I should have been more specific. Death should take place in a BROADER sense than simply in a hospice. I should have taken my ideas to the logical conclusion that death, in fact, and the processes involved in it, should be completely public and every day. And tombstone makers are, I'm sure to a great extent, secular businessmen, but so are bible printers and by that logic, weapons manufacturers. Secular intentions that lead to non secular execution is simply a way to escape from blame.
And attaching a religious message to death is essential. Churches and hospices have chapels, people recant their atheism in fear on their death-beds at any given time. Death is religious and always will be. Death cannot help, after all the religious history we've had to have it's own religious references. Did that person die for a cause? Then they are compared to a martyr. Did that person die after being executed? Vengeance and smiting. Did that person die after a good life? Then they're moving on to heaven to be rewarded. Are they dying too soon? Perhaps someone would say they're in a better place. Perhaps I have based an argument too much on my own preferences. I believe that monuments and tombstones are a perversion of how I view my own death, but to call them simply a benevolent expression of grief is too far. Wishing to visit the resting site of a dead person has, historically, always existed. Mr. Self Destruct is completely right. But I should have been more forward thinking and taken this statement to it's conclusion as well.
I would also like to differentiate talking about death and talking about what happens after death. I would agree with Mr. Self Destruct that death is often a religious topic, but not exactly. The topic of the actual dying is seen simply as a gateway, as a ticket to an afterlife. You cannot refute this. I have been to churches, I have been to services in almost 7 different denominations now, and this is a recurring theme. The topic of death is avoided, while the after-death is the real topic. Dying for beliefs is even an example for this. What better way to than to hide the nastiness of death by attaching a cause to it?
Another point I'd like to argue is the historical references in Mr. Self Destructs post in relation to mine. I think I may have been, once again, too vague. Cultures in the past certainly DID allow each other to see death, because they really had no choice. When you live in a group of 40 people in a mountain valley, you're gonna see death. I mean modern, 21st century canada. I have never seen someone die. I know for a fact Mr. Self Destruct has seen dead people, and most likely someone die as well, but I never have. I live in a city of a million people. Death is not a part of my life, unless you count the cemetery c-train tunnel. Maybe I've fallen victim to my own ignorance.
I would also like to point out that I don't hate religious people. I have in fact been dating a die-hard Mormon for 6 months now, and the last thing I do is disrespect her views of death or ask her if she'd like a nice solo island vacation. Having a problem with her views does not mean I want them gone. I just think we can grow beyond them.
This is the first lively discussion between two members of this blog and I am honored to be a part of it. All due respect to Mr. Self Destruct, and I look forward to your reply. Unfortunately I have to go to "history of canadian landscape painting" but when I return this will be my first click.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Death and What Have You, Part Two
You can watch your family members die in hospices. Actually, you do watch your family members die in hospices. Secondly, burying the dead was around before Christian ideas, let alone pagan ideas, in which Christianity plagiarized as its own.
Tombstones are bought and sold by very secular people. These people have watched their loved ones die, like the Natives of the old world and even the Tibetan monks. The idea of a soul is common to most cultures, new and old. I feel that the Christian religion has gotten carried away with the idea of the soul, while exploiting death for obvious reasons, but to say that the problem is only of the religious faction is false. These people are only trying to honor the ones they loved. When someone puts a memorial stone in the ground, however manipulated by those who procure a dollar from exploiting the grieving process, it is a symbolic gesture of great benevolence. It may and may not actually have anything to do with a person rationalizing death.
Seeing dead people first hand, I have seen the eerie stillness of a stiff and cold body. The common description of a dead body as an empty shell that has lost its inhabitant is very accurate. There is a definite light that exists within us, call it consciousness, but when the shadow falls all that remains is a body that is symbolic of who we were.
Moving on with the sudden departure, or not so sudden departure, of a loved one can be tough and not all people can handle saying goodbye as well as others. However, to attach a religious message to death is an insult to the actual spiritual process of death for all who are involved.
