To their own self, they possess all the authority they need...but over someone else, by what is authority granted?
And of course not. I have nothing at all against speculation. It's the beginning of the search. I am simply delineating speculation from gnosis. On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > Space exists, Chris, without those properties or characteristics you > ask of the soul ! > > You have anything against speculation, Chris ? Why should you be > always looking for " authority,' especially if it is in the context of > your own self ? Why should anybody else have more " authority " on > matters pertaining to your own self ? > Chris Jenkins wrote: > >> What is this soul? Where do you keep it? What color is it? How much >> does it weigh? What does it smell like? Without any empirical >> knowledge of it whatsoever, what gives you the confidence to suggest >> to someone "How it works", when it seems to be something entirely made >> up and arbitrary? >> >> Energy is universal, and yet nothing about it is consistent from one >> state to the next, there is no "memory" or "identity" which is passed >> on which can be measured in some scientific state. Without empirical >> observation, there is nothing here but speculation, in which case, >> there is no authority from which to state how something does or does >> not work, no? >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I could even be Albert Einstein in my next life. Or Helen of Troy. Or >> > my own grand-dad. <<<fran >> > >> > No fran, that is not how it works, you cannot commandeer the soul of >> > someone else. You can only be "you" forever, from here in on out or >> > from then on. Even in space time, would you challenge the possibility >> > that the soul could retain its integrity? Soul is your being, your >> > essence in life, you are who you are because of your soul. You, fran, >> > can see the difference when you go out and about in the world around >> > you. There is obviously a huge difference between you and many other >> > people, and when you ask why is that, which you have at times, you can >> > simply attribute it all to the fact that your soul has accumulated >> > knowledge and understanding throughout many lifetimes. It's rather >> > simple really. As I said earlier, in this day and age when we have >> > microwaves and space travel, computers, cell phones, dvd, cd, etc, I >> > find it hard to believe the disbelief in this theory. >> > In other words, we can store gobs of information on a piece of plastic >> > but we can't have a soul? >> > >> > On Mar 6, 12:54 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Speaking purely theoretically - I accept Orn's point completely, that >> >> discussions about reincarnation are pure theory - I don't see the >> >> problem. If there is a soul (theoretically speaking, since I have no >> >> idea what a soul IS), upon disincarnation it (presumably) leaves space- >> >> time. That's space-TIME. So, theoretically, there's no reason not to >> >> assume that a soul experiencing disincarnation in 2009 might not be >> >> reincarnated in 1909. Wow, I could even be Albert Einstein in my next >> >> life. Or Helen of Troy. Or my own grand-dad. >> >> >> >> Personally, I have never found speculation about reincarnation >> >> particularly useful for living in the here-and-now. >> >> >> >> Francis >> >> >> >> On 6 Mrz., 16:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > As to theory when it comes to things like reincarnation....theories >> >> > are like comic books. Entertaining, and keep one distracted. >> >> > As to proof...the only proof would be if one remembers experiencing >> >> > it. I have nothing against those who make such a claim. >> >> >> >> > On Mar 6, 4:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > On 4 Mar, 16:04, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > This may be a silly question that has already been answered by those >> >> > > > who posit reincarnation, or you may have an answer, Slip. >> >> >> >> > > > But it just occurred to me that the world population keeps growing, >> >> > > > over time. So let's begin to flesh out the mechanics of >> >> > > > reincarnation >> >> > > > theory. Since the world population keeps growing, new souls must be >> >> > > > coming into being (on the starting premise that souls exist, of >> >> > > > course). What is your belief as to whether all souls reincarnate? >> >> > > > Is >> >> > > > it that, each year, of the 300 million people who die (I'm guessing >> >> > > > here, not bothering to look up how many people actually die each >> >> > > > year), those 300 million souls immediately reincarnate? Is there >> >> > > > some >> >> > > > lag time? Given that the world population grows by, say, 200 >> >> > > > million >> >> > > > a year, does this mean that 200 million entirely new, >> >> > > > non-reincarnated >> >> > > > souls are generated each year? >> >> >> >> > > > More importantly, when a new baby is born, how is it decided whether >> >> > > > that new baby gets a reincarnated soul, or an entirely new soul? >> >> >> >> > > > The basic premise of my e-mail is that the number of people dying >> >> > > > falls short of the number of people being born, so not every new >> >> > > > birth >> >> > > > can have a reincarnated soul. How does reincarnation theory think >> >> > > > about this? >> >> >> >> > > Firstly, whose theory? There are theories that don't limit >> >> > > reincarnation to only human form. If you count ALL the lifeforms in >> >> > > existence (and, not just Earthbound ones), THEN you'll see how full >> >> > > the pool of souls, as it were, is. Whilst I take your point, an >> >> > > Earth- >> >> > > limited view must be thrown out. Odds are that there's a huge >> >> > > whopping amount of life out there that could re-incarnate (or re- >> >> > > invegetate, for that matter!). >> >> > > Although there IS the Jewish view of 'The Guph', or 'Hall of Souls' >> >> > > where souls wait for (re-)incarnation. There is also a belief that >> >> > > the Guph can be emptied and soulless individuals born. This is >> >> > > explored in the Juergen Prochnow/Demi Moore film "The Seventh >> >> > > Sign" (Great film!). >> >> >> >> > > > On Mar 3, 10:51 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > > Slip, can you clarify what you mean by saying "Thought, as I >> >> > > > > > see it, is not physical or tangible<<<<<MB >> >> >> >> > > > > Simply for me thought is not something that you can put in a box >> >> > > > > and >> >> > > > > ship out or place in a zip lock bag for storage. I feel thought >> >> > > > > and >> >> > > > > imagination are homologous but not identical in that thought >> >> > > > > itself >> >> > > > > may be considered more of a process, which imagination uses to >> >> > > > > create >> >> > > > > ideas, concepts, theories etc. >> >> >> >> > > > > though it is the subject of multiple scientific experiments." >> >> > > > > ?<<<MB >> >> >> >> > > > > I may have hastened to use the expression scientific experiments, >> >> > > > > no >> >> > > > > intended reference to "thought experiments", but more so leaning >> >> > > > > towards the nature of thought, it's use as in telekinesis, >> >> > > > > telepathy, >> >> > > > > clairvoyance, the overall power of thinking, and the law of >> >> > > > > attraction, much of which admittedly, is speculative and/or >> >> > > > > hypothetical. >> >> > > > > Discovering the physical nature of thought is aside from what I am >> >> > > > > projecting because once thought takes place it becomes >> >> > > > > independent of >> >> > > > > it's originating source as does the light emanating from a dead >> >> > > > > star. >> >> >> >> > > > > > As I understand you, you posed that perspective in opposition >> >> > > > > > to the >> >> > > > > > contention that "all thought >> >> > > > > > and consciousness dies with the death of the physical mind." >> >> > > > > > Are you >> >> > > > > > arguing that when a person is alive, his thoughts are >> >> > > > > > extra-physical, >> >> > > > > > or are you also arguing that consciousness / soul survives >> >> > > > > > death?<<<MB >> >> >> >> > > > > I'm not arguing as much as I am suggesting that thoughts are not >> >> > > > > confined to our physical being. As I posted early on, we do see >> >> > > > > light >> >> > > > > from stars that are physically non existent. I believe thoughts, >> >> > > > > imaginations and subconscious manifestations do continue to exist >> >> > > > > beyond the physical demise. I feel very strongly that the soul >> >> > > > > survives physical death and also retains life experiences. I >> >> > > > > believe >> >> > > > > that some people have lived past lives but not all, as some >> >> > > > > people are >> >> > > > > Old Souls, ie: child prodigies, brilliant scientists etc., while >> >> > > > > others are New Souls ie: idiots without a clue who are easily >> >> > > > > identifiable. I would not consider reincarnation in the sense >> >> > > > > that >> >> > > > > our soul returns in the form of a different species but contend >> >> > > > > the >> >> > > > > soul returns as another human being. A human soul does not >> >> > > > > return as >> >> > > > > a cow in my opinion. I think we retain life experiences within >> >> > > > > our >> >> > > > > soul and believe that life might be occurring simultaneously >> >> > > > > within a >> >> > > > > parallel universe and further that there is a level at which time >> >> > > > > is >> >> > > > > of no consequence. >> >> > > > > Belief