You mean, according to the latest scientific research? ;-)Iolaus wrote:It seems the more recent dead do the communicating.
Life after death
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Life after death
Re: Videos and criticisms
Well would you be so generous as to give an account of what you believe a soul IS,just so I'm clear.Kevin Solway wrote: I believe in an eternal soul, but as I've explained, the eternal soul is not consciousness.
Becuase I've been under the impression you thought the soul was something like what you speak about later in this thread with the example of the scriptures of Buddha.For example Buddha still 'lives' past his mortal life via people who were influenced by him, or read him,or think about what he had to say,and so forth.His 'effects'
Likewise Kevin Solway would continue,with people you have met in your life and have remember you,or have something you have written etc.If this is so,this seems to me an acceptable way to think about 'future life','soul' and continuation.
But if that the case I wonder how or in what way you would consider this type of soul would become immortal or eternal if there were no people left and all books erased sometime after you died.
Where would 'Kevin' be?
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Videos and criticisms
"Soul" is what we really are. We are a whole lot more than just consciousness. What we really are is unbounded.Ataraxia wrote:Well would you be so generous as to give an account of what you believe a soul IS,Kevin Solway wrote: I believe in an eternal soul, but as I've explained, the eternal soul is not consciousness.
just so I'm clear.
There are still effects, and nothing can terminate those. So we will all continue in our effects. Our effects may not be what we would ideally like them to be, and our message may become watered-down and lost, or perhaps even fortified and clarified, depending on other causes in the environment. Our consciousness is a "form", and forms change with time. This is the natural process.Likewise Kevin Solway would continue,with people you have met in your life and have remember you,or have something you have written etc.If this is so,this seems to me an acceptable way to think about 'future life', 'soul' and continuation.
But in that the case I wonder how or in what way you would consider this type of soul would become immortal or eternal if there were no people left and all books erased sometime after you died.
Where is "Kevin" right now? I am nothing but the effects of other beings who existed in the past.Where would 'Kevin' be?
Life after rain
Very well put.David Quinn wrote:I personally think the clouds in the sky above me will reincarnate and be born again in other skies ......
-
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Life after death
My willing too, is inherited.dejavu wrote:Willing alone is freedom
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Life after death
Not only is the means of my willing inherited, but also how I use my willing, and the direction it takes. That is, my preferences and tastes are inherited from the world around me. Both my reasoning abilities and my confidence in reason are handed to me. Nothing happens without a cause, and that cause finds its source in the past, and in the world around me.dejavu wrote:Do you really think so? Your means of willing, yes, but one may become ones own cause as far as consciousness goes. Unbounded.
I am like a fountain that has no being of its own, and no action of its own, but is sourced entirely from without.
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Life after death
Then how do you account for the fact that you are a sage and so few others are?Kevin Solway wrote:I am like a fountain that has no being of its own, and no action of its own, but is sourced entirely from without.
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Life after death
No wait, that one was too easy. You are a sage precisely because you realize that you are like a fountain, and so few others realize that they have no actions of their own, and therefore they are not also sages.brokenhead wrote:Then how do you account for the fact that you are a sage and so few others are?Kevin Solway wrote:I am like a fountain that has no being of its own, and no action of its own, but is sourced entirely from without.
Hmmm. I do know that you can't properly surrender your will if you do not acknowledge that you have one. I believe this is partly why you (erroneously) think I am deluded. How can I logically speak about surrendering something I do not have?
But this is where you would be mistaken. If one has no being of one's own and therefore no actions of one's own, then it would be illogical ever to criticize anyone for his actions. Yet you do that regularly here. One cannot strive for enlightenment, since one cannot strive. Striving is an illusion, that we can strive a delusion.
I do believe there is a very fundamental truth that you are sort of seeing, but not quite. If you believe we cannot achieve because we have no actions of our own, then you must comprehend the notion of surrender. Surrender is a choice, however; if you do not surrender, you are constantly struggling in vain. The choice to surrender and the choice of to what the capitulation is offered is proof that the will exists. If you are immersed in a very negative environment and have no immediate way out, then the choices involved in surrender matter very much, do they not? In this, your actions, your choice, would be your own. Believing that in such a situation that no action is your own would be tantamount to giving up to the environment rather than surrendering to a higher power.
To say that one can have no actions of one's own is a bourgeois cop-out of the first order. But you have hoodwinked yourself into forever being blind to that fact.