Perhaps I have been comfortable with my own mortality for too long, but I really haven't met anybody who seems to disregard the fact that we die. Death is everywhere. We eat death. We see death everyday on TV, in the paper, driving past the cemetery, etc. Even with birth, birth is a huge celebration, a huge welcoming, not a hidden event by any means. I really don't think that anyone tries to put off the idea of death - you just can't. Even if you tired, it would nag at your sub-conscious until you dealt with the mortality issue one way or another. When it comes to the religious faction, I don't think that anyone talks about death more than these people. They even talk about dying for their beliefs. They definitely have a warped perspective on death, but afraid to die - I think not.
Perhaps G.Detroit should have all religious people condensed to a small island and then have it nuked. Perhaps then his qualms with how they deal with death would finally be put to rest.
Revolutionizing death, part II
The rebuttals got me thinking. Mr. Self Destruct brought up a good point: cemeteries are a reminder of our temporal nature, which interestingly enough, is a supporting point to my argument and I didn't even realize it. In my desire to have the world more comfortable with their own demise, I forgot that we have a fantastic tool out our disposal already, that tool being cemeteries.
Cemeteries do remind us of death, but my main complaint is they don't do it in a secular way. They are imposing areas, with tombs and crypts meant to intimidate and humble. Cemeteries, if we insist upon their existence, need to be places of intelligence, not emotion. Scaring people with glib tombstone quotes and merciless specters of death is not the way to help people rationalize. There is something very final and irrefutable about a cemetery; the stones do not offer many opportunities to question the unknown. So perhaps it's time to open up the world of death, a post-Morten Glasnost if you will. Here's what I propose:
Instead of the wasteful and frankly, overly emotional spaces we currently have, consolidate all death related industries into one building. Instead of hiding our dead away in hospices, give them a comfortable place where (and this is key) their family members can see them die.
I know that sounds horrible, but hear me out: Lewis Thomas talks about this a bit in his amazing book Lives of a cell, and I tend to agree. Even J.K. Rowling makes mention of it in Harry Potter number 6 (or 7, I don't know). As seemingly ridiculous those two references are in relation to each other, they both say some intelligent things about death to different audiences. Thomas says the reason we cannot deal with death in the modern world we live in is because of distance. Like Mr. Self Destruct said, people would never be able to face the embalming process, and that's a problem. Distancing ourselves from death and the processes we create to hide it is the reason philosophy has endless ammunition in this area. Familiarizing ourselves with death opens doors to understanding it. Allowing oneself to witness the end of a loved ones life would probably make it easier to deal with than sitting at their graveside. Death, like birth, is something we all have in common, and yet they're two things we hide due to some insane theological modesty.
So open up the death industry, and start society down the path to realizing it is not immortal, we will die, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I feel like I should explain that Harry Potter reference. Rowling created some horse critters named Thestrals in the books, that you could only see if you had seen someone die. While this makes for some hilarious flight scenes with people on invisible horses, it's also a good metaphor. When you witness death, you gain the ability to ride the horse of knowledge, and in the books it is no coincidence that these beasts have the ability to flawlessly navigate to any destination at speeds we cannot fathom. Rowling for all her idiocy and mediocre writing skills often surprises me with how deep she takes her metaphors. Her belief in a soul is painfully ridiculous to me, but she is at least more willing to deal with death than most people.
Cemeteries do remind us of death, but my main complaint is they don't do it in a secular way. They are imposing areas, with tombs and crypts meant to intimidate and humble. Cemeteries, if we insist upon their existence, need to be places of intelligence, not emotion. Scaring people with glib tombstone quotes and merciless specters of death is not the way to help people rationalize. There is something very final and irrefutable about a cemetery; the stones do not offer many opportunities to question the unknown. So perhaps it's time to open up the world of death, a post-Morten Glasnost if you will. Here's what I propose:
Instead of the wasteful and frankly, overly emotional spaces we currently have, consolidate all death related industries into one building. Instead of hiding our dead away in hospices, give them a comfortable place where (and this is key) their family members can see them die.
