Death as an act of creation

[Gregorz]

Has anyone ever come across this concept before? It features heavily in the 2006 movie "The Fountain" which I would highly recommend to anyone, especially those who are interested in this specifically.

I ask because I believe that creation comes out of destruction, and destruction is only possible as a result of creation. We live between the two, in existence. If you wish to completely prevent destruction, then with the same belief, you wish to prevent creation.

This means that everything will be destroyed eventually. Even souls. Even this existence. But it's not something to cry about, because only through destruction of the old can we create the new. Death is, in that sense, true immortality. When our body is buried, it is eaten by plants and birds - and then our body becomes those things.

Why can the same concept not be applied to spirits? To the universe, afterlife, and consciousness itself? Even science shows this affect in motion. Our galaxies are expanding, and eventually they will collapse to make a new big bang. If we cling onto the old, we prevent the coming of the new.

Many people would rather believe that their souls are immortal, for fear of death. But it stands to reason that, if our souls are still learning and growing, there was a point where they knew nothing. They were created. And if we all eventually know everything, then learning will become obsolete. We will lose the joy of discovery and the experience of new things. In order to restore those things, everything we know must be destroyed.

Life isn't a straight line; it's a cycle. These cycles just happen on micro and macro scales. On the smallest scale, our bodies must die for new life to be born. On a higher scale, our universe must be destroyed for new universes to be born. On the highest scale, our souls must be destroyed -- or at least rejoin the ether -- to create new souls.

Thoughts?

[fellowtraveler]

I don't believe in death. It's more like the raindrop falling into the ocean. Your soul will still be your soul - just a gazillion times more so.

<<On the highest scale, our souls must be destroyed -- or at least rejoin the ether -- to create new souls>>

LOL...there goes your destruction theory. Also, I don't think there's a limited amount of soul material. Like, I can't picture the archangels going into a panic and sending out cherubs to collect discarded soul roadkill along the highway so they'll have enough raw material to make some more souls.

But yeah, the cyclic aspect is pretty obvious, eh?

[Xanafax]

The cyclic aspect is not obvious at all. It begins with a fundamentally unprovable assumption. As such it is significantly NOT obvious.

What is obvious is that we live. We die. We know this from observation, we have well over 10 billion case studies of this process. I guarantee it.

Of course its interesting that you bring up the idea of Creation and Destruction.

We create our lives around ourselves. And we destroy that which we create. It is an unalienable right that all people can destroy what they create. Because it is theirs.

Creation and Destruction is Yin and Yang, left and right, life and death.

[Gregorz]

I didn't mean simply that we have the capacity to destroy. It's more like, we have to cut down a tree to make a wardrobe. We've gotta break eggs to make an omelette. In order for us to live, our body has to break down ('destroy') food to gain the nutrients to create bodily tissue. And if everyone on Earth was immortal, we'd have no room for kids.

My idea is that there is a finite amount of resources in the universe, and that we have to destroy old things in order to have the space and material for new ones. To me it's a universal principle; I've never seen anything that lasts forever. Change is inevitable, and thus everything is transient. If it were any other way, we'd eventually stagnate and there'd be no new beginnings, no discovery. To me, that's a lot more sad than death.

As for 'rejoining the ether', it makes sense to me if new souls come from the ether. In one sense, it's immortality, because your life force becomes the new life; just like how a dead body is eaten by microbes and insects, which get eaten by birds, and you can then say that the dead person is flying with them.

This is just a theory, but so is the immortality of souls. I'm wondering what rationale there is for souls being the exception to mortality. I thought presenting my ideas might help explain why I think it's unlikely.

[SimonaRich]

I completely disagree with this 'theory' if this is theory in the first place.

How can souls be destroyed? Do you know what souls are? Soul is the same as consciousness. Consciousness is the energy. Energy can never be destroyed. Energy can change shapes, but it is always here, it is everywhere and will always be as it is now.

That's a silly theory and the whole "death results in creation" thought is just wrong...

[enyi]

Something I think is missing from this conversation is "time". You're thinking in terms of time, which only exists as an illusion in this plane. IMHO.

I don't believe or minds can fully grasp the concept, if at all (yes, call it hope if you like, I'd call it more like a "feeling" do).

Ok, keep discussing

[Gregorz]

Originally Posted by SimonaRich

I completely disagree with this 'theory' if this is theory in the first place.

Are you sure you understand what a theory is?

How can souls be destroyed? Do you know what souls are? Soul is the same as consciousness. Consciousness is the energy. Energy can never be destroyed. Energy can change shapes, but it is always here, it is everywhere and will always be as it is now.

Our souls are made of energy, and as you said, energy changes shapes. You could say the same about materials -- that wardrobe used to be a tree. You created something out of the destruction of the old thing. Couldn't the same apply to souls? Old souls return to the ether, and out of the ether comes a new soul.

