Redpill me on Death, /x/. I can't find any concrete understanding

>>19261618
There are answers I can give you and answers I'm not allowed to give.

You are correct, death itself is the cessation of one or more specific, aware vessels operating in a self aware way. There are multiple forms of death. Brain death, death of the heart and death of the spirit.

All I will say is death is the beginning at the end. Part of a larger chain of cyclic events, that facilitate the balance in this realm and allow those to travel to the next.

>>19261856
I'm positive that you're schizophrenic.

>>19261618
Good - you don't really have to know anything about "religion and shit" in order to fully comprehend death, because you're already dead - you just forgot.

Death exists as a necessary consequence of establishing an "ego," or "persona," or any such manifestation of singular identity. To create a being is to seal it to the fate of death, bound ineluctably to the set of all things impermanent and ephemeral.

If it casts a shadow, it is impermanent. Since the shadow represents the only perceivable example of two dimensions in this three-dimensional space (I know, don't get on me about the whole "4th dimension is time" shit, because while that may be meaningful, it's not particularly useful when considering the allegory I'm going for, here - although, full disclosure, it might totally get there in the future), it is really an example of the visual transition between dimensions. It's not even just a metaphor, because the literal definition of "shadow" means "an absence of light created by the intercession between a physical object and a source of light" (or something like that; I'm pulling that out of my ass, so don't bother googling it.), and the second dimension is literally defined as having no depth, but only length and width, and since any object must have the width of at least an atom (where you draw this line really might make a significant difference in this analogy, so I'm well open to any physicists or theorists positing greater/less subtlety), then the only possible existence of this sort of thing would be one that is not comprised of anything with mass - and since mass is conferred upon electrons, light itself would have to count... this is way suspect, by the way, as in I'm really quite possibly not as well-informed on the debate as I'd have to be to have a technically oriented discussion in the subject, but feel I have a grasp on the foundations of well enough to hold discourse within the domain.

Getting the red bar at the bottom - hold on...

>>19261618
It's unlikely that it has any more permanence than life.

File: lel.jpg (26KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x400px

>>19261618

>>19261867
You open your eyes but you do not see.

>>19261924
...continuing...

Point is, we're talking about death. Think of your identity. "Who" you are... it's tough, isn't it? Like, where do you start? Seriously, if anyone can fucking justify an objective deduction resulting in a logical imperative to choose one aspect of existence, I will fucking blow them. Twice. And swallow. Like, not that there would be anything whatsoever wrong about any of those actions (if you disinclude "swallowing" from the process of "blowing" by asserting that the bivalent fork at the point of ejaculation creates a forced separation, which would actually make a lot of sense), but as I am instantiating an identity enough to assert that I am a physical being with the capability to perform fellatio - the problem here is in asserting the implication of a penis upon whatever sentient being performed this feat, which is inherently misogynist (I'm not even meming here (is there a debate about the inclusion of the letter "e" in the word "meming/memeing"? Because I just had a very serious crisis about it right now, and I'd like an argument toward either to be preferred as the logical choice), I literally just became aware of a legitimate source of subtle institutional phallologocentrism by way of promising to blow whoever resolved that dilemma... that's like at least half of a Masters' Thesis project... what would you do: probably identify a way to break it down into three chapters, isolating a central linguistic phrase within a specific dialect and/or discourse group, then establishing a link between that phrase ("blow" as specific to fellatio within the context of the first-person conjugation by way of operation as a part of the verb "I will" I guess?") and the specificity of the male genitalia (you don't "blow" chicks; you "eat them out," for example), and then assert the larger social context of using it as a common bartering tactic, thus establishing primacy of the male as power-holder in a Focaultian framework of power dynamics)... brb

>>19261946
Okay - by the way, look *all* of this shit up if you doubt me, muthafuckas - I know my shit because I've been reading theory longer that most of you niggas been even displacing air like a sentient creature (that you're probably pretending to be much more than you either realize or are willing to admit to) -

... So, where was I? Oh, yeah - after establishing that shit to the patriarchy, you'd thus draw your reader back through the argument and then cite further research methods you'd use in order to explore this issue more fully. Then you'd quote-mine the articles that provided the most binary framework you could provide, polemicize one side of the issue, create a straw man against a percieved monolith on one side of an imaginary fence, and then pillory it against the flaming ball of truth you'd hurl as invective, thus destroying this atavism of a thought process or social construct. Then, rather than challenging the monolithic thinking, your professors would probably get mired in debate about the validity of research methods or usefulness as a contribution as "original thought to your field," if they looked at it at all considering the time-demands that are put on people in their position... although most have probably served in the tenure track for twenty years and really aren't tryna do shit anymore but while away the hours, because what the fuck does "retirement" mean when your entire identity is established by your reputation as a researcher, theorist, and overall "credible source?" You have to be a goddamn magician to live up to the expectations they place upon professors and other educators: if you're not serving the *specific* needs of the *specific* student at *any* time, then you're not living up to the expectations of the student, the parent (if applicable), and the institution as well! It's like a crazy pressure-cooker that threatens to hit a boiling point where the worker might just eventually conclude...