I know that sounds horrible, but hear me out: Lewis Thomas talks about this a bit in his amazing book Lives of a cell, and I tend to agree. Even J.K. Rowling makes mention of it in Harry Potter number 6 (or 7, I don't know). As seemingly ridiculous those two references are in relation to each other, they both say some intelligent things about death to different audiences. Thomas says the reason we cannot deal with death in the modern world we live in is because of distance. Like Mr. Self Destruct said, people would never be able to face the embalming process, and that's a problem. Distancing ourselves from death and the processes we create to hide it is the reason philosophy has endless ammunition in this area. Familiarizing ourselves with death opens doors to understanding it. Allowing oneself to witness the end of a loved ones life would probably make it easier to deal with than sitting at their graveside. Death, like birth, is something we all have in common, and yet they're two things we hide due to some insane theological modesty.
So open up the death industry, and start society down the path to realizing it is not immortal, we will die, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I feel like I should explain that Harry Potter reference. Rowling created some horse critters named Thestrals in the books, that you could only see if you had seen someone die. While this makes for some hilarious flight scenes with people on invisible horses, it's also a good metaphor. When you witness death, you gain the ability to ride the horse of knowledge, and in the books it is no coincidence that these beasts have the ability to flawlessly navigate to any destination at speeds we cannot fathom. Rowling for all her idiocy and mediocre writing skills often surprises me with how deep she takes her metaphors. Her belief in a soul is painfully ridiculous to me, but she is at least more willing to deal with death than most people.
Bring Back the Charivari!!!!
In the Canada of old, men and women of the lower classes formed groups and, donned in costumes, would take it upon themselves to represent the ideals of the majority. They would seek out those who were corrupt and immoral (regardless of class) and create spectacles to humiliate and intimidate those targeted. They would be relentless in their heckling and rabble-rousing until there was an admittance of guilt and a monetary fine was paid to a charity benefiting the working class. Protests are still in existence as we well know, but the amount of corruption and general immorality within our North American borders greatly outnumber the few we hear about. We complacently believe that the centralized control over our police force is strictly for our benefit. Then why is it that the police tend to work against us, beat us down, tear gas us, pepper spray us, arrest us, and mute our voices when we have a sincere claim against crimes and legislation that hurt our communities. We must bring back the Charivari!!!! We must bring back the ability to have our community voices heard!!! We must find a way to stop the corruption and immoral choices of those who hurt our communities!!! We must take action into our own hands!!!
If anyone has any good ideas, please share...
Death and What Have You
I would agree with G-Detroit that cemeteries do seem rather illogical with our limited amount of public space. However, the idea of burying the dead is said to go back as far as 200, 000 years ago - an act that was probably a symbolic gesture of spiritual and physical connectedness with the earth. This means that we humans have an ingrained desire to give our loved ones back to the earth which has sustained not only all of the lives that have passed, but also our own.
Christians were not the first to bury their dressed up dead, and they definitely are not the only ones who still dispose of the remains of a deceased person this way. I know this first hand from working in a funeral home. The truth is this: most people would not be able to stomach what is involved in dealing with the process of caring for a loved one after he/she has succumbed to the inevitable. Naturally, we try to make the burden of loss as easy as possible for those grieving.
Regardless if you want to agree or not with the business of death - it will always be there in some form. Say one day you come home and find that your girlfriend has jumped 30 stories to her death and now she is a mess of skin, various tissues, bones, hair, and what have you. By now the police and ambulance would have been dispatched and a legal cause of death will have to be assessed. This is how things are done in a western 21st century world. A trip to a morgue is inevitable. Even if you were to burn the body, or what was left of it, you would need to transport it. With what means would one achieve this task. Buying a body bag perhaps, but then you are supporting the death trade. Perhaps a garbage bag then - may I suggest the extra strong ones and layering up at least four times.
It is true that we no longer need to dispose of our loved ones through a dressed up burial (embalming is particularly bad for the environment and also a very disturbing procedure), yet there is always going to be a demand for funeral and disposal services, and there will always be those who will provide it.
Even if we outlawed the burial of people, having an in town reminder of how fleeting our lives and ideas are, in the form of cemeteries, would be a healthy dose of reality.
