The Fact of Death

You got that right. Getting old is no fun.Nice essay, iano. I enjoyed it.

Only if ones view is that life is about accomplishment. See if you can guess who this is...

quote:

---

All he ever really wanted in life was more. He wanted more money, so he parlayed inherited wealth into a billion-dollar pile of assets. He wanted more fame, so he broke into the Hollywood scene and soon became a filmmaker and star. He wanted more sensual pleasures, so he paid handsome sums to indulge his every sexual urge. He wanted more thrills, so he designed, built, and piloted the fastest aircraft in the world. He wanted more power, so he secretly dealt political favors so skillfully that two U. S. presidents became his pawns.

​

All he ever wanted was more. He was absolutely convinced that more would bring him true satisfaction. Unfortunately, history shows otherwise. He concluded his life emaciated; colorless; sunken chest; fingernails in grotesque, inches-long corkscrews; rotting, black teeth; tumors; innumerable needle marks from his drug addiction.

​

Howard Hughes died believing the myth of more. He died a billionaire junkie, insane by all reasonable standards.

---

Life is not about accomplishing things. If we insist that it is we will either be disappointed or become helpless junkiesEvery spring new life emerges in nature, new hope, new things to be accomlished. And every winter, a disappointed creation dies - coming up against the same failure we do. Death is the star of the show.Nature mirrors the course of our lives exactly. Intentionally so.How does one learn lessons.? By repeatedly coming up against the same problem again and again and again. Neither natures disappointment nor our own should be left unexamined. I think the purpose of disappointment is to teach. Teach us that we cannot accomplish what our knower(ing) knows is accomplishable

Are you saying that anyone with the drive to accomplish great things in life is, by definition, destined to end up a menatally disturbed recluse like Howard Hughes?What about all of the people who have drive to accomplish great things, and even those who do live life to it's fullest by persuing pleasures of all sorts who also derive great satisfaction and contentment from that life?I mean, you don't even know if Hughes' insanity had anything at all to do with his "accomplishments". It is quite likely that he would have gone crazy regardless of his wealth or fame.

quote:

---

Life is not about accomplishing things.

---

It is certainy part of what life is about, and a pretty substantial part for most.Otherwise, don't you just become a slovenly bum?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-06-2006 10:54 AM

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with accomplishment Schraf. I was responding to Robins statement: I was taking it that he meant "accomplishment is how you measure" as a raison d'etre. I take the view that if that were the case then, objectively, either:Disappointment: I have not accomplished enough given what I know I could have...orAccomplishment-junkieism (no one can never accomplish what one is able to, but one can chase, like a junkie, after the wind).Naturally, if one is totally subjective about it then the Slob will not be disappointed (he's doing his best) and the Accomplisher won't feel themselves hooked (their still busy so the jury is out. Delay the disappointment (assuming again that accomplishment is lifes raison d'etre)Level of disappointment I said, was a measure of the objectivity with which one measured themselves - according to the standard for life, to whit: accomplishEdit to clarify.This message has been edited by iano, 06-May-2006 04:25 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 06-May-2006 06:59 PM

I have often pondered the reason why I am not as effective as I could be on a day to day basis.Effectiveness....measured as...

Being nice to people

​

Success quotients...(money, not having to work as hard as I get older, etc...)

​

Being a "man of God"....whatever they are supposed to do!

​

In conclusion, I think we all can always do better, but on the day that I die, it would be nice to at least know (before I go) that I did my best, considering all circumstances and factors!

If we can all do better all the way down the line, how can we wonder on our dying day whether we have "done our best"? Patently we haven't - since we have known all along we could have done better.The only escape from that that I can see, is to consider all the circumstances and factors as stuff beyond our control. I am selfish, impatient, arrogant and cruel. If I consider those as mere "circumstances and factors" then on my dying day I can doubtlessly consider myself as having done my best. Given the circumstances.I'm a wriggler Phat, but there are limits beyond which even I won't thread...

Another approach to faith is acceptance. Acceptance of What Is. It IS after all so why not accept it. That acceptance includes our reluctance or resistance to accepting.So accept that you regret at times and then allow it too to pass.lfen

Is there some way you could give that plain English hands and feet Lfen. In other words, something with which to propel oneself along the path towards the idea. Take my knowledge of the fact (more evidence of it that ToE) that I am insensitive, impatient, arrogant and cruel.Accepting it seems to me (weak) to allow myself to continue in it. But I would suspect there is more (strong) behind what you say - that accepting it would somehow dissolve it.How so?This message has been edited by iano, 06-May-2006 11:52 PM

