Transitoriness is a reference to change, death is a harbinger of change, change creates different states, combinatorial change creates mutation and NEW states that had no existence before the mutation occurred. Self-awareness/realisation allows change based on INTENT, rather than happenstance.
This is where sentients like humans enter and can seriously affect what changes happen. This creates a situation whereby an individual human life can have very significant affects.
Individuals CAN therefore live a very interesting and significant life (judged as good or bad by supporters/dissenters). Change, time and self-awareness allows for the advent of choice and perhaps even free will.

Individuals CAN therefore live a very interesting and significant life (judged as good or bad by supporters/dissenters). Change, time and self-awareness allows for the advent of choice and perhaps even free will. — universeness

Interesting. Then, you consider that life significance depends on time and transitoriness. Otherwise, everything would be worthless and paradoxically, the things which are perpetual are at the same time the ones we are tired of the most.

Interesting. Then, you consider that life significance depends on time and transitoriness. — javi2541997

As foundational properties of being alive, yes but there is also what has mutated from those fundamentals such as self-awareness, intent/will/choice. All these aspects of the human experience is what is available to you from birth.
All naturals, no supernatural's needed or available. With these properties/potentials, such a vast number of life paths/experiences become available and confirmed by mathematical permutation.
The number of possibilities, which seem to me, available to an individual human, seems immense and very exciting BUT there is also irrefutable evidence that so many restrictions/impositions can restrict and reduce the choices available to so many individuals to as low a number as zero.
These restrictions/impositions can be imposed by the intent of others/yourself/happenstance etc.
This to me, suggests that only human will and human legacy, can change this and frustrate the malintent of others, help individuals combat their inner doubts/primal fears, and defend yourself and others against happenstance that would be detrimental to living a fulfilling human life, within the span that medical technology can provide.
This is transitory, transformation through human will, intent, ability to change, ability to affect.

A good OP and an interesting topic. One I've thought about quite a bit recently.

Timelessness — in the sense of time never ending, never beginning — is a stagnant nothing. It is absolutely uninteresting. — javi2541997

I've experienced this since I retired three years ago. Cyclic time without waystations or progress. Stagnant? Uninteresting? Well, I know what he means but I think he's missing something. Living in cyclic time, with less external superstructure to hold my life together, has made me, allowed me to, fall back on my own internal resources. Sometimes it feels like looking out at a vast, flat, empty plain, but that's the challenge and opportunity.

Life is possessed by tremendous tenacity. Even so, its presence remains conditional, and as it had a beginning, so it will have an end. I believe that life, just for this reason, is exceedingly enhanced in value, — javi2541997

Something else I've been thinking about, since I'm within sight of the end of my life even without my glasses. There's a lot of talk these days about the end of death through medical technology or artificial intelligence. That seems like a bleak prospect. I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever.

As I said, a good idea for a thread.

Otherwise, everything would be worthless and paradoxically, the things which are perpetual are at the same time the ones we are tired of the most. — javi2541997

I know of no example that I can apply the word 'perpetual' to, as it suggests 'never ending and never changing.' I can't even apply it to the posit of a never-ending cyclical universe as that would fail on the part of the definition which insists on 'no change'. For me, perpetual is a word which is about as useful as the concept of an omni. I consider such concepts almost useless, yet I cannot deny such concepts

A good OP and an interesting topic. — T Clark

Thank you friend :up:

I've experienced this since I retired three years ago [...] Sometimes if feels like looking out at a vast, flat, empty plain, but that's the challenge and opportunity. — T Clark

I have two questions:

1. Do you feel nostalgic?

2. How do you face the challenges/opportunities? The same way as you did ten or twenty years ago?

. That seems like a bleak prospect. I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever. — T Clark

I am completely agree. But I didn't want to get deep in this issue because it seems to be a "taboo" topic the fact of accept that we don't want to live forever.

I want to put an example I was thinking about.
The main substance of flowers is to perish, right? Well, that's what it makes them so beautiful. Whenever a rose, nettle or sunflower flourish you enjoy it because it is beautiful and colourful. But trust me on the fact that we will end up getting tired of "perpetual" flowers in our garden for seeing them everyday in our lives.
I think this examples fits the concept of transitoriness so well. The aesthetic concept of a flourished flower is ephemeral.

