from expressions of a living body like muscular animation, sounds, smelling like anything except for a rotting corpse, etc.
Maybe death is feared only as the ultimate punishable bodily expression, since the ego perceives being out of control as bringing with it threat of social control, which it wants to avoid. A dead body exhibits the ultimate lack of self-control, no? So perhaps the ego is just irrationally afraid of getting punished for letting the body die, because it is unable to realistically imagine the possibility that its existence is no longer needed once the body no longer needs protection from discipline.
I have no reason to assume otherwise.
I think it has to do with formation of the ego at some point after birth. Freudian psychology posits that the ego emerges as a defense mechanism against parental discipline (superego). Basically the ego is a mechanism that causes people to consciously perceive and internalize external influence in order to have some control over it. Without an ego, the theory goes, humans would simply receive discipline and react to it behaviorally. Instead, we learn to anticipate it and express ourselves in emotional gestures and words as a means of mitigating punishments and other threats.
So how does this relate to human consciousness of death. The ego perceives death from the perspective of its own death/destruction as protector of the body against punishment. If the ego were to fail, the body would be subject to unbearable suffering at the hands of disciplinary authorities (first parents and later police, prisons, etc.). So the ego tries to survive at any cost. The ego perceives the possibility of the body being destroyed as a fear, because it wants to protect the body, in an abstract sense. The ego goes beyond fight/flight response of adrenaline. It may sense the adrenaline, but the ego tries to translate the reflex of literally running away or exploding in violence into more socially nuanced responses that it estimates are more likely to succeed. In the words of Wilbur the Pig in the recent movie version of Charlotte's Web in response to the question of how to best avoid becoming Christmas ham, "I could just try bustin' through the fence again!" Charlotte represents the wisdom of the ego's intimate knowledge of its keeper, the superego, in saying, "no, once was enough for that."
So without the artificial construction of the ego as an entity of self-consciousness within the human organism, the threat of death would be limited to the direct effect of violence on the body. Therefore death would not be perceived at all, let alone perceived as a cessation of an entity. In fact, I believe the only reason why the perception of anything as a discrete entity at all occurs is because the ego learns to distinguish itself from the parents (i.e. superego). If it would not emerge at all, the id would continue to perceive the "external" world as nothing more than elements of its own bodily existence. Getting fed or spanked by a parent would be indistinct from the need to defecate or scratch and itch. All sensations would be perceived as equal, although some associations might be made between visual cues and learned patterns of sensations. E.g. paddle means spanking, therefore pain.
In that case, it would be impossible for an ego-less being to identify with someone else's death. The person would probably just interact with other people or other entities on a moment by moment basis. Object-permanence would potentially not be established, which would mean that everytime anything left the person's visual field, the loss experienced would be akin to death, except death would be a relatively meaningless occurrence because it would happen so often every day. Likewise the person wouldn't perceive herself/himself as a continuous entity with past/present/future so the prospect of anything, including death would be absent.
Long explanation, but my point was that I don't think death is something natural that is perceived as an objective phenomenon. I think it is a result of the ego's experience of entity-ness in itself, which it projects onto others it recognizes as other "entities." The psychological attribution of continuity and prospective self-existence are what is responsible for the idea of death when a body dies. Without the ego, the body's death is just a physiological event that has nothing to do with anything except the expressions it displays in dealth, i.e. silence, stiffening, smelling bad, etc. Only because of our egos do we perceive these expressions as radically distinct from expressions of a living body like muscular animation, sounds, smelling like anything except for a rotting corpse, etc.
Maybe death is feared only as the ultimate punishable bodily expression, since the ego perceives being out of control as bringing with it threat of social control, which it wants to avoid. A dead body exhibits the ultimate lack of self-control, no? So perhaps the ego is just irrationally afraid of getting punished for letting the body die, because it is unable to realistically imagine the possibility that its existence is no longer needed once the body no longer needs protection from discipline.
That was long and rambling, and irrelevant.
Why are you afraid of death? Granted, I am in no hurry to do so and will not needlessly risk my life. But I am not afraid of it either. Everything dies.
Why are you afraid of death? Granted, I am in no hurry to do so and will not needlessly risk my life. But I am not afraid of it either. Everything dies.
Why is death evil? It's a part of the natural process. While I believe "humans are nature" is a strong comment, we are certainly a part of nature despite our efforts to believe and demonstrate otherwise (cheat aging, cheat death or otherwise control nature instead of being controlled by nature).
Death, despite our efforts, is something we still don't have control over. Every beginning comes to an end and the way I see it is simple.
If you believe in an after life, then why be afraid of dying if you truly don't?
If you don't believe in an after life, then you still shouldn't worry because emotions such as sadness and fear are impulses of the brain so once they stop, there won't be any fear or pain or sorrow to be felt.
I, personally, am the second one which is why when I die I will do what I can to make sure that I am buried out of casket underneath a newly planted tree (maybe apple). I don't have grand thoughts of becoming the tree, who I am will cease to be but what I am will be broken down and will become part of the tree.
Death, despite our efforts, is something we still don't have control over. Every beginning comes to an end and the way I see it is simple.
If you believe in an after life, then why be afraid of dying if you truly don't?
If you don't believe in an after life, then you still shouldn't worry because emotions such as sadness and fear are impulses of the brain so once they stop, there won't be any fear or pain or sorrow to be felt.
I, personally, am the second one which is why when I die I will do what I can to make sure that I am buried out of casket underneath a newly planted tree (maybe apple). I don't have grand thoughts of becoming the tree, who I am will cease to be but what I am will be broken down and will become part of the tree.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 6 2009, 04:03 AM)
That was long and rambling, and irrelevant.
