23 replies to this topic

[mike]

In reading some of the posts and articles by members of this forum, I've been struck by an impression that there is an attempt to develop an "Immortalist Philosophy," and that a true Immortalist will naturally subscribe to this philosophy. I'm especially thinking of writings of Bruce Klein, but some others here seem to me to be saying much the same thing as Bruce is. Bruce and others seem to me to emphasize that an Immortalist believes that oblivion follows the death of an individual, and that indeed, this belief is one of the primary motivations for becoming an Immortalist. There also seems to be an emphasis here that the Immortalism philosophy must of necessity be anti-religious and that an Immortalist is also a materialist.

Personally, I'm an agnostic as far as some religious beliefs go, and I also take an agnostic position as to what might or might not happen after death. My reason for considering myself an Immortalist is that I simply don't like the idea of involuntary death, and personally wish to have the option to remain alive on this earth for as long as I choose, with no termination of life ever being imposed on me from without. To me, this desire has nothing to do with whether death results in oblivion or some sort of continuation. And it also for me has nothing to do with whether certain religious beliefs or the philosophy of materialism are true. I believe that there is no need for me to add on other beliefs to my simple desire to have the option to live here as long as I want. I even think it is possible to turn some people off who might otherwise entertain Immortalism as a possiblity, by adding on these other beliefs.

I remember once reading something in the Life Extension Foundation's magazine that I thought handled this issue well. If I remember correctly, someone had written in to ask if one had to be a non-believer in religion or life after death to be a life extensionist. The answer given by the magazine, (again, if I remember correctly,) was no, and the magazine cited the views of a Christian lady who was an enthusiastic member of LEF, who said that she believed that if she died she would go to heaven, but that heaven could wait indefinitely! Thus, LEF, as I see it, took an inclusive position and was welcoming to people from various religious and philosophical backgrounds.

Bruce, if I have misrepresented your positions here (or those of anyone else), I apologize, and hope you'll set me straight!

Mike

Edited by mike, 29 December 2003 - 04:30 AM.

[Sophianic]

mike: ... Bruce and others seem to me to emphasize that an Immortalist believes that oblivion follows the death of an individual, and that indeed, this belief is one of the primary motivations for becoming an Immortalist.  There also seems to be an emphasis here that the Immortalism philosophy must of necessity be anti-religious and that an Immortalist is also a materialist.

For me, 'oblivion after death' is an assumption, and I've been engaged in a deep exploration of its implications over the last several months. For me, this assumption is not a primary motivation in the pursuit of immortality. I also see no advantage in being anti-religious. I am, however, not afraid to speak openly about my irreligious views, and if that comes across as anti-religious, then that would be a misinterpretation of my intentions. That 'oblivion after death' also fits with a materialist formulation of existence is also incidental to my examination of both.

mike: ... My reason for considering myself an Immortalist is that I simply don't like the idea of involuntary death, and personally wish to have the option to remain alive on this earth for as long as I choose, with no termination of life ever being imposed on me from without.  To me, this desire has nothing to do with whether death results in oblivion or some sort of continuation.

But why don't you like the idea of involuntary death; why do you want the option to remain alive in this world for as long as you choose? If you keep open the possibility that you might continue after death, why balk at the idea of involuntary death?

mike: And it also for me has nothing to do with whether certain religious beliefs or the philosophy of materialism are true.  I believe that there is no need for me to add on other beliefs to my simple desire to have the option to live here as long as I want.  I even think it is possible to turn some people off who might otherwise entertain Immortalism as a possiblity, by adding on these other beliefs.

Many people have questions about life and death. If they don't have a sound alternative to the religious or spiritualist viewpoint with respect to death and what happens after death, then why not believe in life after death, or at least keep open the possibility of life after death? In doing so, why would they then entertain the prospect of immortality in this world as a viable option?

mike: ... Thus, LEF, as I see it, took an inclusive position and was welcoming to people from various religious and philosophical backgrounds.

Your anecdote raises a good point. Which is why I think it's important not to take an anti-religious stance, nor to force a particular philosophy on anyone. But that does not preclude speaking openly and frankly about the irreligious and materialist viewpoints when or if that seems necessary.

mike: Bruce, if I have misrepresented your positions here (or those of anyone else), I apologize, and hope you'll set me straight!

I'll let Bruce handle this one. For myself, I appreciate your views on this matter. In your objections, I have found greater strength in my own position on these matters.

