On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 13:26, Jason Van Patten <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/27/2011 1:19 PM, Alan Young wrote: >> Why would the soul *have* to share that information while instantiated >> in corporeal form? > > out of a desire to prevent the consequences of good or evil actions to > it's other forms
Ok ... I see where you're coming from. But just because the soul *wanted* to do that doesn't automatically mean it is *able* to. And, even if it were able to share that information why would it automatically follow that the consequences of actions would be ameliorated? How would the sharing of said information ameliorate the consequences? > good or evil actions on the part of a coporeal form were meaning full to > a soul then it would create a means (if it could or didn't already have > one) to communicate and prevent undesirable consequences in it's avatars Again, I don't see how sharing of information could prevent undesirable (and enhance desirable) consequences. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the sharing of such information would actually improve the soul as a whole as well as each instance. And wouldn't that be the purpose? If this life (and the other instantiations) are temporary then the soul's purpose would be for its own improvement, not necessarily the improvement of any one instance of itself. > if good or evil is irrelevant to the soul then morality would seem to be > optional to any grand truth that might exist. While I think your logic is sound, based on the assumption that good or evil would be irrelevant in this model, I disagree with this assumption. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