Why are you afraid of death? Granted, I am in no hurry to do so and will not needlessly risk my life. But I am not afraid of it either. Everything dies.
You have clearly never thought seriously enough about the very real possibility of dying in your current phase of life. If you are ever confronted with that experience, which I hope you aren't, you will understand how strong the emotions are that come with it. Imagine the feeling of failing an exam, then imagine failing a class and being expelled from school. Then consider losing a job. Then consider losing your career. Beyond all of these is the fear of losing your life. If you are not able to control this fear and sadness when you are confronted with it, it can be paralyzing. I strongly recommend people prepare for death by developing some faith-based philosophy that refocuses consciousness from loss of life onto life affirmation. The only cure for fear of death and loss is to focus on what you have and will continue to have after death.
Why are you afraid of death? Granted, I am in no hurry to do so and will not needlessly risk my life. But I am not afraid of it either. Everything dies.
You have clearly never thought seriously enough about the very real possibility of dying in your current phase of life. If you are ever confronted with that experience, which I hope you aren't, you will understand how strong the emotions are that come with it. Imagine the feeling of failing an exam, then imagine failing a class and being expelled from school. Then consider losing a job. Then consider losing your career. Beyond all of these is the fear of losing your life. If you are not able to control this fear and sadness when you are confronted with it, it can be paralyzing. I strongly recommend people prepare for death by developing some faith-based philosophy that refocuses consciousness from loss of life onto life affirmation. The only cure for fear of death and loss is to focus on what you have and will continue to have after death.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 6 2009, 06:48 PM)
You have clearly never thought seriously enough about the very real possibility of dying in your current phase of life. If you are ever confronted with that experience, which I hope you aren't, you will understand how strong the emotions are that come with it. Imagine the feeling of failing an exam, then imagine failing a class and being expelled from school. Then consider losing a job. Then consider losing your career. Beyond all of these is the fear of losing your life. If you are not able to control this fear and sadness when you are confronted with it, it can be paralyzing. I strongly recommend people prepare for death by developing some faith-based philosophy that refocuses consciousness from loss of life onto life affirmation. The only cure for fear of death and loss is to focus on what you have and will continue to have after death.
Death got you down? Play make-believe!
Death got you down? Play make-believe!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 6 2009, 10:48 PM)
You have clearly never thought seriously enough about the very real possibility of dying in your current phase of life.
Think again.
1. I almost drowned when I was 6 years old. I vividly remember falling into the water and not being able to breathe. I also remember that it seemed like eternity until someone dove in and pulled me out.
2. When I was 18, my best friend was killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver. The only reason I was not in the car with him is that I was feeling sick that day and told him to go without me.
3. When I was in my 30's I was standing next to my boss when a disgruntled employee walked up and opened fire on him. My memories are a bit blurred beyond that, but I have been told that I stepped in and pulled my boss to safety. Whereupon the guman turned the gun on himself and blew his brains out.
Trust me, I have thought long and hard about the possiblilty of dying.
Think again.
1. I almost drowned when I was 6 years old. I vividly remember falling into the water and not being able to breathe. I also remember that it seemed like eternity until someone dove in and pulled me out.
2. When I was 18, my best friend was killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver. The only reason I was not in the car with him is that I was feeling sick that day and told him to go without me.
3. When I was in my 30's I was standing next to my boss when a disgruntled employee walked up and opened fire on him. My memories are a bit blurred beyond that, but I have been told that I stepped in and pulled my boss to safety. Whereupon the guman turned the gun on himself and blew his brains out.
Trust me, I have thought long and hard about the possiblilty of dying.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Nov 6 2009, 11:32 PM)
Think again.
1. I almost drowned when I was 6 years old. I vividly remember falling into the water and not being able to breathe. I also remember that it seemed like eternity until someone dove in and pulled me out.
2. When I was 18, my best friend was killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver. The only reason I was not in the car with him is that I was feeling sick that day and told him to go without me.
3. When I was in my 30's I was standing next to my boss when a disgruntled employee walked up and opened fire on him. My memories are a bit blurred beyond that, but I have been told that I stepped in and pulled my boss to safety. Whereupon the guman turned the gun on himself and blew his brains out.
Trust me, I have thought long and hard about the possiblilty of dying.
No offense, but if I look at each of your examples, I see events which, albeit traumatic, began to your surprise and were over before you got the chance to dwell on your imminent mortality. I believe that such experience actually generate a sense of re-vitalization, as death is escaped. You may well have experienced some form of post-traumatic stress, but I could not predict what the specifics were or how acute the symptoms.
I am speaking more about situations where you, for whatever reason, believe you may die sooner that you planned. Think of someone who gets a (false) diagnosis of HIV, or another disease, and is suddenly confronted with the prospect of death in a matter of a few years. Also, consider the feeling that some people get that the streets are so violent that if they go out at night they are in certain danger - then they get caught out one night after sunset. The result is intense anxiety, possibly leading to panick (attacks). I don't want to get into it any further because I find it an extremely unpleasant prospect to think about. If you haven't had it, try to be a little appreciative of the length people go to to cognitively train themselves not to react to such anxieties.
1. I almost drowned when I was 6 years old. I vividly remember falling into the water and not being able to breathe. I also remember that it seemed like eternity until someone dove in and pulled me out.
2. When I was 18, my best friend was killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver. The only reason I was not in the car with him is that I was feeling sick that day and told him to go without me.
3. When I was in my 30's I was standing next to my boss when a disgruntled employee walked up and opened fire on him. My memories are a bit blurred beyond that, but I have been told that I stepped in and pulled my boss to safety. Whereupon the guman turned the gun on himself and blew his brains out.
