Hey Steve, Correction. The quote I attributed to you was from Bruce Underwood. Also I related to his witnessing the death of brother and other relatives.
Platt On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Steven Peterson <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi all, > > >From a cosmic perspective you are but a tiny invisible speck on the > third planet of an average sized star--just one of billions of > trillions of such stars in the vastness of nearly empty space. > Furthermore, your existence as a single speck on a speck among > billions of trillions of specks is contained in a mere blink of an eye > in the expanse of time. However, even though you are so utterly > cosmically insignificant, you are also completely unique. There will > never be another you. As a human being, you have the perhaps so far > untapped genius and creative power of a Mozart or a Davinci. You have > had extraordinary experiences including profound sorrow in mourning > the loss of a loved one, and you may have experienced transcendent joy > while bringing a child into the world or while simply contemplating > nature. You have felt such experiences transform your world in > profound ways. You have experienced love so all-encompassing that the > only way to describe it in such a way as to give it justice is to talk > about being literally IN love. The profundity of such unquantifiably > precious moments is in tension with the trivializing fact that they > have taken place against a infinite and virtually vaccuous cosmic > backdrop. You are made of stardust, but you will end up as worm food. > This is the fundamental paradox of existence. You have seen > indescribable beauty and experienced boundless joy, you've cultivated > intense human connections and a mind with the power to contemplate > untold marvels, you've sought simple pleasures and overcome profound > suffering, you've lived through times of both bliss and heartbreak > beyond measure, yet (to quote Rutger Hauer's character in Blade > Runner) at the moment of your death, all these memories will be washed > away into nothingness "like tears in the rain." > > Much has been said about religion as a human invention in response to > this paradox--the mother of all problems--the problem of death. Though > the MOQ offers a broader explanation for religion, many atheists (as > well as perhaps some theists) see fear of death as the complete > explanation of the human need to believe in religion. Ernest Becker in > his pulitzer prize winning book The Denial of Death explained how it > is not only religion but in fact human civilization as a whole which > may be thought of as the product of our broad endeavor to suppress the > knowledge of our own death. > > Such supression is accomplished in many ways. One way is the nearly if > not completly universal human denial of identification with our animal > nature, our "creatureliness." We are that one sort of animal that can > decide how to think about itself, and this one sort of animal prefers > not to think of itself as an animal at all. We are unique among > animals in knowing that we will one day cease to exist, and so we are > the only sort of animal which needs a way to cope with that knowledge > by convincing ourselves that we are something more than creatures, as > Becker described us, "tearing others apart with teeth of all > types--biting, grinding flesh, plant stalks, bones between molars, > pushing the pulp greedily down the gullet with delight, incorporating > its essence into one's own organization, and then excreting with foul > stench and gasses the residue." To accept this picture of ourselves > would be a sort of death in itself. > > The beings to practice intellectual patterns became aware of their own > finitude and needed ways to make sure that this knowledge of our > deaths is only ever understood on a surface level and never felt in > its fullness. According to Becker, to truly face the fact of our > mortality would be an unbearable terror. He wrote, "This is the > terror: to have emerged from nothing, to have a name, consciousness of > self, deep inner feelings, an excruciating inner yearning for life and > self-expression--and with all this yet to die." Becker argued that man > needed to create defence mechanisms against the knowledge of our own > eventual and inevitable annihilation. Many of these mechanisms > accomplish this denial in creating distinctions between humans and > animals. In such distinctions we find comfort. We learn to ask > ourselves, how could our lives simply end as those of the animals when > we are so fundamentally different from the animals? We create and > appreciate music, design and wear fashionable clothing, and read and > write philosophy. Surely we are not mere animals, so surely we will > not share the animal's fate. > > Religions, of course, have been a big part of humanity's efforts to > deny its animal nature. Though different religions manage the task in > different ways including promises of real immortality, one commonality > among religions is that their systems of mythology generally emphasize > the creation of humanity as a special act that was distinct from the > creation of the animals. One reason why evolutionary theory is so > threatening to so many is that it reasserts a connection between > humanity and the animal kingdom that humanity worked so hard > throughout history and through culture to deny. We can understand much > of the discomfort that many of us have for the theory of evolution > when we recognize it as an unwelcome reminder that we will one day die > just as all animals die. > > While some atheists take religion be a mere crutch for the weak who > cannot face death, I think Becker would have been critical of such > atheists. Have they really faced the fact of their own deaths or have > they simply found other crutches? Some atheist seem to be feeling a > little too smug about their ability to live authentically without a > belief in an afterlife. I can imagine a scene where such a smug > atheist is perhaps cheering for a sporting event on television. > Becker's book is the prose equivalent to taking him by the arms, > shaking him and yelling, "How can you just sit there comfortably on > your sofa as though there were some real significance to who wins this > game? You are going to DIE some day! Stop and really think about that. > You are going to DIE! Someday it will be as if you never even existed. > You may be remembered for a time. If you are quite famous, perhaps you > will be remembered for a thousand years or more. But what about 10,000 > years from now? 100,000 years? In fact, one day the sun will burn out, > and it will be as if not just you but everyone you ever knew and all > of humanity had never existed." From that perspective, an engrossing > sporting event is an empty distraction from the outcome that we all > must face--our eventual utter anihiliation. > > If you have never been terrified by that thought, then perhaps you > haven't truly and deeply faced your mortality. Existentialists such as > Becker have asserted that we need to feel this fact on a profound > level and respond authentically to our eventual deaths in order to > truly affirm life. Perhaps smug atheists are no different from > believers in their inability to face their mortality. Perhaps they > have merely chosen different sorts of distractions and illusions. > Since Becker takes all human behavior to be guided by the need to deny > or transcend death by becoming a hero in a cosmic drama of our own or > society's making, this smug atheist for him can be no exception. Such > distractions if not illusions are necessary for survival of all > self-conscious mortal beings. > > What does the MOQ have to say about this "fundamental paradox"? Is > fear of death necessary, or can it be transcended? > > Becker takes this fear to be fundamental and necessary, but his > conclusions seems to follow from an ontological distinction between > mind and body. There is a fundamental paradox that can't be resolved > because our symbolic self is forever alienated from our mortal bodies. > Since the MOQ disolves this ontological distinction, the MOQ may > offer some insights which Becker, with his SOM assumption, may have > overlooked overlooked. > > I would love to hear what thoughts you may have on that idea since I > don't have much insight to offer myself, and I fear that I will die > some day. > > Best, > Steve > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