- Ryan Rudolph
- Posts: 2490
- Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
Re: Life after death
Kevin,
However, the only way I might take this theory seriously is if we could scan all planets for intelligence life, and see how many have been negatively impacted by technology as far as intelligence is concerned. However, my intuition tells me that an evolving species is mostly impacted positively by technology, but if there are negative impacts, they are also short term, and do not have the ability to make a species permanently moronic. That theory seems rather odd to me. Although, I suspect that technology could destroy a species, but make it collectively dumber, that is debatable.
That’s a stretch Kevin! History has shown that technology has consistently increased humanities degree of intelligence over time. For instance: our language has become more advanced as we adopted the printing press, the Internet and so on.If technology is involved, then it's possible that the technology can fail and turn us all into morons. Maybe that's why the dead aren't communicating with us.
However, the only way I might take this theory seriously is if we could scan all planets for intelligence life, and see how many have been negatively impacted by technology as far as intelligence is concerned. However, my intuition tells me that an evolving species is mostly impacted positively by technology, but if there are negative impacts, they are also short term, and do not have the ability to make a species permanently moronic. That theory seems rather odd to me. Although, I suspect that technology could destroy a species, but make it collectively dumber, that is debatable.
Suppose our three-dimensional universe has an infinite number of partner universes all connected to each other by wormholes, black holes, and other unknown gateways, while some are in a decrepit state and some are advancing, and we could expect the same variety in deeper dimensions if they do in fact existent. However, I suspect that our three-dimensional universe has given birth to brother universes, and those brother universes have given birth to other universes. It is a self-sustaining process. However, the original three-dimensional universe would have to have been created from a deeper more complex order, and it probably has decrepit realms and orderly realms within it as well. Infinity implies what it the definition suggests - unlimited variation and variety.Older doesn't mean more advanced. It can mean more backwards and decrepit.
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
Re: Life after death
Brokenhead asks:
"Then how do you account for the fact that you are a sage and so few others are?"
Oh man, even I can answer that one. In the Great Swirl of the Cosmic Event, which spins in front of us and in us a stuff that is not matter, not spirit, not consciousness, which yet is staring right at us, beckoning us to realize its nature, in this Great Swirl of causing causes there arises 'Kevin', just one end of causes causing, and he is merely a fountain, that is to say a 'water-form' (or if you wish a cloud-form) composed of water moved by endless previous causes going back to the First Uncaused Cause, and in his case he was caused to be wise, no part of it is original to him, in fact and substantially there really is no 'him' (and you'd know this, BH, if you'd read a little closer) at all, but the him that is not-him, by the impinging of various influences some that may go back to the very origin of all things, or some that may have happened only yesterday, has caused him to appear and say the things he does...
Miiracle, ain't it?
This is really easy once you get the hang of it...
"Then how do you account for the fact that you are a sage and so few others are?"
Oh man, even I can answer that one. In the Great Swirl of the Cosmic Event, which spins in front of us and in us a stuff that is not matter, not spirit, not consciousness, which yet is staring right at us, beckoning us to realize its nature, in this Great Swirl of causing causes there arises 'Kevin', just one end of causes causing, and he is merely a fountain, that is to say a 'water-form' (or if you wish a cloud-form) composed of water moved by endless previous causes going back to the First Uncaused Cause, and in his case he was caused to be wise, no part of it is original to him, in fact and substantially there really is no 'him' (and you'd know this, BH, if you'd read a little closer) at all, but the him that is not-him, by the impinging of various influences some that may go back to the very origin of all things, or some that may have happened only yesterday, has caused him to appear and say the things he does...
Miiracle, ain't it?
This is really easy once you get the hang of it...
Ni ange, ni bête
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Life after death
Hey - You're right, Alex! Thanks for explaining it to me!Alex Jacob wrote:Brokenhead asks:
"Then how do you account for the fact that you are a sage and so few others are?"
Oh man, even I can answer that one. In the Great Swirl of the Cosmic Event, which spins in front of us and in us a stuff that is not matter, not spirit, not consciousness, which yet is staring right at us, beckoning us to realize its nature, in this Great Swirl of causing causes there arises 'Kevin', just one end of causes causing, and he is merely a fountain, that is to say a 'water-form' (or if you wish a cloud-form) composed of water moved by endless previous causes going back to the First Uncaused Cause, and in his case he was caused to be wise, no part of it is original to him, in fact and substantially there really is no 'him' (and you'd know this, BH, if you'd read a little closer) at all, but the him that is not-him, by the impinging of various influences some that may go back to the very origin of all things, or some that may have happened only yesterday, has caused him to appear and say the things he does...