Trust me, I have thought long and hard about the possiblilty of dying.
No offense, but if I look at each of your examples, I see events which, albeit traumatic, began to your surprise and were over before you got the chance to dwell on your imminent mortality. I believe that such experience actually generate a sense of re-vitalization, as death is escaped. You may well have experienced some form of post-traumatic stress, but I could not predict what the specifics were or how acute the symptoms.
I am speaking more about situations where you, for whatever reason, believe you may die sooner that you planned. Think of someone who gets a (false) diagnosis of HIV, or another disease, and is suddenly confronted with the prospect of death in a matter of a few years. Also, consider the feeling that some people get that the streets are so violent that if they go out at night they are in certain danger - then they get caught out one night after sunset. The result is intense anxiety, possibly leading to panick (attacks). I don't want to get into it any further because I find it an extremely unpleasant prospect to think about. If you haven't had it, try to be a little appreciative of the length people go to to cognitively train themselves not to react to such anxieties.
foginthe tunnel,
Seek help (and not from a priest, get real medicine) because you are depressed. Believing in a sky fairy doesn't help either.
Seek help (and not from a priest, get real medicine) because you are depressed. Believing in a sky fairy doesn't help either.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 7 2009, 01:01 AM)
You may well have experienced some form of post-traumatic stress, but I could not predict what the specifics were or how acute the symptoms.
QUOTE (Physfan+Nov 7 2009, 09:35 AM)
Seek help (and not from a priest, get real medicine) because you are depressed.
Let's leave the medical practice to the M.D.s.
Let's leave the medical practice to the M.D.s.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 7 2009, 01:01 AM)
No offense, but if I look at each of your examples, I see events which, albeit traumatic, began to your surprise and were over before you got the chance to dwell on your imminent mortality. I believe that such experience actually generate a sense of re-vitalization, as death is escaped. You may well have experienced some form of post-traumatic stress, but I could not predict what the specifics were or how acute the symptoms.
I am speaking more about situations where you, for whatever reason, believe you may die sooner that you planned. Think of someone who gets a (false) diagnosis of HIV, or another disease, and is suddenly confronted with the prospect of death in a matter of a few years. Also, consider the feeling that some people get that the streets are so violent that if they go out at night they are in certain danger - then they get caught out one night after sunset. The result is intense anxiety, possibly leading to panick (attacks). I don't want to get into it any further because I find it an extremely unpleasant prospect to think about. If you haven't had it, try to be a little appreciative of the length people go to to cognitively train themselves not to react to such anxieties.
No one ever knows what someone else feels - so S T F U
I am speaking more about situations where you, for whatever reason, believe you may die sooner that you planned. Think of someone who gets a (false) diagnosis of HIV, or another disease, and is suddenly confronted with the prospect of death in a matter of a few years. Also, consider the feeling that some people get that the streets are so violent that if they go out at night they are in certain danger - then they get caught out one night after sunset. The result is intense anxiety, possibly leading to panick (attacks). I don't want to get into it any further because I find it an extremely unpleasant prospect to think about. If you haven't had it, try to be a little appreciative of the length people go to to cognitively train themselves not to react to such anxieties.
No one ever knows what someone else feels - so S T F U
Anyone that has had surgery under general anesthesia has experienced the exact same set of circumstances that they'll experience when they die. Things go black, you don't have any sense of it and th .. th ... th.... tha ...... that's all folks.
Not scary in the least.
Much worse for the folks left behind who might miss you. That's partly why humans project their associative fears from seeing others die onto themselves when considering the possibility of their own death. Fanciful philosophies and religion serve to quell that silly fear.
I'd submit that additional pondering of the issue beyond that is a complete waste of neural chemistry. A far better use of brain power would be the development of new and unique Nachos recipes.
Not scary in the least.
Much worse for the folks left behind who might miss you. That's partly why humans project their associative fears from seeing others die onto themselves when considering the possibility of their own death. Fanciful philosophies and religion serve to quell that silly fear.
I'd submit that additional pondering of the issue beyond that is a complete waste of neural chemistry. A far better use of brain power would be the development of new and unique Nachos recipes.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 8 2009, 02:20 PM)
Anyone that has had surgery under general anesthesia has experienced the exact same set of circumstances that they'll experience when they die. Things go black, you don't have any sense of it and th .. th ... th.... tha ...... that's all folks.
Not scary in the least.
And the reason it's not scary: because you have faith in the anesthesiologist, the surgeon, the person sterilizing the utensils, and the power grid, to all bring you to your next waking moment safe, sound, and recovering into good health. Try going into the same surgery with deep doubt about any of these aspects and see how you feel.
Right, but I was trying to make the point that with the "fanciful philosophy" of the id/body that it is an ego, there would be no silly fear in the first place, because there would be no recognition of people as entities outside of discreet moments of behavior. It's only because you lump various moments of behavior into the idea that a person is a whole entity that is continuous through disjunct moments in time that you are able to perceive death as something that happens at the end of a unified life course. Otherwise you would look at an old person and view them as the reincarnation of their younger self who had already died.
Right, but I was trying to make the point that with the "fanciful philosophy" of the id/body that it is an ego, there would be no silly fear in the first place, because there would be no recognition of people as entities outside of discreet moments of behavior. It's only because you lump various moments of behavior into the idea that a person is a whole entity that is continuous through disjunct moments in time that you are able to perceive death as something that happens at the end of a unified life course. Otherwise you would look at an old person and view them as the reincarnation of their younger self who had already died.
