Zophar's Message Domain

Zophar's Message Domain (http://www.zophar.net/forums/index.php)
-   Talk of the Town (http://www.zophar.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The "afterlife" (http://www.zophar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7943)

JadussD 10-29-2006 02:36 AM

The "afterlife"
This was going to be a reply to a post by shawn in another thread, but I figured it deserves its own thread, because its like, huge, man.

Anyways, here you go:

I think the biggest problem with the whole afterlife-or-no-afterlife debate is the fundamental assumptions in our language that place conditions on reality, as well as our frame of reference within reality. For instance, the word "afterlife" is a compound word, making it a conglomeration of two ideas, each with their own set of conditions and assumptions.

The assumptions which allow the word "after" to make sense are dependent on beliefs commonly held about time. It is the belief of most people that time is a linear progression of events, which inexorably moves in a direction which is commonly interpreted as "forward". It is generally considered impossible to change the direction, although according to the theory of relativity in the realm of ideas known as "physics", it is thought that it is altered by relative motion. It is not considered possible to change the direction of it.

Viewed from another angle, it could be said that everything happens "at once", although this too is dependent on the concept of time. However, accepting this limitation to view a different concept of time, one which would be closer to a spacial dimension which could be moved freely about in (rather than just forward in it), it could be said that an individual (defined as a unit of consciousness) could, in essence, choose to move forward in it. If, at some point, this consciousness unit forgets the properties of the universe he occupies, or has them deliberately erased from his memory using some means unknown, he may construct an inaccurate view of the universe in which "time" is something which only moves "forward". If this conception of "time" was perpetuated by those who surround him, and is communicated to him through "words" (defined as a conceptual paradigm which divides a perceived reality into "objects" and "concepts"), the individual who moves through "time" could easily be seen as living in a universe in which they live life limited by inaccurate concepts of the nature of their existence in which basic assumptions are made, although they appear perfectly reasonable to the lifeforms blinded by their collective ignorance.

For instance, a sentient being on Earth might believe that he is a form of "life". "unit" of life could be seen as a division between language-divided matter (physical objects) which contains certain characteristics and language-divided matter which does not. These characteristics are amorphous and difficult to define, but in short could be described as divisions of physical phenomena which have mechanisms for producing self-similar replicas of themselves, and the ability to absorb other divisions of physical phenomena as "food", which provides them with the "energy" they need for "survival", which is generally considered to be the continued existence of an individual life-form as something which can be described as such. All of these take a very anthropocentric view, in which humans make some unwarranted assumptions about their own consciousness and project them onto what they perceive.

For instance, humans make the assumption that before they existed, there was a "history", defined as events within time which came "before" the moment the human currently occupies. In this history, certain things have happened as a mechanism which leads in various ways to the present. All of these are based on the fundamental assumption that humans have not been deceived about the nature of events, or that there may be unlimited combinations of occurences which lead to the possible present, which could also be seen as largely amorphous, as the individual human only knows about what he perceives at the time, and does not know whether those things outside his perception occur in the manner they do when they are not being perceived. As such, it could be said that the past or present is learned or observed only by an entity which makes assumptions about it. One of these assumptions could be that what he observes is external to himself, and is governed by certain rules which he is not in control of. If the observer was a being who was aware that these rules are under his control, such as in the case of a supernatural deity, it could also be said that he may desire, for whatever reason, to blind himself to this ability, and to create the illusion of something "outside of himself". It could also be said that the concept of physical laws which govern the "universe" could be the result of ignorance, as it may be possible that the universe is simply a construct of entities with the ability to create reality who, for reasons unknown, may have entered into a state of being in which they have a concept of being separate entities, and of a reality in which they exist, but for the most part believe that it is external to themselves, and is governed by certain absolute truths, such as time, scientific laws, and the idea that one is going to "die".

If viewed this way, it could be said that the universe is actually the result of living entities in a state of ignorance. In this state of ignorance, they may have created a frame-work for creating a limited understanding of their existence through words, which could be seen as dividing a "whole" reality into individual "parts". By grouping such divisions that are seen as similar into "parts", such creatures could be seen as taking a range of the "whole" with infinite possibilities for variation and allow themselves to "simplify" reality into a "world of words". If the creature were to become dependent on this world of words he has created for understanding of his own creation, he could "forget" who he is, and rather than being the creator of said reality, start thinking in "words", which in a language with a concept of a separate "me" and "not me" causes the individual to become entangled in a sea of confusion, in which his sense of self is defined by what he learns with words taught by others with a limited understanding of things. In this way, reality could actually be "created" by the individual, and he would not be aware of his role in doing so. In this way, the individual could actually be caught in a web of self-deception, in which he is cut off from the part of himself who is creating that which he perceives. In this way, he might create a division between "life" (that which is more like his limited understanding of himself as a consciousness divided by its reliance on "words") and "death" (the state of something which appears to have once been like himself, but has ceased to be so). In this way, a consciousness may become "separated" from a more complex consciousness by a mechanism which is limited in its capacity for understanding (possibly represented to it as a "brain"). It could be then said that just as a consciousness forgot itself when it became "self-aware" (usually around the time it started to learn words), that when it "dies", it merely stops existing as a creature which is limited to words in its understanding of the nature of existence.