Miiracle, ain't it?
This is really easy once you get the hang of it...
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Life after death
Mimicry or understanding?Alex Jacob wrote:Brokenhead asks:
"Then how do you account for the fact that you are a sage and so few others are?"
Oh man, even I can answer that one. In the Great Swirl of the Cosmic Event, which spins in front of us and in us a stuff that is not matter, not spirit, not consciousness, which yet is staring right at us, beckoning us to realize its nature, in this Great Swirl of causing causes there arises 'Kevin', just one end of causes causing, and he is merely a fountain, that is to say a 'water-form' (or if you wish a cloud-form) composed of water moved by endless previous causes going back to the First Uncaused Cause, and in his case he was caused to be wise, no part of it is original to him, in fact and substantially there really is no 'him' (and you'd know this, BH, if you'd read a little closer) at all, but the him that is not-him, by the impinging of various influences some that may go back to the very origin of all things, or some that may have happened only yesterday, has caused him to appear and say the things he does...
Miiracle, ain't it?
This is really easy once you get the hang of it...
Do you even know what it means to reach understanding? To grasp truth directly with your own mind? I really don't think you do.
You seem to confuse understanding with ..... cataloguing.
And thought with ..... bureaucracy.
-
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Life after death
Brokenhead seems to have reincarnated into a clone of Samadhi. He has suddenly become an exact copy of him. Did he will this, I wonder?brokenhead wrote: I do know that you can't properly surrender your will if you do not acknowledge that you have one. I believe this is partly why you (erroneously) think I am deluded. How can I logically speak about surrendering something I do not have?
But this is where you would be mistaken. If one has no being of one's own and therefore no actions of one's own, then it would be illogical ever to criticize anyone for his actions. Yet you do that regularly here. One cannot strive for enlightenment, since one cannot strive. Striving is an illusion, that we can strive a delusion.
I do believe there is a very fundamental truth that you are sort of seeing, but not quite. If you believe we cannot achieve because we have no actions of our own, then you must comprehend the notion of surrender. Surrender is a choice, however; if you do not surrender, you are constantly struggling in vain. The choice to surrender and the choice of to what the capitulation is offered is proof that the will exists. If you are immersed in a very negative environment and have no immediate way out, then the choices involved in surrender matter very much, do they not? In this, your actions, your choice, would be your own. Believing that in such a situation that no action is your own would be tantamount to giving up to the environment rather than surrendering to a higher power.
To say that one can have no actions of one's own is a bourgeois cop-out of the first order. But you have hoodwinked yourself into forever being blind to that fact.
-
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
Re: Life after death
David throws down his Egg McMuffin and yells:
"Do you even know what it means to reach understanding?"
David David David David. If I have successfully mimicked your idea about causation, it likely implies that I understand the idea, that I entertain it, that I can run through its ramifications. I am trying to grasp your ideas, but I do want to say that I note that you get a little slippery, and try to wiggle away from clear definitions. (Not in this instance, but in other parts of recent dialogue, especially on the nature of 'matter').
This idea of yours---again if I have mimicked it nicely---is a very good idea and has a great deal of relevance. It is worthy of examination and can explain a great deal that is mechanical and 'unconscious' in humans. I think you should know that no one here who participates in these conversations remains in the same spot, so we give evidence to the idea of mental and ideational causation.
Personally, I think that when a human being (the only intelligence that I can speak for, but for all I know we could be having a truly powerful impact on our pets, say dogs and cats whom we seem to be 'teaching') get to this point, the point where we can carry on like this, over an extended period of time, working on ideas, allowing ideas to influence us, where we turn in on ourselves introspectively, and where we also turn away from the mechanical and the unconscious, that that is the point where being human really has meaning.
I accept this model of causation (I know, you will say It is not a model but 'the way things are', 'ultimate reality', etc.), yet I personally feel that some of us can begin to interact with higher intelligence, intelligence other than our self, 'metaphysical intelligence' if you will accept the term. If we manage to do it, it is probable that we only manage to rededicate a small percentage of awareness away from unconsciousness (your 'feminine') toward 'consciousness', so the object is to dedicate more.
Your way would likely involve 'sitting' of heaven-knows-what (some Buddhist-inspired practice). My way, prayer.
My invisible friends won't have it any other way...
"Do you even know what it means to reach understanding?"
David David David David. If I have successfully mimicked your idea about causation, it likely implies that I understand the idea, that I entertain it, that I can run through its ramifications. I am trying to grasp your ideas, but I do want to say that I note that you get a little slippery, and try to wiggle away from clear definitions. (Not in this instance, but in other parts of recent dialogue, especially on the nature of 'matter').
