Vam wrote: "Perception is usually a pointer that there is " something " out there." I would leave out the last two words, "out there." There is certainly something subjectively perceived, and our perception is central for us, usually founding the basis of our decisions and actions. But we may subjectively perceive things which do not exist "out there," (hallucinations, use of mind-altering substances, mental disturbance, ischaemic brain damage, etc.). Or that which we perceive may be quite different to that which is actually out there - this is something which happens to us all the time, at all sorts of different levels, from mistaking a stranger on the street for a friend, to the illusions of David Copperfield. One pole of perception is always the observing, interpreting subject. This can also be a basis for much faith-based experience/perception.
I suppose it was on this level that I started to take issue with what Slip was posting about the "soul." I do not at all doubt that Slip has had very real perceived experiences which are the basis for the position he takes. But that is fundamentally anecdotally based argument and the problem with that is that thousands of people present various sincerely perceived anecdotes in this area, which are not all compatable with each other. On the subject of "soul-transmigration" for example, Catholic mystics report visions of the soul's future after death in conscious union with God, writers from Eastern traditions present very different views and perceptions. Christian thinking presents a prospect of infinity as a state in which the self- conscious soul (including distinct personality) is in direct union with God, Buddhist thinking sees Satori as the advanced dissilution of ego and awareness in Nirvana (I am simplifiying both viewpoints a lot here). In the end, they're not compatable - and there is seems to be no critereon for deciding between them beyond personal preference/ judgement. But these are not issues which can be resolved by rational examination and discussion. Francis On 10 Mrz., 09:26, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > Well said, Vama, especially: > > <<Perception is usually a pointer that there is " something " out > there. > As what that " something " is, we can all have our respective takes ! > > > > On Mar 10, 12:03 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mar 10, 8:22 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Reasoning from perception to existence ("I feel like I have an extra- > > > material mind, so I do" or "I have perceived apparitions, so they > > > exist") simply cannot produce conclusions through an infallible, > > > logical process. > > > I suppose you are speaking of yourself, Michael ! When the ice cream > > means " the whole world " to the child, it means just that ... the > > whole world. That meaning is real, just as whatever the ice cream may > > mean to the grown up or the old, the infirm, the scientist, the > > artist, the playwright, the moralist, the philosopher, the sportsman, > > the economist, the dietician, etc. So, perceptions are important ; so > > is knowledge, of all kinds if I may add. If the dietician sees it as > > calories, he is not wrong ; so is the scientist, who might see it as > > atoms and electrons. So would be the technocrat, who would see it as a > > product of an elaborate manufacturing process. > > > > The > > > fact that science hasn't infallibly produced truth means we shouldn't > > > place absolute faith in science; it doesn't mean we should place > > > absolute faith in what we perceive. > > > I did not find SD placing absolute faith anywhere, much less demand > > that others place theirs on what he is saying. He speaks of his > > experiences and perceptions, physical and mental and intellectual, and > > suggests his beliefs based on that. We each, of course, are free to > > make whatever we are inclined to, in accord with our experiences and > > knowledge and beliefs. I see that as being no reason for " opposing " > > SD's suggestions by raising dogmas, scientific or logical or not ! > > > > Arguing that something exists, from the fact that it > > > is perceived, is simply a non-starter if you're trying to make any > > > sort of claim about the actual truth of things rather than about the > > > mere perception of things. > > > Perception is usually a pointer that there is " something " out there. > > As what that " something " is, we can all have our respective takes ! > > > > On Mar 9, 7:19 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Simply remove the word "story" because ghosts are not a story. > > > > Apparitions are real and I would imagine that their visual is > > > > accomplished by their ability to attract particles in the air, dust > > > > and whatnot, that create the visible form we see. Of course, this is > > > > nearly impossible for some people to comprehend, when they have not > > > > had any experience with apparitions. Most people I talk to about my > > > > experiences think I'm a crazy. Well the crazy part is true but so are > > > > the experiences! I wouldn't say I've ever been appreciative of > > > > having experiences with dead people but the fact that I do remains. I > > > > don't know what it is or why it is, but I just go along with the > > > > flow. Not to get too far off track but that matter is that these > > > > experiences lend themselves to my belief that souls do exist. Why > > > > some are still floating around this place eludes me. Truth is I don't > > > > care a smidgen about scientific proof for every aspect of living > > > > because life is what it is and we can't explain everything from > > > > something that is literally in its infancy; that is science. > > > > Science has killed as many people as it has saved, is wrong as many > > > > times as it is right and changes its colors like a chameleon. The > > > > world abounds with "fallacies" of science. Thanks but no thanks, I'm > > > > not some scientific guinea pig! > > > > > On Mar 9, 10:11 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Just to make sure I get your soul concept right, Pat, how would you > > > > > describe the difference between a ghost story and a fairy tale? > > > > > > On 9 Mrz., 14:00, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6 Mar, 18:54, 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. > > > > > > > If the soul/spirit is a coherent field of energy, then it must, > > > > > > somehow, retain coherence. It could only do that given space and > > > > > > time. That is, there is no 'coherence' outside of time (or space). > > > > > > Ghosts, if disincarnate souls, would stand as evidence that > > > > > > spacetime > > > > > > is STILL a factor after disincarnation. > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
