Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by midlifebear, Mar 3, 2011.
Having a Woodstock day?
Just stardust? No.
But it is what we are physically comprised of.
That we all contain 14 billion years worth of cosmic history is no mere footnote on our existence.
I used to think I was Ziggy Stardust. Does that count for anything?
Hmmmm . . . Ziggy? Nope. Just stardust. Actually, I'm having a great day (probably a 9 out of 10). I'm having more a Carl Sagan day, although Woodstock was fun and had it's cosmic moments.
Too bad. :frown1: YouTube - David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust I agree with the others though, we are technically made up of stardust but that is no small feat. :smile:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by stardust.
I believe we are soul, spirit, light. Yes we are in a body for the moment, but when we die we leave that body. It is the soul, the spirit, the light within that is what we really are. If it helps you to call this stardust I can say this is a nice bit of poetry, a good metaphor.
And as "stardust" there is no limit to what we might be able to do.
I believe we are essentially consciousness, which you might call "the soul, the spirit, the light within."
Certainly, "consciousness" and "light" are often used synonymously in some contexts. ("The light went on ...," etc.)
I don't really believe in a soul (I'm a Buddhist, fwiw), so I'm not sure what survives death.
Something does (the physical container, energy within the body, et cetera). But is it something that has anything to do with personal identity? Without which, it's meaningless to say that we survive death, right?
I dunno, but I have my doubts.
(I'm just blowin' smoke here, Jason ... I say, a bit preemptively.)
stardust, yes ....... and a dustbunny or two
At the moment someone dies you can see the soul leave the body. That's my experience. At that time the soul has individual identity.
It is what countless artists are showing from Egyptian tomb paintings onwards.
Stardust enriched with lots of crap.
Well, you can see death overtake the living body.
And something changes.
Is it the soul leaving the body?
Or is it the energy systems in the body shutting down, so that all the various identities that each one of us has collapse into darkness and immobility?
(Maybe you did see the soul leave a dying person's body. Not for me to say.)
No one would doubt that a large part of humanity believes that there is something of a certain density and persistence that is released from the body upon death ... and therefore defeats death.
Maybe it's so.
But it's certainly one of the primal hopes we cherish ... the idea of eluding our individual extinction.
And the accounts of what happens after death are almost innumerable -- and while some, to be sure, share a family resemblance with certain others, many are unintelligible in terms of what the competing theories hold to be true.
Surely, no one knows.
Blatantly leading question in the thread title notwithstanding:
This article regarding Cosmic dust has a nifty little section on "stardust".
A fairly interesting read.
By all means hope, but don't get too hung up on the difficulties of this. There's a remarkable extension of Corinthians XII:13 in Masonic ritual. What is all important is Love (Charity):
The ladder which Jacob saw in his vision extended from earth to heaven, and the principal rounds were denominated Faith, Hope and Charity which admonish us to have Faith in the Grand Architect, Hope in immortality and Charity to all mankind. The greatest of these is Charity. For our Faith may be lost in sight, Hope may end in fruition, but Charity extends beyond the grave through the boundless realms of eternity.
So, I'm blatant. So sue me. But inquiring minds want to know. And that was a nice read on star dust, as opposed to just everything else composed of matter (including all of those beautiful and diffuse gases that make up nebulae). Really, it's nice to know someone is keeping track and giving everything a name. Nice photos, too. Very enjoyable.
However, I'm still interested in star dust in the generic, all encompassing sense -- blatantly speaking. :smile:
Is that what came after Starbucks?
The Protestents in Theatle are not in agreement if god or his administrative assistant first said, "Let there be Starbucks" or "Let there be light."
Look at Sam Parnia's research (from the UK).
I blatantly put all my philosophy books in the bottom corner of my bookshelf a couple of years ago. The resulting blatant literalness has its pros and cons. :wink: