DIALOGUE ABOUT DEATH

V.: Death, described in many literary works, is, in my opinion, shrouded in excessive mysticism. In the modern world, it is rather of a more technical nature, despite the fact that a person still opposes death as a complete cessation of the entire spectrum of his lifetime activity. Although today civilized death, for example, has become practically painless. In this connection, the question is - how relevant is death for you in terms of the cessation of your activities as a character? Will this, so to speak, offend you?

A.V.: Death bothered me not as an atheist, but “standard” atheism defines a person through his attitude to religion and “God.” For me there has never been such a thing as “god”. If I had not read about him, I would never have analyzed him. I identified myself through my supergoal, just like through life in which you are such an ambitious, ultimate Hamlet. And my question was not the classic “to be or not to be,” but how to avoid both states, or how to preserve my subjectivity, regardless of the imposed processes. Life and death seemed to me to be absolutely equally imposed givens. And I believe that death is a humiliation for the ego. If the ego needs life to satisfy its ambitions, then it is also for life, and if it is not needed, then only for the ego. It's a matter of preferences, goals, etc. This is a kind of social neurosis when a person realized that he was disappearing along with his “I”, which was leaving completely and irrevocably. There is no other, “second life”, reincarnation and so on. There is Emptiness, Nothingness, Absolute Zero. To overcome this existential horror, man came up with a religion that would advance his ego along some metaphysical steps into some “other existence.” But instead of overcoming it like a hero, he always did it like a coward. Therefore, religion is a complete lie, because it is always invented as an excuse for one’s unpreparedness for death.

V.: I would argue a little on the topic of the absence of the same (re)incarnation, because cyclical mechanisms are widely represented in beingness and together are one of its foundations. And most likely, the loss of what people call “soul”, i.e. the same interface for communicating with manifested reality, is still a much more fatal event for them than simply the physical cessation of existence. From this we can conclude that some energy (information) is still retained, recycled and supplied again, but in a completely purified form, according to the “drum” principle. And the realization of the death of the soul frightens people even more. What do you think about this?

A.V.: If we are talking about some kind of energy (information), then it certainly exists. During life, the subject remains in the imposed paradigm of “transmigration of souls” and the like. It is in some kind of nonlinearity - I don’t quite know what to call it exactly in scientifically correct language, but the interaction of energies in it gives birth to entities. There are a lot of things made up around these entities. In some way, the so-called. The manifested world is the artificiality of the struggle of two, three, five, ten such entities. In production, I felt like such a subject. He had energy, will, projections and declarations that were contrary to what is now commonly called “god” or the world or human will. I wouldn’t go into these details either, into this cheap human dichotomy. At the same time, I would not like to position myself as a “frenzied enemy of being.” This happened thanks to already established, established ways of describing the world order. Only a fool needs an enemy to exist. And therefore, adopting these concepts does not make much sense. Rather, it matters to talk about the manifested world as an obstacle that is trying to crush me, prevent me, etc. And therefore - I could completely do without him - both in being and in non-existence. In the existence that I am talking about, there was no life and there was no death, for these are such conditional certainties that are attributes of the space exclusively imposed on the subject.

V.: What and how you talk about the rejection of binary states reveals that you are Schrödinger’s Cat! If that same cat could talk, he would tell everything in your words! Thanks again!