Secret Principles of Immortality, Edition 22

In this article I will once again turn my attention to the subject of death, for this subject is ultimately perhaps one of the most major pressing concerns of someone who wishes to live to 100, or beyond.

I will choose to translate the four categories reached in Edition 21 into weaker forms of the same. The result is the following:

(A) Degree of Attainment

(B) Degree of Activity

(C) Degree of Influence

(D) Degree of Avoidance

The general idea, presumably, is the ‘degree of death’.

We can see two patterns of correspondence in the implied cyclic diagram:

(1) Attainment As a Function of Influence (the general degree of difficulty)

And (2) Avoidance Vs. Activity (expressed as negatives and positives).

Thus, the categories consist expressly of Easy Attainment, Difficult Influence, Positive Activity, and Avoiding Negatives.

What does this mean when we interpret them as Death?

Well, the result is very understated. Avoiding negative death doesn’t even make sense to most people. But upon inspection, it could mean something like ‘avoiding ugliness’ or ‘avoiding creativity’. Presumably this is the ‘least dead’ category of the four. So watch out for the next ones.

Positively active death is death that can be avoided, if one were just at the right place at the right time. This might include disease, gunmen, and industrial accidents. In the right world, these things wouldn’t appear at all. So the best or luckiest people are safe here. Yet unlike in the first example (taken from category four), the result is more extreme.

Difficult influential death is more of a manipulator. Seemingly, it makes the lower forms of death more dangerous. One example of this might be ‘having a reason’ to die. Another example is an organized military, or concentration camps. Clearly this is a death that brings fear.

Easy attainment death is the so-called auto-death made popular by computer games. Most people aren’t affected by this (at least not obviously), but combined with other powers this ‘killing word’ might have the potential to radically shape reality, such as by exterminating everyone effortlessly, bargaining with life and death, or reforming manifestations by willpower. This is so-called ‘magical power’.

Working backwards through the list of deaths that has been created, there is the implication of an alternate list which expresses the way to overcome these forms of death. One expression of this is the following:

(A) Death is not Magical

(B) Death Doesn’t Have an Argument

(C) Right Place, Right Time

(D) Negating Death

Another is the following:

(A) Un-Edited

(B) Manifesto

(C) Mandate / Declaration

(D) Heaven / Independence

These are intriguing in their importance. The first resembles a wizard’s catching of a bogart, while the second resembles the foundation of nations. Clearly there is something productive about this particular format. Something classical and substantial.

What if we combine aspects of the two resulting lists?

[A-C, B-D, C-A, D-B]

(A) The Mandate or Declaration is that Death is Not Magical;

(B) Death Doesn’t Have an Argument for Heaven or Independence;

(C) There is a Right-Place / Right-Time for Being Unedited;

(D) This Is A Manifesto Called Negating Death

Although this seems rough in construction, it does seem to have something to say. Who would call it juvenile if it actually worked? Or if some power could make it official? Clearly if there were a power that could officiate some of this, it might seem like a minimal power to do so.

If there is a difficult aspect, it lies in the contracts of those who hold power. Or, another view, is that these aspects emerged in language only because of wishful thinking.

It is difficult to take the magical or the national view. What if we try a different approach? The previous conclusions can still be interpreted for more commonplace significance:

(A) Magic would have an advantage over death, by definition;

Thus, the non-magical cannot be defeated by magic,

And the magical does not die, by definition.

(B) Technology is pleasurable or painful;

So it is rewarding or unrewarding;

Thus magic exists or does not exist.

(C) If magic exists conditionally,

It may also be destroyed absolutely.

Where there is a soul there is no risk.

(D) The world consists of souls where it is realistic;

Where illusion may fade, reality may emerge;

Where life may fade conditionally, life may emerge continuously.

Well, the result was not commonplace. Perhaps, however, it may be understood as a metaphysical view which even has importance to those that do not believe in magic.

Metaphorically, the following is reached:

(1) Death is a Useless Science;

(2) Life is Pleasurable Pain;

(3) The Soul is the Incarnation of Knowledge;

(4) Pleasurable Science is Useless Pain,

Painful Science is Useless Pleasure

Or Science is not Always Useless,

Or Pleasure is not Always Painful.

Thus, death may be useless,

Life may be pleasurable,

Pleasure may be useless,

Or life may be painful

Possibility is immortal

Here we have discovered one of the gods of immortality, a kind of god of incarnation.

What if we combine the four elements with the earliest four, creating a subset for the complexity of the fourth category?

(A) Degree of Attainment

(B) Degree of Activity

(C) Degree of Influence

(D) Degree of Avoidance

(A) Attainment is when the soul is the incarnation of knowledge.

(B) Activity is the god of possibility

(C) Influence is when death is a useless science.

(D) Avoidance is a life of pleasurable pain.

Hence principles:

(A) Enlightened Thinking

(B) Exploration

(C) Superiority

(D) Oppositeness

In article 12 I described that the athletic principle of herbs connotes superiority. However, athleticism tends to be the second category in earlier lists. Incrementing the earlier list results in the following list for comparison:

(A) Adaptative Quality

(B) Age Before Youth Quality

(C) Athletic Quality

(D) Medicinal Quality

Comparing the two lists in this order yields the following:

(A) The Enlightened Athlete

(B) Exploration of Medicine

(C) Superiority to Adaptation

(D) Opposite to Age Before Youth

Clearly this seems to involve some backtracking and misinterpretation. As a mere image, the early wise may appear decrepit, but as Plato says, this is not the inward truth, unless the man is being tricked by others. There have been passing fads about this, but clearly enough if one could adopt a principle of wisdom early, it would have effect. The only exception is when wisdom cannot have an effect—a case of helplessness. Helplessness is not our foundation, so our foundation is also not without wisdom.

Perhaps what is meant is the simplest, most conceptual sense.

In light of the importance of the athlete, the absolute age of someone is not desirable. So in that case the chart may describe absolute cases of immortality.

Conservatively, however, the following comparison results, and brings us close to our original set of comparisons, from Edition 1:

(A) Avoiding Athletic Disasters, Such as Combat.

(B) Avoiding The Wrong Herb (Adapting)

(C) Secret Advantages (Principles)

(D) Sacrificing (Competition)

Thus three contexts have been described:


[1] Age before youth, [2] Athleticism, [3] Medicine, [4] Adaptation,


[1] Athleticism, [2] Medicine, [3] Adaptation, [4] Age before youth,


[1] Medicine, [2] Adaptation, [3] Age before youth, [4] Athleticism

[C is taken from the conservative comparison above, B is taken from the absolute above, and A. is the original from Edition 1].

What remains to be described is a fourth. It is useful to determine, because there is some evidence of subtle variations in the meaning of the terms. It can be expanded by choosing the opposite categories of [B]:

[A] The un-athletic

[B] Medicine not to explore (poison)

[C] Mal-adaption

[D] Youth before age

Now we can insert the categories which correspond according to the missing set from the three cyclically identical sets above:

[A] Adaptation is mal-adapted.

[B] Poison is youth before age.

[C] The athlete is un-athletic

[D] Medicine is poison.

Presumably, this is an accurate assessment of what it means to find death in the context of immortality. The result is completely the opposite of the original categories used as examples of the immortal condition. Which shows that death is also the abnegation of all categories which followed afterwards. And fortunately, it involves a contradiction about those properties.

With that, this article concludes.

Source by Nathan L Coppedge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *