Loading...
Menu

Final Curtain

p<>{color:#000;}.

 

 

FINAL CURTAIN

Date Version, Aug 15, 2017

Cover FINAL-M2

 

Notice of Copyright

Author: Billy Oxkidd

Graphics: Billy Oxkidd

Copyright, 2017,

Library of Congress,

Reg. Numbers,

TXu 1-890-390,

TXu 1-928-502,

TXu 1-938-823

This entire Copyrighted work, original, unique, and without exception, absent of all external influence, all rights reserved, any resemblance to identities of persons living or dead, purely coincidental. No use of this work or any part thereof, permitted without prior permission in writing from the owner of the copyright herein. No part or whole of this work may be published, reproduced, copied, distributed, shared, digitized, retrieved from storage or transmitted by any means whatsoever, without prior explicit permission in writing from the owner of the copyright herein, or in the circumstance, if electronically published, governed by the authorized distributor’s terms and conditions, excepted by the copyright owner.

 

WARNING. Serious Risk of Personal Injury, Including Death. The content materials contained within this book are not intended for use as a medical self-help guide. No treatment, cure, medical advice or medical instruction is offered or given in this book. Do not copy or otherwise emulate anything contained within this book. Seek medical care and treatment from your Physician for any and all your health cares requirements. This Book is comprised solely of a memoir of one person’s personal experiences, thoughts, opinions, and conclusions. This book’s contents, solely intended for educational and leisure reading purposes. Anything that you shall personally do, based on what you read in this book shall be solely your own responsibility. No responsibility or liability of any kind whatsoever is assumed for any reasons whatsoever for anything associated with this book, including, but not limited to inaccuracies,

h3<>{color:#000;}.

“FINAL CURTAIN

Essay, Death Rights

An introspectively sourced philosophical reasoned argument advocating in favour and in defence of unrestricted or otherwise un impinged personal Death Rights, defending. Such advocating advancing understandings of the legitimacy of such sole death rights, including my defensive arguing of deaths legitimacy concept itself. However such death rights in societal reality egregiously denied, limiting by impingement, due societal political bureaucratic failures of rising to the difficult societal interests challenges at hand, a denial of death rights by bureaucracy failures to engage. And as result of such political societal failures facilitating and protecting personal death rights, indifferently and egregiously impinging upon such sole ownership death rights granted at birth to all living things. My advocate viewing of death, possibly either prematurely tragic and therefore to be avoided or conversely our eagerly awaited arriving union with a compassionate friend., death essentially a benign status, harmless and not to be feared, as death remaining completely innocent of all erroneous fears, charges and negative perceptions attributed to such manifestation of natures true genius.

 

Starting off my argument, unmasking, rationalizing and defending our existing, however societal denied Death Rights Ownership, in such regards hypothetically selecting a somewhat controversial example, a psychologically traumatized individual wanting to terminate, perceived or real egregious emotional suffering by terminating their own life. My argument in defensive response to this exampled scenario, I believe that this exampled individual has the full and appropriate moral right to do as they please, desire or require, as they themselves solely possessing exclusive ownership of personal death rights. In rebuttal response to my just presented argument, It can be successfully argued that in this specific example of personal death rights execution, such psychologically traumatized individual is psychologically incompetent and therefore should be prevented by society if possible from such regrettable and deeply flawed emotional solution to emotional suffering. Countering this societal protection argument, as simplistically stated, I truly believe this solution, even though tragically flawed, regrettable and more, nevertheless this individuals crossing of death’s threshold is the one and only thing in all eternity that this traumatized individual most deeply desiring at the particular time in question here, death so deeply desired as to be the only thing of significance in this individuals entire life. Even though if with the passing of time, subsequently if such final decision not otherwise executed or acted upon, and later then reevaluated, even though later personally grateful such final solution not in fact previously taken. Nevertheless, regrettably my argument reaming the same, who has the right to impose political, institutional or moral values upon this unfortunate and flawed individual, being that at that time in question this deeply flawed but however deeply desired solution, so deeply desired, although tragic and regrettable if otherwise occurred, still proper to have philosophically occurred in this flawed individuals eyes, as this individual then exercising their greatest desire in exclusion to all else, exercising their sole rights to peace.

 

In a further somewhat philosophical exploration of death ownership, I advance this hypothetical argument for additionally buttressing my just aforementioned previous argument on death ownership rights. For purposes of further argument on Death Rights Ownership, we shall advance this following somewhat simple, however complex and potentially regrettable tragic scenario. Arguing here we have a physical diseased and egregiously suffering individual that for whatever personal reasons, personally arriving at the end of their life desire, counting the minutes, seconds and hours before they may cross into death’s compassionate realm. The argument I make here is regardless of this individuals geneses perceived reasons for any and all such perception of death desire, whether sound minded or compromised intellect or psychologically traumatized or medical sufferings of egregious brutality without endings, all such reasons and more remaining irrelevant to the limiting of this individuals ownership death rights.