In other words, perhaps in dying, we stop being limited by words in our understanding of ourselves.
<P ID="signature"></P>

Porchmonkey 10-29-2006 03:17 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
I'm not sure about the afterlife, but I'm open to the possibility.

If there is a soul, it is more than likely some kind of energy. Perhaps similar to "dark energy" because it's not detectable by current equipment. Energy can never be destroyed, just redirected. Following this trail of logic something must happen to this engery after death. Now, I can't assume it has consciousness in and of itself because it simply energy, but maybe that energy moves into another vessel.

I suppose it is possibe for a soul to have consciousness, since consciousness is nonmaterial. So, I guess an afterlife is possible.

Of course, its entirely probable there is no soul at all. I guess if I die and retain somekind of consious form I'll for sure.
<P ID="signature"></P>

punjman 10-29-2006 05:19 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
Nothing happens when you die. No soul, no going to heaven, but definitely going to hell. The real hell though. Not the retarded firey torment place that morons think is where bad people go. Everyone goes to hell when they die.

Dont know what real hell is? Look it up.
<P ID="signature"></P>

SwampGas 10-29-2006 05:51 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
It IS energy...it's just of such a high frequency that we're not able to detect it.

Gd defines himself as always existing with no reference of time. The typical "soul" has no reference of time once separated from the body. Looking at the basics of physics, a photon of light is "energy", has no time, and can simultaneously exist in all places at once depending on your frame of reference.

So yes, it's energy.

<P ID="signature"><marquee direction=right scrollamount=10>http://www.zophar.net/personal/swampgas/hsrun.gif</marquee></P>

pipes 10-29-2006 06:00 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
What is after life? I say its when you rot and what ever is eating you you are now it and a pile of waste left over. Thats about as much life as it get after life. Want to know what its like? Think of your earliest memory. Now try to think before that. Its blank and nothing. Thats what death is like. Something what people call "real hell" or the lack of GOD.
<P ID="signature">The pipes clangor all the time!</P>

JadussD 10-29-2006 06:14 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
> Nothing happens when you die.

The idea of "nothing" to me seems to rule out the ability for it to "happen". If nothing is characterized as something which does not exist, it must become something for it to "happen". In that sense, in the words of infamous occultist Aliester Crowley, "Nothing Is. Nothing becomes. Nothing is not." are equivilent statements which imply a mysterious progression toward "Something is". When "Nothing" happens, it is simply something happening which someone, due to the limits of their perception and cognition, has used a term called "nothing" as a "placeholder" for that which is not apparent to them.

> No soul, no going to heaven,
> but definitely going to hell.

No soul? What is a soul anyways? What if "physical matter" (I would opine, "word based matter") had components which were 1) Unobservable 2) Untranslatable to language, which is based on axioms which do not apply to its nature. 3) Only understandable or perceivable from the standpoint of one who has expanded his consciousness in a manner which is not known or understood by many others.

Doesn't saying the concept that something doesn't exist seem a little audacious? Could it be that something exists, but is of a nature which is indescribable, and only understandable through esoteric knowledge?

> The real hell though. Not the
> retarded firey torment place that morons think is where bad
> people go. Everyone goes to hell when they die.

If this "real hell" were to be seen as different from the "normal" hell, yet to form a concept of hell which is defined as something different from what is thought of the word, isn't this in effect redefining a word? Could it be that the concept of "hell" is subjective? For instance, there are people who are known to experience pain as a form of very intense pleasure, and seek it as a sort of sex-like release. If pain were to be pleasure to these people, would this person in "hell" actually be in "heaven"? What if, in the time spent in hell, a "pain-avoidant, normal" person grew to appreciate the pain which is in "hell", to find comfort in it? Could this possibly create an arbitrary division between "heaven" and "hell", when the division is actually subjective and would best be left up to the "suffer/enjoyer" of their supposed "fate"?

> Dont know what real hell is? Look it up.

I do believe that there is a problem here. If most people think that hell is a fiery torment place that they go to, won't the "definition" found when it is "looked up" reflect this perception?

<P ID="signature"></P>

Porchmonkey 10-29-2006 06:27 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
>Looking at the basics of physics,
> a photon of light is "energy", has no time, and can
> simultaneously exist in all places at once depending on your
> frame of reference.

That's insightful. Thanks for adding that SwampGas.

<P ID="signature"></P>

Porchmonkey 10-29-2006 06:28 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
> Dont know what real hell is? Look it up.

Hell would be a place where I was forced to read your shitty non-funny comics and listen to you're retarded rants for all of eternity.

