An afterlife and forgetfulness

[Belinda]

If one is not totally satisfied with their present life, if it is not without regret or disappointment and they do not know they have lived the best life they possibly could, and especially if they want another life they think will be better, they have failed in the only life they will ever have.

Only the individual whose life it is can evaluate that life as success or failure. Every individual is different and what will be success for one may very will be failure for another. Though they are cliches, they are true: "one man's trash is another man's treasure," and, "one man's poison is another man's meat." It's one reason all ideologies are wrong. There is no one way to live that is right for all human beings.

sure there is, its called faithful to what you have agreed to or (set of morals). contracts marriage business society laws, giving your word, so on and so forth, that is the correct way to live. and those agreements are not with one's self, its with others.

So for you, morality is some kind of social ideology, and one's own life is of no particular purpose or value sans society? The name of that view is collectivism and it is used to justify any oppression of individuals for the, "good of society," or any, "others," who are in a position to decide what is good for them.

I deal with others all the time to our mutual benefit without ever being a threat of any harm to each other without requiring some agency of force dictating (with laws) how any individual chooses to live their life--and they all choose differently because everyone is different.

In your view, what should be done with those who do not agree?

Moral behaviour is for the purpose of cooperative collectives enhancing individuals' lives. Cooperatives are instantiated by a powerful individual or collective who see that cooperative behaviour would produce more than the sum of individual labours.

[RCSaunders]

so much for your role model status

Good! The last thing I want to be is anyone else's role model. No one can succeed in lfe by trying to copy how someone else lives.

As I just wrote to DPMartin:

Every individual is different and what will be success for one may very will be failure for another. Though they are cliches, they are true: "one man's trash is another man's treasure," and, "one man's poison is another man's meat." It's one reason all ideologies are wrong. There is no one way to live that is right for all human beings.

And then there are those who would say that all words are empty when all feelings are disregarded. Wouldn't categorize that as "living" to begin with.

It's not, "disregarding," feelings, it's identifying their true nature. All feelings (emotions and desires) are physiological reactions to what one is consciously perceives, thinks, or chooses. They are non-cognitive and only reflect one's physiological state at any time. They are very useful in gauging both one's physiological and psychological health because when either one's body or one's thinking and values are wrong bad feelings are produced. The feelings can never, on their own, tell one what is wrong. If the problem is physical, one must examine their body to discover the problem. If the problem is psychological, one must examine their thinking and values to discover the conflicts and mistakes in their thinking, values, and choices that are causing the problem.

It is when thinking and reasoning one must ruthlessly banish feelings and desires and not allow them to distort one's thinking or determine one's choices. It doesn't matter how much one wants something or how good they feel about something, if it's wrong, it's wrong, and no feelings can change it. Almost every wrong self-destructive thing anyone has ever thought or done is because they allowed some desire or emotion they felt justify defying what their own best reason told them was wrong.

[RCSaunders]

Huffiness and careless language don't advance your arguments. If I thought you were an idiot I'd not even reply to you.

I'm not making an argument, love. I'm telling you what my position is. I really don't care whether you or anyone else agrees with or likes it, because truth is not determined by one's emotional reactions which are usually in conflict with reason.

Remorse is good.

I can see why you'd think so, but I'd hope you had little reason to experience it. It's best to live in a way that results in no regrets. Always do what you know is right (not, "feel," is right), and if you don't know it's right, it's wrong. That's how to live without regrets. Ignorance is never an excuse.

Emotions are necessary to maintenance of life. Unthinking reactions to emotions are bad, and emotions that have been subjected to reason are good.

Feelings should be recognised and if possible used as guides to future behaviour. There need be no conflict between feelings and reason. Emotional reactions are not the same as emotions that have been subjected to reasoned reflection.

Ignorance is not an excuse for competent adults who should own their actions, but ignorance(and cowardice) are common causes of bad choices.

