File spoon-archives/baudrillard.archive/baudrillard_1997/97-04-26.234, message 39


Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 11:16:56 +0100 (MEZ)
From: martin stepanek <a9305560-AT-unet.univie.ac.at>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Warhol/sci-fi/turnips/death



On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Omar Nasim wrote:

>  When I use the word "Death" I am refering to that moment
> of life, when an individual has died or is presently dead.  By died or
> dead, I signify, a momentous state, an experience (i.e. the very dying
> experience, and post-death experience, whatever that maybe) that an
> individual goes through, that ends his/her life, and has moved into
> another state of "Being", another ontological level, i.e. a metaphysical
> plain of existence.  By "dying", I am refering to the very experiece of 
> "Death", i.e. the very experiece of being dead or the process of that Death.

As I see it, your whole argument of death being an absolute and real 
phenomenon rests upon the religious believe of a sort of live after 
death, which makes possible the subjective experience of *being dead*. 
But this believe does also something else: It blocks the argument, 
someone might throw in, which refers to a wrong subjective experience of 
dying someone may have. Because once you-re dead you perfectly know that 
your experience of dying was right (and maybe some others before that were 
wrong). But when you drop this religious (or as you say metaphysical) 
believe you get a whole different 
picture. You can have experiences of dying which can go wrong and the 
decision whether a person is dead or not totally rests in the realm of 
the people alive and their changing knowledge about the circumstances 
under which a person can be labeled "dead". So it seems useful 
to me to read some arguments for your believe in the existence of a 
"metaphysical plain of existence" after death.        

ciao,
martin.

p.s.: merry x-mas plus love&peace in 1997 from vienna, austria.




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005