I feel certain the medical community would support me in the uneducated opinion that dying is as much a process as living, though obviously the motives are reversed.  Living is awakening to possibilities; dying is succumbing to limitations. Both are perfectly, infinitely and incomparably real. There is no doubt whatsoever about their separate manifestations particularly when it comes to dying which hasn’t normally the attraction of living.  Nonetheless we’ll all admit that mortification (by any composition whether discomposure or subjugation) is indisputable and universal. Or, more poetically from Masonic ritual (as I am frequently wont to observe), “Nature teaches us how to die.”

Well, the idea of death in religions and spiritual traditions is founded on their dogmas; hence all dogma, by presenting its idea about death as an unquestionable truth, leads to obscurantism and ignorance about an inevitable process and natural as death is.

Reason by observing nature teaches us that the universal order – hitherto known – is cyclical; everything in life is cyclical from birth to death.

Things and phenomena have always existed and only the way of looking at them, interpreting and understanding them is changing, according to the endless succession of the evolution of human thought.

The human being biologically destroys himself when he dies and his death is part of an evolutionary cycle, of multiple and varied vital transformations, with loss of form and transformation of energy.

From what I have randomly read it is not uncommon for those of us approaching death (whether merely because we are elderly or because we feel less enthusiastic) to weigh in upon the subject with evident curiosity or intrigue. It is at least moderately excusable as a burgeoning preoccupation because it affords a degree of understanding (even mollification) of the impending decomposition. There are admittedly those of identical milestones who violently persist to ignore limitation of any description and continue metaphorically careering their hot air balloon over the vast countryside, seemingly unperturbed by the inevitability of whatever. While I haven’t the buoyancy to sustain such a posture, I nonetheless admire those who do.

Biologically however I am uncertain whether such metaphoric gusto will succeed or not to alter life’s odd pathway. I find it peculiar that we convince ourselves we have greater dominion over death than we have over life. For what it is worth, the two in my opinion are axiomatic; that is, unquestionable.  Yet mankind is forever disposed to clarify the subsequent as being an improvement of the precedent. The only foreseeable improvement is to quell the vitality of death, to remove its critical nature and replace it with unimportance.

I have no truck with birth, living or dying because they are all stations in the equation I have endured (and by design I employed that tone of survival because neither was experienced without challenges). As for the peerless nature of death, I can only speculate. I am not about to engage in useless arrangements of thought surrounding the meaning of death; that is, apart from asserting in the strongest of terms that any of the popular models of religion on the subject are rubbish. I would find it to be far more complimentary to adopt a proclamation of ignorance upon the subject than otherwise. We encourage our children to be unafraid of the dark, not to imagine ghosts in the darkened hallways, to overcome the false obstructions of ignorance and idle speculation. By contrast I haven’t a clue where certain people obtain their capital for the creation of imaginary circumstances either a thousand years before or into the unfathomable ether of the universe. This is merely replacing one ignorance with another while continuing to sidestep the more favourable acknowledgment of incomprehensibility. Why one should be embarrassed to confess subordination to what is impossible to understand I shall never know.

In fact I would think it more effusive and palatable to confront the imperceptible with the humiliation it deserves (not the preposterous trappings we have manufactured to satisfy the currency of appetites of one particular nomadic tribe or another).  Really!  Who were these fiction writers!  By what account or authority did they presume to alter my vision of the inconceivable! Nor, by the way, have I any intention of tolerating these convenient rearrangements of truth.  They amount to little more than a day at the circus; that is, a singular, intentional representation for purpose of entertainment only.  And, just in the event that you are so inclined, be careful not to contradict what I have said by importing deductive distortions.  To be specific, the contamination of the core does not of necessity contaminate the outlying spheres. It remains equally reliable that there are communal advantages to be acquired within the context of these otherwise questionable terms. Mine is not a dispute of social networks; rather, my objection is to the formalized clarity of what is an impenetrable proposition.