This idea of yours---again if I have mimicked it nicely---is a very good idea and has a great deal of relevance. It is worthy of examination and can explain a great deal that is mechanical and 'unconscious' in humans. I think you should know that no one here who participates in these conversations remains in the same spot, so we give evidence to the idea of mental and ideational causation.
Personally, I think that when a human being (the only intelligence that I can speak for, but for all I know we could be having a truly powerful impact on our pets, say dogs and cats whom we seem to be 'teaching') get to this point, the point where we can carry on like this, over an extended period of time, working on ideas, allowing ideas to influence us, where we turn in on ourselves introspectively, and where we also turn away from the mechanical and the unconscious, that that is the point where being human really has meaning.
I accept this model of causation (I know, you will say It is not a model but 'the way things are', 'ultimate reality', etc.), yet I personally feel that some of us can begin to interact with higher intelligence, intelligence other than our self, 'metaphysical intelligence' if you will accept the term. If we manage to do it, it is probable that we only manage to rededicate a small percentage of awareness away from unconsciousness (your 'feminine') toward 'consciousness', so the object is to dedicate more.
Your way would likely involve 'sitting' of heaven-knows-what (some Buddhist-inspired practice). My way, prayer.
My invisible friends won't have it any other way...
Ni ange, ni bête
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Life after death
Suddenly, as in just now it happened?David Quinn wrote:Brokenhead seems to have reincarnated into a clone of Samadhi. He has suddenly become an exact copy of him. Did he will this, I wonder?
You are so full of shit. What tweaked you? That I called you a liar because you backtracked poorly and denied having said something that you really did say?
You know very well Samadhi and I have nothing in common. What you are doing is sharpening your axe. Brokenhead and Samadhi are the same. Sam gets banned, then brokenhead, because he has suddenly become an exact copy of Sam. If I banned Samadhi, then logically I have to ban brokenhead.
Your threats are mere poo poo, David. You just cannot entertain the notion that other people can think as well as you can, as logically, and as truthfully, and yet disagree. You just cannot be wrong, can you?
Re: Life after death
Q: Kevin, what do you mean by "consciousness" when you say "we are a whole lot more than just consciousness"?
Random comments: My understanding of reality is a tangled web of duality and non-duality. Whether that duality is edging toward the first or last of that mountain/not-mountain/mountain zen saying, I don't know, but I'm guessing I have a bit of both. I'm sick of those categories anyway.
Speaking of categories, I've been thinking about the Japanese flag. From far away the "sun" seems circular, from up close it seems ragged. So which is it, smooth or ragged?
What is this "it" we are talking about exactly? There is no "flag" or "sun" itself. Sometimes there is a circular image, sometimes a ragged image, and we project a single concept onto these two different things, putting them both under the umbrella of "flag" or "sun". These "things", these nouns, are imaginary and "don't exist" in the "world". All we have are the images, and the categorical umbrella nouns are what "create" the meaning.
So what is pure perception before meaning, does such thing exist? When waking up in the morning I have looked at my clock and seen the numbers, but no meaning registered from them. They were just a 2D picture of movement and color, without meaning. I don't think this kind of perspective is possible, or a desirable thing to keep since the understanding of meaning is what consciousness is. Therefore, everything that exists with any meaning must be an abstraction. What is "more" than this?
Also, logical proofs seem to be contingent upon empirical evidence. I can say, "the nature of a thing is such and such", but that needs to correspond with my experience in the material world. There is vast consistency, so maybe a logical proof is the best we can do, but I don't know if I would go so far as to say it is "absolute".
Random comments: My understanding of reality is a tangled web of duality and non-duality. Whether that duality is edging toward the first or last of that mountain/not-mountain/mountain zen saying, I don't know, but I'm guessing I have a bit of both. I'm sick of those categories anyway.
Speaking of categories, I've been thinking about the Japanese flag. From far away the "sun" seems circular, from up close it seems ragged. So which is it, smooth or ragged?
What is this "it" we are talking about exactly? There is no "flag" or "sun" itself. Sometimes there is a circular image, sometimes a ragged image, and we project a single concept onto these two different things, putting them both under the umbrella of "flag" or "sun". These "things", these nouns, are imaginary and "don't exist" in the "world". All we have are the images, and the categorical umbrella nouns are what "create" the meaning.