Thomas Mann wrote: What I believe, what I value most, is transitoriness. But is not transitoriness — the perishableness of life — something very sad? No! It is the very soul of existence. It imparts value, dignity, interest to life. Transitoriness creates time — and “time is the essence.” Potentially at least, time is the supreme, most useful gift.
Time is related to — yes, identical with — everything creative and active, with every progress toward a higher goal. Without transitoriness, without beginning or end, birth or death, there is no time, either. Timelessness — in the sense of time never ending, never beginning — is a stagnant nothing. It is absolutely uninteresting. — javi2541997

Is this a mere coincidence or a two-factor synchronicity? I just flipped through a book I read almost 15 years ago, and in the next moment clicked on this thread. Both are concerned with "timelessness", but from different perspectives. Gevin Giorbran's book, Everything Forever, Learning to See Timelessness, was published in 2007. He was influenced by Einstein's concept of Block Time, and David Bohm's notion of Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Giorbran seems to emphasize, not the "transitoriness" of Time, but its comprehensiveness (wholeness). He looks at Time from the outside, instead of the inside.

His universal view of Time is expressed in terms of both Zero and Eternity : "what zero is not is nonexistence", and "our universe is in the process of merging with the timeless sum of all, with the infinite whole, with everything forever". Some of his assertions will sound mystical to those with a pragmatic empirical bent, but his book is so dense with quotes & images & diagrams & facts & details, that he comes across as a visionary genius. Unfortunately, like too many geniuses, he committed suicide shortly after writing this book. I hope he's enjoying the peace & harmony of timelessness, without getting bored by stagnation.

I find some of his extrapolations & conclusions hard to accept, but his presentation is provocative, and hard to refute. That's also true of Einstein's theory of Block Time : "everything everywhere all at once". Giorbran says, "Usually we imagine the whole of physical reality moves along with us through time. Yet that assumption might be like someone reading a book and believing that once a page is turned it no longer exists, or someone believing the pages that haven't been read yet do not exist until one turns the page".

Thomas Mann's notion of Time seems to come from a personal experiential point of view. But Giorbran's version is from a global, universal, and philosophical perspective. Mann's concept feels more sensuous & real, while Giorbran's idea seems more abstract & ideal. Could both aspects be true simultaneously? :smile:

THIS IS NOT A PICTURE OF GIORBRAN

Thomas Mann's notion of Time seems to come from a personal experiential point of view. But Giorbran's version is from a global, universal, and philosophical perspective. Mann's concept feels more sensuous & real, while Giorbran's idea seems more abstract & ideal. Could both aspects be true simultaneously? — Gnomon

First of all, just wow! I really enjoyed the perspective of Giorbran. Thank you for sharing it with us. I like his interpretation of the psychical reality with the pages of a book when he said: Usually we imagine the whole of physical reality moves along with us through time. Yet that assumption might be like someone reading a book and believing that once a page is turned it no longer exists, or someone believing the pages that haven't been read yet do not exist until one turns the page It makes me wonder what is around me in the universe. For real, I am questioning the metaphysics of my reality right now.

In the other hand, I do not have the complete words of Thomas Mann because it was written to a letter to Herman Hesse (another excellent philosopher). I don’t have the response from Hesse either…
So yes, I interpret his words and notion of transitoriness are personal but sadly, I didn’t find why they were debating about the realization of time passing by. Another quote related to the topic says: The best thing about time passing is the privilege of running out of it, of watching the wave of mortality break over me and everyone I know.
I guess they were just conversing as good philosophers. :smile:

I think this examples fits the concept of transitoriness so well. The aesthetic concept of a flourished flower is ephemeral. — javi2541997

You use transitory here in the sense of a brief but notable existence.
How often has this idea been dramatised since classical times?
'Your life shall be short, but it shall be glorious, and you will be remembered forever.'
Many people are attracted to such but for me, it's a bit too much about self, I favour a different balance to that suggested by the glorious, beautiful, brief existence of a flower.

There's a lot of talk these days about the end of death through medical technology or artificial intelligence. That seems like a bleak prospect. I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever. — T Clark

But trust me on the fact that we will end up getting tired of "perpetual" flowers in our garden for seeing them everyday in our lives. — javi2541997

I am some variant of these viewpoints. I do get bored with 'routine' or that which first impresses but eventually becomes routine. I am attracted to increased lifespan but there has to be a balance of quality as well or a least a good future prospect of quality.

