Who Wants to Live Forever? And Why?

[Straw Dog]

I wouldn't call myself a hedonist, though I do appreciate pleasure for what it is. But there is also such a thing as excess, which is what hedonism was in some ways condemned as excess, beyond moderation of pleasure.

In its modern usage, hedonism does carry connotations of excessive indulgence. Basically, it only refers to the fact that we naturally value that which we find to be pleasurable. It forms the foundation of all higher, abstract values.

 

[muichimotsu]

Seems like even if you reached something like completeness, there'd still be experiences to enjoy. Siddhartha Gautama taught and such for the rest of his life after enlightenment in his early 30s, so clearly becoming enlightened, if we assume he was remotely historical, is not something that would ruin existence, though he also accepted his death fully, since he knew that things would not and could not last forever, which is something I retain as a secular Buddhist, the value of impermanence as something to make us appreciate things that much more in their transience.

 

[muichimotsu]

In its modern usage, hedonism does carry connotations of excessive indulgence. Basically, it only refers to the fact that we naturally value that which we find to be pleasurable. It forms the foundation of all higher, abstract values.

Enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction, yes, one can argue that. One can find pleasure in various things. The issue remains that if you lose a sense of time, I think pleasure becomes hollow, if nothing else. You can enjoy it in some limited sense, but you have forever to enjoy everything possible, so where is the telos?

 

[Straw Dog]

Seems like even if you reached something like completeness, there'd still be experiences to enjoy. Siddhartha Gautama taught and such for the rest of his life after enlightenment in his early 30s, so clearly becoming enlightened, if we assume he was remotely historical, is not something that would ruin existence, though he also accepted his death fully, since he knew that things would not and could not last forever, which is something I retain as a secular Buddhist, the value of impermanence as something to make us appreciate things that much more in their transience.

Seeking an ideal "completeness" is illusory and does lead to the hedonic treadmill. Gautama taught tranquility through a path of moderation in the moment and Epicurus would agree with much of it.

 

[Straw Dog]

Enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction, yes, one can argue that. One can find pleasure in various things. The issue remains that if you lose a sense of time, I think pleasure becomes hollow, if nothing else. You can enjoy it in some limited sense, but you have forever to enjoy everything possible, so where is the telos?

Have you ever experienced engagement (flow)? It has also been referred to as being "in the zone". During the experiences there is no sense of time. Studies in positive psychology indicate that flow is one of the greatest contributors to overall happiness in many individuals.

 

[muichimotsu]

Have you ever experienced engagement (flow)? It has also been referred to as being "in the zone". During the experiences there is no sense of time. Studies in positive psychology indicate that flow is one of the greatest contributors to overall happiness in many individuals.

If it's what I think it is, it's not a stopping of time, but a serious slowing down. Martial artists experience it, that sort of thing. That's interesting to think it can improve our life, but it makes some sense.

 

[Straw Dog]

If it's what I think it is, it's not a stopping of time, but a serious slowing down. Martial artists experience it, that sort of thing. That's interesting to think it can improve our life, but it makes some sense.

It can be experienced in any situation where a particular skill meets an equal challenge. There ceases to be discernment between "self" and "activity". There is no "time" during the experience of engagement.

 

[muichimotsu]

But again, time doesn't cease to progress, it slows down

 

[Koldo]

For 10 quadrillion years?

If video games are still created to that day, sure. Why not?

Please show where you've defined this body.

I can not show what i haven't done.
Can you show what you claim that i have done?

Hint: We have been talking about an undefined body with undefined properties. This much i do not disagree with. You just called it 'spiritual'. Nothing else. It is up to you though to show that i have said that such an existence will make a trillion years of life ( or any extensive ammount of time ) worthwhile.

 

[Koldo]

Did I say my opinions were anything but opinions? Mirrors don't reflect things perfectly, one might observe, especially with the complexity of life.

You present your opinions as fact.
If those mirrors are not perfect reflections, we need not to talk about them.

So this boils down to relativism, is that it? How can we have any meaningful discussion when you start making flippant comments like this without any grounded response?

This bold sentence is exactly how i feel when talking to you. You present your opinions and your observations as fact. They are not grounded on anything other than your own bias.

Maybe you could start qualifying then

It wasn't me who came up with it. It was Penumbra. So i don't see what would be the purpose of this.

 

[Koldo]

Doesn't mean that they are both equal in the ethical implications. Motivating people by something that they don't want to think about and just act on impulses is manipulative and cruel, since you're not taking people's ability to reason into account.

I don't understand where you are trying to go with this.

More postmodern thought. One's perspective doesn't determine objective facts about things. Someone can think their excess is moderation, but a rational observer could say otherwise.

Sure. But then we would have to determine who is the rational observer.

Accidents can kill you instantly, natural death tends to kill you slowly

Many accidents can kill you slowly.
Many natural deaths can be quick.

Temporary moments are all we have. You seem to miss that key point. We cannot appreciate permanence, because it doesn't exist, metaphysically speaking.

I cannot find meaning in a permanent existence because I cannot philosophically acknowledge that such a thing could exist and even if I could, it would not follow that I can appreciate it anyway.

So you ask us to think about an hypothetical immortal existence and then you dismiss it on the grounds that it doesn't ( and can't ) exist...

Go figure.