Every action you take is selfish? You never exhibit patience? You've never experienced humility? You have never done an act of kindness but have always tormented and hurt other sentient beings?I think you should add proud, boastful, and deluded to your list of accomplishments!Korzbski down to Albert Ellis call this the fallacy of the Is of identity.Is the atmosphere of the planet earth blue? Or is it that at certain times of day looking up through it it appears blue to our eyes due to the way the sunlight passes through it?You are using language in a very common way and everyone understands what you mean and yet there are several errors compounded here. The problem is what is a human being?We can describe the physical body at given points in time. We can describe moods, behaviours, etc. This "I" is a locus that we refer a complex variety of things to. But what is this locus? In the end it is simply a sense of being that refers to a particular body/mind organism.That organism like all organisms has a life cycle. What is control? I suggest that it is system feedback. The system controls it's behaviour by complex neural networks whether that behaviour is remaining upright while walking on two legs or choosing how to behave towards a human being unconscious in a wrecked car.How is that system programmed? Some systems are programmed to see an opportunity to steal a wallet. Some systems are programmed to call emergency help (I typed 911, then thought I don't know if that reference would be clear, probably because of movies and tv but maybe not). Some systems might be programmed to verbalize "prayers" addressed to one name or another.lfen

If you won't accuse me of copyright infringement how about if I say
the point of acceptance could be "be still and know that I am God"?lfen

I'll go through your post piece by piece Ifen... I am proud, kind, loving, deceitful, selfish, compassionate, boastful,humorous,ambitious, complex, deluded, confident, arrogant, (hang on a sec..kettles boiling) greedy, attentive, inattentive, ugly, helpful, generous, beautiful, simple...is it THAT late?Don't get me too wrong Lfen. That was topic-specific brevity. I'm a person like any other. No more, no less. Okay...but no weight attached because of it (I won't say "God says" in return..I promise) The latter. I'm working my way down to what (I think) the essence of your post is but on the way I'm just answering questions. Probably not...but it is plain English constuct - so there is a potential for that, granted. Okay, lets look... The errors will be compounded in this problem "What is a human being?" presumably. Fair enough. The 'I' sits at the root of it all Most all of what you have said can be granted (should we desire not to argue) on the basis of everyman-experience. This last point diverges from plain English and plain experience (to me at least). Could you clarify in plain English?I'll delay dealing with the rest as it is here that the wires are getting crossed

I'm actually impressed. When you drop the evangelist rhetoric I find you very clear minded. And you are correct that this is what I discern the crux to be and it's in this region that I'm running into the unknown. It's here where I'm groping with problems. You could say this is the bleeding edge of my process of attempting to understand.A quick little background that would have to be expanded in a different thread is that my philosophical ruminations deal with the relationship of consciousness to the matter/energy space/time universe. And although there are one or two who post here who think consciousness will fall out easily from brain organization, for me there is still the problem of qualia, the inside of experience. How does light of a certain frequency appear for example red? where does redness come from?So on the one hand I try to understand what the brain researchers are discovering and I stay open to the possibility that consciousness is an emergent property of neural organization. On the other hand I am drawn to the nondual tradition that views consciousness as fundamental to the universe. The Buddha did not identify this awareness with deity whereas Hindu advaitist do.All three of these approaches share the notion that what we experience as the unitary nature of the self is an illusion. They deny a permanent self.I agree with you that: From Buddha to Ramana to Bernadette Roberts and other contemporary nondual teachers the "I" sits at the root of it all and the approach of nondual, my approach, diverges from plain English and experience.The Buddha among a few others spent years observing his "mind" before he awakened. The sense of the I as unitary and irreducible is extremely strong, extremely dense even when analyzed it remains.I'd have to recheck out Roberts' book The Experience of No Self to quote her so I'll try to just give a summation. After the conviction that I am "so and so" a self leaves the human consciousness is left with experiencing what IS. Roberts had spent some years as a Catholic nun and remains a Christian in her understanding of her experience so she talks about what remains as God in Christian terms. Ramana would talk about it in Hindu terms ususally. A Sufi would talk about it in Islamic terms. A Buddhist wouldn't use deity language.What remains after the sense of self goes is not subject or object hence the non dual reference. It is an experience recounted by people over time and culture and religion.I'll end by saying that Ramana specifically denied that the sense of "I am" was the body. The root of the problem he said was identification with the body. Hence the question most characteristic of him was to direct the people who came to him to seek to know "Who am I?"lfen

Drug are the same the (eternal) world over Lfen. They seek and gain entry via the pride in a man.I'm heading to bed but will have a fresh read tomorrow.G'Night

Have a good sleep and when you return I hope you will clarify this as I can't make head nor tails of it. lfen

My reference to drugs was a propensity to write evangelical rethoric and not focus on the gospel. Pride is the drug which causes that. Thinking I can save a man by writing rethoric. I cannotAnyway. It is this bleeding edge where the crux most certainly lies and I am going to attempt to understand your viewpoint. Again piece by piece Okay I get the basic idea. It seems to describe the central attribute of consciousness.. Okay. There is this consiousness. I can't prove mine to you nor you yours to me. But we assume for the sake of arguement that we both know that we have one and that they are more or less similar - before we start assigning a potential source Okay. "I" is the issue. Pity about the plain English divergence but if you'd like to try perhaps we can continue a little Now we better slow down a little for my sake. The Buddha, initially was a person like you or me presumably. He wondered about the 'I' too. But what is 'mind' firstoffI see your here at the moment so will post this and look at the rest while I wait for a response