<P ID="signature"></P>

JadussD 10-29-2006 08:35 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
> What is after life? I say its when you rot and what ever is
> eating you you are now it and a pile of waste left over

Interesting, but could it not be said that the individual who believes he is going to die is wondering what happens to his consciousness after this happens? Could it not be said that when we see someone live, it is a mere representation of a living being which we believe contains so much more than is apparent to the eye, such as thoughts, desires, habits, beliefs etc? Could it not be said, that just as a person is more than we can _see_, that they're also more than we can understand? Do we even understand ourselves on a conceptual level?

If we were to only understand ourselves to the extent of our ability to understand, could it not be said that we don't understand ourselves completely, as we have reached the limit of our understanding? Could it not be said that we only understand ourselves mostly as found from knowledge gained from sources which are bound to physical senses, those senses for which we have created words for, and give us data we can name with words? What divides an image created in one's mind from an image which comes in through the eyes?

Is it possible that there is a non-physical mind we have, which is in essence, CREATING what we perceive, and that the images we create "in our heads" are mere reflections of the same part of our minds which creates the universe, but we are cut off from by our addiction to our lower selves? Could it by that our mind "here" has divided itself from its higher self with its language based thought into a separate "I", which is an ignorant participant, only able to understand on their own, primitive self-centered terms those things which come from the part of the mind that animates the universe they live in, from which they are usually denied access to due to their ignorance, selfish desires, and physically oriented perspective? Could it be then, that "death" is merely the victory of this higher mind in its quest to "reunite" the "renegade" part of itself, by creating a world around this "renegade" in which it thinks that it dies? Could not religion be seen as a primitive way that the "renegade" part of the mind, controlled by "words" seeks to "appease" this higher mind, to through various means, "re-establish harmony" with the higher mind, by learning what pleases it, and what doesn't? By separating oneself from a higher consciousness which creates the reality the lower creature occupies, one causes the higher self to send disharmony and chaos as a way to create a reality which will cause the lower self to "die", or cause the energy which comprises the enviroment and being of the lower self to be used for other purposes. Perhaps the higher self wished to experience certain things, and lives vicariously through you. Perhaps it was tired of love, and wanted to experience hate. Maybe the higher-self was tired of being so powerful, and wanted to create a challenge for himself. Maybe the higher self has a sadistic streak, and wants to see how long we can get by with a primitive view of existence. Maybe the higher self wanted to create a "physical" reality for no reason. Maybe reality is infinite, and the means that the higher self creates your perceived reality are multiplexed, consisting of the infinite means which could all lead to the moment you perceive as "now". Maybe to the higher self, all things are both true and false at the same time, as to the higher self, all things are infinite and something is always a false simplification of something higher than it.

One could also be seen as causing the detached "higher mind" to create a reality for them which is full of fear, hatred, and various other assorted problems which they have brought upon themselves. In effect, due to self-hatred, caused by being absorbed with the knowledge in this reality, the higher self seeks to destroy them. Since their enviroment and others within it are actually themselves, any attempt to hurt others is an attempt to hurt oneself. By learning to "love" others, one learns to love oneself, and this creates a link to the higher self, when one becomes not focused on one's physical self, but on the people around it as well. This in turn causes the higher self to put the physical self in a world with greater harmony, one where the higher-self can "enjoy" itself more, and won't create a reality which attempts to bring the energy that comprises his word-addled component back to himself to be used in other endeavors, but allow this component to continue as he desires, and grant him a sense of fulfillment and happiness. It could be seen as one "coming back" to oneself, either way.

t is also possible that death and ignorance is sort of an obstacle placed by the higher-self to allow his renegade lower self to try to overcome death by various means, or even embrace it. This would create many competing ways to try to solve this dillema. Most religions believe in life after death, and the love of some deity or of love as a manifestation of some force or awareness. The problem is, that they might all be talking about the same thing, while arguing over minutae which arise when one tries to describe something as a lower being which is difficult to even understand to one who actually gets it, let alone put into words for others to understand. This would be a serious problem, as it could cause a situation where others are led to the higher self, and then people come to believe that the higher self is and isn't certain things. When these become absolute truths, they cause conflict with all other absolute truths that they encounter. In this way, the higher self is externalized further from one's lower self, and is seen as contradicting things by different people who all believe that everyone else is wrong about the same thing they're all RIGHT about. In essence, they've become so detached from their higher selves that create their existence and world that they believe that they can only be freed of death, or worse, torment after death, by adhering to, or worse, killing in the name of a word-based conception of something which is only understandable from a perspective which is beyond word-based notions of right/wrong, yes/no, true/false, or other binary oppositions which are based on a simplified view of existence which doesn't hold up as very absolute when its fundamental assumptions are questioned.

<P ID="signature"></P>

shawn 10-29-2006 08:47 AM

Re: The "afterlife"
Are you trying to say that our conscience or internal morals are our actual soul and language is messing up our lives? That our feelings are us? That's what it seems your trying to say and when you do something against them because language/intellect tells you your feelings are wrong then your going against your soul.
<P ID="signature">Get off your ass and do it because it isn't going to happen on it's own no matter how much you wish it would.</P>

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.