[mike]

But why don't you like the idea of involuntary death; why do you want the option to remain alive in this world for as long as you choose?  If you keep open the possibility that you might continue after death, why balk at the idea of involuntary death?


Many people have questions about life and death.  If they don't have a sound alternative to the religious or spiritualist viewpoint with respect to death and what happens after death, then why not believe in life after death, or at least keep open the possibility of life after death?  In doing so, why would they then entertain the prospect of immortality in this world as a viable option?

Sophianic,

I don't like the idea of involuntary death because it encroaches on my personal freedom. And I want the option to remain alive in this world as long as I choose because I like living, and living here. I take an agnostic position on the question of life after death, and that for me means that I don't know what, if anything, happens after death. I don't know whether or not life after death is "possible." Since I like living on this earth, I want the option to do so as long as I want. To me that is far preferable than dying involuntarily and either ceasing to exist or entering another realm that I know nothing about. I can't speak for others, but this is why I personally "entertain the prospect of immortality as a viable option."

Mike

[mike]

Your anecdote raises a good point.  Which is why I think it's important not to take an anti-religious stance, nor to force a particular philosophy on anyone.  But that does not preclude speaking openly and frankly about the irreligious and materialist viewpoints when or if that seems necessary.

Sophianic,

I agree with you that all of us should feel free to speak freely about any viewpoint we might personally hold, and, if that viewpoint is what has awakened an interest in Immortalism in oneself, to freely share that. But I've gotten the impression in reading some of the posts and articles here, that the belief that oblivion follows death should somehow be incorporated into an "official" Immortalist Philosophy. Same with a materialist worldview. But I feel that the the idea that the Immortalist is one who wants to "conquer the blight of involuntary death" is all the "philosophy" we need to have corporately as Immortalists. And then it should be left to the individual Immortalist to come up with his or her own personal philosophy of Immortalism which could include what motivates him or her to be an Immortalist, and what worldview he or she feels underlies that motivation. And of course, he or she should be able to freely share these views and debate them on this forum and elsewhere.

Mike

[bacopa]

Yes the whole oblivion thing does seem to be a basic tenet of immortalism almost as a well because there is nothing worse than oblivion immortalism would seem to be the best answer. I quite agree with this notion but I can understand how one might say well ok oblivion that's what death is therefore there's no use in trying to avoid it just accept it. But many of us here obviously don't want to accept it, it angers us, pisses us off to no end hence we come back to this site. Some here have a strictly science focus while others are more philisophically driven. personally the more of the science end of things that I learn the more I become science oriented but accept freely the philisophical implications of immortalism as well. There is something that i learned about a deathist memetic which is too much of an acceptance of death. People who subscribe to a deathist belief system seem to accept death as an inevitability and therefore with open arms. Once yer dead yer dead. Some of us here at Immortalist, most, refuse to accept this end. we know that through science we can circumnavigate around this supposed inevitability.
There are many who believe biotech is the answer, while others believe that nano-tech is the answer. There is also talk of AI, Artificial Intelligence that hopefully will become smart enough to solve this problem. While others are more hopeful about Cryonics and the potential benefits of suspended animation. Unfortunetly there is no one right answer at this time and as different advances in different fields slowly or I should say rapidly come to fruition we all are optimistic. I personally believe the biotech companies utilizing stem cell research on telomeres will find a way to slow or stop the biological clock and many are hoping to stay alive just long enough to reap the benefits of this science. Some believe that if they remain healthy long enough that a pill or a procedure will be developed or something similar to bootstrap them to super longevity which may come about just in time for many of us, and hopefully for all of us. Obviously no one wants to be left behind as each death is a tragedy and always has been. So the longevity race is just that and immortalists hope to be as supportive as possible for all of us hoping to reach this goal. Obviously it's a serious issue, the most serious, and people here deal with it as such. But there's plenty of room to vent, and act like an idiot in the free speach forums and everyone here are pretty nice and light people given the nature of the subject! Good luck on your immortality search.

[Cyto]

Christian lady who was an enthusiastice member of LEF, who said that she believed that if she died she would go to heaven, but that heaven could wait indefinitely

And I thought things were going to get better. [ang]

Unfortunately I hear a 50-50 split from the theists about this, that I ask.

[Lazarus Long]

And I thought things were going to get better.  [ang] 

I would suggest we have to live a very long time to live long enough to see it get better.

I am more interested in the subtlety of the 2 to 1 split among transhumanists that is becoming more apparent from Soph's poll on "Death is..."

On a scale of roughly 2:1 we seem to be divided between those that are "certain of oblivion" and those that remain "undecided." This is a subtle and very important distinction.

On a conceptual level at first they appear very similar propositions but on a pragmatic level the two reflect very different underlying premises for making behavioral choices except they both can be reconciled as favoring life over death, unless the minority finds a "reason d'etre" for dying.

I will give an example that can effect the argument and that is "self sacrifice" (martyrdom) for the good of others, or even the advancement of immortality. What if you could by sacrificing your life promote and ensure the longevity of those you love, your family, your culture, and your political and scientific causes?

Sound irrational?

Please be patient because that is exactly what motivates suicide bombers. That they are right or wrong is important to us the living but that they think this way is not to be discounted; it is also one of the main underpinnings of Christian Theology.

I am not advocating, I am pointing out how "risking oblivion" is a measure that can be "rationalized" and a sibling or parent that throws them self in the path of an oncoming vehicle to push their loved one from the path is making exactly this choice. Do you think they can only do this because they believe in an afterlife?

It is certainly consoling to the beneficiaries of such an action to believe that the sacrifice will be rewarded and it helps assuage "survivor guilt." But heroic action is driven precisely by the momentary (often futile) but sometimes effective realization that by my action at this very moment I risk near certain destruction but in doing so, those I love and all I hold meaningful will be better assured continuance and this even transcends the importance of "personal recognition" (accolades) that motivates the common man.

Helix if you are seeing only a 50/50 split I would suggest that is a sign of improvement and I am not merely being optimistic. It implies that many people are questioning their personal imperatives.

[Mind]

"Conquering involuntary death" seems to be a good, concise, and simple immortalist philosophy. I do not see the need to elaborate by saying an "immortalist is materialist" or an "immortalist is non-theist".

[bacopa]

I'm very interested to see where the movement will go what philosophies will take hold and which ones will be left behind. Will this continue to be even a movement or will it slowly change into a simple cry out for life itself the essence of all volitions. If that is the case than I'm more than happy to participate in a non-movement so to speak and indeed it just might boil down to a bunch of rationalist materialists who simply don't want to die and that's ok! To me the science end of it makes this site that much more progressive, interesting and grounded in reality otherwise it would be more of a quasi-religious type of site which clearly it is not. The diplomacy and respect we all have for one another is another perk to being a member of this site.

I'm certain of oblivion and I'll be the first to admit it even though I wouldn't necassarily shout that out to the world for fear of depressing people and driving them mad in the process. But to me BJ's statement about how to reconcile with the void of death, oblivion hit me hard and spoke to the immortalist in me knowing full well this will be my only chance at life extension. I have had to reconcile with my emotions as I now realize life as of now is too short to get too emotionaly attached to it for fear of utter despondency and sorrow. perhaps when our lifespans become longer we will get back in touch with the more sensitive and gentle sides of our personalities. For now though I am content to just stay focused on the one goal "conquering involuntary death" that about sums it up for me, I'll leave intelligence enhancements for later on, when we first achieve the preliminary goal of life extension/immortality.

When I first got on this site I was all angry about the shortness of life and how our present lifespans don't exactly allow for the full life that each of us could and should be entitled to. I was angry at history and the lack of progress in my mind as a direct result of having skewed priorities, wars, mindless Capitilist greed, senseless conformity etc. I'm so happy that we are on the cusp of this amazing revolution in Stem cell research and unfolding and mapping the entire genome. If only more people followed suit... than again I live in the Boston/Cambridge area where Pharmaceutical companies are popping up literally all over the place. I have many friends who are researching stem cells, proteins and the like. I am very excited about the times we are in.

Like I have said before I think religion has set us back many many years but that is all changing now thank God, no pun, and although I have no problem with the faith that compels folks to take great solace in the traditions behind religion I become very angry when I see it as a potential crutch and thus a setback for our relatively high quality of life here in the 21st century.

Once people start dealing with the harsh reality of oblivion, again everyone is entitled to their own belief system, but if reality as I see it begins to hit theists I simply believe they won't know what to do other than either become suicidal or join the common cause for all men and women which is survival at any cost. I'm done prosteletyzing may immortalism seep into your veins and cause a resurgance of a passion regarding life itself and all its implications to the universe

[Bruce Klein]

Mike (sorry for delay)

The following six ideas are to stress the difference between ImmInst, the organization with a mission, from its members.