Christians were not the first to bury their dressed up dead, and they definitely are not the only ones who still dispose of the remains of a deceased person this way. I know this first hand from working in a funeral home. The truth is this: most people would not be able to stomach what is involved in dealing with the process of caring for a loved one after he/she has succumbed to the inevitable. Naturally, we try to make the burden of loss as easy as possible for those grieving.
Regardless if you want to agree or not with the business of death - it will always be there in some form. Say one day you come home and find that your girlfriend has jumped 30 stories to her death and now she is a mess of skin, various tissues, bones, hair, and what have you. By now the police and ambulance would have been dispatched and a legal cause of death will have to be assessed. This is how things are done in a western 21st century world. A trip to a morgue is inevitable. Even if you were to burn the body, or what was left of it, you would need to transport it. With what means would one achieve this task. Buying a body bag perhaps, but then you are supporting the death trade. Perhaps a garbage bag then - may I suggest the extra strong ones and layering up at least four times.
It is true that we no longer need to dispose of our loved ones through a dressed up burial (embalming is particularly bad for the environment and also a very disturbing procedure), yet there is always going to be a demand for funeral and disposal services, and there will always be those who will provide it.
Even if we outlawed the burial of people, having an in town reminder of how fleeting our lives and ideas are, in the form of cemeteries, would be a healthy dose of reality.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Revolutionizing Death: a follow up
What an excellent article by G-Detroit. It got me thinking about other aspects of death. Heidegger says that death is ones greatest possibility. That when one thinks about death, and their relation to death, they are hitting on something very essential to the human being.
There is a western metaphysical debate about the separation of mind and body. Christians (and most religious people), believe that we have a soul that is separated from our body. that the soul exists outside this earthly realm, and that the soul continues on after death. The body then, becomes some useless vehicle that the soul clings onto for a short period of time during our earthly existence. I really don't see why christians make a big deal about burials and cemetaries, when the body doesn't have a very big importance to their theology.
Maybe a revolutionizing of the way we conceive of the body is in order.
There is a western metaphysical debate about the separation of mind and body. Christians (and most religious people), believe that we have a soul that is separated from our body. that the soul exists outside this earthly realm, and that the soul continues on after death. The body then, becomes some useless vehicle that the soul clings onto for a short period of time during our earthly existence. I really don't see why christians make a big deal about burials and cemetaries, when the body doesn't have a very big importance to their theology.
Maybe a revolutionizing of the way we conceive of the body is in order.
Revolutionizing death
Cemeteries are a terrible idea. As a strict and sincere atheist, I believe that the moment all the blinking lights go out in my brain, I'm a lump of pinkish goo and hair. I accept that. I don't particularly like it, but I firmly believe it, and I will never be persuaded otherwise. But the actual act of dying and being put through a mortuary is a mental conflict for me, and it should be for everyone. Here's why:
Cemeteries take up an enormous portion of the earth's surface, often on arable land that we could be farming. So what the fuck? I'm an atheist, I don't know if my fellow contributors are, but what the hell is the point of all this coffin and burial industry? The cemeteries are getting full of melting Christians, and we're building new ones, with no public outcry. We're creating the same problem with landfills, except garbage dumps get converted to baseball diamonds and city parks you can play soccer in. No dice for cemeteries, they're sacred ground, blessed by priests and hugged by god. Cremation is just as bad. You pay thousands of dollars to put someone in a suit (they're dead, they don't care), and then you pay thousands more lighting it on fire. With natural gas. A resource we should be saving.
So rise up with me and spread the word, the business of funerals is just that: business, and we need to curtail this now and find a new, inexpensive and non-wasteful way of getting rid of our old dead people. Hi-rise cemeteries for the religious folk sounds easy enough to build. Your family can lease a death suite, they can plant grass indoors and keep your body in a nice shallow grave, or perhaps a wall safe. Give the building tinted windows so us secular folk can get with our lives (or deaths).
For me, like Chad Vangaalen said in his song "willow tree", I want you to "take my body, put it in a boat. Light it on fire... send it out to sea."
