MovieChat Forums > The Fountain (2006) Discussion > Death is a disease. Like any other.

Death is a disease. Like any other.

posted 11 years ago by Innsmouth_Apprentice
95 replies | jump to latest

...And there's a cure. I will find it.

With The Fountain, Aronofsky presents a superficially seductive counter-argument to these sentiments, which are voiced by the movie's protagonist. Yet underneath the surface of The Fountain, one finds a grim and jaded man who has become a troubadour of emptiness and despair...an enemy of life.

I have watched The Fountain for the third time, with the specific purpose of testing my objectives, resolve, and worldview...my will to life. I hereby pass final judgment on this movie: it is a specious and despondent spectacle... a poisoned dagger in a pretty package.

The Fountain is a pro-death movie. Therefore, it's pro-disease, as well...One who genuinely loves life can only be disgusted by it...

Darren Aronofsky, this misguided, depressed, soul-sick Director, lies to the viewer. He steals concepts that belong exclusively to life ("awe", "love", "beauty"), and shamelessly uses them to praise death.

Death is not the road to awe, it is the road away from awe...Death is the end of awe, and of all other feelings of splendor that is life.

The weak ones, the sickly ones among people have sabotaged life for eons...They've used cheap mysticism to justify their acceptance of nothingness. They've even conjured up elaborate tales of other worlds...Other lives beyond this one..."Lives after lives"...

They've tried to sweeten the bitter taste of the morbid dish they are content to feast upon - death...

That dish, however, is ashes, bones, wails and sorrow...How Aronofsky must hate life, to serve this ghastly meal up to mankind. To attempt to undermine what is the only true essence of Life and Nature - the struggle against the Grim Reaper...

Aronofsky joins the skeletal ghosts marching away from all that is good and vital. Shifty-eyed, dishonorable devils...Trying to drag undecided others to the grave...What can be less awe-inspiring than the grave?...

You can smell the rot on this Director's "work"...Take care not to get used to it - you might start to like it, as he himself has a long time ago...

All wars have traitors...Death's minions will eventually be weeded out, however. Mercilessly and completely. That will start the road to true awe...

That will bring eternal awe! Eternal laughter! Laughter without looking over one's shoulder!..

The poisoners call death "the debt to Nature"...They are snakes with the basest kind of cunning...Our debt to Nature is to appreciate life! To extend it! To help it proliferate without end!..

To say that you must die to propagate life...how infirm and feeble the mind must be to believe such gibberish!..

I bring news of a road to true awe.

I bring life.

[–] MarshallStax 11 years ago

Living forever makes life more valuable?

Having no resolution to a story is preferable to having an ending?

Raging against the laws of the universe (entropy) is somehow preferable to living in harmony and grace?

All Art is pretense.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

Living forever makes life more valuable?

Life isn't (objectively) made more or less valuable by its length, friend. You're speaking about value from whose point of view now? Your perception is the only thing that assigns value to a thing...including the length of life.

And now, see, the context is: humans are going to achieve biological immortality eventually...

What your perception of that is is your own decision...

While we're on the subject of life: it's wonderful.

Life is splendid.

And if you don't get old - it never gets old...

Having no resolution to a story is preferable to having an ending?

See point 1.

Seriously, not a dodge, but again, whether an ending is preferable or not - is up to your own perception...

And.

If you find an ending to you preferable to you going on and on - does that mean you're bored with yourself, already?...

Could that be what you should be pondering, ChuckMunson?

Why it is that you want yourself to end?..

Raging against the laws of the universe (entropy) is somehow preferable to living in harmony and grace?

"Raging"?

Where'd that (very specific) epithet come from, and why?

Could it be that you throwing "raging" into here speaks more about your way of life than it does about anyone else's?...

Oh, and let's face it and be realistic: if you accept mortality, you're not going to be living in harmony and grace, or in anything, for longer than what, 60 years?

If that all you want to do with life - ...

Or do you believe in a fictional afterlife?..

(if yes) Ah, so you do want more life, but elsewhere?..

(if no) Ah, so Death has seduced you, too?..

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] MarshallStax 11 years ago

Raging"?

Where'd that (very specific) epithet come from, and why?

Hugh Jackman's attitude and words. "Death is a disease..."

All Art is pretense.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

I see.

Well, is it really any wonder that Aronofsky, whose affinity for dying, and giving up on life, mirrors yours, paints his ideological adversary (the character of Tommy) as "raging"?

He'd have to, wouldn't he? "Look how unhappy the immortal is..."

I'm sure you don't really borrow your perception of life and people from fictional movies, though, ChuckMunson...

Nor do you seriously believe that the subjective opinion of a Director with a death wish can be wielded as the ultimate characteristic of mankind.

Particularly of mankind that is of a kind that has never actually been observed by Aronofsky or anyone else in ours or previous times on this Earth,

i.e. immortal mankind...

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] MarshallStax 11 years ago

I personally have a hard time seeing how eternal moments spent in one biological shell can give life any additional meaning.

Life has only the value each individual places upon it. Each moment has value. How much value is up to the person living it.

Yin and yang is a powerful symbol; how did it come to exist? Duality is clear to all with open eyes. Light and dark, day and night, male and female, birth and death.

Death is part of life. To remove it is to change the condition of living into something else. How can we biological entities, who come from a universe where entropy rules, be able to comprehend and handle (for all intents and purposes) immortality?

And there is no hard evidence of persistence after death, so I choose to believe that, while it is possible, it is not likely.

All Art is pretense.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

I personally have a hard time seeing how eternal moments spent in one biological shell can give life any additional meaning.

I know you do, and at the risk of sounding patronizing, whereas I'm just being sincere: it's completely all right.

A lot of people think like you do.

We've been told, since birth, that death is inevitable. Accepting it as such, and producing reasons as to why it's not just inevitable, but sensible, beneficial even - is part of many people's fundamental programming.

It's even OK that Aronofsky feels the way that he does. Sure, I criticize him very bluntly in the OP - but a lot of that is for the purpose of being provocative, confrontational, engaging people emotionally...

However, the truth is that the ball on immortality is rolling, and neither Darren nor anyone else can stop it. I'm actually grateful to the poor man...for providing a spark to the present conversation...

