Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: actual discussion of #300 (was: ...jokes about airline food?)

Expand Messages
  • Larry
    ... I think we re having one of those conversations I sometimes have with Chris where we don t realize we re having two different conversations. I proabably
    Message 1 of 166 , May 1 12:03 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@...> wrote:
      > > > - So, while Ham didn't really commit suicide (or did it in
      > > > such an addle-minded state with the
      > > > encouragement of Mary that it
      > > > doesn't count) that "afterlife" still isn't "Heaven" because
      > > > Rick's not there. So suicide isn't a conflicting factor here.
      > > >
      > >
      > > I wasn't thinking that suicide would send them to "hell".
      > > I was thinking that if it "kills the soul", they wouldn't be
      > > in any afterlife at all.
      > >
      > - Ohhhhhhhhh. OK. Well, it isn't really settled that that's
      > Hell, either. It could be Purgatory.

      I think we're having one of those conversations I sometimes have with Chris where we don't realize we're having two different conversations.
      I proabably haven't made it very clear just what my beef was.

      Having read "Minds" many times and remembering that line about "suicide kills the soul as well as the body", I approached that crowd-in-the-afterlife scene wondering if Dave had been thematically consistent by NOT having Ham or Bran exist in the afterlife. Since I initially thought they WERE missing, it was a great moment. When I realized that they were there, and not only that, but that Dave didn't even (by his own words afterwards) care about that "suicide kills the soul" thing any more, I was disappointed.

      Small disappointment, not big one. "Missed opportunity" rather than "continuity error".

      But the main point--which I may not have been clear on because it seems too obvious to mention to me, but probably isn't to anyone else--is that I didn't take "kills the soul" to mean "sends the soul to an unpleasant afterlife rather than a pleasant one". I meant literally "stops the soul from existing". In other words, no afterlife of any kind. I realize there could be other interpretations, but how else does "killing the soul" make sense as something DIFFERENT from the everyday death of individuals?

      > - How does this piece from The Rosicrucian Fellowship hit you?
      > http://www.rosicrucian.com/zineen/death5.htm
      -> When the Ego has left its dense body, that dies QUICKLY.
      -> Physical matter becomes inert the moment it is deprived of
      -> the quickening, life-giving energy; it dissolves as a form.
      -> Not so with the matter of the Desire World; once life has
      -> been communicated to it, that energy will subsist for a
      -> considerable time after the influx of life has ceased,
      -> varying as to the strength of the impulse. The result is that
      -> after the Ego has left them these "shells" subsist for a
      -> longer or a shorter time. They live an independent life,
      -> and if that Ego to which they belonged was very much given
      -> to worldly desires, perhaps cut off in the prime of life,
      -> with strong and unsatisfied ambitions, this soul-less shell
      -> will often make the most desperate efforts to get back to the
      -> Physical World, and much of the phenomena of spiritualistic
      -> seances are due to the actions of these shells. The fact that
      -> the communications received from many of these so-called
      -> "Spirits" are utterly devoid of sense is easily accounted
      -> for when we realize that they are not Spirits at all, but
      -> only a soul-less part of the garment of the departed Spirit,
      -> and therefore without intelligence. They have a memory of the
      -> past life, owing to the panorama which was etched after death,
      -> which often enables them to impose upon relatives by stating
      -> incidents not known to others, but the fact remains that they
      -> are but the cast-off garment of the Ego, endowed with an
      -> independent life for the time being.

      I'm not sure I entirely understand it, let alone believe it. But it does seem to go some distance toward "explaining" life after death as a secular phenomemon.

      - Larry Hart
    • Jeff Tundis
      ... Understood. Although, when I first read it I saw Cerebus reaction as being terrified of Mary *and* the native Africans both. Like he knew that Ham s death
      Message 166 of 166 , May 16 2:41 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
        > --- In cerebus@yahoogroups.com, Chris W <show_me68508@> wrote:
        > >
        > > > But my question still stands. What in the story leading UP
        > > > TO that scene gave any indication that Mary wanted Ham dead?
        > > > What did she gain by his "murder"? Oh, I got
        > > > that she was being bad to him, but I thought almost the
        > > > opposite--that she was keeping him alive in an
        > > > alomst-vegitative state long beyond the time when life was
        > > > worth living to him.
        > > >
        > >
        > > ======= I thought the implication was that she was driving
        > > him to it, with the shock treatments and constantly
        > > tearing him down.
        > >
        > That certainly makes sense. I'm just saying that, when reading it for the first time prior to any insight from the author, I read a very different story from the one that Dave wrote or claims to have written.
        > - Larry Hart


        Although, when I first read it I saw Cerebus' reaction as being terrified of Mary *and* the native Africans both. Like he knew that Ham's death was the result of a plot. Now, what that plot was (physical or metaphysical) I did not know, and I suspect neither did Cerebus.

        It was a creepy moment.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.