I'd submit that additional pondering of the issue beyond that is a complete waste of neural chemistry. A far better use of brain power would be the development of new and unique Nachos recipes.
This I agree with. Pondering death is hardly anything more than a negative distraction from focussing on living. This is why it is helpful to have a philosophy that negates the significance of death. One such philosophy involves imagining life as eternal. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, because the only point of it is therapeutic - i.e. to release your mind from the anxiety of focussing on death.
I have been studying for years trying to answer the question "Why do humans do the things we do and can we do better?"
It is conventional wisdom for those who are versed in psychology and whom I have read that our most dominating motivation for what we do is our consciousness of our mortality. Most of this is unconscious forces because we do a very good job of repressing this motivation because we can not handle the anxiety produced.
The most glaring example is that we have created soul, then gods, then God, and then religion because of our inability to handle our mortality.
Drawing conclusions about the human psyche based upon untutored common sense is as justified as drawing conclusions about QM based upon untutored common sense.
We can see only what we are prepared to see and we comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.
When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge. I will over ride the expert with my own judgment only after I have studied the matter for a good amount of time. One cannot learn anything if they trust their uneducated common sense before that of the expert.
I think that we would be wise if we were to place our common sense reactions on hold until we had developed a comprehension of the domain of knowledge in question. If we reject all new stuff that is contrary to our common sense we will never grow intellectually.
Not scary in the least.
And the reason it's not scary: because you have faith in the anesthesiologist, the surgeon, the person sterilizing the utensils, and the power grid, to all bring you to your next waking moment safe, sound, and recovering into good health. Try going into the same surgery with deep doubt about any of these aspects and see how you feel.
QUOTE
Much worse for the folks left behind who might miss you. That's partly why humans project their associative fears from seeing others die onto themselves when considering the possibility of their own death. Fanciful philosophies and religion serve to quell that silly fear.
Right, but I was trying to make the point that with the "fanciful philosophy" of the id/body that it is an ego, there would be no silly fear in the first place, because there would be no recognition of people as entities outside of discreet moments of behavior. It's only because you lump various moments of behavior into the idea that a person is a whole entity that is continuous through disjunct moments in time that you are able to perceive death as something that happens at the end of a unified life course. Otherwise you would look at an old person and view them as the reincarnation of their younger self who had already died.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Much worse for the folks left behind who might miss you. That's partly why humans project their associative fears from seeing others die onto themselves when considering the possibility of their own death. Fanciful philosophies and religion serve to quell that silly fear. |
Right, but I was trying to make the point that with the "fanciful philosophy" of the id/body that it is an ego, there would be no silly fear in the first place, because there would be no recognition of people as entities outside of discreet moments of behavior. It's only because you lump various moments of behavior into the idea that a person is a whole entity that is continuous through disjunct moments in time that you are able to perceive death as something that happens at the end of a unified life course. Otherwise you would look at an old person and view them as the reincarnation of their younger self who had already died.
I'd submit that additional pondering of the issue beyond that is a complete waste of neural chemistry. A far better use of brain power would be the development of new and unique Nachos recipes.
This I agree with. Pondering death is hardly anything more than a negative distraction from focussing on living. This is why it is helpful to have a philosophy that negates the significance of death. One such philosophy involves imagining life as eternal. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, because the only point of it is therapeutic - i.e. to release your mind from the anxiety of focussing on death.
light in the tunnel,
Being scared is a choice. I would rather spend the last moments of my life reflecting and talking with those I love than trembling in fear of the unknown. It's a choice. I don't need any made-up afterlife to comfort me before I die. If by some strange chance there is an afterlife, I would rather be pleasantly surprised by its existence than to be disappointed that it doesn't live up to my expectations.
Being scared is a choice. I would rather spend the last moments of my life reflecting and talking with those I love than trembling in fear of the unknown. It's a choice. I don't need any made-up afterlife to comfort me before I die. If by some strange chance there is an afterlife, I would rather be pleasantly surprised by its existence than to be disappointed that it doesn't live up to my expectations.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 8 2009, 04:20 PM)
And the reason it's not scary: because you have faith in the anesthesiologist, the surgeon, the person sterilizing the utensils, and the power grid, to all bring you to your next waking moment safe, sound, and recovering into good health. Try going into the same surgery with deep doubt about any of these aspects and see how you feel.
Right, but I was trying to make the point that with the "fanciful philosophy" of the id/body that it is an ego, there would be no silly fear in the first place, ... blah blah blah PURE UNADULTERATED SOPHISTRY blah blah blah ....Otherwise you would look at an old person and view them as the reincarnation of their younger self who had already died.
This I agree with. Pondering death is hardly anything more than a negative distraction from focussing on living. This is why it is helpful to have a philosophy that negates the significance of death. One such philosophy involves imagining life as eternal. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, because the only point of it is therapeutic - i.e. to release your mind from the anxiety of focussing on death.
Once again you fail to comprehend the point. My "not scary at all" reference was with regard to the actual experience of death and/or going under general anesthesia. In every case when you respond here you make brutal interpretational errors that you could solve if you'd simply put your own flawed perceptions aside and read without preconceived notions. You are so wrapped up in yourself that you can't see more than a foot beyond the tip of your nose.
The experience of undergoing general anesthesia is the same regardless of your state of mind going into it. Reality goes black ... consciousness ceases to be ... unconsciousness ceases to be ... one is essentially NOT ... but for machines maintaining one's physical processes ... one IS dead. So anyone who has experienced general anesthesia has essentially experienced death. That being the case then they should know they have nothing to fear.
