Possibly of interest to those that think secular culture (and ideology) is greatly departed from religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

The “what” for TMT is that self-esteem is a sense of personal value, that is obtained by believing in two things:

1. the validity of one’s cultural worldview, and
2. that one is living up to standards that are part of the worldview.

Since it’s inevitable, there’s not much point “fearing” death. Disliking it is a more sensible option, to help keep it at bay long enough to squeeze a decent amount of joy out of life.

>Since it’s inevitable, there’s not much point “fearing” death.

I’d think it’d be the uncertainty regards ‘when’ that’d more the motivating aspect, not so much that it’s inevitable.

But even in regard to thinking about something like sudden news of terminal illness, is it really our death that we would fear, or the intensity of our own emotions (disappointment, regret, anger etc)? I suspect fear of life is possibly more important than fear of death.

>But even in regard to thinking about something like sudden news of terminal illness, is it really our death that we would fear, or the intensity of our own emotions (disappointment, regret, anger etc)? I suspect fear of life is possibly more important than fear of death.

I’d think you’re right there, particularly given the constant effort at adjusting to being alive, being me, ‘I’, this, it’s an ‘investment’, constant investment, so toward the end (or to consider the proposition of ‘the end’), you are closer to or forced (by immediacy – maybe it’s a more compelling time-sensitive proposition), I mean it’s a bit difficult to be alive/living and not be somewhat fond of the situation (i’d qualify that but you may not live long enough to read it all, or I may not live long enough to write it all).

Dumb Q follows.

Do you think, to generalize, that living people feel they are ‘superior’ to the deceased (and what of how they maintain that).

transition said:

The “what” for TMT is that self-esteem is a sense of personal value, that is obtained by believing in two things:

1. the validity of one’s cultural worldview, and
2. that one is living up to standards that are part of the worldview.

In as far as I understand the purported basis of TMT, I’m not sure that I accept the two hypotheses.

I would like to be a cyborg when I’m near death

and transfer my brain into a humanoid robot

that’s half fleshy human over metal skeleton

complete with on-board computers analogue and digital

and with different types of computers and different types of processors

I wonder if the human brain could last 500 years in a cyborg body?

I’d like to be a terminator

>In as far as I understand the purported basis of TMT, I’m not sure that I accept the two hypotheses.

I aren’t greatly taken by them, more the subject though, the angle/s, they only have to have some modest or even tiny part that is substantially true, to be true to the extent they are, if at all, and something might be assembled, that comes up with a contradiction even, which might be interesting, if it were, which it may never be, which’d be alright with me.

My interest, to the extent it exists, more was of how what might be generalized as ‘anxiety about death’ might be exploited in modern times, even in our more civilized culture, and the extent the ‘cushions’ provided, perhaps that disguise the flipside, are societal or ideological drivers.

>Do you think, to generalize, that living people feel they are ‘superior’ to the deceased (and what of how they maintain that).

That would seem a very peculiar judgment to make.

>That would seem a very peculiar judgment to make.

I’d guess there’s a bit of truth and even reality hiding away in normals’ peculiar.

transition said:

>That would seem a very peculiar judgment to make.

I’d guess there’s a bit of truth and even reality hiding away in normals’ peculiar.

I think most people (or at least most non-religious people) would consider being alive superior to not being alive, but wouldn’t therefore think of people who are not alive as “inferior”. They’d just think of them as no longer existing.

>I think most people (or at least most non-religious people) would consider being alive superior to not being alive, but wouldn’t therefore think of people who are not alive as “inferior”. They’d just think of them as no longer existing.

We do generalize ‘dead’ quite a bit, that all deceased are the same, but my point is of this generalizing going to of-oneself-after-death while alive, which might be the ‘spooky’ proposition we face, that our generalizing about the dead is somewhat jointly a sort of converging monistic theory/conception, which has implications for social mediation factors involved in self-esteem.

transition said:

We do generalize ‘dead’ quite a bit, that all deceased are the same

All men are created equal, all men are equal in death.