1. ImmInst was created to meet one goal - conquer involuntary death.

2. ImmInst was not created to foster any particular philosophy.

3. ImmInst is a tool for its members – research, publication, networking, and community.

4. ImmInst is a platform where members can express ideas freely and openly.

5. ImmInst does not take official positions

6. ImmInst members can, and do take positions.


I've often lamented at the lack of participation by the more religious here in the ImmInst forums. While there have been some wonderful posts, it seems the religious members are short lived participants to the brutally rational, yet persistently helpful discussion.

I've written about the idea of an immoralist philosophy having the underpinning of oblivion as the main motivator. Yet, I don't feel any strong urge to thrust this philosophy on others (maybe just a soft twinge from time to time though). However, ImmInst is much bigger than any one person.

Does this answer your questions?

[mike]

Hi Bruce,

What I get from your post is that when you write about an Immortalist Philosophy with oblivion following death as the main motivator, that you are simply writing about your personal immortalist philosophy and that you are not necessarily expecting all Immortalists to agree with every detail of it. I get the feeling from your post that you wouldn't be surprised if there were many personal immortalist philosophies. I suspect that you'd feel that the one thing all Immmortalists would agree on, though, is the desirability of conquering involuntary death, whatever their personal motivations might be for thinking that way.

Mike

[Bruce Klein]

Yes. The desire to conquer involuntary death is a great unifier.

Not many healthy, sane individuals want to commit suicide. I think this is true for a healthy 25 year-old as well as a healthy 250 year-old (and beyond).

[Sophianic]

mike: ... I take an agnostic position on the question of life after death, and that for me means that I don't know what, if anything, happens after death.  I don't know whether or not life after death is "possible."

Mike, I can appreciate that death is a significant event in that it has important implications for us as individuals. So important that we may balk at taking a stand on it. With respect to life after death, I operate on the 'onus of proof' principle. If someone makes a factual claim supported by evidence, I remain open to both. If, however, such a claim is not supported, even by minimal evidence, I take the position that nothing is possible. Even in the absence of evidence for an afterlife, I remain open to claims made about it because the question is an important one. However, that does not mean I must take an "agnostic" position. I feel I am far better off not taking such a position; I can then be free to explore the implications of assuming oblivion after death as if it were true.

[Sophianic]

mike: ... But I feel that the the idea that the Immortalist is one who wants to "conquer the blight of involuntary death" is all the "philosophy" we need to have corporately as Immortalists.  And then it should be left to the individual Immortalist to come up with his or her own personal philosophy of Immortalism which could include what motivates him or her to be an Immortalist, and what worldview he or she feels underlies that motivation.

Mike, I am troubled that you would advocate the quest to "conquer the blight of involuntary death." One, because the term 'conquer' suggests to me a war-like attitude not in keeping with the spirit of harmony, co-operation, sharing and reverence for life that we advocate here. Two, because the term 'blight' in this context suggests to me a denigrating attitude toward death, i.e., a study of death may yield some fascinating insights into the nature of life. Third, the term 'involuntary' ignores those who, for whatever reason, voluntarily take their lives because they no longer feel able or willing to place value on them. Would we not want to prevent 'voluntary' death as well?

For these reasons, the catch phrase "conquer the blight of involuntary death" is flawed, contrarian and inadequate. In lieu of this questionable rallying point for immortalists, what principle would you suggest that could serve as a point of integration and unity for the membership here? If we leave it up to individual members to develop their respective philosophies, where will they get their values and information from?

[mike]

Mike, I can appreciate that death is a significant event in that it has important implications for us as individuals.  So important that we may balk at taking a stand on it.  With respect to life after death, I operate on the 'onus of proof' principle.  If someone makes a factual claim supported by evidence, I remain open to both.  If, however, such a claim is not supported, even by minimal evidence, I take the position that nothing is possible.  Even in the absence of evidence for an afterlife, I remain open to claims made about it because the question is an important one.  However, that does not mean I must take an "agnostic" position.  I feel I am far better off not taking such a position; I can then be free to explore the implications of assuming oblivion after death as if it were true.