 

[Straw Dog]

But again, time doesn't cease to progress, it slows down

I wasn't trying to prove some physical property of time. I'm just illustrating that a state of happiness can be maintained without a set awareness of time. Some people have reported not even being aware of time at all during flow since they were so absorbed in their activity.

 

[muichimotsu]

You present your opinions as fact.
If those mirrors are not perfect reflections, we need not to talk about them.

By all means quote me as I've done this and I'll admit this. Otherwise it's a bald assertion. I won't deny that I'd claim these are reasoned out and not just being contrarian.

This bold sentence is exactly how i feel when talking to you. You present your opinions and your observations as fact. They are not grounded on anything other than your own bias.

One could claim the same about you, so this is the pot calling the kettle. Your skepticism borders on Pyrrhonism, you don't make claims at all, you reserve judgment so much.

It wasn't me who came up with it. It was Penumbra. So i don't see what would be the purpose of this.

The purpose would be to establish the terms of discussion. If we're talking spiritual, we need to get your perspective on what it is.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't understand where you are trying to go with this.

Motivating people with their desire to live forever is as fruitless, in my opinion, as motivating people with their desire to kill. And I'd say these could go hand in hand, especially if we're talking about the especially bloodthirsty. But then, battle would become pointless if no one could die, though we'd have to say whether people are entirely indestructible or not before we discuss that.

Sure. But then we would have to determine who is the rational observer.

Kind of a toss up at this point, I won't deny. But this shouldn't be strictly a competition, it should be a discussion

Many accidents can kill you slowly.
Many natural deaths can be quick.

The point is more that natural death is unavoidable, all things considered, whereas you can prevent accidents, but you can't see them coming. You see natural death coming.

So you ask us to think about an hypothetical immortal existence and then you dismiss it on the grounds that it doesn't ( and can't ) exist...

In my opinion, might as well qualify that, it doesn't and can't and shouldn't exist, but this doesn't mean I can't hypothetically acknowledge it, as I have in this discussion, with varying ideas about that.

 

[muichimotsu]

I wasn't trying to prove some physical property of time. I'm just illustrating that a state of happiness can be maintained without a set awareness of time. Some people have reported not even being aware of time at all during flow since they were so absorbed in their activity.

But there is still a technical awareness of time overall. Just because you have a moment, which is what this technically is, since it's a single instance in time slowed down, this doesn't mean that their happiness was in a moment outside of time, merely a different approach to time.

 

[Madhuri]

Seems like even if you reached something like completeness, there'd still be experiences to enjoy.

Absolutely. I think every experience would be joyful. It's very much a state of consciousness.

 

[Koldo]

Motivating people with their desire to live forever is as fruitless, in my opinion, as motivating people with their desire to kill. And I'd say these could go hand in hand, especially if we're talking about the especially bloodthirsty. But then, battle would become pointless if no one could die, though we'd have to say whether people are entirely indestructible or not before we discuss that.

What i still don't understand is where you are trying to go with this tangent. In other words, what is the relation between this and the subject of our conversation?

Kind of a toss up at this point, I won't deny. But this shouldn't be strictly a competition, it should be a discussion

It is a discussion as far i am concerned.

The point is more that natural death is unavoidable, all things considered, whereas you can prevent accidents, but you can't see them coming. You see natural death coming.

But that's because in our current conditions we can not avoid death forever.

In my opinion, might as well qualify that, it doesn't and can't and shouldn't exist, but this doesn't mean I can't hypothetically acknowledge it, as I have in this discussion, with varying ideas about that.

Considering you brought this up, you should at least provide an argument against the possibility of its existence if you are going to dismiss it.

 

[Koldo]

By all means quote me as I've done this and I'll admit this. Otherwise it's a bald assertion. I won't deny that I'd claim these are reasoned out and not just being contrarian.

In the following two cases you express your opinion as fact:

"But an inevitability we shouldn't try to avoid is death."

"When we start controlling life and death we begin to get an inflated sense of ego beyond what is beneficial."

In the following two cases you project how you view the matter into everyone else:

"In more relevant terms, the fact that we don't live forever means we are motivated that much more to make our lives worth something."

"The transient nature of life is what makes death meaningful"

One could claim the same about you, so this is the pot calling the kettle. Your skepticism borders on Pyrrhonism, you don't make claims at all, you reserve judgment so much.

I don't doubt that i am talking to you.

The purpose would be to establish the terms of discussion. If we're talking spiritual, we need to get your perspective on what it is.

An "immaterial" existence. That is the only relevant part of it when it was brought up in the discussion. If you need to ask for further details, you should ask Penumbra, not me.

It wasn't further qualified when i said there is no reason to assume it would get boring eventually.

 

[Falvlun]

muichimotsu, is your stance that no kind of immortality is desirable?

 

[muichimotsu]

What i still don't understand is where you are trying to go with this tangent. In other words, what is the relation between this and the subject of our conversation?

You brought up immortality as desirable because it could serve as a motivator. Or did you already forget that?

It is a discussion as far i am concerned.

But that's because in our current conditions we can not avoid death forever.

The best we can hope for is staving off death, not avoiding it entirely. Technology has limits and there's also concerns of profitability from patents, etc.

Considering you brought this up, you should at least provide an argument against the possibility of its existence if you are going to dismiss it.

The nature of existence is change, there are, far as we know, no exceptions to this, therefore the existence of a state of permanence is unlikely.