Well, sure, there are heroes and cowards and martyrs and fighters and losers in the way you die, but after death you’re pretty much only remembered for your actions during life. Take away that part and yes, everyone is equal in death. The same processes happen* whether you’re famous or heroic as they do if you’re a loser.

*Obviously the processes of embalming and mummifying etc change these processes quite a bit… but left to nature and all people decay after death.

>All men are created equal, all men are equal in death

It’s sort of an idea that takes the strangeness out of reality, when the reality might in fact be strange. It shifts the strange into a some desirable property commonly understood in the word-concept ‘equal’.

On the other hand, and perhaps involving some paradoxes, while living we judge an entity by what it does, and at any moment this is mostly what it has done, and any relationship with whatever entity is mostly (or all it might be argued) constituted of memory. So, to great extent relationships are built of memories (from or of the past).

Let’s say I pass away between posting this and you writing a response, you don’t know I pass away and write a response exactly as if I am alive. It’s a brute example but in truth much of exchanges have something of this quality about them.

More to the point though, take two of your ancestors, back say thirty-thousand years, from which you are genetically descended. Their DNA were (and it can be said is) necessary to the lineage that resulted in you. But their behaviours too courtesy the workings of their memories were similarly as important to you arriving in this world.

From this the ‘is/are no longer’ seems to feature strongly in the behaviours and motivations of what is – those that are – their relationships too.

Back to this “all men are created equal, all men are equal in death”, isn’t it the case that you are substituting equality for ‘qualities’ and really making an absolute statement about deceased having no qualities, no existence.

Bubblecar said:

Since it’s inevitable, there’s not much point “fearing” death. Disliking it is a more sensible option, to help keep it at bay long enough to squeeze a decent amount of joy out of life.

Yes I don’t fear death and are under no illusion that dead is dead and no afterlife exists, we live on through the deeds we’ve done good or bad and through the DNA we passed onto our children

I thought it would be a interesting question to ask people off the street “Would you prefer the guarantee of an extended life as part of a virtual heaven or hope some sort of afterlife exists when you die” The virtual heaven would be whatever you wish with contact with numerous other uploaded minds”

I wonder how many people have seen someone die?
It’s not something you should hide from or avoid.
We were all their at the end when my mum died including my youngest daughter who was six at the time.
They same as each of my children has seen their younger siblings born, the two extremes of life

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

Arts said:

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

It is a fair point.

Cymek said:

They same as each of my children has seen their younger siblings born, the two extremes of life

Haven’t heard about bringing the siblings in for the birth. Probably blow their little minds.

Arts said:

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

Indeed

Arts said:

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

It was like that in the Soviet Union with state atheism. Unfortunately it is against freedom of speech etc.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arts said:

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

It was like that in the Soviet Union with state atheism. Unfortunately it is against freedom of speech etc.

http://www.songlyrics.com/yes/i-ve-seen-all-good-people-i-your-move-lyrics/

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arts said:

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

It was like that in the Soviet Union with state atheism. Unfortunately it is against freedom of speech etc.

As has often been said here, freedom of speech is a myth. The only question is what speech shall be forbidden.

I think it would be going too far to attempt to ban all religious organisations from suggesting that we live on after death, but certainly it could and should be a requirement that government bodies and public media organisations give adequate publicity to the notion that this life is all we have (and there is nothing wrong with that).

Arts said:

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

It’s like how suicide bombers get told they’ll get rewarded in heaven in the blow themselves up, virging on the ridiculous

There’s a lot of bullshit out there. I don’t think believing in an afterlife is the worst thing to believe in. Alkaline diets curing cancer seems to be a worserer thing IMO.

The Rev Dodgson said:

As has often been said here, freedom of speech is a myth. The only question is what speech shall be forbidden.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Divine Angel said:

There’s a lot of bullshit out there. I don’t think believing in an afterlife is the worst thing to believe in. Alkaline diets curing cancer seems to be a worserer thing IMO.