Even calling him "poor" is, perhaps, inaccurate, overly superficial...needlessly condescending...Death is what makes him happy, at peace. I can pity him, but I'm sure he neither wants pity nor needs it - for nothing is easier than accepting death - except for maybe meeting it, and going to ever-rest to its lullaby, if that's what one is so inclined to do!..So Aronofsky will eventually get everything he wants, - and sooner rather than later (for several decades are such a miniscule period of time), - and what more can one ask for?...

(Wow, this comes off sounding like some veiled threat, or like me wishing harm on the man, doesn't it? And the mood of the post changes dramatically, to something unpleasant...

Hmm...I wonder why it is that speaking about someone's death, even from natural causes, has such a nasty, ominous ring to it...

Doesn't feel like the "awe" that death would lead you to is a place you really want to go, does it?..

That's what we should all do more of, I say...Feel, rather than rationalize...)

Ying and yang is a powerful symbol; how did it come to exist? Duality is clear to all with open eyes. Light and dark, day and night, male and female, birth and death.

You're evoking a brilliant and true symbol, and writing powerful and true words. I not only don't disagree with any part of this paragraph, but wholeheartedly support its content...

However, you and I imbue this symbol and these words with different meanings. Yes, death is the opposite of life. We can go in a lot of directions from this simple premise, and the yin-yang, though...

I say: it means that opposite the eternal nothingness (the void where life dissolves after ending) there should be an eternal somethingness...And in the blackness of eternal sleep (death) there is a circular whiteness of agelessness and awakedness (life)...

Regarding the yin-yang, by the way...funny thing: Taoism is perhaps the only major, old (and yet it's younger in spirit than any other! Now there's a good example of something forever young...) religion, where physical immortality has been a definite, literal objective, for hundreds of years!..

Maybe I'll use the Taoist word for "immortal" ("xian") as a pseudonym some day...

Death is part of life.

Saying "death is part of life" is similar to saying "hate is part of love". You're putting an equality sign between two opposites...It's very Tao, but also completely un-Tao. Now; see what I'm doing, in the previous phrase? I'm trying to demonstrate that if we decide to approach this discussion from Taoist perspectives (and I'm not saying you did, just for the event that you might - given the preceding paragraphs), it ends with sophistry. Tao isn't for discussing; it's for feeling, for seeing, for living...

(Also regarding Tao, however: me claiming to know what Tao is and what Tao is for means that I really lack true knowledge of it. "He who knows does not speak".

Yes, I still have ways to go...)

Also: the accurate statement would be that death has been the end of most life in our experience...

And yet, there exist organisms who can rejuvenate themselves endlessly (hydras)...What is Nature trying to tell us here?..

The context is:

Mankind is progressing beyond considering a crippling disease (aging) "a part of health", and calling a merciless assassin (death) "a part of (the joy that is) life".

To remove it is to change the condition of living into something else.

I say:

To remove it is to change the condition of living with having to die into the condition of living, as is. Pure living, with no fear...

Oh, and by the way, thank you for being thoughtful, civil, and bringing up interesting points. I really feel better and more inspired, after this last segment of the present exchange...

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] MarshallStax 11 years ago

How does your philosophy address entropy? It is observable and unavoidable. Since we are of the universe, we share its properties.

Barring any heretofore ineffable data (and there is of course an unknowable amount of it), our present understanding of all existence is that everything will eventually move to a state of lower organization and lower energy, eventually expending all known energy. This is universal death.

Since this is a model that we know works and fits with empirical observation, this is what I use for my cosmological model.

Unlike some (most?) people, I guess I require a greater threshold of rationality for my beliefs. No religion works for me, though there are schools of thought and philosophies that have much relevant wisdom.

But in none of them do I find a compelling argument that negates physical death. And as far as we humans can empirically observe, physical death is the end of our unique consciousness. It may or may not be, but I am moving forward with the following thought: if something cannot be proven to my threshold of satisfaction, then I will say that it is possible but currently unknown.

So... "The Fountain" speaks beautifully to me and my beliefs. I have been terrified of dying since I was young and something in this movie calms that fear. Just last year, I spent the last two months of my mother's life at her side, watching her go through mental and physical changes on her way. It was a profound experience and not an entirely positive one. It underlined the desire for me to live fully and make this life have meaning. If one can live with grace and enjoy experiences that feed our essences, then that time will make life worthwhile.

I am a finite creature made of mostly water and carbon. When my body wears down and it is time for me to stop being, I hope I will have led a life that touched others in a positive way and that I myself will have had some good times.

I think the ennui of immortality would be positively unbearable.

All Art is pretense.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

I don't doubt your logical capacity. And you have every right, and, indeed, every reason to succumb to the world's heaviness, and to try to carry it with grace.

I lost my Grandfather this September, under ridiculous, ugly circumstances. I'm no stranger to death, which is exactly why I despise it the way I do.

I am rationality incarnate. I have no superstitions, nor do I believe in any mythological deities. I "believe" nothing...I used to proclaim myself an atheist...now I don't even have or want to identify with that, because claiming to objectively know what drives or doesn't drive this world is silly and arrogant...I like to think I'm simply alive, and get more kicks out of that than many other people, so I want to keep going. That's about as specific as I could get about myself...I don't have preferences, stereotypes, obstacles...

I think there's only one real way to calm the fear of death. Which is - avoid it. I'd say that's about as rational as one could get. This is the one thing no one can truly dance around. Aronofsky does a good job, but others cope worse...

You could spend your life trying to adjust your perception of it, but, c'mon, let's face it: death comes too early, and you'll spend 2-3 decades feeling like an abandoned factory before you even get to it...and the whole thing is a big bummer, to say the least. You can "calm down about it", "accept it", etc etc, but it still reeks. There's no "awe" or "beauty" or "magic" about it. It's just a switch turned off...and it's just darkness afterwards. Everything else that's said about it is poetic license.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] MarshallStax 11 years ago

I agree; death is not beautiful or poetic or magical. It has a terrible finality, has happened to everyone who has lived and most likely will continue to happen to everyone.

The idea that consciousnesses will be lost forever is like looking into a yawning chasm; loss of the self is probably the greatest fear mankind has.

I think we agree more or less completely except that I believe death is not only inevitable but unavoidable. If the physical body doesn't die, then eventually, the self will.