Increased lifespan would allow me to 'fight for my cause' a lot longer and I am very attracted to that.
I am also very attracted to the further 'choice' increased longevity would offer, including increased choice and control over when and how my life will terminate.

There are so many more adventures I would like to go on as well.

My balance is somewhere between that which I consider my responsibility/imperative/reason/main cause or purpose etc and that which I consider my ways to personally celebrate being alive.
variety/transition/change/choice/will are all very important to me, as is legacy/continuance/durability etc

Many people are attracted to such but for me, it's a bit too much about self, I favour a different balance to that suggested by the glorious, beautiful, brief existence of a flower. — universeness

Me too! I am agree with you. :up:

Increased lifespan would allow me to 'fight for my cause' a lot longer and I am very attracted to that. — universeness

That's sounds so revolutionary and political. Do you take part on politics actively? I respect how you still have power and strength to keep fighting for a better world. I completely lost every hope in my life. This is why I see the main subject of this topic as individual. I am aware I can sound selfish but I do not see any value of living on a community. I even think we are currently in the most individualistic era because in the end of the day nobody would join us in the transitoriness of life.
If you want to keep fight for a cause you have to be aware with the fact that it is impossible to do it alone and when you are surrounded by people some members tend to betray you... another fact of why is better to pass the by as a lone wolf.

I was a lot more politically active in the past than I am now BUT I still do ante up and kick in when the issue is important enough. I decided a while ago that I am now against party politics. I no longer advocate for a parliament/government made up of political parties. We need to send local representatives from constituencies based on their viewpoints and not party-political mandates.
So, I could no longer be a member of a political party.

I completely lost every hope in my life. This is why I see the main subject of this topic as individual. — javi2541997

If you want to keep fight for a cause you have to be aware with the fact that it is impossible to do it alone — javi2541997

These two quotes create your 'crunch' when they try to balance, it all falls down and frustrates.

when you are surrounded by people some members tend to betray you... another fact of why is better to pass the by as a lone wolf. — javi2541997

I continue to be let down by some and I am very grateful, and I much admire the examples and demonstrated trustworthiness I continue to witness in others.
You cannot change much as a lone wolf, you do need others.
A very powerful lone wolf can be a very dangerous entity, unless it is completely benevolent.
Sometimes a benevolent powerful warrior for your cause can 'transition' to a nefarious pig, so I understand your exasperation, but there are too many in need to let personal betrayal, destroy your fight for your cause. THERE ARE TOO MANY IN NEED.

I've generally thought of life as a brief flickering of light in the infinite darkness. External factors aside, it's up to the individual how they wish to inhabit this brief flash of illumination - the transitory nature of life is neither good nor bad. Generally I think it helps an individual to get out and do things and not dwell on their own needs or thoughts too much. Rumination leads to endless potential forms of dissatisfaction. In my view, doing things for others is more likely to lead to satisfaction and personal transformation.

I continue to be let down by some and I am very grateful, and I much admire the examples and demonstrated trustworthiness I continue to witness in others.
You cannot change much as a lone wolf, you do need others. — universeness

Well, I need others if I need to survive, live, feeding myself, etc... that's absolutely true. Nevertheless, I still see a good opportunity to make important actions in loneliness and that's only possible through the self-realization of time and existence.
What I mean is: while I am aware about my limitations on my life and what the future holds, I am not capable of experiencing the same virtue in your awareness or concious. You have to live it yourself in your own as well as I do so.
We can be agree here we need others but for pure interests. The real sense and experience of transitoriness is individual.
Also, a lone wolf is not dangerous unless he is not threatened by others.

I no longer advocate for a parliament/government made up of political parties. We need to send local representatives from constituencies based on their viewpoints and not party-political mandates. — universeness

I wish the law makers listen to your ideas and opinions because they are so brainy. I also think that political parties are not longer useful and we need more technocrats in the state.

In my view, doing things for others is more likely to lead to satisfaction and personal transformation. — Tom Storm

Tom, we need more persons like you in the world. If you see satisfaction of doing good to others... wow is so emotional. I nearly in tears for real.