So what is pure perception before meaning, does such thing exist? When waking up in the morning I have looked at my clock and seen the numbers, but no meaning registered from them. They were just a 2D picture of movement and color, without meaning. I don't think this kind of perspective is possible, or a desirable thing to keep since the understanding of meaning is what consciousness is. Therefore, everything that exists with any meaning must be an abstraction. What is "more" than this?
Also, logical proofs seem to be contingent upon empirical evidence. I can say, "the nature of a thing is such and such", but that needs to correspond with my experience in the material world. There is vast consistency, so maybe a logical proof is the best we can do, but I don't know if I would go so far as to say it is "absolute".
Re: Videos and criticisms
So we are consciousness + what--Atoms?--- All previous causes going back infinitely?Kevin Solway wrote:"Soul" is what we really are. We are a whole lot more than just consciousness.Ataraxia wrote:Well would you be so generous as to give an account of what you believe a soul IS,Kevin Solway wrote: I believe in an eternal soul, but as I've explained, the eternal soul is not consciousness.
just so I'm clear.
This doesn't seem to be telling me what you believe a soul IS.
Unbounded (adverb) : Infinite,unconfined, limitless.What we really are is unbounded.
These aren't telling me what a souls is. It sounds like poetry to be frank.
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Life after death
Different fountains have variations in their sources, and consequently some fountains are bigger and better formed than others. This is of no doing of their own.brokenhead wrote:Then how do you account for the fact that you are a sage and so few others are?Kevin Solway wrote:I am like a fountain that has no being of its own, and no action of its own, but is sourced entirely from without.
Just like in Jesus's parable about the farmer who scattered seed. Some seed fell on a stony path, and died right there, while other seed fell on fertile soil, and grew tall and healthy.
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Life after death
By consciousness I mean awareness, and reasoning ability.skipair wrote:Kevin, what do you mean by "consciousness" when you say "we are a whole lot more than just consciousness"?
But this only exists within a huge support network, and is inseparably linked to it. That whole network is what I call "soul".
Speaking of categories, I've been thinking about the Japanese flag. From far away the "sun" seems circular, from up close it seems ragged. So which is it, smooth or ragged?
There is a smooth flag or a ragged flag, depending on what appears.
Whatever appears.What is this "it" we are talking about exactly?
There is such a thing as pure peception without deluded meaning.So what is pure perception before meaning, does such thing exist?
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Videos and criticisms
Everything that makes our consciousness.Ataraxia wrote:So we are consciousness + what--Atoms?--- All previous causes going back infinitely?
Ultimately there's nothing that it isn't.This doesn't seem to be telling me what you believe a soul IS.
Re: Videos and criticisms
Ok. If I run with your poetry,then that would mean the soul and the Totality are the same thing( but of course they aren't a thing).Kevin Solway wrote:Everything that makes our consciousness.Ataraxia wrote:So we are consciousness + what--Atoms?--- All previous causes going back infinitely?
Ultimately there's nothing that it isn't.This doesn't seem to be telling me what you believe a soul IS.
It would also follow in your view there is no ultimate demarcation between,say, Ataraxia's soul and Kevin's soul.In that case it is the same as your 'God' (Ultimately)
Fair enough i suppose.It seems needless artistic license to me, but then again i suffer allergies to these things.
- Alex Jacob
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:10 am
- Location: Meta-Rabbit Hole
Re: Life after death
The more these QRS-tians are asked for tighter definitions, the more amorphous and nebulous and metaphysical they become.
[I am merely noting this in my little black book.]
[I am merely noting this in my little black book.]
Ni ange, ni bête
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: Life after death
So nothing anybody does is really of their own doing. Does that logically follow?Kevin Solway wrote:Different fountains have variations in their sources, and consequently some fountains are bigger and better formed than others. This is of no doing of their own.
Re: Life after death
That would be correct, especially in light of the fact that there is no true "own."
Good Citizen Carl
-
- Posts: 2766
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: Videos and criticisms
The term "soul" is meant as a bridging term between the individual and God (the Totality).Ataraxia wrote:Ok. If I run with your poetry,then that would mean the soul and the Totality are the same thing( but of course they aren't a thing).
It would also follow in your view there is no ultimate demarcation between,say, Ataraxia's soul and Kevin's soul.In that case it is the same as your 'God' (Ultimately)
In Catholicism there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (or Spirit).
"Soul" corresponds with the "Holy Spirit".
The three are different aspects of the one thing.
So, my soul is different to yours, even though both our souls are in one sense identical with the Totality, because my soul presents differently to yours.