What endeavor can be worthwhile if there is no consequence for failure? Why start a journey with a destination, even if that destination is simply "somewhere else"? Why compose or write or sculpt without the tick of the clock of our lives reminding us that something must be accomplished in the time that we have left?

I just fail to see how human culture or spirits can be served by a greatly-expanded lifespan.

Here is my question to you: why live forever? If it's simply for one to avoid the fear of dying, then fear is ruling one's life, and that's no way to live.

All Art is pretense.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

The past and the future are illusory. The present is the real, and the present equals the eternal.

Reality "begins". It may have happened already countless times, or not, or both. Whatever.

Elements come together under gravity and as-of-yet-unknown forces. Quasars, comets, black holes, stars, planets.

On a planet, rocks and gases mix, and match, and begin to twitch. Life springs up.

In 3.5 bln years, Life lies on a hospital bed and asks itself: "Isn't it time to move on?.."

"Move on from death to what's beyond it?"

Life covers the Earth. Uncovers the mysteries of matter and energy. Expands into the Universe...Makes itself longer-lasting and longer-lasting...Leaves Animal...leaves Man...progresses into God.

(Which it always was, of course. It just needed to find itself.)

Why do I want to live forever? To live forever. To be in whatever happens, always.

The alternative is known, and hollow. Life is the attractive option.

It's bad, what happened to your Mother. To my Granddad. To all the other good people who had to leave existence for no real reason other than their bodies wearing out...and no one knowing how to fix the flaws.

What I intend is for that to end. Pain suffered by one of us spreads among all. I may not "believe" anything, but I do feel that we're all one, Life, a whole.

And we will reign supreme and eternal, once we embrace our innate desire to do so.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] MarshallStax 11 years ago

You should enjoy this article, then:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345809

An interesting perspective to be considered and ultimately true (we all experience our lives individually and can collectively agree only on some of the most persistent and easily measurable phenomena), but this in no way negates "death".

All Art is pretense.

[–] JaraPT 11 years ago

I think I read somewhere that this line was Jackman`s idea. It wasn`t originally there but Aronofsky liked it so much that he left there.
But I am not sure if it`s truth.
If Jackman or Aronofsky, it is still a great line.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

We make the truth, nowadays...Man has tortured Nature under the microscope and forced it to give up its deepest secrets...

Seriously, when you look at scientists splicing the gene for fluorescence from plants into animals...or growing a liver from a stem cell... - do you really think aging isn't going to be overcome?

Now, whether you think it's a disease or not will still be up to you...

I think most people will find it nice to be able to extend life indefinitely in case they do agree with this (yup, great) quote...be it Aronofsky's or Jackman's...

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] flammy-200 11 years ago

Your name is Mike Zeus.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 10 years ago

My name is of no importance. I am primordial, unfolding, impending, and eternal. To put any name or identity to me is to skew my nature.

[–] infrasomnia 11 years ago

how old are you?

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

The atoms which make up my physical body are at least billions of years old. That's my true "age", your true "age", and the "age" of all humans.

We are all the age of space, time, and matter. Because, as I said above, we are all one.

However, if you are, for some reason, curious as to the commonly reported specifics regarding the conglomeration of elements which "I" am presently manifesting in and communicating with "you" through, i.e. the more traditional concept of "age":

There was an egg cell that was created in 1953-1954, when my Mother was a fetus inside my Grandmother.

That egg cell underwent ovulation and was fertilized in early 1981, and the baby that eventually developed to become my current body was born in the end of the same year.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] infrasomnia 11 years ago

if eternal life is scientifically possible then so should be resurrection, in the future far far away. that is, reconstructing the entire human body + consciousness from their dead remains.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

That's a very interesting thought.

I will be completely sincere with you: I know of no evidence that human consciousness remains linked to body remains after death. However, I don't call anything that our mind can conceive of - impossible. Yes, in the future, we may well unlock secrets that would allow us to find that link...

However, eternal life for us, living humans, - my one and only priority, - is simpler in comparison (in comparison!), as it is merely keeping the body machine working endlessly. Some organs aren't even a problem to replace anymore. Some, like the brain - are. Still, the question is merely how to rejuvenate it. Some animals already perform rejuvenation of their body cells, so we have clues scattered around us.

The next stage after this would be protecting the body against cancers and other diseases.

Once you've managed to establish protection against diseases - address all other potential dangers. Or do it at the same time that you're fighting the diseases. Falls, personal attacks, suffocation, et cetera. How? Well, we'd have to make the body invincible to all that stuff. Gradually, of course. Splice body cells with tough elements to make it indestructible. Remove its dependence on oxygen. Yes, at this point, we are becoming demigods already. And we are far from done, in fact, we are just getting started.

Anything that present dangers to us must be dealt with. Earthquakes, meteorites, tsunamis must all be defended against. I don't think anyone can claim it's impossible to do that...

In thousands of years, I assume Earth will be transformed into a giant spaceship, or merely have every inch of it technically equipped and controlled by man. You see where I'm going with this. We are going to prepare for and protect against EVERY contingency. I assume humankind would be run by scientists. Death (most causes of it), war, "entertainment", politics, money, possibly - sex, would all be obsolete.

In tens of thousands or millions of years, we might be branching out into the rest of the Universe actively. The human gods fill up the space. The human gods control the space. Our shape and form that far in the future are only to be wondered about at this point...

In billions of years, we are, perhaps, devoid of any physical form in its modern understanding altogether. We are a solidary, eternal, all-powerful Mind. We are a God...

Or, we still possess physical form. We still have to perform maintenance on our bodies. We are still subject to aging and possible destruction. We have to defend against the Universe folding in on itself or against running out of power...

Sounds exciting to me. Sounds fun to me. Sounds like an endless quest that is the most interesting thing you could ever imagine, to me...Sounds like life is an endless source of wonder, if you can only see that...Since I can, I know you can, too...Since I do, I know everyone else will, too...Because I'm not "separate". I'm not even an "I"...

I'm all life, and so are you.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] infrasomnia 11 years ago

if human consciousness isn't linked to the body (remains), do you think there is a soul?

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

I repeat: I know of no evidence that the human consciousness is linked to the bodily remains.

However, I am not one of those people who will presume to know or not know something they have no evidence or counter-evidence for...