Cemeteries take up an enormous portion of the earth's surface, often on arable land that we could be farming. So what the fuck? I'm an atheist, I don't know if my fellow contributors are, but what the hell is the point of all this coffin and burial industry? The cemeteries are getting full of melting Christians, and we're building new ones, with no public outcry. We're creating the same problem with landfills, except garbage dumps get converted to baseball diamonds and city parks you can play soccer in. No dice for cemeteries, they're sacred ground, blessed by priests and hugged by god. Cremation is just as bad. You pay thousands of dollars to put someone in a suit (they're dead, they don't care), and then you pay thousands more lighting it on fire. With natural gas. A resource we should be saving.
So rise up with me and spread the word, the business of funerals is just that: business, and we need to curtail this now and find a new, inexpensive and non-wasteful way of getting rid of our old dead people. Hi-rise cemeteries for the religious folk sounds easy enough to build. Your family can lease a death suite, they can plant grass indoors and keep your body in a nice shallow grave, or perhaps a wall safe. Give the building tinted windows so us secular folk can get with our lives (or deaths).
For me, like Chad Vangaalen said in his song "willow tree", I want you to "take my body, put it in a boat. Light it on fire... send it out to sea."
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Word of the Day
Reformolution- many believe the 'olution'in this word is derived from 'revolution', however this is a mistake. It is actually derived from the word 'solution'. 'Reformolution' is the word what socialists mean to say, when they use the word revolution. it means to pretend to work radically within the system, and bringing about slight changes that further propogate the system.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
On Freedom
We're always free, but we're never free. we go to the market to buy some fruit, and we feel free in the beautiful sunshine, and the smell of tangerines. But then we go to the counter and pay with currency that the government has issued. And we leave the store and we have to wait for the white man on the crosswalk box to appear, before we walk. But we could just ignore the white man and cross at our leisure. but then we might be run over. or we could just look around, and wait until there are no cars, and then walk when we feel safe. but then my decision to walk is being shaped by the driving patters of others... this can not be freedom.
i think i am confusing freedom and happiness... or maybe freedom and peace of mind. Nietzsche would say freedom has nothing to do with happiness, and that freedom is "the ultimate form of cruelty." maybe that's too extreme for me.
I have been thinking a lot about freedom lately. In its many forms: political freedom, freedom of will, freedom of consciousness, freedom to be one's self, freedom of belief.
It is amazing that a term can be applied to so many broad categories.
i think i am confusing freedom and happiness... or maybe freedom and peace of mind. Nietzsche would say freedom has nothing to do with happiness, and that freedom is "the ultimate form of cruelty." maybe that's too extreme for me.
I have been thinking a lot about freedom lately. In its many forms: political freedom, freedom of will, freedom of consciousness, freedom to be one's self, freedom of belief.
It is amazing that a term can be applied to so many broad categories.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
One Mind
I had just remembered something that I had read once and not too long ago - I believe it was Carl Jung. Anyways, it was about how our personalities are all actually an amalgamation of traits that we have all picked up subconsciously from all of those who we have come into contact with. Our ego is actually composed of many reflections that have all been shone into one ray of light. In essence, we are all of the same mind.
Cloning
Dolly the sheep was cloned back in the late 1990's. We probably are not too far away from cloning human beings. North American laws will likely be skpetical of allowing the cloning of human beings for a decade or two, even after the technology becomes available. However, where there are people that hate the united states, there will be scientists challenging the rights to clone human beings.
Once we clone a famous person, that clone can grow up, and read the literature and watch the movies involving their original. If we continually reinforce who that person will grow into (and considering they have the excact same genetic makeup), it is not too farfetched that they will be almost identical to their original.
What human being would you clone, and how would it bring goodness to the world?
My buddy 'welcome to the spectacle' suggested cloning a think tank of Eintstein's to solve world problems. This is a good idea.
I would likely clone a think tank of Jeff Goldblum's and get them to reinact Shakespearian plays in parks. Each Jeff would play a different character in the play, and they would try and emulate the original actor accordingly. This would really increase the spririts of the human population on earth.
other contributors... who would you clone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