 

Quite commonly seen news stories during political debating medically assisted euthanasia, protesting individuals deadly set against political possibility of legalizing medically assisted euthanasia, arguing against such legal assistance, here paraphrasing as essentially saying if allowing such medical assistance, they themselves feeling more vulnerable to some involuntary harvesting of them selves. I see a great hierocracy entwined within such anti death right advocates, being that in order to better secure their own perceptions of personal death security, they wantonly disregard the rights of others in securing such own agenda rights, willingly and indifferently impinging on the rights of others in securing such interests positions, and in such process indifferently denying the rights of others in improving selfish rights.

 

My introspective and fully defensible viewing of death, we as all other living things, destined at birth by the act of birth itself, enrolment in natures ultimate final remedy to life’s eventual ending. Instead of nature continuously attempting the repairing of the old, the well worn, the broken, the tired, and the cynical, such as our selves when lives having run their inevitable courses. All living embodiments thus scheduled by default or entitled solely upon individual need or desire, replacement by some freshly designed model, a model having fresh eyes, fresh health, optimistic outlook, enthusiasm, possessing infinite possibilities of accomplishments. One overriding caveat to natures such replacement strategy, defensively arguably, as death having no particular interest in our longevity, therefore death preferably only occurring for each of ourselves at our own appropriate times of personal needs, mercifully ending unspeakable suffering, or after good lives lived, when each of our times are appropriately correct for natures such remedy, we call death.

 

Semantically questioning death’s possible gender, a he, a she or is death of some other gender manifestation? Death credibly appearing as mandatory within life, however death generally unrecognized as an indivisible part of each and every life form, death therefore in our case circumstances must be viewed as he or she, as opposed to it. Existing within death, a genius within natures such strategy we call death, a strategy we semantically wrongly give credit and charge responsible for the ending of all life. However more correctly viewed, death is only a receiver of the lifeless after life having otherwise ended for whatever the reasons. Viewing death as only a receiver of the lifeless. In buttressing this argument of deaths receiver status, no person or any living thing, including ourselves having ever died of death, semantic but true, as once life having ceased for whatever the reasons, a status of death then exists, and not until then, si death has nothing to do with dying, only after dying, receiving the previously living.

 

Just think of the genius incorporated within natures strategy we call death, no appointments are necessary to be received by death, no waiting required for death embrace, all are welcome within death, death is always open, no applicant is ever turned away from crossing over death’s threshold, no politics are involved in the status of death itself, no entrance fees are required to be received by death, always room remaining available for all within deaths embrace. We may arrive at deaths door without notice and every applicant for deaths enrolment need shall be accepted with total compassion. We as candidate shareholders of life and therefore guaranteed at birth, natures such genius status death, not withstanding existing bureaucratic impingements. My argument, death is granted to all living things at the first moments of birth, buttressed by one rational indisputable reality of life, from the very first moments of birth and onwards any and all living things may die at any time without, permission, without application, lost and unknown, no matter where, when, why, how, alone, in company, in the middle of the oceans, and even if alone on another planet. The only possible way that any life form could have been granted such absolute and overwhelming right to personal death, solely only at the first moment of birth. We ourselves could never be capable of conceiving such ending of life strategy, never the less putting such strategy into place, nature’s such strategy based on need, on desire, on circumstance and on compassion, such commonly semantically referred to as death.

 

Acquisition of death’s such status, distinctly not our required recycling, but a distinctly separate and stand alone entity so wisely created and put in place, a strategy to remedy the predictable occurring problem of a never ending endless life, regardless of circumstances or needs at hand. First impressions of endless life without exceptions, very desirable circumstances to be facing, however when more closely examining the pragmatic circumstances predictably associated with such endless life, life without ending, our first such desirable impression quickly evaporating. In examining possible examples of pragmatic circumstances, reasonably associated with endless life, if devoid of natures genius remedy when lives otherwise having run their inevitable courses, if for endless life without possibility of death, a subsequent hell on earth existing into perpetuity.

 

Without a possibility of death, never relief of endless suffering, broken pieces resulting from a plain crash, sentenced to endless life ever after, mangled and disembodied. Without a possibility of death, no room available for arriving newborns, opportunities for renewal never possible, bluntly put, if the concept of death did not exist, then in its place existing a hell on earth, some very unpleasant place to spend any never-ending eternity. As a result of deaths availability, we individually may fondly and eagerly anticipate death’s arrivals when needed into each of our own candidate lives, a final great and generous perceived gifting from this non-judgmental, compassionate and merciful friend, we call death.

