notes on mortality and purpose
(Transcibed from my paper journal, written this afternoon. Citations hyperlinked as appropriate, though you should each recognize your respective influences. No, none of it is really new, it's just what's whirling around at the moment. Hopefully it'll get more traction now.)
To resume.
If I believe a physical system is necessary to instantiate my consciousness, as seems likely, then the probability of being resurrected for punishment, torture, or sadistic pleasure ("hell") seems vanishingly unlikely. The probability seems to be much higher of being resurrected for benevolent purposes, since for torment any pain will do, whereas for benefit my specific contribution seems necessary. For beings with resources to resurrect others, resurrection on [an] indiscriminate basis or for the harm of others seems wasteful.
Nevertheless, the probability of being resurrected at all seems vanishingly small given what we know and assuming that we're not all already living in a perfect simulated world -- an idea which may have some philosophical elegance to it, but only from within an hermetically sealed ivory tower insensible to the wholesale suffering of the majority outside. (Or, to hear the Buddhists tell it, the unwitting suffering of even the self-styled contented ones!) Thus it seems most likely, from within a naturalistic perspective (scientific humanism), that I'll simply cease to be after death, and whatever becomes of the stream of conscious [(sic)] or the playing out of karma -- as in Buddhist reincarnation -- will, if it continues, no longer be identifiable, in a Self-with-a-capital-'S' sense, with me.
It then follows that the afterlife shouldn't drive my own considerations of what I do in this life, and should instead be driven by more parochial concerns. A good candidate -- well -- possible considerations include: the good opinion of others (which might outlive me), the benefit to society or to others at large, positive impact or influence on the world, personal pleasure, peace of mind, and and [(sic)] aesthetic satisfaction with my life as a story I am actively telling as I live it. It argues for a high level of awareness and engagement with the world outside me, as this is the only change I'll get, and a concern (to a point) with high social status, though not necessarily with money beyond my own comfortable sustenance and philanthropic concerns, since I can't take it with me [(and may not be leaving it for any offspring)]. It argues for openness to new ideas and a strongly purpose-driven life, as vital as I can make it while resisting the advances of time.
It also argues, as the Buddhists attest, that I make an active effort to confront the uglier truths fo life, not out of morbid fascination or bitterness but out of acceptance that any such condition could be my fate -- at any time. Nobody, it seems to me, who has studied the precariously fragile state of life on Earth throughout its history, can feel entirely safe -- life-killing asteroids, volcanic eruptions spreading ash and fire with cataclysmic force, the vagaries of climate change we ourselves create or which are created for us (see Cryogenian Era or "Snowball Earth"), the presence of super-bugs spreading virulent contagion, or the homicidal tendencies of our fellow human beings... Our lease on this planet is brief and our lives brutish and short even among the best-appointed of us. Any one of us could go at any time. (Thinking of fdmts's observations concerning the squirrel whose head had been crushed by a passing car, and Shantideva's contemplation of contrasts and similarities between carnal delights of the type I pursue so readily and the horrors of the charnel-heap.) The fragile, prolific, and seemingly pointless nature of life is only more fully highlighted by considering our genetic and mental kinship to animals of other species, who may suffer just as we do but lack the language or introspection to articulate their suffering. Reincarnation, as a doctrine, may actually do more to drive compassion for other sentient beings, and the sympathetic understanding of the perceptions of sentience, than it might as a purely reward-punishment driven doctrine ("play nice or you'll be a slug next time around"). This should be enough to drive any reasonable person to make the most of every moment (Shantideva underscores it all).
To what extent is this imperative driven by only a few personality traits? It seems pretty clear that the goals of Buddhist practice are [very schematically] to enhance Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and to decrease Neuroticism; Extraversion and Openness seem incidental or of no particular moral/ethical force, although they may dictate the terms under which one pursues the other virtues and the style with which one does so. I should also note that Agreeableness isn't demanded by scientific naturalism as a virtue, although (Mahayana) Buddhism does promote it as desirable, even necessary for high levels of attainment. This also opens the question of what other varieties of religious/philosophical thought are compatible with scientific naturalism/humanism. Brings me back to the questions raised by tagonist regarding how animistic beliefs are tied to locale and natural features. Some appropriately informed varieties of pantheism or animism (Gaia anyone?) may dovetail nicely; it would be interesting to consider the extent to which a Buddhist/Taoist view is specifically supported by science, or whether they owe more to cultural/economic forces as infinitely fungible spiritual tracks w/rt animisms, pantheisms, polytheisms or even monotheisms (cf. Buddhism as "blankness").