That is almost exactly what I just explained to Atla (post immediately above this). As long as one knows their feelings are non-cognitive (i.e. cannot tell one what is true, right, or good) and are only reactions, not some kind of, "mystical intuitional knowledge," one must pay attention to their feelings, just as they must all other experience.

[seeds]

The last thing I want to be is anyone else's role model. No one can succeed in lfe by trying to copy how someone else lives.

Such an ironic statement coming from someone who expends such a vast amount of effort in trying to convince others that what they believe, and how they choose to live their life in accordance with their belief...

(especially if they lean toward theism, or any form of "mystical" thinking)

...is wrong and worthy of your disdain and overt ridicule.

In other words, your complete lack of self-reflection is blinding you to the fact that your entire forum persona comes across as someone who believes that if everyone simply adopted your (materialistic/nihilistic) philosophy of life (i.e. became copies of you), then the world would be a better place.

Someone is in desperate need of a mirror.
_______

[RCSaunders]

In other words, your complete lack of ...

I have many shortcomings. I can live with them.

[Dubious]

Why wouldn't you read more? What would you recommend one do with their time to improve themselves?

There's a huge difference between merely reading and actually thinking. Though the two are aligned to some extent - depending on what one reads - the two by no means overlap. They remain separate in function, though operating as thought catalysts reinforcing each other.

So by all means read your 100 books a year. They seem to have done nothing in enhancing your thinking apparatus since you incessantly keep proclaiming the same stuff as if there is never anything more to think about.

Here's a quote by Nietzsche, who definitely knew how to think...

Philology itself, perhaps, will not “get things done” so hurriedly: it teaches how to read well: i.e. slowly, profoundly, attentively, prudently, with inner thoughts, with the mental doors ajar, with delicate fingers and eyes.”

Your kind of mass volume reading diminishes the concentration and time required for understanding the content of what's written; it substitutes quantity for quality thinking that by affirming the former you've made yourself superior regarding any truth implications.

But the fact remains, there is little point in reading if it doesn't simultaneously cause one to think.

[RCSaunders]

Moral behaviour is for the purpose of cooperative collectives enhancing individuals' lives. Cooperatives are instantiated by a powerful individual or collective who see that cooperative behaviour would produce more than the sum of individual labours.

Then there is hardly anything more evil than what you call, "moral behavior."

Keep your moral behavior and I'll go with the immoral who are never a threat of harm to anyone else and have no interest in others except whatever relationships they can individually and voluntarily enter into to their mutual benefit. Your so-called collectivist morality is just an excuse to oppress and use other individuals who, "do not agree," for the sake of the darlings of the social system. Your, "morality," is the fundamental principle on which all oppressive and cruel governments are founded.

[Walker]

I find myself forgetting many things, places I've been, things I've done, people I've known. What happens when I completely forget everything? What happens when I die? If there is being after death, then what could/would it be like without any memories or sensory experience?

To be found in forgetfulness is to lose all to gain all.

I find myself forgetting many things, places I've been, things I've done, people I've known. What happens when I completely forget everything?

You do not think, <what have I forgotten>, because the moment you think that, then you have a thought to remember. How do you not think that thought, or any other? Obviously, not with thought.

What happens when I die? If there is being after death, then what could/would it be like without any memories or sensory experience?

- You can only know life, and you can know life without memories or sensory experience, followed by the return of sensory experience, and the return of the continuity of memories to fill in the blind spots, no matter how near the beginning of those memories.

- Awareness can even trace the rebuilding of the continuity into consciousness, then into the body, then into the motions required in daily life to maintain the contiguous memory of identity, which is where it’s at in the dualistic world of relationship, particularly if the motion and identity both combine into something like on-the-job electrician, or bull-fighting, if fighting the bull be important.

[Belinda]

Moral behaviour is for the purpose of cooperative collectives enhancing individuals' lives. Cooperatives are instantiated by a powerful individual or collective who see that cooperative behaviour would produce more than the sum of individual labours.

Then there is hardly anything more evil than what you call, "moral behavior."