There is nothing scary in "the black". NOTHING is there. No good ... no bad ... no anything. It is actual nothingness. One doesn't know it's nothingness because there is no "one" to know. Going through general anesthesia and then being awakened from it is a nice little preview. Just set aside the waking up part and you know exactly what will happen when you die. NOTHING.
Being afraid of NOTHING is funny. I laugh at anyone who thinks otherwise. Death is just the end of consciousness. Consciousness is nice and all. But the end of it is devoid of trauma. Sure a couple of seconds before death might suck ... but it is ridiculous to the extreme to spend anytime concerning ourselves with the last minute or two when our lives are generally made up of millions of other minutes.
The point is ... when you are dead you don't know it. Getting this? Religion and philosophical fancies DONT solve the problem. Most people of religious faith are ONLY PROFESSING their faith. They are essentially talkingshit ... if they weren't and really believed some sort of better world existed then they go to it NOW. And any philosophy that addresses the issue leaves more than enough room to acknowledge that it could be wrong. Both remain fearful of death. They might claim otherwise but they're talking out of their arse.
The only people I know that aren't afraid of death are those who understand that it is THE END. It's actually an easy concept to accept and/or even embrace. It is ridiculous that suicide is illegal in most cultures. Beyond ridiculous. If someone wants the solace of not existing then let them have it. Not doing so is an affront to human rights.
Right, but I was trying to make the point that with the "fanciful philosophy" of the id/body that it is an ego, there would be no silly fear in the first place, ... blah blah blah PURE UNADULTERATED SOPHISTRY blah blah blah ....Otherwise you would look at an old person and view them as the reincarnation of their younger self who had already died.
This I agree with. Pondering death is hardly anything more than a negative distraction from focussing on living. This is why it is helpful to have a philosophy that negates the significance of death. One such philosophy involves imagining life as eternal. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, because the only point of it is therapeutic - i.e. to release your mind from the anxiety of focussing on death.
Once again you fail to comprehend the point. My "not scary at all" reference was with regard to the actual experience of death and/or going under general anesthesia. In every case when you respond here you make brutal interpretational errors that you could solve if you'd simply put your own flawed perceptions aside and read without preconceived notions. You are so wrapped up in yourself that you can't see more than a foot beyond the tip of your nose.
The experience of undergoing general anesthesia is the same regardless of your state of mind going into it. Reality goes black ... consciousness ceases to be ... unconsciousness ceases to be ... one is essentially NOT ... but for machines maintaining one's physical processes ... one IS dead. So anyone who has experienced general anesthesia has essentially experienced death. That being the case then they should know they have nothing to fear.
There is nothing scary in "the black". NOTHING is there. No good ... no bad ... no anything. It is actual nothingness. One doesn't know it's nothingness because there is no "one" to know. Going through general anesthesia and then being awakened from it is a nice little preview. Just set aside the waking up part and you know exactly what will happen when you die. NOTHING.
Being afraid of NOTHING is funny. I laugh at anyone who thinks otherwise. Death is just the end of consciousness. Consciousness is nice and all. But the end of it is devoid of trauma. Sure a couple of seconds before death might suck ... but it is ridiculous to the extreme to spend anytime concerning ourselves with the last minute or two when our lives are generally made up of millions of other minutes.
The point is ... when you are dead you don't know it. Getting this? Religion and philosophical fancies DONT solve the problem. Most people of religious faith are ONLY PROFESSING their faith. They are essentially talkingshit ... if they weren't and really believed some sort of better world existed then they go to it NOW. And any philosophy that addresses the issue leaves more than enough room to acknowledge that it could be wrong. Both remain fearful of death. They might claim otherwise but they're talking out of their arse.
The only people I know that aren't afraid of death are those who understand that it is THE END. It's actually an easy concept to accept and/or even embrace. It is ridiculous that suicide is illegal in most cultures. Beyond ridiculous. If someone wants the solace of not existing then let them have it. Not doing so is an affront to human rights.
I have been studying for years trying to answer the question "Why do humans do the things we do and can we do better?"
It is conventional wisdom for those who are versed in psychology and whom I have read that our most dominating motivation for what we do is our consciousness of our mortality. Most of this is unconscious forces because we do a very good job of repressing this motivation because we can not handle the anxiety produced.
The most glaring example is that we have created soul, then gods, then God, and then religion because of our inability to handle our mortality.
Drawing conclusions about the human psyche based upon untutored common sense is as justified as drawing conclusions about QM based upon untutored common sense.
We can see only what we are prepared to see and we comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.
When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge. I will over ride the expert with my own judgment only after I have studied the matter for a good amount of time. One cannot learn anything if they trust their uneducated common sense before that of the expert.
I think that we would be wise if we were to place our common sense reactions on hold until we had developed a comprehension of the domain of knowledge in question. If we reject all new stuff that is contrary to our common sense we will never grow intellectually.
QUOTE (coberst+Nov 9 2009, 01:49 PM)
Drawing conclusions about the human psyche based upon untutored common sense is as justified as drawing conclusions about QM based upon untutored common sense.
Every human being is qualified to comment and/or draw conclusion about the human psyche simply based on the fact that they are alive and perceive the world. Your assertion that such experience and perception are akin to common sense interpretations of QM is flawed badly.
There are many aspects of the human psyche that are easily and correctly interpreted through innate understanding and/or intuition, there are no aspects of QM that can be understood with such methods.
You first statement seems to be an oddly pretentious way to say that we each have our own perceptions and that those perceptions shape our individual realities. What you leave out though is that the wealth of our experiences as humans shape those perceptions. And it is precisely those experiences that qualify any of us to share in the conversation. Those experiences do not qualify us to discuss QM. But psychology isn't QM ... is it? Far from it.
