Hilter's legacy was passed on because of human recordings, eye witness accounts in books or radio recording and movie films.

I've certainly no argument with that. I don't think that excludes the other being a theoretical possibility.

His ideas might be referred to as memes, but I see that as part of culture and nothing biological or of any spiritual nature.

Perhaps. Maybe what we call spiritual is a blend of the cultural, the cross-cultural, the psychological. Insofar as those "memes" become something cross-cultural, archetypal, per Jung, I can't help but wonder/suspect/hope that they represent something of more profound significance. But profundity is something we organisms grant, methinks, not something that exists without us. Only the noetic is transphenomenal; all else is phenomenal, contingent.

In someways this contradicts existentialism, but at the moment of conception, your existence is established but also much of your essense, although much more essense is developed later on.

It needn't contradict existentialism; it depends on how dogmatic one is about existence truly preceding essence. I tend to buy the notion of simutaneity of cause and effect from Nichiren Buddhism, or Bruno's notion that the corporeal is a direct manifestation of the incorporeal, and that both come into being at the same moment. That one must necessarily precede the other is a false posit. Existence is the manifestation of essence.

Insofar as essence = self, I'd still say existence comes first, as the self is largely a creation of the organism to which it refers.

Maybe it means that our ability to think and wonder has outgrown our biological role on this planet. As you say we "die back into the womb of the very planet that begot you in the first place". And as Iso said, what would you do differently either way? You replied nothing, so maybe it is back to that we think too damn much about things that don't matter.

I wasn't really arguing for that, so it makes sense that I didn't offer anything convincing. :)

I don't think that my life, such as it is, goes on after I die. But life certainly goes on, at least until it doesn't.

Maybe, but I think it was much more prosaic:

"Hey, Glerg, jump up and grab me a hunk of mastodon why'don't'cha?"

"Fuck, no, I'm busy. Get it yer own dam' self."

"Naw, the Great Spirit In The Sky put me in charge a' you ilk."

"Bisonshit. Prove it, asshole."

[resounding crack as of a hyenadon femur connecting with a hominid cranium]

"Hey, Oort, jump up and grab me a hunk of mastodon why'don't'cha?"

Is that really where "derring-do" originated - from "daring-do"?

Huih - I never woulda known that.

...as I said, exceptions abound, but the benefits of practicing selflessness and philanthropy to one's own physical and mental well-being are well-documented.

So we all ought to be selfless for purely selfish reasons.

take Two Tablets (hermetically sealed) and call back in the morning.

Nice catch.

Well if not then perhaps it should have.

Derring and daring definitely resonate with one another.

as parts of other stuff: plants, rocks, beetles, rain, deadly viruses, etc...a piece here, a piece there.

I believe that energy is neither created nor destroyed. I think maybe we just change into somethingS else. (Whatever those things are is all up to chance...depending on when and where, and maybe how we die.)

When I ponder on it, I fancy that ghosts might actually be remnants of memory, our own and that of the animal/vegetable/mineral who died...I really wish I could convince myself that our spirits live on apart from our bodies...patent and distinct. I would love nothing more than to see Tom again.

Forgive this link, but awhile back, I put in writing my feelings on this.

I think that our behavior probably affects the universe...and so anything that hurts it should be considered immoral. (I think we've already made this planet pretty sick.) Other than that, moral and immoral is just stuff we're taught...it's all relative. My ancestors believed that owning land was immoral, but the people who committed genocide and other atrocities in order to remove my ancestors thought it was A-ok to treat the earth they came from...like some prostitute. And certainly they still have no laws against raping it. (oops. running off on a tangent, yeah?)

I guess I've come to think that the planet will take care of itself. Hopefully, before they can kill everything else, as developers and other rapists dig up the earth, they will unleash a deadly virus that will knock off all but about 1000 humans...and the other life here will be saved.

But even if that doesn't happen, I am praying that we will annihilate ourselves before we metastasize to another planet. Even if this means killing off every discernably animate thing...the stuff that makes stuff will still be here, and eventually thingS new will evolve.

"Insofar as essence = self, I'd still say existence comes first, as the self is largely a creation of the organism to which it refers."

Especially if one is talking about higher level brain activities such as language, math, abstract thinking, acting, painting, logic,etc. Perhaps its our emotional responses which are more ingrained as a result of our biological brain wiring, such as tapping of our feet to the rythym of a favorite song or feeling pleasure from a lover's touch.

So, you do believe in an afterlife? You just call it something else.

I once knew a devout atheist who believed there was a special place in Hell reserved for developers.

Thanks for your link.

I think it's just all the same life...different parts, different times? (sorry if this sound wgoconnel-ish)

Personally I think the idea of eternal punishment does have value. If it keeps someone from thinking that it is ok for them to become a suicide bomber and kill alot of people along with themselves, then that to me is a good idea. Of course, the idea that one might actually be rewarded in an afterlife for being a suicide bomber is a noxious concept, but one which some people also see as a valuable idea and is being implemented fairly widely in the Mideast at this time. So eliminating the idea of an afterlife with rewards and punishments might just balance out each other and the world would become no better off. It might be best if we could concentrate on making life here and now a better place. Of course most everyone desire this outcome, but our discontents continue and stem from disagreement over how to implement this concept. Francis Fukuyama posited that we had reached the end of history with the triumph of democracy and free markets, however the Islamists, S. American Maoists,and Chinese oligarchy dispute this.

Zeus-Boy wrote the following post at 07/02/2009 3:09 PM: I guess one convincing argument that death is not the end. So far, nothing.

You're wasting your time...you will never find anyone who can convince you of it. If there is a God (and I believe there is) then the answer to your question must come from Him.

In the meantime, denial of spiritual truth makes good conversation for pseudo-intellectuals and a way for them to demonstrate their enlightenment and what they must surely consider to be their superior intellect.

One man's intellectual, and really cool person, is another man's pretentious dumbass and phony.

Jack