Humans have adapted to living side-by-side with the Terrible Terror (death) that plucks them one by one - by a variety of means. One of those means is the concept of an afterlife, which is, simply stated, a way of keeping living after you're done living.

We have looked and searched beyond the BODY for too long. Soul. Heaven. Hell. Reincarnation. Ghosts. Spirits. We have come up with a huge number of ways to imagine beyond the body, haven't we?

I say - imagine WITHIN the body. The body, the brain, our mind are what we have. The body is divine. The body is magnificent. The human body and the human mind are the pinnacle of evolution, life, the Universe, and pretty much everything.

We are all ancient Gods just as we are. We are all made of starstuff. We are all starborn. Not our "souls", not our "essences" - our bodies and minds are starborn.

I am simply the one who comes forward with a plan and an intention and a compromise for the future.

I don't do it because I have to; I do it because I choose to. I choose to not because "I" have decided so but because the World lives through me. I am rock, quasar, God, Human.

And I say: death is an atavism. Most people have yet to realize this, but it will happen. It is happening.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] infrasomnia 11 years ago

anything is possible i guess. you said in billions of years we might become devoid of our physical form. and that's a form of "death". or transformation which is how i see this film. but regardless, dont you think that in billions trillions of years we or "we" might even invent a time travelling machine? if so, why do "we" from the future, gods if you like, torture "us" in the present time by not giving ourselves the answers to these questions or subjecting ourselves to, like you said, all forms of destruction and death? or in that case, why even bother living, since everything will be possible "someday"? whether to raise from the dead or simply be transported to some other universe/dimension in a form of some clone, etc? what do you think about cryonics?

[–] manco82 8 years ago

In other words, a teenager with pretensions of god-hood. Par for the course.

[–] smurray0 11 years ago

I don't understand how anyone can see this movie as something simply as "pro-death". Aronofsky is notorious for making movies that focus on characters with obsessions and neurotic behavior. The Fountain is a movie that combines history, science fiction, philosophy, and religion. It isn't anymore of a pro-death film than it is a pro-life film. It's about a character who is obsessed with escaping death and unable to grieve for his dead wife in a healthy way. He was too stubborn to spend her last moments with her and instead in a lab trying to cure her, but more importantly, himself from the fear of the unknown. The movie ends with him accepting that death is apart of life, it's a balance, not a disease plagued by man (that was that religious mumbo jumbo crap the Spaniards believed).

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

"Pro-death" may not be the best wording on my part, I admit.

However.

Death is a thing that killed every human that came before us.

You can choose to surrender to it,

or you can choose to fight it.

Aronofsky is presenting an argument for surrendering to it.

As you have yourself confirmed: "the movie ends with him accepting that death is a part of life, it's a balance...".

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] nostalgiask 11 years ago

So, if I'm getting this right and do let me know if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but there's a problem coming to terms with death? Instead of embracing death as a natural part of life, one should fight death even if it's inevitable? Why?

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

If you consider your defeat to be "inevitable", - well, you've lost already, haven't you?

Also...what seems to be actually natural for life is not to embrace things that shorten or end it.

The opposite would be unnatural...

Finally, the option of "coming to terms" with your killer doesn't smell so good...

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

"Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy".

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] Anticitizen 11 years ago

All I can say is that you apparently completely missed the point. The movie doesn't celebrate death or 'giving up'. The movie is about emotional acceptance and catharsis regarding death, in the face of inevitability.

In your post, you seem to engage in some sort of fantasy in which you believe that death is avoidable. In this regard, you resemble Hugh Jackman's character early in the film. It's unsurprising that you don't like it - it's a movie about an emotional state you haven't yet reached.

Hate to burst your bubble, but you and I are both going to die someday. That is final. Whatever medical miracles you imagine are coming, you must understand that nothing will survive the heat death of the Universe. You and everyone you know are love are going to die and eventually be forgotten. The Fountain is a story about emotional catharsis and finding peace in the face of that fact. It's neither 'anti-death' or 'pro-death' as you so childishly assume.

I'm sorry to say so, but you just didn't understand this film. Don't feel bad, you're not the first.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

All I can tell you is, if you accept things in life as they are, you'll hardly achieve anything of worth.

And if you accept death as inevitable - obviously, you're going to die.

As for being "childish", - no one who presumes to know for a solid fact (despite the current popular theories, which, before you ask, I'm quite familiar with) things like:

-the fate of everyone (!);
-that the Universe is going to "die";
-how it is going to "die";
-and whether or not someone can "survive" that (as if anyone can predict the scientific capabilities of mankind in millions...billions of years),

should ever throw the term around.

Furthermore...naysayers like yourself are actually a driver for the change I forecast, by the way, without you realizing that.

Are you familiar with how the American public reacted when the President promised to put a man on the Moon within 10 years?

Finally...I am not going to die. And that is final. Science is at a stage where that's a realistic goal. It's not a goal, even, it's simply the context. You can refuse to accept the context all you want. It hardly matters.

And you're, most likely, young enough to be able to see that glorious future when it comes to pass, and see that I am right.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] smurray0 11 years ago

I have to ask, are you religious? Because certain religions(particularly Abrahamic ones) believe life is eternal when you conform to one of their holy books. But you mentioned scientific advancements so I'm not entirely sure where you stand.

Although, even with scientific advancements over the next few decades, they'll continue to extend life spans but full on immortality, in our lifetimes, it's very doubtful (and not to the same regard as your man on the Moon example). Like millions before you, who refused to accept they're one day going to grow old and die, it's going to happen. Just because one chooses not to accept death as a natural part of life, doesn't mean the same thing won't happen to you. As another poster mentioned, you resemble Tommy in the first two halves in the film as a man who refused to accept the inevitable.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

Many religions have good ideas and ideals. To honestly believe in their mythologies is too irrational for my taste, though...

Re: immortality.

In our PRESENT lifetimes, i.e. within 50-60 years - hardly likely. However, that's not my objective for that period, either.

All you have to do is extend lifespan/rejuvenate body ~twofold to start with.

Then you gain a 100 years till the NEXT improvement...which gives you another 150-200 years...

You see the pattern.

True immortality and invincibility? Could be hundreds, thousands, millions of years off.

I suggest you stick around until then. I will.

Don't be so quick to "accept" anything the world pressures you to accept...