Psychology has no determined central core ... there are as many flavors as Baskin Robbins has ice-cream. When learned psychologists define their practice then perhaps they can elevate themselves to the level of physicists and other "real" scientists. Until that time (if it is even possible), don't be so pretentious as to think regular folks cant offer insight.
There are certainly aspects of the subject that are best examined and/or explained by learned people but of all sciences Psychology is well-suited to accept certain innate observations (i.e... common sense) that any human is capable of making.
Every human being is qualified to comment and/or draw conclusion about the human psyche simply based on the fact that they are alive and perceive the world. Your assertion that such experience and perception are akin to common sense interpretations of QM is flawed badly.
There are many aspects of the human psyche that are easily and correctly interpreted through innate understanding and/or intuition, there are no aspects of QM that can be understood with such methods.
QUOTE
We can see only what we are prepared to see and we comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.
When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge. I will over ride the expert with my own judgment only after I have studied the matter for a good amount of time. One cannot learn anything if they trust their uneducated common sense before that of the expert.
I think that we would be wise if we were to place our common sense reactions on hold until we had developed a comprehension of the domain of knowledge in question. If we reject all new stuff that is contrary to our common sense we will never grow intellectually.
When I study a domain of knowledge that is new to me I do not try to insert my common sense untutored intuition in place of what the expert is writing about that domain of knowledge. I will over ride the expert with my own judgment only after I have studied the matter for a good amount of time. One cannot learn anything if they trust their uneducated common sense before that of the expert.
I think that we would be wise if we were to place our common sense reactions on hold until we had developed a comprehension of the domain of knowledge in question. If we reject all new stuff that is contrary to our common sense we will never grow intellectually.
You first statement seems to be an oddly pretentious way to say that we each have our own perceptions and that those perceptions shape our individual realities. What you leave out though is that the wealth of our experiences as humans shape those perceptions. And it is precisely those experiences that qualify any of us to share in the conversation. Those experiences do not qualify us to discuss QM. But psychology isn't QM ... is it? Far from it.
Psychology has no determined central core ... there are as many flavors as Baskin Robbins has ice-cream. When learned psychologists define their practice then perhaps they can elevate themselves to the level of physicists and other "real" scientists. Until that time (if it is even possible), don't be so pretentious as to think regular folks cant offer insight.
There are certainly aspects of the subject that are best examined and/or explained by learned people but of all sciences Psychology is well-suited to accept certain innate observations (i.e... common sense) that any human is capable of making.
A friend of mine writes music in hopes of contributing something that lasts to the human race. I write music because I enjoy it.
Not everyone shares the same motives.
Not everyone shares the same motives.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 9 2009, 03:37 PM)
Psychology has no determined central core ... there are as many flavors as Baskin Robbins has ice-cream. When learned psychologists define their practice then perhaps they can elevate themselves to the level of physicists and other "real" scientists. Until that time (if it is even possible), don't be so pretentious as to think regular folks cant offer insight.
That would be like trying to elevate computer programming to the level of physics. Most psychology is not the study of nerve hardware, it involves studying the software of subjectivity, and there is no way to do that except using the same software. It would be as if windows or mac OS didn't have any creators who knew the underlying code, and certain people just studied the way the desktop functions very closely and formulated theories to explain and predict it. This doesn't make psychology useless, on the contrary, but it is not like physics where you can directly study the material, unless you consider all matter and energy dynamics superstructural effects of imperceptible underlying mechanisms that can't be studied directly, in which case physics and psychology wouldn't be that different.
That would be like trying to elevate computer programming to the level of physics. Most psychology is not the study of nerve hardware, it involves studying the software of subjectivity, and there is no way to do that except using the same software. It would be as if windows or mac OS didn't have any creators who knew the underlying code, and certain people just studied the way the desktop functions very closely and formulated theories to explain and predict it. This doesn't make psychology useless, on the contrary, but it is not like physics where you can directly study the material, unless you consider all matter and energy dynamics superstructural effects of imperceptible underlying mechanisms that can't be studied directly, in which case physics and psychology wouldn't be that different.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Nov 9 2009, 09:44 PM)
That would be like trying to elevate computer programming to the level of physics. Most psychology is not the study of nerve hardware, it involves studying the software of subjectivity, and there is no way to do that except using the same software. It would be as if windows or mac OS didn't have any creators who knew the underlying code, and certain people just studied the way the desktop functions very closely and formulated theories to explain and predict it. This doesn't make psychology useless, on the contrary, but it is not like physics where you can directly study the material, unless you consider all matter and energy dynamics superstructural effects of imperceptible underlying mechanisms that can't be studied directly, in which case physics and psychology wouldn't be that different.
For most of it's history psychology hasn't been much more than inferring meaning or function from observed human actions. Essentially a guessing game. Don't get me wrong. Some of it has been some pretty decent logical guessing and much of it's conclusions have merit. But a lot of it has been absolute bunk. When the most revealing experiments in psychological history have been making a dog drool at the sound of a bell, The Stanford Study ... (prisoners/prison guards role-playing) and a 5th grade teacher telling her class that blue eyed students were better people than brown eyed students it can make no solid claim as to any sort of "high" science. Most good psychological studies (even to this day) depend in large part on lying to the test subjects.
The last 15 years or so have seen a dramatic change but it's my impression that most the good work in psychology is/has been done by brain physiologists (PET, CAT, MRI scans etc) i.e... actual scientists versus classic psychologists.
Since you like simple metaphors, here's one that may be a slight exaggeration but makes my point ... we're talking WWE wrestlers as compared to master kung fu ninja assassins. One group is "playing at" being real and the others are actual killers.
