M,

This was our discussion that, for whatever reason, you wanted a copy of? (Strange person).

What if you had the choice between living the same day over and over again or not living at all? If you couldn't even pick the day or if you didn't know which one it was going to be. Maybe it would be the best day, or maybe it would be the worst day. Would you choose to live that day over and over again for eternity or would you choose to not live at all?

It's an interesting question, because you could almost go crazy knowing what would happen every day or reliving the same moments even though the people around you were experiencing them for the first time. Or maybe it would be the day that you would consider the worst in your life and you would be stuck with it for eternity. I guess the question comes down to whether or not you love life. If you love life, then you would have to choose the recurring day. No matter which one it ended up being or how monotonous it became, because the alternative would be nothingness.

I almost wanted to say that I would choose nothingness, because that seems to be the safest, most logical answer. There's no mystery in it you know in advance what you've signed up for. At the same time though, there's merit in having something over nothing, so even with all the uncertainties of the unknown, I guess I would take my chances. You would do the same thing. You said you hoped I would say that, I'm not sure why? Maybe all of my psychotic episodes recently had called into question my attitude toward life. Maybe. I don't know.

Anyhow, I was thinking, even if it were the worst day of my life that wouldn't be so bad. I tried to think back to what the worst day was and I don't think I could really pick one. There were some worst moments, but that's what they always are, is moments. The entire day isn't bad; it's just a period of time in the day. So if you relived it over and over then you would be able to experience the good things about that day and surely there would be some. Perhaps you would have a different outlook on that day. Maybe what you thought at the time was a horrible day in your life wouldn't be so bad if you went back and lived it again. Our memory is just our choice or our experience of limited events, so maybe you forgot about some amazing detail of that day because it was eclipsed by what you perceived to be the bad event. Maybe. So many maybes.

That brings up the question as to whether or not you'd have memory of reliving the day or not. If you remembered the day and that you lived it yesterday and the day before, and you will relive it again tomorrow that would be both good and bad. The good thing is that your 'bad day' or the unpleasantness of the moment would become almost insignificant, because without the passing of time and the turning pages of history, there are no consequences. You don't have to live with that situation because you start the day again tomorrow. The bad thing would be the monotony of knowing what was going to happen from day to day and never being able to move forward or backward. If you didn't have remembrance and you woke up every day thinking it was the first time you experienced that day, then it would again be good and bad. The trauma of any bad events would feel real because you wouldn't realize that you were looping through the same events, but at the same time, you would have the excitement and anticipation every morning that it was a new day.

And there is yet another question. Would all the events occur exactly the same way? Is every event and daily occurrence predestined so that each and every moment would be an exact replica of the day before? Or could you change the day based on what you did? And if you could change the day based on what you did, then I would for sure pick that option. It would be fascinating to see what impact a small change would make on the rest of the day and those around you. And that actually would take an eternity to test all the different possibilities and options.

If you had 24 hours to live (and you knew) what would you do with it?

I said that I would not sleep. I would go on a road trip. You said I could have everyone who I wanted to be with regardless of time or travel. (For example my family in Ottawa). So, although that's not realistic, it did make my answer easier. I would go on a road trip, but I guess I would need a bus, because I would take with me a few of the closest people in my life at the time. I don't know where I would go. I don't think it would really matter, but if I were going to be picky and choosey then we would go to B.C. We could go to the Shuswap Lakes and then I could swim. That would be ideal, but that would be a 16-hour drive. Although I would have all the people I needed on my bus, so that would be fine and I would have 8 hours to play in the water. I would also want my mom to cook for me, because I love my mom's food. Me and the people with me could talk about all the good times and memories that we shared. I wouldn't want people to be all emotional. (I don't think? How can one really say? Maybe I would be 'all emotional'?) In my theoretical projection of the situation though, I would just want to enjoy the time and enjoy the company as a celebration of love, life, and friendship rather than as a mournful sense of loss. That wouldn't be fun. If it was winter, I probably would just stay in Edmonton and maybe go skating and sledding and have a fire. The rest would be the same.

I don't remember entirely what you said, because you asked me to write this down at the end of the conversation. So I'll imagine that you want a donair. As opposed to me wanting my mom's food. If I were a nice person I could make you some pie, too, and some cookies. You could eat whatever you wanted. You said you'd spend the time with your family I think.

Then we talked about how some people say they would go out on a killing spree, or rob a bank. And how ridiculous that is, like some people have nothing better to do or a more positive way to live their last moments. How they can be so enamoured with the idea of getting away with something, or living inconsequentially, that breaking the law would take priority on their list of things to do. That led into a whole discussion about religion. In my opinion, people who believe in some type of higher power have greater accountability for their actions because they feel they will answer in some way for the sum of their actions. Personal accountability isn't as powerful, because everyone can decide differently what they think is right or wrong, and then there was the example of the killing spree in a person's final 24 hours. Obviously, that person feels that they wouldn't have to live with that decision, and wouldn't be around for the people who did. And obviously has no fear of any consequences to a higher power or one would think that they would have a different answer.

Religion is maybe too specific a word, but a higher being or a reincarnation, or some kind of judgement and evaluation of the overall good or badness of a person's choices. So that hopefully people have an external motivation to act in the best interests (whenever reasonable) of those around them. Internal motivation is good, and ultimately an external source of motivation becomes an internalized conscience, but how does one tune or guide that personal sense of right and wrong without the imposition of consequences from some other source? That would have to mean that people would just inherently good and that with or without consequences, they had an internal reward or punishment for their actions. So is that a learned behavior? Or instinctual? What would history tell us? Do people that act seemingly without conscience have one that they ignore? Do they have no fear of an after life? Or do they have no belief in such things? Did they never have the opportunity to learn morality? Are they missing the instinct? Or have the events in their life just jaded their ability to care about those things?

| Previous | Next | History |