[ed.: It always did get on my nerves when well-meaning, but unthinking, people would restrict the science-religion interactions to science vs. Christianity and/or science aligned with Buddhism or Taoism. Always seemed uselessly New Age -- there is no need to map specific doctrinal points into/onto laws of physics, it's enough to note that both science and Eastern traditions stress that the universe is huge and that we are all connected in intimate and intricate ways which we still comprehend only dimly.]
What should this mean about how I pursue things from here on out? I think it does mean I would do well to start to embrace the hairier aspects of a (secular) Buddhism/Taoism -- awareness of death and impermanence as a daily fixture of my life, [acceptance of] the largeness and impersonality of the universe, concern for sentient beings and more calculated considerations of how to maximize my positive impact.
Practically speaking this means I need to acquire some self-discipline, as I've known for a while. Since this runs counter to the (at present natural) grain of my personality, it might best be cultivated by continuing journal entries such as these, and daily rituals reminding me of the shortness of life and the fierce urgency of the moment. This is less to spur short-term racing towards returns than to establish regularity, a purposefulness about what I do and a determination to make conscious good use of every waking moment (and perhaps, through lucid dreaming / "dream yoga", sleeping moments also!). Picking a few worthy short-term goals each year and striving towards them is the way to go, and also embracing exercises or personal practices (such as yoga, aikido or meditation) which double as Conscientiousness training. So far I've had limited success at this, but I don't think I've ever really tried -- was always more concerned with getting laid, getting my next job, the Neurotic issue du jour -- peak oil? climate change? animal welfare? nuclear proliferation? etc. w/o seriously engaging... Building awareness into my daily routine, mindfulness, seems the most crucial linkage, and combined with urgency of purpose may stand in for self-discipline (has to be self-discipline for something or I'm liable to drop it unceremoniously).
To resume.
If I believe a physical system is necessary to instantiate my consciousness, as seems likely, then the probability of being resurrected for punishment, torture, or sadistic pleasure ("hell") seems vanishingly unlikely. The probability seems to be much higher of being resurrected for benevolent purposes, since for torment any pain will do, whereas for benefit my specific contribution seems necessary. For beings with resources to resurrect others, resurrection on [an] indiscriminate basis or for the harm of others seems wasteful.
Nevertheless, the probability of being resurrected at all seems vanishingly small given what we know and assuming that we're not all already living in a perfect simulated world -- an idea which may have some philosophical elegance to it, but only from within an hermetically sealed ivory tower insensible to the wholesale suffering of the majority outside. (Or, to hear the Buddhists tell it, the unwitting suffering of even the self-styled contented ones!) Thus it seems most likely, from within a naturalistic perspective (scientific humanism), that I'll simply cease to be after death, and whatever becomes of the stream of conscious [(sic)] or the playing out of karma -- as in Buddhist reincarnation -- will, if it continues, no longer be identifiable, in a Self-with-a-capital-'S' sense, with me.
It then follows that the afterlife shouldn't drive my own considerations of what I do in this life, and should instead be driven by more parochial concerns. A good candidate -- well -- possible considerations include: the good opinion of others (which might outlive me), the benefit to society or to others at large, positive impact or influence on the world, personal pleasure, peace of mind, and and [(sic)] aesthetic satisfaction with my life as a story I am actively telling as I live it. It argues for a high level of awareness and engagement with the world outside me, as this is the only change I'll get, and a concern (to a point) with high social status, though not necessarily with money beyond my own comfortable sustenance and philanthropic concerns, since I can't take it with me [(and may not be leaving it for any offspring)]. It argues for openness to new ideas and a strongly purpose-driven life, as vital as I can make it while resisting the advances of time.