For most of it's history psychology hasn't been much more than inferring meaning or function from observed human actions. Essentially a guessing game. Don't get me wrong. Some of it has been some pretty decent logical guessing and much of it's conclusions have merit. But a lot of it has been absolute bunk. When the most revealing experiments in psychological history have been making a dog drool at the sound of a bell, The Stanford Study ... (prisoners/prison guards role-playing) and a 5th grade teacher telling her class that blue eyed students were better people than brown eyed students it can make no solid claim as to any sort of "high" science. Most good psychological studies (even to this day) depend in large part on lying to the test subjects.
The last 15 years or so have seen a dramatic change but it's my impression that most the good work in psychology is/has been done by brain physiologists (PET, CAT, MRI scans etc) i.e... actual scientists versus classic psychologists.
Since you like simple metaphors, here's one that may be a slight exaggeration but makes my point ... we're talking WWE wrestlers as compared to master kung fu ninja assassins. One group is "playing at" being real and the others are actual killers.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 10 2009, 03:19 AM)
For most of it's history psychology hasn't been much more than inferring meaning or function from observed human actions. Essentially a guessing game. Don't get me wrong. Some of it has been some pretty decent logical guessing and much of it's conclusions have merit. But a lot of it has been absolute bunk. When the most revealing experiments in psychological history have been making a dog drool at the sound of a bell, The Stanford Study ... (prisoners/prison guards role-playing) and a 5th grade teacher telling her class that blue eyed students were better people than brown eyed students it can make no solid claim as to any sort of "high" science. Most good psychological studies (even to this day) depend in large part on lying to the test subjects.
The last 15 years or so have seen a dramatic change but it's my impression that most the good work in psychology is/has been done by brain physiologists (PET, CAT, MRI scans etc) i.e... actual scientists versus classic psychologists.
Since you like simple metaphors, here's one that may be a slight exaggeration but makes my point ... we're talking WWE wrestlers as compared to master kung fu ninja assassins. One group is "playing at" being real and the others are actual killers.
Did you know that S Freud was a medical doctor? His theories put off a lot of people because they involve creepy ideas like Oedipus Rex and penis envy and castration, etc., but if you read the logic behind the relationship he saw between physiology and psyche, it is very interesting.
I know I posted about this before, but I think the theory that the ego, or sense of self, is a response to infantile trauma of the totally undisciplined id not getting what it wants and having to contend with the superego is fascinating. It's basically saying that your whole consciousness, subjectivity, sense of self, or however it makes sense to you to describe it, emerges as the result of the trauma you go through as an infant. So you only perceive yourself as an entity at all because your body needed an intermediary for dealing with the painful outside world.
Without the "oedipal crisis" in which a child is put in conflict with the parent(s) as an impetus for pulling it out of the "ocean" of the indistinguishable mommy+me state, a person would never learn to perceive themselves as an entity separate and distinct from their surroundings. Your surroundings would simply be experienced as part of yourself instead of as separate and other.
Freud goes on to extrapolate all kinds of developmental issues that relate to the interdynamics of superego, ego, and id. It is a lot more complex that behavioral stimulation of dog drool or the effect of teacher expectations on student performance, although these are interesting too.
The last 15 years or so have seen a dramatic change but it's my impression that most the good work in psychology is/has been done by brain physiologists (PET, CAT, MRI scans etc) i.e... actual scientists versus classic psychologists.
Since you like simple metaphors, here's one that may be a slight exaggeration but makes my point ... we're talking WWE wrestlers as compared to master kung fu ninja assassins. One group is "playing at" being real and the others are actual killers.
Did you know that S Freud was a medical doctor? His theories put off a lot of people because they involve creepy ideas like Oedipus Rex and penis envy and castration, etc., but if you read the logic behind the relationship he saw between physiology and psyche, it is very interesting.
I know I posted about this before, but I think the theory that the ego, or sense of self, is a response to infantile trauma of the totally undisciplined id not getting what it wants and having to contend with the superego is fascinating. It's basically saying that your whole consciousness, subjectivity, sense of self, or however it makes sense to you to describe it, emerges as the result of the trauma you go through as an infant. So you only perceive yourself as an entity at all because your body needed an intermediary for dealing with the painful outside world.
Without the "oedipal crisis" in which a child is put in conflict with the parent(s) as an impetus for pulling it out of the "ocean" of the indistinguishable mommy+me state, a person would never learn to perceive themselves as an entity separate and distinct from their surroundings. Your surroundings would simply be experienced as part of yourself instead of as separate and other.
Freud goes on to extrapolate all kinds of developmental issues that relate to the interdynamics of superego, ego, and id. It is a lot more complex that behavioral stimulation of dog drool or the effect of teacher expectations on student performance, although these are interesting too.
And in Freud's time it was common for women to be diagnosed with "hysteria" and then treated by doctors in their offices with vibrating dildos to relieve the symptoms. Which means that conclusions from that period of history are fraught with misnomers and bad supposition. Freud was imaginative and even a genius but he wasn't right about most of what he speculated. Women do not walk around wishing they had a penis. Lots of men do ... but in general women don't.
And yes, I already have seen you post your id/ego fascinations here. You tangentially refer to it often which is why I've explained to you that you can't see past your own nose. Your own self-referential ego disallows you from understanding others because you quite frankly don't have an empathetic bone in your makeup. You see only you; the rest of the world exists only as a adjunct to you.
When you're driving around in your '92 Volvo wishing it was an new Audi you have no sense that other people are even on the road. You're the person in conversation that is waiting for his chance to speak instead of actually listening to the other person.