Sophianic,

The reason I take an agnostic position is that I feel, both that there is evidence suggestive that there is not life after death, and evidence suggestive that there is. At present I feel that the evidence suggesting that there is life after death is not as strong as the evidence that there isn't. So that leaves me in an agnostic position, not knowing whether life after death is possible. To me the evidence that there is not life after death would include the evidence that strongly suggests that our consciousness, personality, and memories are completely dependent on the the functioning of the human brain. The evidence suggestive of life after death has been critically examined in Stephen Braude's 2003 book, Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death. Braude is Chairman of the Philosophy Department at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Even though I take an agnostic position, I lean toward the notion that oblivion follows death. But as I said earlier, I like living here on earth, and even if there turned out to be a life after death, would still want the freedcom to live here as long as I want.

I don't see that my taking an agnostic position interferes with my ability to explore the implications of oblivion after death. The implicatons of oblivion seem to me to be rather simple and straightforward anyway. Oblivion means that we cease to exist at death, and that if we want to remain alive we should pursue all strategies that can be shown to promise life extension and physical immortality.

Mike

[mike]

Mike, I am troubled that you would advocate the quest to "conquer the blight of involuntary death."  One, because the term 'conquer' suggests to me a war-like attitude not in keeping with the spirit of harmony, co-operation, sharing and reverence for life that we advocate here.  Two, because the term 'blight' in this context suggests to me a denigrating attitude toward death, i.e., a study of death may yield some fascinating insights into the nature of life.  Third, the term 'involuntary' ignores those who, for whatever reason, voluntarily take their lives because they no longer feel able or willing to place value on them.  Would we not want to prevent 'voluntary' death as well? 

For these reasons, the catch phrase "conquer the blight of involuntary death" is flawed, contrarian and inadequate.  In lieu of this questionable rallying point for immortalists, what principle would you suggest that could serve as a point of integration and unity for the membership here? If we leave it up to individual members to develop their respective philosophies, where will they get their values and information from?

Sophianic,

Yes, I definitely take a war-like attitude toward death, and no more want to live in a spirit of harmony and cooperation with it than I would want to live in a spirit of harmony and cooperation with a disease.

I signed up on this board because I want to be free to live as long as possible and felt that I could learn of things here that will help me to do that and also share any information I might come across. That's all there is to it for me.

Have you suggested that the slogan "conquering the blight of involuntary death" be removed from this website? It's prominence on the first page would seem to me to indicate that that is what this site is basically about.

Mike

Edited by mike, 04 January 2004 - 10:10 PM.

[Sophianic]

mike: The evidence suggestive of life after death has been critically examined in Stephen Braude's 2003 book, Immortal Remains: The Evidence for Life After Death.  Braude is Chairman of the Philosophy Department at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Mike, I appreciate the reference. As I'm sure you know, however, statements that purport to give evidence do not necessarily grant legitimacy to a claim. I could make an arbitrary claim and try to buttress it with "evidence," and give it an aura of legitimacy it does not deserve. For example, I try to persuade Virginia that Santa Claus exists. I point to a man dressed up in a Santa Claus suit. I point out that when she sent her letter to the North Pole, it never came back; he must have read it. She gets presents at Christmas that are personally signed 'From Santa.' I remind her that her parents, relatives, teachers, neighbors and other adults have assured us that Santa Claus exists. To Virginia, the "evidence" may seem, not only suggestive, but overwhelming. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Now, substitute 'disembodied souls' and 'astral bodies' for Santa Claus. Clearly, an appeal to "evidence" is not enough.

Incidentally, Keith Augustine presents a strong case against the survival of the soul in The Case Against Immortality (1997). It would be interesting to compare Braude's work with Augustine's.

mike: I don't see that my taking an agnostic position interferes with my ability to explore the implications of oblivion after death.  The implicatons of oblivion seem to me to be rather simple and straightforward anyway.  Oblivion means that we cease to exist at death, and that if we want to remain alive we should pursue all strategies that can be shown to promise life extension and physical immortality.

An agnostic position does not merely appeal to ignorance, does not merely tolerate it. For whatever reason (wishful thinking, fear of disapproval, desire to manipulate), it places a buffer between 'what is true' and 'what we need to be true.' Agnostics don't deny what is true, but as long as they renege on the responsibility to seek it, they cannot affirm it either. To me, the implications of oblivion after death are anything but simple and straightforward. I take care not to confuse what I understand it to be with what I understand the implications to be for taking urgent action to make death an option. The implications are not only philosophical and scientific, but psychological and societal. Ray Kurzweil, in a recent dialogue on reincarnation, effectively articulates some of these implications.

[Sophianic]

mike: Yes, I definitely take a war-like attitude toward death, and no more want to live in a spirit of harmony and cooperation with it than I would want to live in a spirit of harmony and cooperation with a disease.

