d/ends” is much stronger than the rest. In fact, the rest two comes as they are linked to the first pair, but, also, I must admit that arguing for the later pairs at large is beyond my methodologically defined limit at least at this moment.

So up to this part of hypothesis I have drawn death as something that does not absolutely abolishes us. It automatically brings the issues of continuation of life and further consequences, which is not addressed in this very limited opportunity. Thus, to be more specific and precise about this hypothesis, in this part I conclude my effort of defining death, especially those aspects of death that are directly linked to adjustment in the current civilization. In the following parts of the hypothesis I will concentrate on the issues of adjustm

I have tried my best to rationalize one criteria of death for the purpose of this hypothesis and that is “death is not the absolute end for us”. Thus this statement is also a relative truth. This establishment more or less ensures the continuation of one person’s existence after death. But another part tagged and opposite to it, that is, ‘inactivation’ remains unaddressed. Plus, the sources informs us about the life after death, that is, the religions does not indicate about any target oriented active life of oneself after death. Rather it is emphasized that target oriented activities done before death will be evaluated and judged for result and consequences. So in simple words responsibility that keeps us running is not mentioned in the activity of the afterlife. So in one sense we can say that when there is a life after death, it is eventful, it is eventful but one’s purposive activity is minimal.

So this concept enlightens on a sort of inactivation that is not something leading towards some state of zero that the ‘death ends’ or ‘inactivation’ criteria indicates. Plus when there is a reward and punishment after judgment, capability to perceive those events after judgment is supposed to be present, and religions advocate for that accordingly. In any case the more we will support the continuation of life after death, the more the frustrating and absolute inactivation will be abandoned from our thought. But as this hypothesis is about some concept and its adjustment, I will not take the responsibility to prove or disprove any matter in dispute due to its huge distance from the current trend in daily life. Rather it will be my target to address the impact on our mind and its consequence. Which is important for my hypothesis is that with the relative approval of the continuation of life after death, frustrating inactivation to zero relatively loses its support and loosening its impact on human mind sees some light of possibility. Similarly as we are considering one human’s life, the same person’s death, and also when continuation of life is considered it is also of that same person, it can be assumed very natural that all these are linear events.

But when the question of communication and separation comes, things become complicated. Because several kinds of endeavors are attempted to communicate with the dead that yielded no scientific conclusion and also there is not much support from the part of religion about communicating after death, it should not better be considered as an opposite pair of concepts from religion and nonreligious sources. But what is noteworthy and positive for us is that religion speaks about reunion. So separation is there for all concepts. The religious concept speaks of transient separation and non-religious ones indicate absolute separation that resembles best with end. Thus absolute separation, when compared to transient separation, can be left behind relatively on the basis of the total discussion so far. I believe that the statement I just made is within the range of rationality. But I must confess that my focus and effort for the first pair of the opposite concept “does not end/ends” is much stronger than the rest. In fact, the rest two comes as they are linked to the first pair, but, also, I must admit that arguing for the later pairs at large is beyond my methodologically defined limit at least at this moment.

So up to this part of hypothesis I have drawn death as something that does not absolutely abolishes us. It automatically brings the issues of continuation of life and further consequences, which is not addressed in this very limited opportunity. Thus, to be more specific and precise about this hypothesis, in this part I conclude my effort of defining death, especially those aspects of death that are directly linked to adjustment in the current civilization. In the following parts of the hypothesis I will concentrate on the issues of adjustme

can say that when there is a life after death, it is eventful, it is eventful but one’s purposive activity is minimal.

So this concept enlightens on a sort of inactivation that is not something leading towards some state of zero that the ‘death ends’ or ‘inactivation’ criteria indicates. Plus when there is a reward and punishment after judgment, capability to perceive those events after judgment is supposed to be present, and religions advocate for that accordingly. In any case the more we will support the continuation of life after death, the more the frustrating and absolute inactivation will be abandoned from our thought. But as this hypothesis is about some concept and its adjustment, I will not take the responsibility to prove or disprove any matter in dispute due to its huge distance from the current trend in daily life. Rather it will be my target to address the impact on our mind and its consequence. Which is important for my hypothesis is that with the relative approval of the continuation of life after death, frustrating inactivation to zero relatively loses its support and loosening its impact on human mind sees some light of possibility. Similarly as we are considering one human’s life, the same person’s death, and also when continuation of life is considered it is also of that same person, it can be assumed very natural that all these are linear events.