Look at the way you answered my fairly strong assertions about psychology. You barely addressed anything I said and instead went on your usual tangent. You want to talk about what you think you know about instead of trying to learn something.
And yes, I already have seen you post your id/ego fascinations here. You tangentially refer to it often which is why I've explained to you that you can't see past your own nose. Your own self-referential ego disallows you from understanding others because you quite frankly don't have an empathetic bone in your makeup. You see only you; the rest of the world exists only as a adjunct to you.
When you're driving around in your '92 Volvo wishing it was an new Audi you have no sense that other people are even on the road. You're the person in conversation that is waiting for his chance to speak instead of actually listening to the other person.
Look at the way you answered my fairly strong assertions about psychology. You barely addressed anything I said and instead went on your usual tangent. You want to talk about what you think you know about instead of trying to learn something.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Nov 10 2009, 04:05 AM)
And in Freud's time it was common for women to be diagnosed with "hysteria" and then treated by doctors in their offices with vibrating dildos to relieve the symptoms. Which means that conclusions from that period of history are fraught with misnomers and bad supposition. Freud was imaginative and even a genius but he wasn't right about most of what he speculated. Women do not walk around wishing they had a penis. Lots of men do ... but in general women don't.
And yes, I already have seen you post your id/ego fascinations here. You tangentially refer to it often which is why I've explained to you that you can't see past your own nose. Your own self-referential ego disallows you from understanding others because you quite frankly don't have an empathetic bone in your makeup. You see only you; the rest of the world exists only as a adjunct to you.
When you're driving around in your '92 Volvo wishing it was an new Audi you have no sense that other people are even on the road. You're the person in conversation that is waiting for his chance to speak instead of actually listening to the other person.
Look at the way you answered my fairly strong assertions about psychology. You barely addressed anything I said and instead went on your usual tangent. You want to talk about what you think you know about instead of trying to learn something.
First, you don't think it's possible that sexual frustration was the cause of "hysteria" and that orgasm was an effective treatment? Second, I don't think penis envy has to do with wanting to have a penis, specifically, any more than castration anxiety has to do with the fear of losing your genitals. I think both have to do with relationships to power, either coveting it or fearing its loss.
As for your accusation of my narcissism, thanks for making feel terrible about myself! I have learned to self-reflect and be mindful of my own subjectivity, originally as a method of achieving better value-neutrality in the interest of scientific objectivity, but certainly I am more than aware of myself. What fascinates me, however, is the way shame of narcissism/egoist creates pain which itself stimulates the ego to go further in establishing itself as a socially acceptable entity. So, the shame of egoism stimulates more egoism. Ironic, isn't it? Or perhaps just handy as social control. I'm not a big fan of freudian ego-based social control, though, because as you say it tends to deter people from being free to act in the interest of others besides themselves. The altruism of an ego is usually focussed on positive social recognition of the self for its altruism. I believe this actually block the possibility of other-love that would generate true altruism as the feeling of joy of doing something positive for someone other than yourself.
Do you think many people ever feel such joy? If so, what is their relationship to their ego?
And yes, I already have seen you post your id/ego fascinations here. You tangentially refer to it often which is why I've explained to you that you can't see past your own nose. Your own self-referential ego disallows you from understanding others because you quite frankly don't have an empathetic bone in your makeup. You see only you; the rest of the world exists only as a adjunct to you.
When you're driving around in your '92 Volvo wishing it was an new Audi you have no sense that other people are even on the road. You're the person in conversation that is waiting for his chance to speak instead of actually listening to the other person.
Look at the way you answered my fairly strong assertions about psychology. You barely addressed anything I said and instead went on your usual tangent. You want to talk about what you think you know about instead of trying to learn something.
First, you don't think it's possible that sexual frustration was the cause of "hysteria" and that orgasm was an effective treatment? Second, I don't think penis envy has to do with wanting to have a penis, specifically, any more than castration anxiety has to do with the fear of losing your genitals. I think both have to do with relationships to power, either coveting it or fearing its loss.
As for your accusation of my narcissism, thanks for making feel terrible about myself! I have learned to self-reflect and be mindful of my own subjectivity, originally as a method of achieving better value-neutrality in the interest of scientific objectivity, but certainly I am more than aware of myself. What fascinates me, however, is the way shame of narcissism/egoist creates pain which itself stimulates the ego to go further in establishing itself as a socially acceptable entity. So, the shame of egoism stimulates more egoism. Ironic, isn't it? Or perhaps just handy as social control. I'm not a big fan of freudian ego-based social control, though, because as you say it tends to deter people from being free to act in the interest of others besides themselves. The altruism of an ego is usually focussed on positive social recognition of the self for its altruism. I believe this actually block the possibility of other-love that would generate true altruism as the feeling of joy of doing something positive for someone other than yourself.
Do you think many people ever feel such joy? If so, what is their relationship to their ego?
Great thinkers have advised us "the unexamined life is not worth living" and "know thyself".
I am convinced that a person can neither examine life adequately nor know thy self if that person has not studied psychology.
People study psychology for the purpose of healing and for the purpose of comprehending human nature. I am speaking of the later study of psychology. The former study directs ones efforts at medicating the problem and the later at understanding why humans do the things they do. Anti-Semitism and Christian religion are strong forces denying the value of psychology.
I am convinced that a person can neither examine life adequately nor know thy self if that person has not studied psychology.
People study psychology for the purpose of healing and for the purpose of comprehending human nature. I am speaking of the later study of psychology. The former study directs ones efforts at medicating the problem and the later at understanding why humans do the things they do. Anti-Semitism and Christian religion are strong forces denying the value of psychology.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.