Goddam that red bar.

>>19261961
"Fuck it! Fuck all of you hypocritical, double-standard-having cucks of the goddamn system who hold expectations beyond that of any reasonable human beings on the fucking planet!"

... But that's not particularly productive. And it's besides the point. Death... we were talking about death. Yes. Sweet, ineluctable death. Because everything you can say about yourself is something that will die. By definition. Your looks? Gone. Your family? Gone. Your wealth? Gone. Your influence over the popularity of a struggling soccer team in the fields of Ecuador? Gone. All of this is ephemeral. Over time, it will follow the laws of entropy and disintegrate into the great void that looms below.

Much better, yes? Well, sort of: because not only is this perspective useful, it's also necessary in order to know how to beat it. Yes, beat death [insert clip of House's maniacal laugh here].

Imagine, if you will, a point outside all known anything. Yeah, anything you can think of - beyond that shit. Every action on the planet? Donezo. Every action in the galaxy? Finito-bandito (patent pending). How about the whole universe: that Aleph-Null of ultimate iterations of all possible universes resultant from every bivalent conjunction at the center of every algorithmic result of a sigma total of every possible state of wave-function throughout every known position of every universe as defined within the limit of a planck-length? Is that specific enough? Does that even make sense? Again, I feel compelled to alert you to the degree to which I feel like I'm playing with daddy's toys, here, and that I might be reaching outside of my caliber-range in terms of physics shit... I mean, I read a lot of John Gribbin, but for fuck's sake I had an English BA in Language and Lit. with an MA in Composition... I mean, I fully expect some blowback for the levity I might be taking in my drawing of conclusions regarding concepts of quantum theory... I think I'm digressing again. Hold on.

>>19261618
Death is just an acceptance that we all bear.
The inevitability that all things that come into existence must accept.
Stars, planets, rocks, animals... we all are subject to this inevitability.
As the Tarot states, Death is not the end, merely a transition from one state to another.
From old life to new, we become the bedrock for something greater, offering something more, giving new life a chance.
It is one of many possibilities, I can't state that my belief is the truth.
You must believe what you feel is right, your truth must come from your heart, we can only offer our own interpretations.
For me, I truly wish to believe in Death as a transitional creature rather than a permanent one.
That you are merely become something new, different, transitioning from one thing to another, changing and becoming something else.
Your consciousness on the other hand... that is a topic on religion and I have no idea on that shit.
I just care about the physical aspects of death.
Your life energy is given to death, bound by its own laws, but your consciousness, the perception you have is not under the same master.

>>19261982
Okay: so yeah - death.

It's not even that big of a deal, bro. Any aspect of self you can name, label, or imagine in basically any realistic manner is permanent in any sense of the word. It's a fucking void of voids when you get to the quantum vacuum, and there is the idea of some sort of nothing that's so *nothing* that we can't even really adequately describe it in words. It may represent a fundamental break between universes.

But then there's Zero Point Energy, which seeks to draw power form this void. To exploit the infinity that results in the stepping outside of the system from which this logical paradox arises. To exploit Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and try to cheat the causality of being created by that which you have created. I say "cheers, my friend - what's up, senpai?" I join your mission, mahnigga. I, too, seek to break the limits of physical reality and join the cosmic order. Word, and Asalaakem (sp?). Every secret order was right. The whole fucking thing is a giant metaphor, and every metaphor is equivalent in its explanatory power. Bitchez been trippin' this whole time for nuthin. Muthafuckin' names. That's all. Just a fucking name. It doesn't even matter, though.

Because that means there's something you can imagine that lives outside of you; that contains you, like a vessel. This is everything about you that you think should live on. This is every perfect moment you've created, every love you've had, every positive, warm moment that you cherish and affirms your decision to remain a sentient being in the universe somewhere: it's there - it's in your head right now. You can almost smell it. You can feel it make you want to embrace whatever sentient being is next to you and cry "I know, I know; the suffering!" into its neck like Nietzsche did to that horse (look it up, bitchez; I'm legit)... and that there is a way to represent it.

You can imagine that even if you can't see a clear way to do it, there are limits to human knowledge (hold)

>>19262011

...continued...
So even if you can't see it - you can see how a higher intelligence (we're talking monkeys/humans here; like the ability to solve pattern-recognition problems and other cognitive-based tasks (again, willing to take some shit here from people because I know that frames it in some sort of objectively provable framework where ranking and order are even possible... I know, but for the sake of argument it isn't exactly clear how to express the idea of inexplicable disparities between intelligences, right? Like, what better metaphor is there? Grape and three? Orange and nausea? So back off, imaginary adversary.).

