[Buddha-l] Being unable to imagine dying [confused?]

[lemmett at talk21.com]

Really, Farber?
>My reply: Oh, OK. I understand phenomenology (having studied with Farber years ago and reading various bits of what some call Husserliana) but am wondering what is difficult about imagining your own death. Incidentally, do you mean the transition from being living to being dead or the state of being most quite dead ongoingly? What is the contradiction that you come up against? 
Well Merleau-Ponty might be saying that I must always be aware of the next moment so that my experience is never ending. If you're interested I can give my own workings but they're probably really wrong.
>The "matter" or what is important is that you are asking the reader to go to some other source, take the trouble to read that source, interpret that, and then, further, interpret how you might be taking in the cited passages, and guessing what conclusions you drew from them and what you found important, central, inspiring, and so forth. That is a lot of work you are asking others to do. Much simpler, less onerous for others, would be for you just to say what it is that you see as important in the passage and how it impacts you. So that's the "matter" (the problem) with your just citing someone else's work as a reply to a question about what you are talking about or mean. It depends on how much you effort you yourself want to put into articulating (putting into words) what you are raising as a topic of discussion. So if you are only trying to be understood, there is a more efficient way to do it, that's all, 
I thought that the author could put and argue for it much more clearly than I could. Also those few pages seem so explicitly in agreement with me that if they were not I would have to seriously reconsider whether my opinion makes any sense. Sorry for that, it seemed more efficient.
Thanks.