Is death the end?

When it comes to the essence of man we always assume that life is life and death is death. And not that death is also life. Even unconsciousness or non-existence is found to be very similar. We must always admit that our true perception is that of life. And that death or nothingness cannot be described and cannot be experienced. It is the end of all things imaginable. Now, life, as in existence, is that natural end to most questions. Within it, a rare question is pondered though. Outside of it, is the indescribable. Whether or not we achieve greatness is relinquished to death. We are the only witnesses to this drama. We are the only caretakers of this problem. The problem is: does life also offer answers to us? Or are the religious of some sorts correct to say, that non-existence is non-existent?

If we always assume that life is the beginning, and the end of existence, and that reality is infinite in its expression to the ultimate experience of that which is life, as the religious do, then we are in the namesake of existence terribly alone amongst the stars. For even if life is not a conscious event, which is most likely the case, but rather that consciousness is an event of consciousness, and that life is an event of existence, then we can say that human existence is null and void, for only if we exist do we exist. For example; the man who dies is but merely an expression of his existence, his experience. No matter how advanced we become we will always be primitive. Man cannot become machine, and machine can never become man.

The whole world is a terrible drama piece for us to explore, but once the thing which we explore ceases, then it's catastrophe. It is the end of all things imaginable. Yet can it be that our consciousness rests on us and not on it? Do we see that life is that which brings about death. And that consciousness brings about consciousness? Like the time when we see for the first time, which we don't consciously recognize, but merely the elders theorize? If life is an event of rare reliability then it must be cherished even more. But how does one cherish that which ends? Which does not cherish back? Which is emptiness? Which is nothingness? Which is the end? Man is only that which he has become out of his own existence. Out of his own expression. For him to believe in all things imaginable as a part of himself, and then also devoid of its connection, its appearance, its similarity, does bring about contradiction. Hypocrisy. In the limelight of Nazism, we saw peace. Yet this is a war machine, with no regard for life. Now we idolize life in a war torn world. A world that has seen millions upon millions destroyed for ego, pride, and peace and happiness.

Surely we can assume that death is the end of life. But rocks cannot die. They can decompose yes. As well as they do exist. Not for the reason of it being consciously found or detected, presumed or analysed, but rather for it is outside of consciousness also. It is not only existent within consciousness. As in, it exists for it is. One is not an animal only. There are flowers, wind, stars etc. These things do not just affect us consciously but also other things in the process. For one, and being a bit side-winded. The opinion of many is not necessarily the correct opinion. Also even so this may not be relevant onto our discussion, we can only assume that reality is real, not because of consciousness, but also because of the lack of consciousness. For example the age of the Earth. The cosmos. Great White Sharks. Etc. These are external to our consciousness. Yet some disagree and state for it be in us, as in in our consciousness, then it is us. But we have already covered this contradiction. It is not consciousness. Consciousness is merely “am”. Rocks do not possess consciousness, and is affected by elements outside of consciousness also. What is human, is human. Darwin said it best: “We are only apes, we are not mosquitoes or trees.”