 

However regardless of natures commitment to such strategy of death, instead of endlessly repairing the intellectually and physically tire, broken, worn out, and suffering, there is absolutely no mandatory requirement of compliance by any individual or living thing with such strategy we call Death, as nature having no particular interest one way or another in any compliance or outcomes relating to its receiver replacement strategy. As previously herein aforementioned, the reason that death has no interest in our longevity, simply put, death is not in any way involved in the ending of life, death is only the receiver of all previously living things where life having ended for reasons having nothing to do with death itself, thus hence credibly absolutely no interest. This disinterest by nature, one way or another in the outcomes of individual cases, suggesting it remains up to each of ourselves based on our own individual personal needs, conducts, and commitments of personal effort, how long we individually remain on this earth, as natures strategy of death having absolutely no interest in how long any of us shall remain.

 

Therefore the length of our individual stays upon this earth is solely up to our selves alone, as nature having no interest in our longevities. Nature’s death receiver, replacement strategy is only a final default response adjudicator of final resolution when all else in life has been precluded. We must therefore understand, by doing our very best at all times, including a pinch of good luck, remaining theoretically possible to defer natures receiver strategy for as long as we are personally willingly able and our time not yet right for such gift of death’s embrace.

 

Our semantic expressions when referring to death, our emotional interpretations of death, and our visceral responses to subject maters of death, remaining extremely complex, as death is an indivisible part of all life forms from the first moment of all life’s birth. My understandings of the status of death, indivisible from Life and Life indivisible from death, deaths roll in fact is benign in the causing of the status of death, death only an absence of life. It is therefore appropriate for our selves to viscerally, emotionally and intellectually conceiving of death as each emotionally feeling appropriate, as each our own deaths, have been each our own, since that moment of our own births. Our personal and private conceptions of death will always appropriately override any clinically correct definitions of death, morphing into individual personal realities and perceptions of death.

 

Death is in fact only an absence of life itself, however commonly mistakenly generally conceived within our thoughts as responsible for life’s end. By looking at death as an adversary, an enemy to be avoided and under most circumstances, truly a status to be avoided if possible. As I see things the ending of life has absolutely nothing to do with death itself, but everything to do with the consequences of living, including random circumstances beyond each of our controls. Death is completely innocent of all charges levied against it, as death itself doing nothing to any living person or living thing.

 

Death is only that compassionate available end status for all previous living embodiments when life previously ending for whatever the reasons during the normal process of living. So according to my interpretations of death, life in fact is the cause of death, not death the causing death. Such life ending reasoning’s having nothing to do with death itself, deaths only roll is receiving the lifeless, those and that without life, where life having otherwise ceased for lives own reasons. Life and Death, similar in comparisons to hot and cold, no such thing as cold, only an absence of heat, similarly with Life and Death, death only an absence of life. Death is without influence or forces upon life, except differing greatly from hot and cold, our emotional humanity, as death having an enormous emotional and intellectual connection with our selves.

 

During my own past life, many times flirting with death’s Final Curtain calling during my reckless past life, fate’s placing aside as otherwise tragically regrettable during my youth, natures such receiver of my lifeless self to some future time and in some future place. Many such times somehow avoiding that final crossing over to my old nemesis’s side of shared virtual line separating us both, however again and again crossing such virtual semantic line, “The Dead Mans Line”, and in spite of my well-earned, but regrettable sentence that could have been imposed, again and again repeatedly set aside for unknown reasons.

 

State many times and willingly argued by rational reasoning, it is my opinion that all living things carry within it or themselves, indisputable and un impinged guarantees of death upon need, upon circumstance or upon desire, as such guarantees of death rights appear granted at the very moments of births and as such, each such entity personally solely possessing all moral, legal, religious, theoretical, jurisdictional, political and all other possibility of self jurisdictional death rights. A compelling buttressing argument in defense of such personal death rights, “all living things, including persons can die at any time and in any place without reservations, without agreement, without approval, without political blessing, without notice, without economic means, when needed and without preparation, if and when presented at death’s door”. There are no exceptions; all previous living things are welcomed within death without reservation. Additionally arguing in defense of such death rights, no jurisdictional entity, regardless of power is capable of negating or otherwise impinging on such principles of death rights, if or when such personal rights have been exercised without sanction or permission. Philosophically further examining such non negotiable, un impinged personal death right, any and all may arrive unannounced to be unconditionally excepted, crossing deaths threshold, such absolute guarantee can only be possible if previously granted in advance of deaths need, and the only place and the only time where and when such death rights can be granted is at the very moment of life’s birth.