That's a silly theory and the whole "death results in creation" thought is just wrong...

Did I touch a nerve or something? This post wasn't meant to offend, just to discuss.

That's a fair point, enyi. This argument does rely on the assumption that time exists in the spiritual world. I haven't done too much research into the idea of a 'timeless' world. Though I can imagine time being different on a different plane, I can't imagine that any world without time could have any kind of progression - wouldn't it make learning redundant?

[geekchic9]

Originally Posted by Gregorz

Has anyone ever come across this concept before? It features heavily in the 2006 movie "The Fountain" which I would highly recommend to anyone, especially those who are interested in this specifically.

I ask because I believe that creation comes out of destruction, and destruction is only possible as a result of creation. We live between the two, in existence. If you wish to completely prevent destruction, then with the same belief, you wish to prevent creation.

This means that everything will be destroyed eventually. Even souls.

No idea is new under the sun. I recommend you do some research on the Hindu Trimurti and the concept of Hindu liberation. Buddhism may be interesting, too, as it doesn't believe in a permanent soul. I'm neither Buddhist or Hindu, but I like studying eastern thought. Maybe you'd be intrigued, too.

[Gregorz]

Wow, I've always been really interested in Buddhism (whilst I wouldn't subscribe to any religion, it's got some great ideas and philosophies), but I didn't know that. It does make sense what with their teachings about non-permanance though. I'll definitely look into it, thanks for the links!

[geekchic9]

Originally Posted by Gregorz

Wow, I've always been really interested in Buddhism (whilst I wouldn't subscribe to any religion, it's got some great ideas and philosophies), but I didn't know that. It does make sense what with their teachings about non-permanance though. I'll definitely look into it, thanks for the links!

You're welcome. The Hindu Trimurti (trinity) is also interesting because it is made up of Shiva the destroyer, Brahma the creator, and Vishnu the preserver. In Hinduism, being liberated means your soul becomes one with Brahman (God). In Buddhism, it's uncertain exactly what happens when one is liberated, but the person who achieves it is free from suffering and the cycle of rebirth. Religions are just so damn interesting. I'm glad I could help turn you on to some aspects of them.

[torilink]

only truth is permanent. All that is not truth is illusion. Thus, everything that changes is illusory. Everything that is illusory will end. Truth is without end.

I don't know that I would use the term "destruction" for something that is (by the above definition anyhow) an illusion.

[JE Gonzalez]

Pretty deep thinking if I may say so myself. We'll never really be sure.

[Judge]

The problem (IMO) is that we are attempting to understand something via words and mental concepts. If I say 'this is how it works' then that description can only ever really be a pointer to how it works. Like saying 'okay, I'm aware now or enlightened now'

Labels can't truly describe knowing the truth what ever that maybe, because when you tag it with a label you have created a concept of it and that is not it, but only pointing to it at best.

If anything, less words and descriptions are the key to knowing it. If you can drop all the definitions of what is, whatever is left must be very close to and/or be it. If you can simply observe the moment, this moment without any reacitve definition, then that's it.

Life, death, the forms and content of this moment are really just the labels and definitions of the unmanifested, but again even the word 'unmanifested' is again a mental concept

Judge

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by SimonaRich

I completely disagree with this 'theory' if this is theory in the first place.

How can souls be destroyed? Do you know what souls are? Soul is the same as consciousness. Consciousness is the energy. Energy can never be destroyed. Energy can change shapes, but it is always here, it is everywhere and will always be as it is now.

That's a silly theory and the whole "death results in creation" thought is just wrong...

The notions of souls and consciousness are just theories also or you could say figments of the imagination. There is no evidence for either theory.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Maguru

The notions of souls and consciousness are just theories also or you could say figments of the imagination. There is no evidence for either theory.

I think it's fairly safe to say that we have consciousness. Consciousness is just a way of saying "reality", i.e. what you're experiencing right now. The concept of "souls", which implies some sort of immaterial essence, is of course much harder to prove.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

I think it's fairly safe to say that we have consciousness. Consciousness is just a way of saying "reality", i.e. what you're experiencing right now. The concept of "souls", which implies some sort of immaterial essence, is of course much harder to prove.

Isn't consciousness a product of the mind, or what is actually in the mind or is processed through the mind? How would you know it is reality? Perceptions of our experiences of reality doesn't neccesarily make them real.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Isn't consciousness a product of the mind, or what is actually in the mind or is processed through the mind? How would you know it is reality? Perceptions of our experiences of reality doesn't necessarily make them real.

I think that really depends on what you mean by "real". If you perceive an object, then that object is real to you in a subjective sense. Of course we don't know whether the object has any existence in and of itself, which is a different matter. I don't make a distinction between "consciousness" and "mind". As far as I understand, those are more or less the same thing.