Re: actual discussion of #300 (was: ...jokes about airline food?)
- --- In email@example.com, "Jeff Tundis" <jctundis@...> wrote:
>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.
> > > - 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 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?-> 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
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Larry" <larrytheillini@...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.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.