I am in "rumination" side and I don't know if it is endless but I am person who thinks deeply about everything a lot and I have a sense of uncertainty and mistrust. I know you think this is negative to me but I still see it as another step in my own transitoriness. A step I should live my own.

I start this OP because I am interested in your thoughts regarding transitoriness. We already discussed some threads about the concept of death where I quoted Mishima’s books. But this time is different because I learned a new state of mind: self-realization on the pass of time. — javi2541997

Maybe not related to what you're asking but transitoriness from the link you posted sounds like a proof of reality, as opposed to ex. theory of simulation which aims to say we and our surrounding aren't real.

The feeling of running out of time is thus sense of reality or proof that world is real.

Why

transitoriness — javi2541997

?

Why not transition, or just "change"? What is the rhetorical advantage? The coinage elicits "uncertainty and mistrust".

All things must pass. Good name for an album. Not a new idea.

In my view, doing things for others is more likely to lead to satisfaction and personal transformation. — Tom Storm

...indeed. That things change is a precondition for improvement.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment. — Woody Allen

Mann seems to assume that immortality lacks "transitoriness" (e.g. personal losses happen, the world is a thermally dissipative mega-structure of countless chaotic systems, etc) and is not finite (re: to choose necessarily excludes other choices); he conflates, or confuses, aging with time and the prospect of death with the urgency to live. It's a 'romantic existentialist' assumption that doesn't hold up well under psychological or philosophical scrutiny. I suppose, until general senescence is medically controlled (i.e. immorbidity) and natural death becomes optional, the 'aesthetics of ephemerality' will remain the prime motivator of culture, especially religion and war, and decadence. :death: :flower:

I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever. — T Clark

Same here. I want to live long enough to quit life on my own terms and to desire nothing more from living. Not "forever", I agree, but as long as it's psychologically possible for me to go on.

I've generally thought of life as a brief flickering of light in the infinite darkness. It's entirely up to the individual how they wish to inhabit this brief flash of illumination. Generally I think it helps an individual to get out and do things and not dwell on their own needs or thoughts too much. Rumination leads to endless potential forms of dissatisfaction. In my view, doing things for others is more likely to lead to satisfaction and personal transformation — Tom Storm

:100: :fire:
.

A free man thinks of death least of all things, and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life. — Benedict Spinoza

I have two questions:

1. Do you feel nostalgic? — javi2541997

Within the past 10 years I've noticed that my life has telescoped. It feels a bit like I'm living all of my life at once. Things that happened 50 years ago are just as real as things that happened yesterday. I still think of friends I haven't seen in 60 years as friends. My father died in 2001, but he's as much a part of me as he was when he was alive.

That's not nostalgia. No longing for or regrets about the past. It's almost as if there's no past at all.

2. How do you face the challenges/opportunities? The same way as you did ten or twenty years ago? — javi2541997

Ten or 20 years ago I had lots of things taking up my time. Two of my children were still at home. I was working full time. I was engaged in the world. I think my primary method for facing challenges in the past was not to face them at all. Avoidance. Now? I just sit here and wait to see what happens - in the world and in myself.

What I mean is: while I am aware about my limitations on my life and what the future holds, I am not capable of experiencing the same virtue in your awareness or concious. You have to live it yourself in your own as well as I do so. — javi2541997

I accept what you have typed in the quote above Javi, but you are often not the best judge of your own 'limitations,' imo. The motivations or inspirations from or by others can often result in yourself taking actions which produce positive results that can completely surprise you and make you form thoughts such as 'Oh my goodness, I should have got involved in this or I should have done this, years ago!'

I wish the law makers listen to your ideas and opinions because they are so brainy. — javi2541997

:smile: Thanks Javi! You are a good heart!

I also think that political parties are not longer useful — javi2541997

They are now just entrenched enemies and people vote for a 'side' rather than a person.
I think we need a permanent 'no overall majority,' and a government who start as complete 'independents,' who MUST work together to find common ground and concentrate on what would most benefit those they represent. Governance should have nothing to do with any concept such as 'party loyalty.'

Same here. I want to live long enough to quit life on my own terms and I desire nothing more from living. Not "forever", I agree, but as long as it's psychologically possible for me to go on. — 180 Proof

The goal seems common amongst most of us then. Only science can provide the tech needed to offer such personal control and choice when it comes to death, and provide access to the interplanetary/interstellar space and resources needed. So, the human race must ultimately, globally unite in such common cause or go the way of the dinosaurs. Do you see any other way forwards towards what I think MUST BE the natural direction of our species almost as a natural imperative of all sentient life.

Now? I just sit here and wait to see what happens - in the world and in myself. — T Clark

Would you not be interested in getting involved in volunteer work? If you are not already involved.
If I had the resources, I would love to open, run and fund a 'place,' were some in need could go and get some help from me. It wouldn't matter if it was a place near a village or township of struggling people or a local foodbank or .........?
I do intend to spend a lot more of my time doing volunteer work when I turn 60, so 2 years from now.

So, the human race must ultimately, globally unite in such common cause or go the way of the dinosaurs. — universeness

I don't think the survival of our species depends in any way on "the human race ... globally united". In fact, I'd bet against it. And when 'life extension' engineeriing really takes off, Malthusian population pressures will go critical and policies of 'strategic gigacide' will need to be implemented. What survives on the other side of that global cataclysm might not be recognizably "human" to us (i.e. their ancestors).

The alternative, however, may be that 'radical life extension' will only be available to people who work and live permanently in space (e.g. orbital habitats, moon stations, planet colonies, deep space travel, etc) – AI-automated fleet of "worldships" populated by a total of a million? half-million? hundreds of thousands or less? "Post-human" immortals – leaving billions of mortals behind on a flooded, toxic, storm-ravaged, burning Earth.

Do you see any other way forwards towards what I think MUST BE the natural direction of our species almost as a natural imperative of all sentient life.

'The species imperative' does not require most of the current populations of the species (or their descendants) to survive, only enough of us to carry our DNA and cultural artifacts forward through the coming millennia and epochs. AI-automation + space habitation + immortality engineering are what h. sapiens' "Post-human" future looks like to me ...

Extinction or apotheosis? :eyes: :monkey:

I do intend to spend a lot more of my time doing volunteer work when I turn 60, so 2 years from now. — universeness

When my brother retired, he got heavily involved in volunteer work with old people. I respect him for that and he really enjoys it. I don't have any interest in that.

Why not transition, or just "change"? What is the rhetorical advantage? — Banno

It is not a bout rhetorical advantage. To be honest with you, I used the word "transitoriness" because I liked it. Whatever the word is better to use I guess we end up in the same point: self-realization of passing the time by and the consequences of change.

the 'aesthetics of ephemerality' will remain the prime motivator of culture, especially religion and war, and decadence. — 180 Proof

:up: :sparkle:

That's not nostalgia. No longing for or regrets about the past. It's almost as if there's no past at all. — T Clark

Interesting perspective. I am not sure if I am aware about the possibility of denying the existence of my past at all because it created myself in the present and how I will be in the future. So past is there. I guess you are trying to say to me that is possible to "get over it" and not being stuck in the past endlessly. Another important characteristic of the transition of our lives. Every has an end, so the past too.

Without transitoriness, without beginning or end, birth or death, there is no time, either. Timelessness — in the sense of time never ending, never beginning — is a stagnant nothing. It is absolutely uninteresting. — javi2541997

So says the man who came from being born into this world and has only limited time. If humans are immortal, which is what it's about, we wouldn't know what "beginning" is. We're just are here. Thoughts of such nature wouldn't register in our immortal minds. He can speak of "transitoriness" because that is his nature, our nature. But that's all he can speak of.

He can speak of "transitoriness" because that is his nature, our nature. But that's all he can speak of. — L'éléphant

:up:

I only want to add the important fact of self-awareness of this nature. Thomas Mann tried to explain that the main difference between humans and other species is realization of change due to the pass of time. I mean (and try to guess too) that a dog or a cat is not aware of something that complex as "transitoriness".
It remembers me when some philosophers tried to make another distinction using the arguments of emotion. For example Schopenhauer's essays on weeping and suffering.

Interesting perspective. I am not sure if I am aware about the possibility of denying the existence of my past at all because it created myself in the present and how I will be in the future. So past is there. I guess you are trying to say to me that is possible to "get over it" and not being stuck in the past endlessly. Another important characteristic of the transition of our lives. Every has an end, so the past too. — javi2541997

I didn't mean literally that the past doesn't exist. It's my experience of the past that has changed.