Mike, I appreciate your frustration, but I must take exception to your war-like attitude. I would not want to suggest that we should live in a spirit of harmony and cooperation with death ~ only that we not take death personally, as if it were an adversary. Affirmation carries so much more power than defiance, and I would suggest that you take a more positive attitude on the matter.

mike: Have you suggested that the slogan "conquering the blight of involuntary death" be removed from this website?  It's prominence on the first page would seem to me to indicate that that is what this site is basically about.

You may be correct in your assumption that this slogan, as you call it, is what this site is about. I would hope that that is not the case. For me, this catch phrase is essentially negative. It speaks of pain, fear and doubt. I would suggest a more positive statement. It would put the focus on life, on everlasting life, on the promise of everlasting life, on cultivating the promise of everlasting life.

[mike]

Mike, I appreciate the reference.  As I'm sure you know, however, statements that purport to give evidence do not necessarily grant legitimacy to a claim.  I could make an arbitrary claim and try to buttress it with "evidence," and give it an aura of legitimacy it does not deserve.  For example, I try to persuade Virginia that Santa Claus exists.  I point to a man dressed up in a Santa Claus suit.  I point out that when she sent her letter to the North Pole, it never came back; he must have read it.  She gets presents at Christmas that are personally signed 'From Santa.'  I remind her that her parents, relatives, teachers, neighbors and other adults have assured us that Santa Claus exists.  To Virginia, the "evidence" may seem, not only suggestive, but overwhelming.  Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.  Now, substitute 'disembodied souls' and 'astral bodies' for Santa Claus.  Clearly, an appeal to "evidence" is not enough.

Incidentally, Keith Augustine presents a strong case against the survival of the soul in The Case Against Immortality (1997).  It would be interesting to compare Braude's work with Augustine's.

Sophianic,

I've read Augustine's piece before and agree with you that he presents a strong case. I agree that it would be interesting to compare his work with Braude's.

Mike

[mike]

To me, the implications of oblivion after death are anything but simple and straightforward.  I take care not to confuse what I understand it to be with what I understand the implications to be for taking urgent action to make death an option.  The implications are not only philosophical and scientific, but psychological and societal.  Ray Kurzweil, in a recent dialogue on reincarnation, effectively articulates some of these implications.

Sophianic,

Thanks for the reference to the dialogue with Ray Kurzweil. I see what you mean about the implications.

Mike

[mike]

Mike, I appreciate your frustration, but I must take exception to your war-like attitude.  I would not want to suggest that we should live in a spirit of harmony and cooperation with death ~ only that we not take death personally, as if it were an adversary.  Affirmation carries so much more power than defiance, and I would suggest that you take a more positive attitude on the matter.

Sophianic,

Perhaps I need to alter my attititude. But I do find a lot of positive hope in my mind that there will be rapid advances in biotechnology, etc. that will lead to radical life extension, and ultimately to the ability to achieve physical immortality.

Mike

[mike]

You may be correct in your assumption that this slogan, as you call it, is what this site is about.  I would hope that that is not the case.  For me, this catch phrase is essentially negative.  It speaks of pain, fear and doubt.  I would suggest a more positive statement.  It would put the focus on life, on everlasting life, on the promise of everlasting life, on cultivating the promise of everlasting life.

What would you think of literally replacing on this site the phrase, "conquering the blight of involuntary death" with, "cultivating the promise of everlasting life!"?

[Bruce Klein]

Idea/Perspective

ImmInst's Slogan = 'For Infinite Lifespan'

ImmInst's Mission = 'Conquering Death'.

[Sophianic]

mike: What would you think of literally replacing on this site the phrase, "conquering the blight of involuntary death" with, "cultivating the promise of everlasting life!"?

Mike, I appreciate your statements of diplomacy. In answer to your question, I wanted to provide a positive counterpart to the essentially negative mission statement for illustrative purposes only. I don't presume to see my example as a literal replacement. By itself, my statement "cultivating the promise of everlasting life" is clearly inadequate because it might give the impression of life after death, or a return to the garden of Eden, or a group of Zen Buddhist monks contemplating a rock garden. I know what it means, but it wouldn't stand a chance of being properly interpreted in a pluralistic world. In lieu of an essentially negative mission statement, I suggest the following:

"____ing the _____ of death; _____ing the _____ of life ..."

For example ...

exposing the tragedy of death; extending the promise of life ...