in certain aspects of death may give credence to what some >> >> > > > > know >> >> > > > > as Heaven and the Immortality of the soul. For atheists, >> >> > > > > pantheists, >> >> > > > > materialists and rationalists there would be no question and >> >> > > > > conversation of such idea would be moot. So what meaning does >> >> > > > > death >> >> > > > > have to us as we are living? Perhaps it is a reminder that life >> >> > > > > is >> >> > > > > temporary and that we should pay heed to what lies ahead without >> >> > > > > paying as much attention to amassing materialistic treasures over >> >> > > > > spiritual values. Is death just a marker between lives? >> >> > > > > Possibly >> >> > > > > and for me most likely, no one has ever come back to tell us >> >> > > > > anything >> >> > > > > about it. Is there a Karma that carries from one life to the >> >> > > > > next? I >> >> > > > > would think that if the soul retains it's accumulated properties >> >> > > > > then >> >> > > > > it might also retain the aspects of retribution. Upon new life >> >> > > > > in the >> >> > > > > new physical frame is there a clean slate with which to develop? >> >> > > > > I >> >> > > > > often wonder why some people are born into extreme poverty and >> >> > > > > pain >> >> > > > > while others live wonderful lives. While both will have to >> >> > > > > commit to >> >> > > > > death the interim of life seems to have significance in the fact >> >> > > > > that >> >> > > > > maybe there is for them a lesson to be learned. I would also >> >> > > > > have to >> >> > > > > examine why it is that a person is born and dies within hours of >> >> > > > > living if there is any significance to life between birth and >> >> > > > > death. >> >> > > > > Some believe that what we do in this life influences our lives to >> >> > > > > come, so I have to wonder what has that person done within it's >> >> > > > > few >> >> > > > > hours of life to influence it's future life. Can we lay down a >> >> > > > > prospective for person's future life based on general observation >> >> > > > > of >> >> > > > > the person's current life. IF so then where might be Hitler, >> >> > > > > Dahmer, >> >> > > > > Saddam and what are they doing in their future life? Have they >> >> > > > > returned already and are they living among us as we speak? The >> >> > > > > question begets more questions which beget even more as the >> >> > > > > question >> >> > > > > surrounding the most mysterious aspects of human life remains >> >> > > > > enigmatic; what of death? >> >> >> >> > > > > > As for the Noggin article, it's an interested experiment, to be >> >> > > > > > sure, >> >> > > > > > but did you have a particular perspective on it? To me, it isn't >> >> > > > > > particularly surprising that different parts of the brain light >> >> > > > > > up >> >> > > > > > based on your preferences. Presumably, imaging equipment will >> >> > > > > > eventually be able to see which pictures send more dopamine >> >> > > > > > through >> >> > > > > > your brain and hence are the ones you like. Did you have a >> >> > > > > > different >> >> > > > > > perspective? >> >> >> >> > > > > > On Mar 3, 7:35 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > > > You are indeed the arbitrator, wood. >> >> > > > > > > We had some discussion on thought not long ago. I started a >> >> > > > > > > thread >> >> > > > > > > titled "Noggin News or Nonsense" in which I presented a study. >> >> > > > > > > I'd be interested in your "thought" on it. >> >> >> >> > > > > > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490606,00.html >> >> >> >> > > > > > > On Mar 3, 12:01 am, wood <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > WoW! WoW! Slip & Michael >> >> > > > > > > > Putting the rotten cheese aside, you gentlemen are not >> >> > > > > > > > worlds apart in >> >> > > > > > > > your frame of thinking. What I’m seeing here, are two smart >> >> > > > > > > > guys who >> >> > > > > > > > clearly have a lot ideas and theories to be told, and I >> >> > > > > > > > think it will >> >> > > > > > > > make an interesting discussion. Somewhere along the line, >> >> > > > > > > > in turn we all can benefit from >> >> > > > > > > > each other’s intellect. Maybe afterward we can all have >> >> > > > > > > > some cheese >> >> > > > > > > > and crackers. >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:28 pm, Michael Berkovits >> >> > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Response to Slip: >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > "There is no evidence that thought itself does not exist >> >> > > > > > > > > within a >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> read more » >> > > >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
