I väntan på Jesus

 

 

(The following is an excerpt from the youtubevideo interview with the then 76 year old professor of psychiatry, Bruce Greyson: "Doctor Studied NDEs for 30 Yrs: Uncovered the TRUTH About Near Death Experiences | Dr. Bruce Greyson" [21 apr. 2022]:)

 

 

"Alex Ferrari: So, how has this affected your life, of just constantly studying this and understand, like how has that affected your own personal life, and your own journey through this physical time that we are here?

 

Bruce Greyson: Well, it's made me feel differently about, definitely, what death is, uh, you know, one of the things that near-death experiencers say most consistently is that they are not afraid of dying, after they have this experience. And I'm certainly not afraid of dying, but I can't say that I never was, I mean, when I grew up as a materialist, I thought that death is the end, so what is it to be afraid of, there's nothing bad, you just don't exist. So I wasn't afraid before. Uh, but I did have a sense when I started out this research, that science is gonna answer all our questions for us. And I was a little uncomfortable not having answers. And after fifty years now, of studying these phenomena, that, it's hard to even find the questions, let alone the answers. I'm getting comfortable with the fact that there aren't answers to everything. And, that's fine. I'm fairly convinced from what near-death experiencers say that the universe is a friendly place. There is nothing to be afraid of here. The only thing to be afraid of, is what we imagine. So I can't say that I know what's going to happen after death, because I think whatever they are telling about it, is a metaphor, and not reality, but I do have a sense, that whatever happens, that something happens after death, and whatever it is, it's not something to be afraid of."

 

End quote. 

 

My comment: Maybe these words by Greyson is some of the most important words I have heard by any human on earth? Aren't these things the very foundations of my whole world view, the foundations for my ecophilosophy? That reality, i.e. Nature, is innately good (I have written about this in Swedish, here, a translation to English of it is below this text, in [1])? Nothing challenges this statement as much as death, therefore, if we have overcome death, that's the end victory, after that there is no more challenge. I will remember Greyson's words with religious fervor, and it's not a coincidence that he is a psychiatrist (those are among those who have hurt me most in my life!)

 

 

 

[1] The translation of the blogpost "Livet, Naturen, är något fundamentalt gott":

 

 

(On the blog "För Naturens Skull", 2017-01-22)

If I were to name some of the most fundamental pillars of my ecophilosophy and my animalism, the thing on which everything else rests, one of them (another is kenosis, self-emptying) is the sense that life is ultimately something fundamentally good. Reality/Nature is good, not evil. On this rests another of my fundamental convictions, that life should be revered, that all life is sacred, in imitation of Albert Schweitzer. I share this with all indigenous peoples, for whom the sanctity of nature is something essential.

It's not so for everyone. In the Western world, nature has been de-sacralized on a large scale, nature has lost its sanctity, and is allowed to be used and exploited unrestrainedly, nature here is often reduced to a collection of natural resources to be plundered and exploited, animals are domesticated, tamed and has become our slaves, or, if they are lucky, our pets.

Often such people defend themselves by saying that nature is cruel and should be tamed, while it seems that they believe that civilization is good, is holy, not nature.

I once debated with a Finnish anarchist about whether his dog was fascist or not. I firmly believed that dogs are not fascist, while the anarchist's firm opinion was that the dog was fascist, and needed to be trained and tamed into non-fascism.

Much depends on which side in this debate we take. Is nature evil or good, or maybe just neutral? If wild dogs and wolves are fascist and evil, then all wild nature is fascist and evil. Yes, then reality itself is evil, and we become good by fighting it and distancing ourselves from it.

Such thinking leads to the collective psychosis and the alienation from nature that we call "civilization". We then escape into a fantasy reality, an alternative reality, a virtual reality that is alienated from nature. Art today is such a reality. It is not needed if Reality is good, then we dare to have direct contact with Reality, as the animals have, without escaping into the virtual, nourished by wishful dreams.

Life, nature, is thus something fundamentally good. It is worth fighting for, worth sacrificing for. If it is good, then we dare to abandon civilization to return to nature. If we do not believe this, then we easily fall prey to technological hubris ("technograndiosity", as James Howard Kunstler would say) and superstitious faith in the goodness of civilization, closing our ears and eyes to climate change and natural destruction.

Believing that life is good does not mean that one believes that nature and life are free from cruelty. Death, which is a part of life, is cruel. But death does not have the last word (and for those who suffer, death can be something good). Life has it. Life and the good win in the end, life goes on after all, and can never be destroyed, not even in the heat death of our universe. Life will continue to live in other universes.

The important thing for me is not that I continue to exist, but that Life does. Life is more important than myself, that Life may continue to sprout and be revered somewhere in our multiverse. And it doesn't even necessarily have to be biological, organic life, but even the inorganic life is something good, and ultimately alive. I have an instinctive feeling that existence itself is something good, and that there is no such thing as "dead" matter. It is us humans who have invented the existence of "dead" matter. Reality makes no such division between dead and alive, and there probably is no such thing. We know that electrons and protons move in the atomic nuclei of "dead" matter, even in rocks and stones.

If we are to save the planet and humanity, we need to regain an almost "religious" reverence for nature, and leave the gods and spirits alone, they are the ones who are truly dead, and in their worship of them civilization reveals its necrophilic nature. We need to become biophilic again, regain reverence for what really exists, instead of worshiping the virtual and illusionary. The Internet is actually the ultimate extension and endpoint of religion, the materialization of the "spirit world". I look forward to the death of the Internet and Facebook, and the return of Reality and tribalism, community spirit. On my tombstone, please put these words:

Lars Larsen rests here,
"Forest Man Snailson"
One who yearned unimaginably
for the collapse of computers and the Internet
and The Return of Reality.
That's what he used the internet for
to spy on.