Best thing I ever created with Pieter was stallmanism.com a few years ago. And the beers we drank over the years discussing a wide range of topics while typically being surrounded by people that started to shake heads after a few minutes of listening in. Moments that will survive everything. Thank you, Pieter. Love you.
A Protocol for Dying
191–200 of 347 posts
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#192Another perspective, adopted by millions is simpler, and more joyful to explain. This life is temporary, but a life with Christ in heaven is eternal. Our christian funerals are often celebrations about a journey on earth well fought.
I would offer an inverse to Pascal's wager as a counterpoint.
If there is any chance that our life on earth is the only chance gets on existence, then one should spend it contemplating good life here on earth and not concentrating on a plausibly false hope.
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously you try to explain, but what was objected to above is making excuses for death. Death sucks, and trying to pretend there's some good to balance that out is a lie. That said, I'm not a parent, and I realise it's easier to be idealistic in theory.
But there _is_ some good to balance death out, it's called life. And the lego analogy captures this idea perfectly and quite appropriately for a 5-year-old.
That's not what I meant. The good in life is not inherently contingent on death.
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
I lost a brother who has two girls. They were very young when it happened. It was a sudden death. Gone in less than a day. You never get an answer to the why. The Lego analogy works because it tells the child that life ends. It doesn't explain why. Just the fact. And that's ok. Why did my brother die? Everyday I ask myself that very same question and have yet come to an answer. His daughters have asked me why too. I…
>It doesn't explain why. The aspect of it that people are objecting to is that it does try to explain why. It says "Your father needs to go back in the box so we can make other people", which simply isn't true.
I do understand that and I'm not making a religious statement. Merely stating facts with Legos. The matter we are made up of are the Legos. We are the sum of the parts. When we die those parts go on to be part of other things. Now why that happens is that science has not yet caught up :)
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#195Another perspective, adopted by millions is simpler, and more joyful to explain. This life is temporary, but a life with Christ in heaven is eternal. Our christian funerals are often celebrations about a journey on earth well fought.
It sounds beautiful. I guess part of us wants to continue to exist, even after our death. I must point out, as much as I agree with the sentiment, many people give up a happy life on earth (forbidden food, no premarital sex, tithes etc..) for the sake of religion.
A happy life and religion are not mutually exclusive. Oh the horror of controlling your impulses and donating a little bit of money.
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction. That it is currently inevitable does not mean it doesn't suck, or that we shouldn't try to change that.
>Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction. Life and death are part of the same simultaneous process. For a living thing to grow, it must die at the same time. Death is life's change agent. "Controlled death of cells is as much a part of embryonal development as is cell proliferation and differentiation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8801138
But we're not talking about cell death. We're talking about the death of sentient entities.
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Death is not a part of life, it is its destruction. Life and death are part of the same simultaneous process. For a living thing to grow, it must die at the same time. Death is life's change agent. "Controlled death of cells is as much a part of embryonal development as is cell proliferation and differentiation." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8801138
But, do you agree that the part where the whole human mind (not just some cells) has to die---a soul annihilated permanently---is not really a good thing, even if it happens to be the state we find nature in?
Not necessarily. The "whole human mind" and the "soul" are very metaphysical concepts so it's tough to say.
In my estimation, the "whole human mind" or "soul" of a person is not annihilated when someone dies. Our minds are an amorphous network constantly in intercourse with and dependent upon eachother.
When a loved one dies, all of the love they gave and words they said exist in some form or another within us, within our hearts and minds which we then pass on to others in turn.
Picture a field full of one type of flowers. If that one type of flowers grows old but never dies, soon enough there is no room for newer or better flowers to grow and evolve.
So as old minds pass away, new minds are born which draw upon the old minds' knowledge but also build upon that knowledge with newer and better ideas.
Alan Watts - Acceptance of Death
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#198From personal experience, I can very much relate to and agree with this piece. My father went through a similar process: cancer (melanoma) – two years of treatment and coming to terms with the facts – euthanasia. As a family, we have been very matter-of-fact about it, which was definitely something he encouraged and participated in. We frequently talked about all aspects of his disease, the future, how it affected hi…
[deleted]
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously you try to explain, but what was objected to above is making excuses for death. Death sucks, and trying to pretend there's some good to balance that out is a lie. That said, I'm not a parent, and I realise it's easier to be idealistic in theory.
But there _is_ some good to balance death out, it's called life. And the lego analogy captures this idea perfectly and quite appropriately for a 5-year-old.
Actually, all of life is contingent on death, not just the good in it. We sustain ourselves by consuming other dead beings, be it animals, plants, fungi, etc. They themselves lived thanks to the death of other beings and so on.
The lego analogy expresses the fact that we are not different from these other beings, and that we too must die so that life can continue. The death of an individual in this chain is always painful, but as part of the whole, it is just as it should be.
Re: A Protocol for Dying
#200These words hit close to home. My dad just passed away from cancer/diabetes in Florida and had to endure the "barbaric torture of decay and failure". Basically 4 months suffering in bed until he eventually denied eating anything and his liver failed. I asked the nurses repeatedly if there was anything to help him go or pass and there was nothing. Something's got to change in the US, we treat animals better than human…
Same situation in Italy. Unfortunately. Anyone wanting a be euthanised has to travel Switzerland, which is not always feasible at end-of-life (also considering that the whole procedure costs ~20k$). I spent my civil service as an EMT and only once I saw a doctor giving the daughter of a terminally ill woman a piece of advice I will never forget (this woman was in such bad conditions, she simply wasn't there anymore a…
One thing I've heard of is people "leaving the bottle open" next to the bed. That way the ill person can "accidentally" decide for themselves.