Greetings, Steve --
I see you have changed the thread to qualify it as "The Quest for
Immortality".
Immortality connotes exemption from death, which can be taken to mean a life
that exists forever. This narrows your quest unnecessarily, inasmuch as
existence is universally regarded as finite and transient, whereas
"transcendence" implies overcoming existence (as a particular state of
being).
There is a significant distinction to be made between the concept of "an
immortal life" and the possibility of transcending life. I, for one, deny
that the individual self (or 'soul' in religious parlance) is immortal. On
the other hand, it seems unreasonable to me that value-sensibility, which is
the essential reality of our existential world, is extinguished at the
cessation of organic life. Indeed, if Value is an attribute of the absolute
primary Source, its loss or destruction on completion of the life cycle is
metaphysically impossible by any logic.
It's unfortunate that Mr. Pirsig chose not to extend his "metaphysics"
beyond the experiential universe. Had he offered some insight specifically
as to the "ultimate destiny" of man as it relates to DQ or the evolution to
"betterness", we would not be having this discussion.
A 2003 Harris poll of adult Americans showed that only 84% believe in the
survival of the soul after death. Of these believers, 63% - including 75%
of all Christians - expect to go to heaven, only 1% expect to go to hell, 6%
expect to go to purgatory, 11% expect to go somewhere else, and 18% "don't
know". I've long believed that the notion of what happens after death is
the pivotal issue in philosophy and religion, and that the rejection of
transcendence deprives almost 20% of our population of any essential meaning
or purpose for the life-experience, which is tantamount to nihilism.
"If anything in life is an empirical certainty, it is the fact that it leads
to death. If you believe that your existence may end at physical death, you
are accepting the idea that 'nothing' may follow death, and you are by
definition accepting the possibility that 'nihilism' is correct. Once we
realize that the acceptance of nihilism is a necessary consequence of our
humanistic beliefs, or non-beliefs, we will be able to decide for ourselves
if the conclusion we have bought into is what we really believe. Until we
understand the true nature of 'nothing', we may well have difficulty
appreciating 'anything', let alone a philosophy of transcendence." --
[Lifenotes]
It would be interesting to see what a similar poll of the MOQers might
reveal. I would like to frame it as a "choice" question along the following
lines:
Suppose that at your death you have to make a voluntary choice between the
following options:
Option 1 (Nothingness). You may choose that, effective immediately, your
proprietary awareness, including all memory of your life-experience, will be
permanently erased. Your "consciousness-of-self" will, in effect, return to
the nothingness from whence you came.
Option 2 (Somethingness). You may choose "psychic continuity" in a form or
mode that is presently incomprehensible to you, and that can only be
revealed by choosing it beforehand.
Which option would you choose?
Why don't you try this, Steve? I suspect it will enlarge your respondence
to this discussion.
Best regards,
Ham
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