Ditto.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arts said:

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

It was like that in the Soviet Union with state atheism. Unfortunately it is against freedom of speech etc.

http://www.songlyrics.com/yes/i-ve-seen-all-good-people-i-your-move-lyrics/

I never noticed the “give peace a chance” bit in there!

(The Yes Album is my 2nd favourite rock album by the way).

That’s a first for here, wholesale drug cost of $6k. Cash flow out the window this month…

sorry meant for chat.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

As has often been said here, freedom of speech is a myth. The only question is what speech shall be forbidden.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Which bit would you like a fuller explanation of?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

As has often been said here, freedom of speech is a myth. The only question is what speech shall be forbidden.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Which bit would you like a fuller explanation of?

What speech do people on here think should be forbidden?, everything should be questioned and up for discussion

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

It was like that in the Soviet Union with state atheism. Unfortunately it is against freedom of speech etc.

http://www.songlyrics.com/yes/i-ve-seen-all-good-people-i-your-move-lyrics/

I never noticed the “give peace a chance” bit in there!

(The Yes Album is my 2nd favourite rock album by the way).

:) We could never bore each other in a jam session then.. :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

As has often been said here, freedom of speech is a myth. The only question is what speech shall be forbidden.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Which bit would you like a fuller explanation of?

All of it. In the USA all speech is free unless otherwise banned. Is that what you mean to say?

I don’t think there should be any pogrom against atheists, sure most people think they are batshit crazy but they have the right to their views and the right to express them.
Personally I think atheism is more a mental condition rather than an ideology.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

As has often been said here, freedom of speech is a myth. The only question is what speech shall be forbidden.

I don’t understand what you mean.

Which bit would you like a fuller explanation of?

I have to go, so I’ll guess.

It is already accepted, and uncontroversial, that making public statements that are likely to have dangerous results, and are not based on fact, is illegal.

A frequent example is that it is illegal to claim that there is a fire in a crowded theatre, unless there actually is a fire.

The only question is, where do we draw the line with this prohibition. That is a very difficult question in some cases.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Arts said:

I think it’s a dangerous thing to tell people that there is an afterlife.. or another life… if they all understand and accept that this life NOW is all we have.. we might try harder to make it better

It was like that in the Soviet Union with state atheism. Unfortunately it is against freedom of speech etc.

As has often been said here, freedom of speech is a myth. The only question is what speech shall be forbidden.

I think it would be going too far to attempt to ban all religious organisations from suggesting that we live on after death, but certainly it could and should be a requirement that government bodies and public media organisations give adequate publicity to the notion that this life is all we have (and there is nothing wrong with that).

As everyone else is required to provide proof of claims made for goods or services they provide for money, why shouldn’t the God promoters be made to provide proof of their claims?

You don’t have to be religious to believe in reincarnation, which is a form of afterlife. I know people who aren’t even spiritual who believe in reincarnation.

Divine Angel said:

You don’t have to be religious to believe in reincarnation, which is a form of afterlife. I know people who aren’t even spiritual who believe in reincarnation.

I think it’s safe to say that belief in reincarnation is, by definition, a form of spirituality…

I think it the case that those that say they don’t fear death in fact do fear death, just as if someone near them appeared to be in great pain from a heart attack or seriously bleeding they’d render assistance and call for help. The deceased (bodies) are quite inconvenient in ways, involve some work, they get smelly for starters and become food for many things. So smelly becomes messy with decomposition etc. There’s the funeral too, these are ‘work’. And on the subject funerals, is there anyone that hasn’t thought who they most certainly would not want at their funeral. I mean it’s a good reason to keep living, because you know there’s some people you wouldn’t want at your funeral, or even to know you were dead. There’s even some people i’m sure we don’t want our self (alive or dead) to feature in their brain activity at all.

It’s the living that came up with the expression….turning in his/her grave