Keep your moral behavior and I'll go with the immoral who are never a threat of harm to anyone else and have no interest in others except whatever relationships they can individually and voluntarily enter into to their mutual benefit. Your so-called collectivist morality is just an excuse to oppress and use other individuals who, "do not agree," for the sake of the darlings of the social system. Your, "morality," is the fundamental principle on which all oppressive and cruel governments are founded.

I understand your point of view, your objection. The cooperative principle must always reflect back on to the more basic principle of the needs of individuals. While needs of individuals are the foundation of moral good, cooperative behaviour is the best means of achieving the needs of individuals. Obviously there must be safeguards against dictators seizing power.

Laissez Faire gives would-be dictators an easier ride than does democracy.

[RCSaunders]

Moral behaviour is for the purpose of cooperative collectives enhancing individuals' lives. Cooperatives are instantiated by a powerful individual or collective who see that cooperative behaviour would produce more than the sum of individual labours.

Then there is hardly anything more evil than what you call, "moral behavior."

Keep your moral behavior and I'll go with the immoral who are never a threat of harm to anyone else and have no interest in others except whatever relationships they can individually and voluntarily enter into to their mutual benefit. Your so-called collectivist morality is just an excuse to oppress and use other individuals who, "do not agree," for the sake of the darlings of the social system. Your, "morality," is the fundamental principle on which all oppressive and cruel governments are founded.

I understand your point of view, your objection. The cooperative principle must always reflect back on to the more basic principle of the needs of individuals. While needs of individuals are the foundation of moral good, cooperative behaviour is the best means of achieving the needs of individuals. Obviously there must be safeguards against dictators seizing power.

Laissez Faire gives would-be dictators an easier ride than does democracy.

There cannot be a dictator without a government, a collective of complicit individuals, "cooperating," to bring coercive force to bear on those repressed by that government. Every government is a typical collective effort.

It is not possible for any individual to become a dictator as an individual. Dictators are only possible where there is some cooperative (complicit) collection of others to support the dictator.

No individual oppresses any society, starts wars, or enslaves others. Of course their are individual criminals, but compared to the horrors inflicted on individuals and societies by the collective efforts of governments, the worst of individual criminals are petty.

Only individuals who seek nothing but what they can earn or produce and trade with other producers can cooperate in a way that benefits everyone involved in that cooperation, because it is entirely voluntary. Every other collective operation is not cooperation, but complicity in some corrupt effort to control others.

[DPMartin]

If one is not totally satisfied with their present life, if it is not without regret or disappointment and they do not know they have lived the best life they possibly could, and especially if they want another life they think will be better, they have failed in the only life they will ever have.

Only the individual whose life it is can evaluate that life as success or failure. Every individual is different and what will be success for one may very will be failure for another. Though they are cliches, they are true: "one man's trash is another man's treasure," and, "one man's poison is another man's meat." It's one reason all ideologies are wrong. There is no one way to live that is right for all human beings.

sure there is, its called faithful to what you have agreed to or (set of morals). contracts marriage business society laws, giving your word, so on and so forth, that is the correct way to live. and those agreements are not with one's self, its with others.

So for you, morality is some kind of social ideology, and one's own life is of no particular purpose or value sans society? The name of that view is collectivism and it is used to justify any oppression of individuals for the, "good of society," or any, "others," who are in a position to decide what is good for them.

I deal with others all the time to our mutual benefit without ever being a threat of any harm to each other without requiring some agency of force dictating (with laws) how any individual chooses to live their life--and they all choose differently because everyone is different.

In your view, what should be done with those who do not agree?

so what your saying here is if some one doesn't agree with your views then they are wrong and immoral, because in your view you are on the moral high ground. so, what should be done with those who don't live and deal with others as you do?

you loss accountability and trust if agreements are not enforced. according to you its okey to agree to receiving a loan and then not pay for it though you have the money. or its okey to join the army and swear to protect and then run from the enemies of those you swear to protect. or its okey to rob thy neighbor because you shouldn't be held to any agreed moral standard. sorry sounds less advanced in mental, or social development than is usual for an adult, to me.

[Atla]

Good! The last thing I want to be is anyone else's role model. No one can succeed in lfe by trying to copy how someone else lives.

As I just wrote to DPMartin:

And then there are those who would say that all words are empty when all feelings are disregarded. Wouldn't categorize that as "living" to begin with.

It's not, "disregarding," feelings, it's identifying their true nature. All feelings (emotions and desires) are physiological reactions to what one is consciously perceives, thinks, or chooses. They are non-cognitive and only reflect one's physiological state at any time. They are very useful in gauging both one's physiological and psychological health because when either one's body or one's thinking and values are wrong bad feelings are produced. The feelings can never, on their own, tell one what is wrong. If the problem is physical, one must examine their body to discover the problem. If the problem is psychological, one must examine their thinking and values to discover the conflicts and mistakes in their thinking, values, and choices that are causing the problem.

It is when thinking and reasoning one must ruthlessly banish feelings and desires and not allow them to distort one's thinking or determine one's choices. It doesn't matter how much one wants something or how good they feel about something, if it's wrong, it's wrong, and no feelings can change it. Almost every wrong self-destructive thing anyone has ever thought or done is because they allowed some desire or emotion they felt justify defying what their own best reason told them was wrong.

Yep that's what they wouldn't categorize as "living" to begin with. Humans are feeling beings it's part of their nature, so they learn to deal with their feelings without disregarding them like that.

[RCSaunders]

sure there is, its called faithful to what you have agreed to or (set of morals). contracts marriage business society laws, giving your word, so on and so forth, that is the correct way to live. and those agreements are not with one's self, its with others.

So for you, morality is some kind of social ideology, and one's own life is of no particular purpose or value sans society? The name of that view is collectivism and it is used to justify any oppression of individuals for the, "good of society," or any, "others," who are in a position to decide what is good for them.

I deal with others all the time to our mutual benefit without ever being a threat of any harm to each other without requiring some agency of force dictating (with laws) how any individual chooses to live their life--and they all choose differently because everyone is different.

In your view, what should be done with those who do not agree?

so what your saying here is if some one doesn't agree with your views then they are wrong and immoral

No! I'm saying just the opposite. No one has to agree with me and how others choose to live their lives is none of my business (unless the choose to share it or are no direct physical threat to me). You are the one who thinks people need to be compelled to behave in certain ways.

... according to you its okey to agree to receiving a loan and then not pay for it though you have the money. or its okey to join the army and swear to protect and then run from the enemies of those you swear to protect. or its okey to rob thy neighbor because you shouldn't be held to any agreed moral standard. sorry sounds less advanced in mental, or social development than is usual for an adult, to me.

First of all, anyone who joins an agency that has no other purpose than to destroy property and kill people has already surrendered any claim to virtue, and the lie that murdering, ruining, and impoverishing other is for the sake of some, "higher good," is a major reason for the worst of human horrors. Something which apparently doesn't bother you at all. If one has made the mistake of enlisting in some government's armed forces and realizes how evil it is and chooses to leave that institution of horror, he is a hero.

Secondly, only individuals who have no desire to have anything they have not produced by their own effort or traded what they have produced with others are truly virtuous or worthy of any association with others. They are never a threat of harm to anyone else and have no interest in others except whatever relationships they can individually and voluntarily enter into to their mutual benefit. Your so-called collectivist morality is just an excuse to oppress and use other individuals who, "do not agree," for the sake of the darlings of the social system. Your, "morality," is the fundamental principle on which all oppressive and cruel governments are founded.

Only individuals who seek nothing but what they can earn or produce and trade with other producers can cooperate in a way that benefits everyone involved in that cooperation, because it is entirely voluntary. Every other collective operation is not cooperation, but complicity in some corrupt effort to control others.

That's what I say. Please do not attribute your own ideas of corrupt society to me.