But when the question of communication and separation comes, things become complicated. Because several kinds of endeavors are attempted to communicate with the dead that yielded no scientific conclusion and also there is not much support from the part of religion about communicating after death, it should not better be considered as an opposite pair of concepts from religion and nonreligious sources. But what is noteworthy and positive for us is that religion speaks about reunion. So separation is there for all concepts. The religious concept speaks of transient separation and non-religious ones indicate absolute separation that resembles best with end. Thus absolute separation, when compared to transient separation, can be left behind relatively on the basis of the total discussion so far. I believe that the statement I just made is within the range of rationality. But I must confess that my focus and effort for the first pair of the opposite concept “does not end/ends” is much stronger than the rest. In fact, the rest two comes as they are linked to the first pair, but, also, I must admit that arguing for the later pairs at large is beyond my methodologically defined limit at least at this moment.

So up to this part of hypothesis I have drawn death as something that does not absolutely abolishes us. It automatically brings the issues of continuation of life and further consequences, which is not addressed in this very limited opportunity. Thus, to be more specific and precise about this hypothesis, in this part I conclude my effort of defining death, especially those aspects of death that are directly linked to adjustment in the current civilization. In the following parts of the hypothesis I will concentrate on the issues of adjustm

huge distance from the current trend in daily life. Rather it will be my target to address the impact on our mind and its consequence. Which is important for my hypothesis is that with the relative approval of the continuation of life after death, frustrating inactivation to zero relatively loses its support and loosening its impact on human mind sees some light of possibility. Similarly as we are considering one human’s life, the same person’s death, and also when continuation of life is considered it is also of that same person, it can be assumed very natural that all these are linear events.

But when the question of communication and separation comes, things become complicated. Because several kinds of endeavors are attempted to communicate with the dead that yielded no scientific conclusion and also there is not much support from the part of religion about communicating after death, it should not better be considered as an opposite pair of concepts from religion and nonreligious sources. But what is noteworthy and positive for us is that religion speaks about reunion. So separation is there for all concepts. The religious concept speaks of transient separation and non-religious ones indicate absolute separation that resembles best with end. Thus absolute separation, when compared to transient separation, can be left behind relatively on the basis of the total discussion so far. I believe that the statement I just made is within the range of rationality. But I must confess that my focus and effort for the first pair of the opposite concept “does not end/ends” is much stronger than the rest. In fact, the rest two comes as they are linked to the first pair, but, also, I must admit that arguing for the later pairs at large is beyond my methodologically defined limit at least at this moment.

So up to this part of hypothesis I have drawn death as something that does not absolutely abolishes us. It automatically brings the issues of continuation of life and further consequences, which is not addressed in this very limited opportunity. Thus, to be more specific and precise about this hypothesis, in this part I conclude my effort of defining death, especially those aspects of death that are directly linked to adjustment in the current civilization. In the following parts of the hypothesis I will concentrate on the issues of adjustm

entific conclusion and also there is not much support from the part of religion about communicating after death, it should not better be considered as an opposite pair of concepts from religion and nonreligious sources. But what is noteworthy and positive for us is that religion speaks about reunion. So separation is there for all concepts. The religious concept speaks of transient separation and non-religious ones indicate absolute separation that resembles best with end. Thus absolute separation, when compared to transient separation, can be left behind relatively on the basis of the total discussion so far. I believe that the statement I just made is within the range of rationality. But I must confess that my focus and effort for the first pair of the opposite concept “does not end/ends” is much stronger than the rest. In fact, the rest two comes as they are linked to the first pair, but, also, I must admit that arguing for the later pairs at large is beyond my methodologically defined limit at least at this moment.

So up to this part of hypothesis I have drawn death as something that does not absolutely abolishes us. It automatically brings the issues of continuation of life and further consequences, which is not addressed in this very limited opportunity. Thus, to be more specific and precise about this hypothesis, in this part I conclude my effort of defining death, especially those aspects of death that are directly linked to adjustment in the current civilization. In the following parts of the hypothesis I will concentrate on the issues of adjustm

d/ends” is much stronger than the rest. In fact, the rest two comes as they are linked to the first pair, but, also, I must admit that arguing for the later pairs at large is beyond my methodologically defined limit at least at this moment.

So up to this part of hypothesis I have drawn death as something that does not absolutely abolishes us. It automatically brings the issues of continuation of life and further consequences, which is not addressed in this very limited opportunity. Thus, to be more specific and precise about this hypothesis, in this part I conclude my effort of defining death, especially those aspects of death that are directly linked to adjustment in the current civilization. In the following parts of the hypothesis I will concentrate on the issues of adjustment related to death, thus over all, related to our mental wellbeing.