Is this aliveness immortal?

Hi Robert.

In your last piece of writing you wrote, you mention 'Aliveness' which is essentially what gives life or is the life in all living things. Me, you, a flower. . . . I was thinking that this Aliveness is the same as saying the 'Absolute,’ What I mean is that both Aliveness and the ‘Absolute’--whatever words are used to describe that which is eternal—are the same. So, whilst I will not, as the 'me identity’ see myself as being 'eternal,' or 'timeless,’ ‘Life,' or 'Consciousness’ or the 'Absolute' forever remains.

Each one of us dies—is mortal—but isn’t LIFE that enlivened us, immortal?

Lola In The Laurels, 2024

Hi, Dyanne. I do not agree that "this aliveness" and "the absolute" are interchangeable. This aliveness is a feeling we all know intimately. The so-called Absolute, on the other hand, is not an experience but an idea—a theory cooked up in human minds—that may or may not apply to the world at large, regardless of what one may believe.

You assume axiomatically and without evidence, not just that some so-called “absolute” exists, but that it is immortal and eternal. Yes? And you know that how?

Where outside of time and space are you situated to know what is “immortal?” Perhaps nothing is immortal, but if something lasts a long time—billions of years longer than you do—how would you know that it wasn’t immortal but just long-lasting on a scale that humans cannot comprehend?

You go on to define “this aliveness,” which you now call “LIFE,” as eternal and immortal too, like the qualities you hung on the word “Absolute.”

According to the best science, Earth—the only place where life exists as far as we know—is around 4.6 billion years old (not “eternal”), and the first evidence of living beings dates back to around 3 billion years (even farther from “eternal”).

Consider that carefully.

If even the Earth is not eternal, how could life, which (so far as we know) arose after Earth came into being, be eternal? Eventually, science tells us, the sun will grow into a red giant, melting the Earth and everything else near it, as our sun dies itself. So what is eternal about that?

I wonder if I am making this clear. You adopt a thought form called “the Absolute,” for which there is no evidence. Then you imbue that thought form with qualities—immortality and timelessness—that, for all you know, may apply nowhere in the Universe. Now, having come to believe in this possibly fictional entity or force, or call it what you will, you say that it “enlivens us.”

How do you know that anything “enlivens us” or that we require enlivening in the first place? Do you imagine that bodies were dead until an “immortal soul” or a “life force” was put into them by “the Absolute?” That is a religious belief and a dualistic one at that, not a fact.

I am not saying you ought not have a religious outlook. Whatever floats your boat. Since you are asking, I am pointing out that you have misunderstood what I meant by “this aliveness”—a term used throughout my writing. By assuming that your beliefs are facts, you have projected an entire metaphysics upon what, for me, is simply an observation: this aliveness, this experience, this sense of being.

This aliveness is all I know. Beyond that is pure speculation in which I do not indulge. When I say “this aliveness,” I do not mean, “what gives life or is the life in all living things.” That’s your spin. For me, this aliveness is not something given or something “in” what lives, but life itself, a mysterious happening that may or may not be “eternal.” So far, the evidence is that it is not eternal but had a beginning three billion years ago, and may have an end. I have no further information on that question and doubt that you or anyone else does either.

If you understand that, that is what I mean by “awake.”