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] smurray0 11 years ago

Life extension is a temporary solution to an inevitable end. You can think you'll live long enough to the point where medical advancements will be able to extend your life for an additional 100 years on top of the current life expectancy. The world isn't pressuring me into thinking anything; it's the rational conclusion that every living creature (besides the immortal jellyfish) will die. You're being irrational by assuming that if you think the opposite of what the "norm" is, you'll be some sort of outlier with the ability to fight off death as if it's some sort of cosmic entity or disease. Where do you get this information? It can't be something you made up on your own because our information derives from a source.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

I don't intend my goals to just fall into my lap, having been done by other people. I intend to work for it (I DO work for it) and ultimately drive it.

it's the rational conclusion that every living creature (besides the immortal jellyfish) will die. You're being irrational by assuming that if you think the opposite of what the "norm" is, you'll be some sort of outlier with the ability to fight off death as if it's some sort of cosmic entity or disease.

See above. I don't just "believe it". I'm devouring biology, anatomy, genetics books. Those TTC lectures. Et cetera. I'm doing work.

Also, it's accepting death that is "irrational", since the survival instinct is what drives all life, and drove the appearance of life in the 1st place, as I perceive it. So conquering death is the next LOGICAL step for matter, which is now "living", and peaking in humans, but still flawed.

Where do you get this information?

I'm simply very finely tuned in to the Universe, I suppose.

I know you're not happy with accepting death. You can't make a convincing argument in favor of accepting death because non-existence goes against our nature as existing things, anymore than you can make a convincing argument against yourself. So why don't you take a stand against the feeble money/consumer/violence/entertainment/family-values/live-an-interesting-several-decades-and-go-into-the-hole/self-deluding/find-a-fake-temporary-purpose society...and go for something greater, and more importantly - something everlasting instead?

The starborn shouldn't accept death just because things are constantly dying around us...That's the test that all humans before us have failed. We, however, are going to pass.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

Death is life.

It could, from a certain point of view, mean life for someone else, but certainly not for you. For you, death is likely to be just plain old death, and, as death goes, - the end to your life.

If you believe in an afterlife, that's just a roundabout way of wishing for more life. However, I'm not so optimistic as to believe that what I plan for, - eternal life, - is just going to happen by itself. And happen through death, no less.

Life here in maya is in constant decay. Each moment dying.

Possibly...

I propose to forever fight off that decay.

That is what the film is about, letting go and surrendering to the flow of nature.

The true flow of nature is humans achieving immortality eventually.

What the movie is about is surrendering to one aspect of nature, - the most negative aspect of nature, - death.

I'll pass, thanks...

I mentioned elsewhere in this topic that there are organisms who rejuvenate their body cells seemingly endlessly. So, the precedent is established already.

death is an illusion

I've lost loved ones. It was as real as it gets. As for the personal experience: if you submit to death, in several decades you might find yourself lying in bed, on the brink of oblivion...and death might seem extremely real to you then.

we`re all infinite bliss/awareness experiencing life as humans

Exactly. On the condition, that we don't, you know, die...because we'd consequently stop experiencing life as humans.

So rather than this being a pro death film, it`s a pro life/nature film.

The thesis that a movie praising the termination of life is pro-life is a self-defeating contradiction, isn't it?

It`s about reconnecting.

Death means losing every connection you, as a person, ever had, have now, and might ever have. Unless you believe in an afterlife. Which I don't...as I have zero reason to. I don't claim to know whether it exists or not, but seeing as how there's no evidence for it, the logical thing to do is proceed as if it doesn't.

Also, even if I had reason to believe it does exist, I might still prefer eternal life here, on the material plane.

And if you consider going to oblivion "reconnecting", it sounds like you don't really like/appreciate life...because how could nothingness be better than THIS? Nothingness has no features, like bliss, or awareness...because it's nothingness.

Why not stop pretending that your death will have a positive side to it for you personally? It really won't...Unless you're one of those people who view life as suffering, I guess. And that would, again, mean that you don't really like/appreciate life.

There's no need for humans to keep dying. There are, however, endless reasons for humans to keep living.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

I know exactly what you mean. And it's true that we are all Gods, and we are all one.

As I was writing that previous post, I was assuming you're either a Buddhist, or, if you don't like to label yourself (Personally, I don't. I don't want to pigeonhole myself into any one of these groups out there, you know? I read Tao Te Ching, it's one of best philosophical texts out there, to me, at least at this point; but I don't proclaim myself to be a taoist or whatever; I'm, how shall I put this, unaffiliated. I'm practical is the only thing I can say about myself, really...), simply someone aware of, interested in, and identifying with the Buddhist texts.

You indicated this yourself with mentioning "maya", and your subsequent statements hinted at this further. So, I took a confirming shot with the "suffering" part.

(Now, you could be a Hindu or interested in Hinduism, because maya, the wheel, and suffering are important concepts in Hinduism, too, but I'm going with Buddhism.)

Now. I've recently read George Grimm's "Buddhist Wisdom" book (from 1978, I think). Three things struck me:
1) Buddhism really has the "Self" thing down to a T. You might want to read this book if you haven't - it's pure awesomeness in its description of the Self. (And it's short and to the point - under 100 pages). Helped me understand myself better.
2) Buddhism stumbles on the goal of life. Because all it ultimately uses this awesome knowledge for is coming to terms with death. (Understandable. Most Buddhists who've lived in the past have never had the chance to achieve what I'm proposing.)
3) I did suffer all my life...until I came to my current realizations. I'm not suffering anymore...I'm happy here. So I'm not denying my suffering - I'm simply not suffering...If you don't believe me, that might say more about your perception of the world, your vision of the future, your mindstate, than it does about me...

I'm taking bits from Buddhism and Taoism and everything else and running with that in a different direction. Not just because that's what I feel is right and good and true...but also because our current science allows me to do that. I'm setting realistic goals here.

I say we are already one with the Universe just as we are, our bodies and brains and all.

I say life is joy, not suffering.

And I say we're exactly where we should forever be.

As for this:

Connecting to/remembering our true nature is for me the purpose of life.

Well, here's my logic:

We come from eternity.

Our true nature is infinity and beyond infinity.

And the only true way to reconnect to it...is to instill it in our lives. Right here, in this reality.

