this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
-6 points (40.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43902 readers
1031 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I've always considered the nature of living to be to grow, to become more -- and the nature of dying to be reduced, to become less. Sort of like taking the derivative of what you are, the rate of change..

This has the unusual consequence that when people tell me to 'live a little' e.g. with idle pastimes, it feels to me like they are asking me to 'die a little'.

What do you consider the difference?

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

When someone says "live a little" they mean it like "live a little more".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean ppl usually say that you're only alive when you feel good and bad emotions, and when you're hurting sometimes as well. So I assume making some mistakes, being wrong, feeling things, being exposed to stuff, that's all "living". And sitting in your room following daily patterns a lot, no change in behaviour or routine, that's all the "dying" part.

But at the end of the day it's all subjective and it really depends on your focus in life and your definitions.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

There would be no good without the bad. It would just be.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You seem to show some of your self-image here (a concept that replaces the misleading "ego"). The short description you give seems to tell that this is attached to "the quantity of your doing". Hence the idea of "living = doing more = becoming more" vs. "dying = doing less = becoming less".

While there is nothing wrong with that in principle (heaps of books exist on the different philosophical approaches on this wider topic and yours is quite popular among certain cultures), we could without changing much arrive at a different but perhaps more satisfying conclusion.
The change is from equating "living" to the experience of exercising our body and mind, to "living" being the experience of purely inhabiting and owning that body and mind. -- That would probably be what people mean when they seemingly tell you to paradoxically "live a little" (implying to mean "live a little more") by "doing less". Which, when we really concentrate on enjoying the pure experience will not actually mean that we are just idling but it would mean we would be less occupied with exercising and more occupied with observing the living (or observing the feeling of it). Whether we actually do physical/mental exercising or not does not really matter. It's just more easy for many people to do the observing while they are "idling" or "meditating" in a still way, but any way that fits a specific person is good. We might be surprised by how active we are when doing that.

That way we could arrive at the insight that "doing less" does not equal "becoming less" (perhaps even the contrary), neither that "dying" equals "becoming less". :-)

edit ... If we were to see "living" and "dying" purely as functions of an organism regardless of the existence of a self-image, then "living" would mean a sustained state of dynamic equilibrium whereas "dying" would be a transitory state toward non-equilibrium (that is decaying). Interestingly, decaying should then be a transitory state from being one dead organism into sustaining the equilibrium of living in other organisms (i.e. becoming the other); while there would be no transitory state toward becoming living (there's just a transition from being a single cell to being an organism).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

It's true that I emphasize industry in my life (a bit of an understatement perhaps). I find it essential to know exactly who I am and what I need to be doing. So that narrow focus works well right now.

Perhaps one day, I'll think about experiencing things more passively. There's nothing wrong with it. On the other hand, I really do enjoy doing things. An alarming amount of things! So maybe I won't really slow down later in life after all. It keeps me fit if nothing else!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Living is the continuation of consciousness, dying is the cessation (or interruption, or –more liberally– damaging) of consciousness.

But more to what you're talking about, when they say "live a little" they mean getting out of your routines and comfort zones, which IS an avenue for growth.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Ah, bad luck -- I'm the philosophical zombie everyone's been looking for: intelligence without consciousness.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure, as sometimes I wonder which one I am.