Reducible Death
And That Tunnel Of Light
Bill Garrett

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Bill Garrett"
Subject: Re: the End of the Tunnel of Light
Date: November 01, 2001 7:12 AM

Theodore Drange distinguishes between reducible death and irreducible death, the latter being death following which the body is so utterly destroyed that it cannot be simply revived, as in an ER. Nobody in the Bible, for example, who died, was later torn limb-from-limb, chopped up into little pieces, eaten by hyenas, or cremated and then successfully revived by Jesus or one of the Prophets. In a few cases, it is possible to read the passage to say that those Jesus revived weren't really dead. The only passage, actually, which goes out of its way to say "He's dead" several different ways was Lazarus.
 

Your hypothesis is similar to mine as far as there probably being a function of the brain which prepares us for the final return. My thinking has had to tailor itself to my situation. As one who has suffered a life-long depressive disorder, I have dealt with suicidal ideations since I was a teenager. I even learned suicide prevention counseling just to deal with my own problem. There, I learned to identify the part of me that wants to live and the part of me that has an urge to give it up as two separate entities within me, and to try to identify and contact the part that wants to live. Just thinking along these lines, thinking in terms of my brain as a functioning mechanism that might have a few quirks in it (just as all my cars ever have).

I eventually stumbled on the notion that the suicidal urge might be that function which normally prepares us for death being triggered prematurely, and it is this one that eventually led me to develop the method I use on myself today.

Later, I combined those notions with my own creative variation of the Addictive Voice Recognition Technique (AVRT) of Rational Recovery, which I taught for almost eight years until I just couldn't handle any more death threats from Twelve Steppers. AVRT teaches that the part of an addicted person that wants to get loaded is like unto a primordial, predatory appetite -- in other words, not "Me"! Being an urge and not "Me," the "addictive voice" is easily recognized as an "It" with no control over the voluntary muscles (but having only the ability to snivel and connive, etc., like every drunk and junky you've ever met).

I decided to experiment with AVRT's model of the primordial, predatory "It" on my almost daily suicidal ideations. There seems to be no making them go away, but the point has always been to not act on them while you're in the middle of it. Now, whenever I get an ideation, I can easily recognize it as "not Me" but as created by an "It" part of my brain. While seeing the addictive voice as an "appetite," of sorts, made Rational Recovery's techniques realistic, seeing the suicidal ideation as a natural function which only kicks in at the moment of death has made this technique I have used for thirty years seem very realistic. Today, I still get it, and it always feels like it's "Me" who wants to give it up, but I have sat down and decided, after thinking long and hard about it, that I don't want to die. This decision is my Game Plan, so to speak, and has thus become my Life Policy. Nothing short of a "rubber stamp" okay from Dr. Kevorkian would convince me to give it up -- no matter how I feel. That's the rule! So, in lieu of even knowing how to contact Dr. Kevorkian, any idea in my mind that feels like I want to give it up is nothing more than a hallucination, my mind playing tricks on me!

And the clincher, what ended up working (and ending my search and my aprehension) was an idea similar to the one you expressed!

Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.