Which is exactly what I'm calling for.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

It's not "the opposite", as I see it. It's all one...

It's a matter of perception. I don't deny that I have hardships and problems, but I view them as challenges, not "suffering". There: simply naming a thing differently changes it...

They don't "magically disappear" - I solve them. I control my emotional response, and solve them, and come out the better and stronger for having had them in the first place...

See, you're basically saying that suffering objectively exists. Let's say that IS the case. What should our reaction to suffering be? To hate it, of course. It's natural that we should love pleasure and hate pain. That is implied in those concepts, because they are fundamental to our psyche and behavior.

However, what if you go a step higher, and view suffering in a more positive light? Then it becomes something else. Then it's tests life throws at you. Death? The greatest kind of suffering for many people. For me, and others who think like me? The greatest test...

Some religions try to mitigate suffering by offering an afterlife. I suggest to not cloud the matter with imaginary after-death salvation, but to deal with the issue head-on. And to gain salvation through a constant process of fighting and defeating our would-be destroyer.

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 11 years ago

I feel that everything starts (as much as you can talk about "everything starting", anyway) in the mind, and you also place much stock in the mind. So, great convo.

We are, our bodies and minds, in material reality, though. Sure, our minds have the connection to the eternal and infinite, but that does not mean that they don't also have the connection to the fleeting and flowing.

And to sum up my plan: it's the reconnecting that you spoke about, but true reconnecting. The physical merges with the mental, the fleeting with the eternal...

And please recall that you yourself said that here, everything is in decay and dying.

So with that in mind, the truth is that death is a part of everyone's reality, not just my personal one.

We each have a personal reality in how we choose to perceive and approach that death, but the existence of death is, indeed, our collective reality.

And this collective reality I didn't consciously create (that I know of, at least)...the way it felt to me was that I was born into it. Some aspect of my mind may be said to have partaken in the creation...but as a person on planet Earth, I was simply presented with our present society, and the fact that people die. I was also presented with the fact that people have cracked the genome and can grow organs from stem cells.

And I connected the dots a few years ago.

As for death being "a symbol of my fear and state of mind"...Death is not a symbol of my fear and state of mind any more than a hypothetical great white shark circling my boat would be a symbol of my fear and state of mind. The great white shark would be a very real cause for fear, and in such a situation I would do well to adjust my state of mind to the fact that there's a thing that wants to devour me nearby. It wouldn't be a good idea for me to say "Ha! Symbol!" and go for a dip, now would it?

If you don't do anything about it, death will, sadly, destroy you. You can try to come to terms with your would-be killer by viewing dying as "reconnecting", "the road to awe", or whatever else takes your fancy, depending on your personal preference and poetic inclination...but no matter what you call death, unless you fight it, it will, as is it's way, quite bluntly, and much less poetically, kill you.

Changing your perception of death will not affect the event of death itself, as death is a part of the "material" reality. However, despite the fact that death comes from the outer, it will destroy your inner, too, as it takes away both your body and your mind - at least the part of your mind that is projected within the brain that is an organ in that body. And what you see as your human identity is likely to be encompassed by that part.

If you think that your identity will somehow survive your death, - in other words, that the mind which the brain projects will continue to exist after the thing that projects it ceases to exist, - I say that that might be wishful thinking...I'd sooner go with realistic thinking.

Now...regarding "changing the inner, not the outer"...I work on both the inner and the outer. I change the inner to change the outer...

Saying that all life is suffering, and that you should direct ALL your energies inside, seems to be based on a dislike of material reality. Which I do not feel. The "suffering" has ended for me. So I suppose that, according to Eastern philosophy, I have become enlightened, and while still on this plane, no less. Material reality suits me just fine...

(It suits me fine forever, really, but I think that eventually I/we might become something much more than physical beings - turning into God completely literally by merging our bodies and minds with the all-Mind that creates and permeates reality...Now, that's not a "belief" - just an idea...)

In all my modest inner knowledge endures a zealously enticing unshakeable statement.

[–] CaptainTiddlywinks 11 years ago

To say that you must die to propagate life.

Something must die to propagate life. The Universe, and on a microcosmic scale the Earth, has finite resources. For one form of life to exist another form is consumed in the process or at least crowded out. This is true every time you eat to sustain your own life.

As for your beliefs on the afterlife or lack thereof, in many cultures and religions death is freedom and the end to suffering. It is not the act of death or the corporeal aftermath that is graceful, it is the freedom from the bonds and suffering that life often imposes upon us. Even if there is no "afterlife" I am quite satisfied with that. However this is not to say there is no afterlife in whatever form that may be. Do not be so foolish to believe with conviction that you know the Answer.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 10 years ago

The Universe, and on a microcosmic scale the Earth, has finite resources.

define "resources".

and who told you this?

so many ppl nowadays know exactly what the universe is and what it has.

you need to share this with those silly scientists. those pathetic people are still puzzled about these questions, but you have it all figured out.

For one form of life to exist another form is consumed in the process or at least crowded out. This is true every time you eat to sustain your own life.

what if you, say, have a factory cloning beef and veggies for the entire population non-stop? not crowding anyone out necessarily in that scenario.

Do not be so foolish to believe with conviction that you know the Answer.

i never presumed to know the answer, whatever that is. i do know the Goal, though.

it is the freedom from the bonds and suffering that life often imposes upon us.

well if u dislike life and consider it "bonds and suffering", then u'r not really cut out for it, and then of course death might be the best solution for you.

[–] CaptainTiddlywinks 10 years ago

define "resources"

In this context, life sustaining matter.

what if you, say, have a factory cloning beef and veggies for the entire population non-stop? not crowding anyone out necessarily in that scenario.

Aside from the ethical and health questions of cloning, where are you getting the materials for this? You are aware you can not create matter from nothing yes? Time and energy are required to clone and raise animals and in fact the foodstuffs given to these animals would be able to sustain more people than the meat from the animal itself.

Also, again, we have limited realty space available on Earth in order to do these things. The more we provide for humans the greater need to continue providing for more and more as the population will grow. At a certain point there is an inevitability of critical mass and implosion.

i never presumed to know the answer, whatever that is. i do know the Goal, though.