 

My jurisdictional ownership argument in favor of sole ownerships of individual death rights, however appearing somewhat academic in societal reality, egregiously bureaucratically impinged as result of total political failures, by indifference in rising to the jurisdictional challenges at hand, intern somewhat nullifying such individual death rights. I believe that personal death rights are no body else’s business, solely only of each individual who is directly seeking death’s un impinged embrace, merciful or otherwise for reasons solely each own. Obviously existing endless competing counter societal interests attempting to influence each such candidate as to perceived entitlements to death’s such final embrace, but all such competing outside opinions and arguments still not capable of altering my root argument in favor of un impinged moral death ownership rights. Political dithering, inaction and indifference in dealing with difficult competing societal interests, personal security, societal control and good governance, individual needs, individual rights, intern such political failures to effectively engage death rights issues, intern egregiously revitalizing the hopelessly suffering, political indifference and selfish advocacy interests all willingly impinging on the rights of the suffering.

 

Death is guaranteed available to all without restriction when actually occurring, we have such guarantee of Death, without restriction and without worldly permissions, in other words have you ever heard of or seen any person that has died and is not then dead, obviously impossibly not. Therefore the only way such guarantees could have been provided to each of our selves is at the very same moments each our selves are born, remain intimately bonded to each of us throughout our entire lives until required without notice. Ownerships of deaths will maintain an intimate, emotional and unbreakable bond within each of our selves until we call upon this final receiver during each of our own post ending chapters of life. Therefore it must be my conclusion, the birth of each our own Death Rights and each our own births must occur at the very same moments as birth itself, as otherwise it is impossible for death to just materialize from thin air without notice when required by our selves. I not only perceive of death as born with and when each of our selves are born, but I also see death as an indivisible part of each and all lives and all living things, death unable to exist without a concept of life, and Life unable to exist without a concept of death, meaning our guaranteeing of access to each of our own deaths could therefore only have been provided for in advance, at each our own births.

 

We all must have this guaranteed access to our own deaths upon demand, upon need, and upon circumstance, as a never-ending hell on earth for our selves and all living things, unacceptable in death’s absent stead. It is therefore up to each of us, spending our own allocations of Life and Death as wisely as humanly possible. I see nature’s semantic genius concept of death as embodying a very wise and practical strategy, instead of nature endlessly attempting its repairing and rehabilitating of the old, the worn, the broken, and the cynical, nature in its wisdom instead exercising a very wise strategic choice option, retiring the worn out, the broken and the cynical when each of ourselves times are right. Death’s strategy of renewed optimisms, new starts, new visions, new possibilities and new futures, its benevolent gifting of mercy as death unconditional accepting all suffering requiring it’s benevolent gifting guaranteed of mercy, peace and dignity. Can we the enlightened, rise the this challenge?

 

 


Final Curtain

An introspectively sourced philosophical reasoned argument advocating in favor and in defense of unrestricted or otherwise un impinged personal Death Rights. Such advocating advancing understandings of the legitimacy of such sole death rights, including my defensive arguing of deaths legitimacy concept itself. However such death rights in societal reality egregiously denied, limiting by impingement, due societal political bureaucratic failures of rising to the difficult societal interests challenges at hand, a denial of death rights by bureaucracy failures to engage. And as result of such political societal failures facilitating and protecting personal death rights, indifferently and egregiously impinging upon such sole ownership death rights granted at birth to all living things. My advocate viewing of death, possibly either prematurely tragic and therefore to be avoided or conversely our eagerly awaited arriving union with a compassionate friend., death essentially a benign status, harmless and not to be feared, as death remaining completely innocent of all erroneous fears, charges and negative perceptions attributed to such manifestation of natures true genius. Just think of the genius incorporated within natures strategy we call death, no appointments are necessary to be received by death, no waiting required for death embrace, all are welcome within death, death is always open, no applicant is ever turned away from crossing over death’s threshold, no politics are involved in the status of death itself, no entrance fees are required to be received by death, always room remaining available for all within deaths embrace. We may arrive at deaths door without notice and every applicant for deaths need shall be accepted with total compassion. We as candidate shareholders of life and therefore guaranteed at birth, natures such genius status death, not withstanding existing bureaucratic impingement. My argument, death is granted to all living things at the first moments of birth, buttressed by one rational indisputable reality of life, from the very first moments of birth and on wards any and all living things may die at any time without, permission, without application, lost and unknown, no matter where, when, why, how, alone, in company, in the middle of the oceans, and even if alone on another planet. The only possible way that any life form could have been granted such absolute and overwhelming right to personal death, solely only at the first moment of birth. We ourselves could never be capable of conceiving such ending of life strategy, never the less putting such strategy into place, nature’s such strategy based on need, on desire, on circumstance and on compassion, such commonly semantically referred to as death.

  • ISBN: 9781370874439
  • Author: Billy Oxkidd
  • Published: 2017-08-22 00:17:14
  • Words: 3448
Final Curtain Final Curtain