[Belinda]

Then there is hardly anything more evil than what you call, "moral behavior."

Keep your moral behavior and I'll go with the immoral who are never a threat of harm to anyone else and have no interest in others except whatever relationships they can individually and voluntarily enter into to their mutual benefit. Your so-called collectivist morality is just an excuse to oppress and use other individuals who, "do not agree," for the sake of the darlings of the social system. Your, "morality," is the fundamental principle on which all oppressive and cruel governments are founded.

I understand your point of view, your objection. The cooperative principle must always reflect back on to the more basic principle of the needs of individuals. While needs of individuals are the foundation of moral good, cooperative behaviour is the best means of achieving the needs of individuals. Obviously there must be safeguards against dictators seizing power.

Laissez Faire gives would-be dictators an easier ride than does democracy.

There cannot be a dictator without a government, a collective of complicit individuals, "cooperating," to bring coercive force to bear on those repressed by that government. Every government is a typical collective effort.

It is not possible for any individual to become a dictator as an individual. Dictators are only possible where there is some cooperative (complicit) collection of others to support the dictator.

No individual oppresses any society, starts wars, or enslaves others. Of course their are individual criminals, but compared to the horrors inflicted on individuals and societies by the collective efforts of governments, the worst of individual criminals are petty.

Only individuals who seek nothing but what they can earn or produce and trade with other producers can cooperate in a way that benefits everyone involved in that cooperation, because it is entirely voluntary. Every other collective operation is not cooperation, but complicity in some corrupt effort to control others.

When I say "the individual" I refer to all human beings including those who are not part of the ruling elite. Market forces and certain unhealthy types of men tend to form the collective known as ruling elite unless democratic safeguards are in place.

[RCSaunders]

I understand your point of view, your objection. The cooperative principle must always reflect back on to the more basic principle of the needs of individuals. While needs of individuals are the foundation of moral good, cooperative behaviour is the best means of achieving the needs of individuals. Obviously there must be safeguards against dictators seizing power.

Laissez Faire gives would-be dictators an easier ride than does democracy.

There cannot be a dictator without a government, a collective of complicit individuals, "cooperating," to bring coercive force to bear on those repressed by that government. Every government is a typical collective effort.

It is not possible for any individual to become a dictator as an individual. Dictators are only possible where there is some cooperative (complicit) collection of others to support the dictator.

No individual oppresses any society, starts wars, or enslaves others. Of course their are individual criminals, but compared to the horrors inflicted on individuals and societies by the collective efforts of governments, the worst of individual criminals are petty.

Only individuals who seek nothing but what they can earn or produce and trade with other producers can cooperate in a way that benefits everyone involved in that cooperation, because it is entirely voluntary. Every other collective operation is not cooperation, but complicity in some corrupt effort to control others.

When I say "the individual" I refer to all human beings including those who are not part of the ruling elite. Market forces and certain unhealthy types of men tend to form the collective known as ruling elite unless democratic safeguards are in place.

No matter how wealthy an individual is, their wealth cannot force a single individual anywhere to do anything they do not choose to do. Only organized force (government) can be used to control others. Wealth can be used to bribe (lobby) governments to use their force in ways some wealthy might like, but there must first be an agency of force to bribe. It's not wealth that can harm anyone else, it is the agencies of force.

Most wealthy individuals have no use for government and are only interested in producing goods and services others desire and are willing to trade their goods and services for. There are millions of millionaires in this world you've never heard of who are no threat to anyone but benefit everyone. I have never understood this insidious hate people have for the successful of this world who make this world one worth living in.

Are there some bad wealthy people in the world? Of course. A few, most of whom have, "acquired," their wealth crookedly and are in bed with the political rulers, but there are thousands more bad individuals in this world who are nothing more than predators and parasites who keep the politicians in power.

If you are really concerned about some, "ruling elites," you would oppose democracy. It the democratic voting masses of ignorant second-handers that put politicians in power to be influenced by the crooked wealthy. Not millionaires.