So, yeah. Death. And, by the way, I consider the shit I say on these boards as my masterpiece, my life's most meaningful work, because surely by now they will be stored in the Akashic Records of digitality in the form of metadata and other such extrapolatable data after the problem of P v NP is resolved by proving their equivalency through abandoning the false binary of time as limited, so I don't fucking lie about shit insofar as I am capable of doing so. Death is really not a thing. Like, ever. It doesn't even exist. Now, there are logical reasons not to kill yourself (most obvious being that you really can't prove that you didn't get here by having done so once before, but just don't remember it, so why fuck with that, right?), so don't cite me in a suicide note (bottom line: you'll never have enough information to determine the entirety of consequences from your death, because you cannot adequately predict your life, therefore the probability of your fulfilling cosmic order or even just being happy at some future point is worth the risk of continuing to exist. QED, bitchez - no an heros...)... cont.

I see a red bar coming....

jesus fucking schizos, go take your haldol

>>19262030
...cont.

[Seriously, though, is this "comment too long" thing some sort of seemingly arbitrary length which actually has applications toward the ability of determining identity through length of time between attempted posts and posting ability to determine some time-flow of input that establishes a greater likelihood of human vs. artificially intelligent consciousnesses? Because I imagine that the filters would have to be infinite to determine the kind of information coming from an extratemporal source. It seems like only information transmitted at >c (i.e. quantum entanglement) would be able to be "decoded" at some point equally by that which is beyond c, because there is a limit at E=mc^2 by which light speed is impossible to return from, and once energy is energy, it is always energy, thus creating an entropic loop toward total energy states of the universe... I think I'm digressing, though.]

...but "death" would have to be some form of unconsciousness, but there is obviously no conscious perception of being unconscious, so as long as you can perceive shit, you are somehow conscious, and therefore alive. It's like some sort of fantastic quantum loophole that logically wins. It's called "quantum immortality." It might be total bullshit, but it also might not. The uncertainty drives its existence as that which is both increasingly improbable and probable, and that growing aporia is gathering toward an asymptote where we either choose everything or nothing, and since we are here to choose, it must therefore be something, which is a subset of everything, and thus which proves everything exists no matter how improbable its existence is. It's the paradox breaker of paradoxes.

Anything you can imagine exists - and it must exist because you can imagine it existing. Period. Your imagination is "something," and therefore something that can define itself. It is essentially "self-awareness." You have it, and you can interact with it, and so therefore... (cont.)

>>19262046
...cont.

[Insert Terrence and Phillip gag here]

You are infinite and death does not exist. Now, it isn't any part of you that you can flex or really understand in a very meaningful way, but it is a thing. It's this part of you that forms your story, your narrative, that you weave throughout the universe (or perhaps hop from thread to thread as you watch it unfold).

You have this inner-voice, this memory that holds records of all of the things you've uttered, and your actions (all actions, including shit you didn't know you did), and it allows you to see yourself at every moment, and possibly access the future variants of this algorithm of wave-function collapses. It is everything you've ever wanted. You will be there someday - that is the only faith you have to have in order to keep going. It is a logical certainty.

If you can imagine it, then you can imagine yourself imagining it. Therefore, you can continue this loop into infinity. Once you can do that, then you must logically conclude that there can be no limit placed upon the possible iterations of that recursion, and therefore that all things are, however theoretically improbable, not actually impossible in any phenomenological way, because in order to prove that, you'd have to disprove an infinite number of theories to the contrary, and therefore have an unlimited amount of time, which would prove that infinity must exist and that equally every probability must be played out eventually if time is no longer an issue, and that thus ALL MUTHAFUCKING THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.

...I dunno how many more, but I feel a wind-down here.

schizophrenic people make the most interesting posts.

>>19262056
cont.

So... yeah. Point is, death is a meme.

I know I'm being glib about it, but you have to let it change your life the more you think about it. I mean, really break down your assumptions and consider how likely it is that your first perceptions are "right." They're instinctual, yeah - but how much of instinct is just inherited epigenetic information that maps to neurochemical patterns which mimic stored "memories" of prior generations? Maybe in some sense, you've already lived those lives, and can finally detach from the need to overly saturate every whim you have in order to narrow down what you truly seek in this life? I don't know what you truly seek, of course, but whatever it is, I must align myself with a universe in which you finally get it, because I seek that place where all get what they want, and if I am part of that subset of all, then you are too...

It's a dreamy place, and I believe we will all get there.