Wednesday, July 06, 2005


I often find myself asking the question "What's life without death?". Imagine yourself to be immortal, never having to face the end of the road, that ultimatum of Life ; when everything you've held dear in your fragile existence is whisked away from you in an untimely manner. "Light at the end of the tunnel!!!! Or is it darkness?". The "I" in you is lost. The egotistical being that man is, is mocked by nature, by God, by the supreme force that created Adam and Eve. "I" becomes "It", just like when you were born. There is nothing to be seen or heard, felt or spoken,your senses lost, consciousness forgotten, limbs motionless. Life comes full circle. Man or atleast the manifestation of his soul is reduced to pulp. Some believe that this soul of man is not lost even after death. It is somehow preserved, protected, safeguarded all throughout its journey from this Earth to the House Of God, where it awaits His decision. Other doctrines preach that the destiny of the soul is not determined by Him, but Us. We are the ones who choose the Gardens Of Heaven or the Labyrinths Of Hell. God has no part in this; He is just an observer- the lone audience of the Game Of Life. There are no rules, no boundaries. Just a beginning and an end. YOU ride the rollercoaster; you decide the track, but not how it ends. Every turn you take might be the last. It's like falling into a rabbit hole. You never know when the ground rushes up to meet you. But, what happens after we finish the game? Do we get to play again? Did we win? Did we lose? A tie perhaps? What would you ask God if you were given just one question? Man is just an object of a derived class ; a class publicly derived from God, who has one default constructor; one that applies to all of mankind. It is in our constructors that we inscribe how we sustain our object through the sands of time. There are feelings within us, thoughts & actions that are marked private, others public, and some others protected. Object interaction is seamless;integration effortless. We are the perfect object, the pinnacle of God's technology, His achievement. Yet, we somehow find ways to perform nasty operations, make illegal function calls, use NULL pointers and basically keep throwing exceptions for Him to handle. But the sad part of all this is, we do not get to write a destructor; a method to somehow clean up our acts, refurbish that tormented soul within us, to gain salvation,peace,nirvana. Maybe that's what we're trying to do through cryopreservation. Trying to live on borrowed time. But, maybe He had foreseen all this. Maybe, he just does'nt give us our object pointers. He only gives us his pointer, but typecasted to our object. So, when we're destroyed, our destructor never even gets called. His definition of us is succinct. Man will be created and is meant to be destroyed. Why be immortal? What would you achieve? You live to see your loved ones die, their final breath, their anguish and suffering at having to leave you, while you hopelessly hold their hands, making futile attempts to bring them back; back to the mouth of the tunnel. Or would you also go around insulting all the people of the world in alphabetical order, just so you have a mission, an objective, a goal to achieve in life?
No, immortality is more than a blessing, it's a curse.



First and foremost, having parapraphs would help.
And now that I have somehow managed to read through the entire blog, I still cant figure out how have concluded that Immortality is a curse. Albeit, I whole-heardtedly agree with the concept. If this blog was meant to be a rationalisation of how immortality is a curse, I dont think it's succeeded to that. Ofcourse, your analogy with constructors and desctructors and OOP in general was very imaginative.

ash said...

I think you already know this, but rationale and philosophy don't go hand in hand. They're like contrapositives ; opposite faces of a coin ; this 'course excludes ancient philosophers Aristotle & Plato. But, if you take people like Kant,Freud,Rand, they preach what they believe in, what they think people ought to believe in. I mean, you can't PROVE that objectivism is much better than say,altruism,can ya? So,do you seriously expect me to mathematically prove this post?