You stated that death is nothingness and not the road to Awe. Being as you are posting here on the IMDB forum I hope I'm safe in assuming you are still a living being and therefore do not personally know firsthand the experience of death, so you can not possibly know these things to be true. It may be death brings us closer to divine understanding than anything life has to offer. We don't know.

well if u dislike life and consider it "bonds and suffering", then u'r not really cut out for it, and then of course death might be the best solution for you.

I did not say I disliked life. However, life is full of suffering. Everyone suffers. We've just become used to it as part of our everyday experience. Body pains, thirst & hunger, emotional distress, social & financial obligations, biological obligations (bowel movements) and so on. These things are all a form of suffering. Some people suffer unusually more than others. Rape, child abuse, war, amputation, disease etc. Suffering is more plentiful and more common than pleasure. This is a fact of life, scholars, theologians, historians and artists have been suggesting as much for millenia. Eliminating suffering is a fools errand.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 10 years ago

Eliminating suffering is a fools errand.

suffering is a subjective concept. some find joy in the struggle, some - pain.

do as you like. and die as you like. i certainly do not intend to make anybody live longer than they want to.

[–] CaptainTiddlywinks 10 years ago

It's somewhat safe to say involuntary starvation, thirst, disease, body wounds and the like are objectively painful and that very few if not none of sane mind find joy in those things. But your condescending tone is noted.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 10 years ago

Dismissiveness is different from condescension.

That dismissiveness was brought on, first and foremost, by the fact that you were implying that death might have some good attributes, and life, even with its difficulties and hardships, isn't infinitely more preferable.

Ironically, some of the good attributes you say death might have are associated with its imagined ability to transfer you to the afterlife - i.e. effectively give you more life...just without the "suffering" and all the difficulties presented by the real life right here on this plane.

Well...how convenient!
(I admit in advance that the above phrase is sarcastic. To spare you the bother of stating that you "note my sarcastic tone".)

I've written at length about the afterlife in this thread previously. So I didn't bother typing out the same things for the umpteenth time. To address it briefly, though:

You stated that death is nothingness and not the road to Awe...It may be death brings us closer to divine understanding than anything life has to offer. We don't know...Do not be so foolish to believe with conviction that you know the Answer.

Oh, that's "the Answer". See...that's not "the Answer" for me, rather, it's not "the Question".

Yes, we don't know. However, we have no evidence of an afterlife of any kind. So I don't consider it to be "the Question", - not one that I'm willing to find "the Answer" to at the expense of my life, anyway! I love life.

The belief in afterlife looks to me to be a wish for more life beyond this, actual life. I prefer to deal in facts, and I separate my wishful thinking from reality. And the facts and the reality are: we have no proof of afterlife of any kind. Therefore, I am proceeding from the presumption that it does not exist. I am not stating it with iron-clad certainty, though.

So, I don't presume to know "the Answer" with conviction; rather, I am living with the assumption that it's an "Answer" that doesn't suit me. I have no logical reason to do otherwise, and my will to life is repulsed by the possibility of death.

Death is an enemy of life. All living beings feel it with their very essence.

I don't need to know your "Answer". My "Answer" is that the Life inside me lusts for not ending. I am, therefore, in accord with the fundamental drive of all living beings.

Are you? I wouldn't say that. You are "quite satisfied with death". So you've lost that connection. You might want to regain it.

Furthermore, how about my question about how you know whether the "life-sustaining matter" contained in the Universe is finite or infinite?

Don't you think that in millions of years we will evolve to use different resources than now? In drastically different ways than now?

How do you know that our current understanding of finiteness of resources will even apply after a certain point in our evolution?

The truth is that no human knows such things with certainty. Now this is an objective fact. You're just filling in your picture of the world with things that you don't actually know. Am I dismissive towards such a worldview? Absolutely. Again, I deal in facts and realities. What I know is that humans are bound to delve much, much further into the Universe's mechanics and secrets than we've done till now. I know this because scientific and technical progress is accelerating awesomely. That is a fact.

Taking the position we are already at a level where we know how the Universe operates is both arrogant and ignorant.

As they say, it takes a wise man to know just how little he actually knows.

re: food:

where are you getting the materials for this?

I am currently more concerned with longevity for myself, and others who will form the core of those driving mankind's progress. We'll cross the "materials" bridge when we get there.

You are aware you can not create matter from nothing yes?

Well, that's a very unnecessary exaggeration there. Show me where I was suggesting anything of the sort. It's certainly a leap from my statement that cloning might solve our food issues, to yours about "creating matter from nothing".

Time and energy are required to clone and raise animals and in fact the foodstuffs given to these animals would be able to sustain more people than the meat from the animal itself.

Science is able to change that. You are not going to claim that you are aware, in advance, of all the future scientific inventions and innovations, I hope?

At a certain point there is an inevitability of critical mass and implosion.

The future inventions and innovations of mankind will solve the issues you indicate, and thereby prevent that "implosion". Problem solved.

Re: suffering:

Let's be honest. You, the person typing this, are not suffering of starvation or thirst, right? You are also probably not physically disabled, right? Your life is, at the very least, tolerable.

And if you think it's not, you should try to compare yourself to those people who actually do/have/will suffer.

(If you are severely physically or mentally disabled - then it's different. However, science and medicine will eventually give us the ability to cure any ailment and disability. And that's exactly what I'm going to do. Bring science and medicine to the forefront.)

So why wouldn't you want to extend your life for as long as possible, and become the master of your life and death, instead of leaving them to chance and circumstances, like now?

You keep appealing to other people's suffering, but could it be that you personally are simply not appreciative of life? That you fail to see its beauty and wondrous nature?

Like I said in the OP - Aronofsky's one such person.

Do you wish to stand alongside him and bang the drum of death?

Again - do as you like. If you, deep inside, want to die, - die. I said that last time, and you perceived it as condescension. Interesting position there, Cap. I say that you have freedom to do what you want, and to go on your "road to Awe", if you so like, - and you view that as condescension.

I say that this is a sign that you know that I'm right. And that you don't really believe in the stance you're taking.

How else is one to interpret the fact that when I say that you are free to follow your ideas to their logical conclusion, you become offended?

Yes, I am aware you said that you "don't dislike life". You are not necessarily anti-life, and I don't unambiguously label you as such. Note the question marks at the end of sentences in which I ask you to clarify your position.

