"eternity of unconscious darkness"? Darkness implies an observer of said darkness to experience it for eternity. Please explain why you imagine that, right now, there are countless beings experiencing this endless darkness you speak of. You might say you were just being poetic, but if so why did you land on the word "darkness"? Why would "darkness" be the best word to convey what you want to say? So, I don't think it's poetic. I think you literally believe we were in a black void before we existed, resting in peace... But let me ask you: If not existing is best, why wasn't not existing able to stop you from coming to exist? David Benatar implies that not existing is better, and will prevent a life from being "imposed". But if you imagine a universe completely devoid of all life, but then you, a life, comes to exist, then that's the life that's "imposed". But if an animal like a bear or a dog came to exist, in this thought experiment, then *that* individual life would have been the one imposed... In this way, there's no escaping the imposition of one life or another. Just as your lack of existing was unable to stop a life from being imposed (the life that's reading this); your lack of existing wouldn't have been able to stop some *other* life from doing the imposition of a life. In that thought experiment, the consciousness being done by the one and only brain is the only experience there is... There is no black void experience anywhere. There is only that conscious experience that exists, that's occuring.
So now it comes to the question: what's going to happen after this universe ends? Will another universe come to exist? Are there already other universes right now? These are things we cannot know yet. Either way, even if all life in the universe ended for good, there'd still not be an endless experience of "Darkness", since there wouldn't be anyone to experience the lack of experience. So, without someone to appreciate the lack of experience, what's the point of even talking about it as if something has been obtained? The point is moot, irrelevant. The idea that not existing is preferable only makes sense if there's something to prefer. Otherwise there isn't anything offered.
Only Experience is what's experienced. There's no escape. Will the universe revert back to not existing? If so, isn't that the way things were before this universe came to be? So what's stopping the same thing from happening again?
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate you depth of thinking as well as you opening up such a wide and multi-faceted perspective from only a single line of this piece. I agree with much of what you say. While there are many questions here, I will answer only your initial one. I am actually in the beginning stages of writing a book that would address the remainder of the question you pose - so keeping them in my pocket for now.
The word "darkness" was simply a metaphor, not to be taken literally. It was a literary devise I thought the reader would understand given the context in which that word and sentence sit. I do not believe non-being experiences darkness, because as you say, that would BE an experience. Yet-to-be-born children and animals are not experiencing anything if I had to reasonably guess. I believe I used darkness as the metaphorical antithesis of the term "the lights being on", which has been phrase used over the years by speculators of consciousness. So, from the view of literary prose, I felt that "darkness" was an apt word for say, the "lights being off".
Lightness and darkness as both adjectives and nouns have been used for many, many years to as terms to describe consciousness (being) and the cessation of consciousness (non-being) in the domains of art, theology, philosophy and science. In keeping with the literary and metaphorical tradition, I felt the use of that word made sense here. From a technical perspective, I am with you completely. Had this piece been more focused on consciousness and the broader topics you explore in your response, I would not have used that metaphor as it would be technically inappropriate for the reasons you outline.
RE: non-being vs. being, being preferable...
I am not sure I understand your question here. Throughout this piece I do not claim (nor would I claim outside of this piece) that non-being is "preferable" to being. If anything, I think one might point to this piece perhaps alluding to the opposite claim, though, I don't explicitly make a case for that here either.
RE: David Benatar...
I believe anyone who would make the shallow claim that "it would be better if no one was ever born again" lacks both emotional and intellectual depth, is deeply nihilistic, pessimistic, misanthropic and (dare I say) intellectually wicked in the extreme. I do, however, think we need perspectives like his to help set intellectual and philosophical goal posts for conversations such as my piece above, but are ultimately anti-human... part of an unfortunate trend in post-modernist, antinatalist and atheist circles. It's interesting to me that the people who make these claims are all still here on Earth participating in experience. It seems their convictions only go so far. If non-being was so preferable as people like him would claim, their continued existence indicates to me that a) there is something about experience that is worth enduring the innate suffering OF existence, b) at bottom, they don't truly believe in their convictions. Why not return to the "unconscious darkness"?
You're welcome, Steve, and thank you for responding. May I recommend you read the essay "Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity", by Thomas W. Clark, before you write your book? Just do a search and you'll find it. Let me know what you think.