It also argues, as the Buddhists attest, that I make an active effort to confront the uglier truths fo life, not out of morbid fascination or bitterness but out of acceptance that any such condition could be my fate -- at any time. Nobody, it seems to me, who has studied the precariously fragile state of life on Earth throughout its history, can feel entirely safe -- life-killing asteroids, volcanic eruptions spreading ash and fire with cataclysmic force, the vagaries of climate change we ourselves create or which are created for us (see Cryogenian Era or "Snowball Earth"), the presence of super-bugs spreading virulent contagion, or the homicidal tendencies of our fellow human beings... Our lease on this planet is brief and our lives brutish and short even among the best-appointed of us. Any one of us could go at any time. (Thinking of fdmts's observations concerning the squirrel whose head had been crushed by a passing car, and Shantideva's contemplation of contrasts and similarities between carnal delights of the type I pursue so readily and the horrors of the charnel-heap.) The fragile, prolific, and seemingly pointless nature of life is only more fully highlighted by considering our genetic and mental kinship to animals of other species, who may suffer just as we do but lack the language or introspection to articulate their suffering. Reincarnation, as a doctrine, may actually do more to drive compassion for other sentient beings, and the sympathetic understanding of the perceptions of sentience, than it might as a purely reward-punishment driven doctrine ("play nice or you'll be a slug next time around"). This should be enough to drive any reasonable person to make the most of every moment (Shantideva underscores it all).
To what extent is this imperative driven by only a few personality traits? It seems pretty clear that the goals of Buddhist practice are [very schematically] to enhance Conscientiousness and Agreeableness and to decrease Neuroticism; Extraversion and Openness seem incidental or of no particular moral/ethical force, although they may dictate the terms under which one pursues the other virtues and the style with which one does so. I should also note that Agreeableness isn't demanded by scientific naturalism as a virtue, although (Mahayana) Buddhism does promote it as desirable, even necessary for high levels of attainment. This also opens the question of what other varieties of religious/philosophical thought are compatible with scientific naturalism/humanism. Brings me back to the questions raised by tagonist regarding how animistic beliefs are tied to locale and natural features. Some appropriately informed varieties of pantheism or animism (Gaia anyone?) may dovetail nicely; it would be interesting to consider the extent to which a Buddhist/Taoist view is specifically supported by science, or whether they owe more to cultural/economic forces as infinitely fungible spiritual tracks w/rt animisms, pantheisms, polytheisms or even monotheisms (cf. Buddhism as "blankness").
[ed.: It always did get on my nerves when well-meaning, but unthinking, people would restrict the science-religion interactions to science vs. Christianity and/or science aligned with Buddhism or Taoism. Always seemed uselessly New Age -- there is no need to map specific doctrinal points into/onto laws of physics, it's enough to note that both science and Eastern traditions stress that the universe is huge and that we are all connected in intimate and intricate ways which we still comprehend only dimly.]
What should this mean about how I pursue things from here on out? I think it does mean I would do well to start to embrace the hairier aspects of a (secular) Buddhism/Taoism -- awareness of death and impermanence as a daily fixture of my life, [acceptance of] the largeness and impersonality of the universe, concern for sentient beings and more calculated considerations of how to maximize my positive impact.
Practically speaking this means I need to acquire some self-discipline, as I've known for a while. Since this runs counter to the (at present natural) grain of my personality, it might best be cultivated by continuing journal entries such as these, and daily rituals reminding me of the shortness of life and the fierce urgency of the moment. This is less to spur short-term racing towards returns than to establish regularity, a purposefulness about what I do and a determination to make conscious good use of every waking moment (and perhaps, through lucid dreaming / "dream yoga", sleeping moments also!). Picking a few worthy short-term goals each year and striving towards them is the way to go, and also embracing exercises or personal practices (such as yoga, aikido or meditation) which double as Conscientiousness training. So far I've had limited success at this, but I don't think I've ever really tried -- was always more concerned with getting laid, getting my next job, the Neurotic issue du jour -- peak oil? climate change? animal welfare? nuclear proliferation? etc. w/o seriously engaging... Building awareness into my daily routine, mindfulness, seems the most crucial linkage, and combined with urgency of purpose may stand in for self-discipline (has to be self-discipline for something or I'm liable to drop it unceremoniously).