However, the views you have expressed so far are starkly not anti-death. And you have certainly criticized life, with all of its suffering, at length.

So my responses to you are responses to a person who, on several levels, accepts death.

It is not the act of death or the corporeal aftermath that is graceful, it is the freedom from the bonds and suffering that life often imposes upon us. Even if there is no "afterlife" I am quite satisfied with that.

And there's the proof. You are quite satisfied with death. How can you be? It's against every natural instinct of ours, and of all life, to be satisfied with death.

Accepting death is unnatural. So why do you do it? Because life is oh-so-harsh? However, in that case, how can you claim that you "don't dislike life" if you are quite satisfied with death, which ends that life?

I guess you're "satisfied" with things the way they are. You live a little, and then you die. No ambition, desire, instinct to break out? You're "satisfied" with what you get? Never ask for more? Don't dare ask for more?

You've been programmed not to ask for more.

Do you dare change your programming? To look to the stars?

Don't you want something more than another 60-70 years and then oblivion? (Suppose it is oblivion and not an afterlife.) Oh, but you are quite satisfied with oblivion, aren't you?

Well, then, doesn't it seem to you that you lack a sense of purpose?

My purpose is, among other things, to, indeed, eliminate all known kinds of human suffering completely. Mortality due to aging and disease is just one of the many issues we will tackle, over thousands and millions and billions of years.

You, as many other people who think that it's an impossible goal, will change your minds when you see it realized. That's just the reality. The future stemming from the present. You can deny it - it is your right. However, you will eventually change your mind and get with the program.

Eliminating suffering is a fools errand.

Accepting suffering and death and other limitations is anachronistic. We are made to strive for greater things. It's in our nature.

[–] thisempty 10 years ago

Michael, i've been reading this thread and its great, i never saw someone with your point of view, your arguments. But i like them.
A few questions:

You write like you will achieve immortality in your lifetime, at least that's the idea i get. How could you possibly achieve that? I believe science can get there someday, but i don't think we're quite there yet. I don't know if it will take 100 or 1000 years, but certainly not in our lifetime (i'm 35, don't know your age).

I have some health issues and i love my family, and i can tell you that my all life is ruined by the thoughts of dying. I live in fear of dying, of my mother dying, my father, daughter, etc.
I feel different from other people, because everyone knows that they will die and that their parents will die, sons will die. Still, everyone lives without thinking of that. Its not them who are wrong, its me. Because we can't do nothing about it, just accept it and try to enjoy our time here with our loved ones. BUT I CANT DO THAT!! Sometimes i'm happy with my family and i look at my mom and i think one day she'll die and i just get depressed, and every day of my life is like that. I DON'T ENJOY LIFE BECAUSE I'M OBSESSED WITH DEATH.
I'm going to see a shrink because of this, because i'm having panic attacks and extreme anxiety problems. But no shrink will change this feeling i have...
I'm not religious, i think death is the end, and that just kills me (no pun intended).

I look at how things were when i was a child, and look at how things are now. Technology and stuff. And its so sad to have to die and don't get to see the future.

- - - - - - - -
Sorry about my English! Even though i bet its better than your Portuguese...

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 10 years ago

You write like you will achieve immortality in your lifetime, at least that's the idea i get. How could you possibly achieve that? I believe science can get there someday, but i don't think we're quite there yet. I don't know if it will take 100 or 1000 years, but certainly not in our lifetime (i'm 35, don't know your age).

Good question. (I'm 32.) We achieve rejuvenation and lifespan extension gradually, not instantaneously. The first significant breakthroughs will be reached within 20-25 years. That will give us more time to get to the next level than we have with the current life expectancy, and effects and risks associated with aging.

The scheme, in very basic terms, is to get 50 extra years within the next 25, then get another 100 within that 50, and so on - to infinity and beyond.

I DON'T ENJOY LIFE BECAUSE I'M OBSESSED WITH DEATH.

Our society to come will have a different perspective on "enjoying life". Today's people, including myself, - and I've eliminated a lot of my social programming already, but there's much more remaining that I still need to "rewire", - squander a lot of time on useless "entertainment" (not all of it is useless, mind you, - some is very useful and possibly essential, - but a lot is useless, and often severely damaging), because the dominant global philosophy is that you should have all the "fun" you can while you can. And you do the "non-fun" stuff in order to have the opportunity to do the "fun" stuff.

I am gradually moving towards a philosophy and mode of behavior that erases this distinction, and is more in the spirit of life as it exists in the non-human animal kingdom. An animal like a leopard or a house cat doesn't mentally distinguish between "enjoying" and "not enjoying life". They do what they need to do, and relax somewhat when the critical needs are met, but they never "get lazy" or "procrastinate" when they have to do something fundamental like provide food for themselves, and they instinctively choose the best meal they can get nutrition-wise, and they don't sleep or sit around in the face of certain danger. So how can we, knowing that we are faced with death from so many directions, and that aging brings certain death with it, sit and do nothing about it? It goes counter to the essence of life.

Our intellect gives us the benefit of forecasting the danger from things like disease and aging. Could it be that we're obligated to make the most of that benefit?

So we will eventually stop wasting our time. Death is a killer of us, and we will declare war on it and defeat it.

There's no use trying to pretend that it's not there, or that it's somehow "OK". You are right to be obsessed with death. Take it less seriously than you should and it will certainly kill you. Just don't let your obsession drive you into a lethargic trance, akin to that of a rabbit in the headlights. Calm your thoughts and take action - but don't lose that sense of urgency! It is what will save your life. It is the most precious trait you possess.

There is an enemy that surrounds us. It killed all those who came before us, and, lest we act, it will pick us off, as well. The Mind must be attuned to the Universe and used for decisive defense and counter-attack. We must evolve.

Life, pulsating within you together with the cosmos and all that ever was, is, and will be, is its own reason. It's a lust for life that we will move towards that will be both a return to the roots and a door opening to godhood.

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 10 years ago

ANIMUS IMPERAT

THE MIND RULES

[–] Innsmouth_Apprentice 10 years ago

I think over again my small adventures,

My fears, those small ones that seemed so big,

For all the vital things I had to get and reach,

And yet there is only one great thing,

The only thing, -

To live to see the great day that dawns,

And the light that fills the world.