"eternity of unconscious darkness"? Darkness implies an observer of said darkness to experience it for eternity. Please explain why you imagine that, right now, there are countless beings experiencing this endless darkness you speak of. You might say you were just being poetic, but if so why did you land on the word "darkness"? Why would "darkness" be the best word to convey what you want to say? So, I don't think it's poetic. I think you literally believe we were in a black void before we existed, resting in peace... But let me ask you: If not existing is best, why wasn't not existing able to stop you from coming to exist? David Benatar implies that not existing is better, and will prevent a life from being "imposed". But if you imagine a universe completely devoid of all life, but then you, a life, comes to exist, then that's the life that's "imposed". But if an animal like a bear or a dog came to exist, in this thought experiment, then *that* individual life would have been the one imposed... In this way, there's no escaping the imposition of one life or another. Just as your lack of existing was unable to stop a life from being imposed (the life that's reading this); your lack of existing wouldn't have been able to stop some *other* life from doing the imposition of a life. In that thought experiment, the consciousness being done by the one and only brain is the only experience there is... There is no black void experience anywhere. There is only that conscious experience that exists, that's occuring.
So now it comes to the question: what's going to happen after this universe ends? Will another universe come to exist? Are there already other universes right now? These are things we cannot know yet. Either way, even if all life in the universe ended for good, there'd still not be an endless experience of "Darkness", since there wouldn't be anyone to experience the lack of experience. So, without someone to appreciate the lack of experience, what's the point of even talking about it as if something has been obtained? The point is moot, irrelevant. The idea that not existing is preferable only makes sense if there's something to prefer. Otherwise there isn't anything offered.
Only Experience is what's experienced. There's no escape. Will the universe revert back to not existing? If so, isn't that the way things were before this universe came to be? So what's stopping the same thing from happening again?
Hi Theodore,
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate you depth of thinking as well as you opening up such a wide and multi-faceted perspective from only a single line of this piece. I agree with much of what you say. While there are many questions here, I will answer only your initial one. I am actually in the beginning stages of writing a book that would address the remainder of the question you pose - so keeping them in my pocket for now.
The word "darkness" was simply a metaphor, not to be taken literally. It was a literary devise I thought the reader would understand given the context in which that word and sentence sit. I do not believe non-being experiences darkness, because as you say, that would BE an experience. Yet-to-be-born children and animals are not experiencing anything if I had to reasonably guess. I believe I used darkness as the metaphorical antithesis of the term "the lights being on", which has been phrase used over the years by speculators of consciousness. So, from the view of literary prose, I felt that "darkness" was an apt word for say, the "lights being off".
Lightness and darkness as both adjectives and nouns have been used for many, many years to as terms to describe consciousness (being) and the cessation of consciousness (non-being) in the domains of art, theology, philosophy and science. In keeping with the literary and metaphorical tradition, I felt the use of that word made sense here. From a technical perspective, I am with you completely. Had this piece been more focused on consciousness and the broader topics you explore in your response, I would not have used that metaphor as it would be technically inappropriate for the reasons you outline.
RE: non-being vs. being, being preferable...
I am not sure I understand your question here. Throughout this piece I do not claim (nor would I claim outside of this piece) that non-being is "preferable" to being. If anything, I think one might point to this piece perhaps alluding to the opposite claim, though, I don't explicitly make a case for that here either.
RE: David Benatar...
I believe anyone who would make the shallow claim that "it would be better if no one was ever born again" lacks both emotional and intellectual depth, is deeply nihilistic, pessimistic, misanthropic and (dare I say) intellectually wicked in the extreme. I do, however, think we need perspectives like his to help set intellectual and philosophical goal posts for conversations such as my piece above, but are ultimately anti-human... part of an unfortunate trend in post-modernist, antinatalist and atheist circles. It's interesting to me that the people who make these claims are all still here on Earth participating in experience. It seems their convictions only go so far. If non-being was so preferable as people like him would claim, their continued existence indicates to me that a) there is something about experience that is worth enduring the innate suffering OF existence, b) at bottom, they don't truly believe in their convictions. Why not return to the "unconscious darkness"?
Last line was tongue-in-cheek ;)
Thanks again for your thoughts!!
Steve
You're welcome, Steve, and thank you for responding. May I recommend you read the essay "Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity", by Thomas W. Clark, before you write your book? Just do a search and you'll find it. Let me know what you think.
Ted