> Death is nothing to be afraid of when you are there.
Paradoxically, Doug, I could agree with that. The matter in the original
post was about the little deaths, of those selfs we were, and astonishedly
find we are no more so, but , too, I would be reserved about a
recommendation of utter demise to anyone, what's left of common-sense says
to me it's a condition people are not too keen on.
Best
Dave
David Bircumshaw
Leicester, England
Home Page
A Chide's Alphabet
Painting Without Numbers
www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Clark" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: FW: AI's Elegies
> I havent been following this conversation but I would note
> that I almost died in Intensive Care from MRSA a few years
> ago. My recollection of my mind at the time was that I wasnt
> frightened at all. I was just floating away in a very relaxed
> manner and at peace with myself. The doctors had written me
> off but by some miracle I recovered. Death is nothing to be
> afraid of when you are there.
>
>
>
> Douglas Clark, Bath, England mailto: [log in to unmask]
> Lynx: Poetry from Bath ..........
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/lynx.html
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, david.bircumshaw wrote:
>
> > Martin
> >
> > indeed, this is a tricky subject. My impression was, and I say this
partly
> > on the basis that the listee sent the post in question b-c to me last
> > Saturday, as he couldn't get through, was that he was talking about the
> > impact of that notion as a new idea, which, one must admit, is an
> > uncomfortable thought.
> >
> > Now whatever philosophical sophistications I might pretend to, I must
> > concede that, at the moment of death, however much I search for
appropriate
> > references, if conscious, I might well be terrified out of my mind,
despite
> > my theories of the self.
> >
> > My ramshackle musings wander about ideas of this being like so
'objectively'
> > but not so 'experientially'. They are very threadbare thoughts though.
> >
> > Anyhow, I don't want to get 'heavy' about a very heavy subject, enuff
now
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > David Bircumshaw
> >
> > Leicester, England
> >
> > Home Page
> >
> > A Chide's Alphabet
> >
> > Painting Without Numbers
> >
> > www.paintstuff.20m.com/index.htm
> >
> > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/index.htm
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin J. Walker" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:04 PM
> > Subject: Re: FW: AI's Elegies
> >
> >
> > > These are very knotty questions which are not as simple as saying "the
> > self
> > > is an illusion, amen." For Heidegger, as I understand it, Being (das
Sein)
> > > is indefinable by being-there (Dasein), which all persons have in
common:
> > > their selves are constituted by that community & their language (based
on
> > > understanding,Verstehen, plus Rede, speech), both of which also imply
the
> > > project (Entwurf) & the care (Sorge), the latter comprehending the
past &
> > > present as the condition & the future as the field of self-realization
> > which
> > > must end in death, thus my dread (Angst) until I affirm death as my
most
> > > real possibility, thus devaluing in a sense all the projects etc of
> > > Being-there & attaining authentic existence, though Being is always
> > far-off.
> > > The transcendent Self of the Upanishads is actually closer to Being
than
> > > Being-there, thus only a logical step forward (and a lot of
meditation)
> > was
> > > necessary for Gautama to realize _sambodhi_ as the illumination that
> > > transcends the object-subject of normal consciousness: this results in
> > > _nirvana_, in which the distinctions of the normal self have vanished.
> > > Thus in both philosophies the normal self is something to be
transcended
> > as
> > > not finally constitutive of Being, but it is hardly a simple illusion.
> > > Heidegger would presumably frown on any belief in survival after
death as
> > > inauthentic.
> > > I can't understand why you find the implications of non-self <a bit
> > scary>,
> > > as death (nothingness) will relieve you of your self in any case, a
much
> > > scarier consideration I would have thought; I myself shall be quite
happy
> > to
> > > wander around the Bardo or various reincarnations before being
relieved of
> > > self, if death is not the end. Amen.
> > > Martin
> > >
> >
>
|