I was talking about human reincarnation as well. The "fish" was a metaphor of a bigger fish (more advance soul) eating (reincarnating) with a smaller fish (us).

No, of course not. You are like a rebellious teenager because they also want to be "completely independent" of their parents.

That is the similarity.

Yes, I do understand that idea, and it was one of my fears too. That I might be swallowed up by a larger soul who would suck all of my energy and information from me for its own and I would cease to exist.

Like becoming one with the BORG. I did not like that idea. But I have since learned (or I believe) that I will retain who I am and continue to grow as an individual with my own interests and goals and experiences.

As I alluded previously, the possibilities are endless, but the memories we are relating could have come from past or future lives. Was it just you who had your head chopped off? You are certainly you now but maybe you are you plus someone else and each life adds more and more complexity to the soul, not just reproduction. It seems like the fish would want to grow.
I like the Borg analogy, except they were not growing as individuals. They were becoming part of a hive mentality which was more insect like.

Interesting point. Memories are just memories anyway. No telling where they came from or how they got there. They too are simply "mind stuff."

It is not a matter of "want" to me. It's a matter of intellectual integrity.

In actual fact, I would prefer to believe the pantheistc view. I find it more emotionally satisfying. But according to the data that I have and my evaluations of that data, the "separatist" view seems more logical than the "pantheistic" view - to me.

So the best you can say is that I "want" to believe what is most intellectually honest. But to imply that I believe it over the pantheistic view because it is what I "want", is factually not true.

Then I would be more interested in the data that you have and your evaluations of that data that supports the "separatist" view and why is seems more logical to you than the "pantheistic" view.

One “datum”, which applies to the pantheistic view, is the concept of “self-determined opposing purposes”. It is apparent to me that individuals can have diametrically opposed purposes. (A simple example would be the desire to win a sporting contest.) In the case of a “sparatist” view, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the observed phenomena, and the philosophical hypothesis – two separate sides with different self-determined goals, each of which acts in accordance with it’s separate goal. Occam’s Razor would favor that type of theory.

But the pantheistic view adds additional factors that are unnecessary to explain the observed phenomena, and which introduce other problems, not the least of which centers around the “aggregate purpose”…

If the different individuals are no more than “viewpoints” adopted by a single whole, then does the “single whole” have a self-determined purpose?

If the single whole has no self-determined purpose, then I don’t see it as being any different from a “hard materialist” philosophy from the perspective of purposes. The splitting into multiple viewpoints would have no purpose at all. It would be nothing more than the natural operation of a purely stimulus-response, action-reaction mechanism.

And if the single whole does have a self-determined purpose for adopting opposing goals, what would that purpose be? The end result of putting two goals into opposition could not result in any net gain. One side would lose and the other would win. Net effect – zero.

Another “datum”, which applies more specifically to the concept of “multiple, simultaneous spacetimes”, is personal memory.

I have recalled events that most definitely could not have happened in “this life”. Not just one event, but several different events. And each one of those has, a very separate and distinct “memory location” in a single, contiguous “memory database” - just as me memories of “this life” do. As I view my own memory, what it looks like from my vantage point is that each memory is filed in chronological order in the same filing system. None of the events in my memory have the same location in that filing system and there is only one filing system. So based on my own observation of my own memory, I have no reason to believe that there are separate filing systems for each life. Every memory I see is separated only by relative positions within a single system.

And the questions regarding purpose vis-à-vis the pantheists viewpoint also apply to memory. What would be the purpose of maintaining separate memories? What advantage would there be to having all those separate memory streams over a single, overall memory stream? Again, Occam’s Razor favors the simpler explanation.

Those are a couple of the main points in my own personal logic used to develop my philosophy.

you're quite selective about who should participate in your thread. the second reply post which occured several posts before mine was this:



doesn't seem she thinks the notion to be worthy of being called anything but a dream. hardly a believer huh? and i never said i didn't accept the possibility of incarnation did i? i simply said that i've seen no evidence to support such a notion. nothing to me is impossible.



commendable. nor would i and never do. i offer my views as i did here which was well within your primise that incarnation is possible. your premise was not that one must "see it as very likely true for many reasons". as you say, that's just what you think. i think it possible but highly implausible.

I will further explore the reasons for splitting into multiple viewpoints with my many different psyche's and see if they have any incite as to why they exist. (I call them 'the council')

Off the top of my head, I think as spirit grows, it seeks to know more and see more and experience more. It cannot do that from a single viewpoint or a single attitude. To be "all knowing" one must be able to see and feel things from different points of view.

In order to gain understanding, one must be on both sides of the experience. When in incarnating, you will probably experience a life where you are the victim or where you are murdered, and also you will experience a life where you are the murderer. In order to gain empathy for your opposition you must experience life through their point of view.

Once a soul gains enough experience to understand another point of view they will graduate (or grow) to another level where they are more capable of cooperating with (and loving) others.

I do think that Life is like a dream. You can participate in the thread all you want, but if you see no evidence and think incarnation is highly implausible you may not have much to add to the conversation.

I said that because I desire to discuss the plausibility of it not the implausibility of it as I have accepted the premise (at least for this thread) that it is a fact.

If someone does not accept that, its okay with me. I just don't intend to engage them in a debate.

Okay I have read the above statement again and I don't understand the "If" part.

I don't understand "the single whole" part either.

I consulted "the council" and here is the answer I got.

"The true self can inhabit any point of view."

Okay, confining this activity to me in this life only, and to my many different inner psyche's, I can understand this. I simply acquire one of their points of view and operate from that position.

Here is an example:
There is one psyche who is an investigator and process server. I even gave her a name. She is assertive and outspoken. Her name is 'Jackie.' When I do process service and investigation I acquire (or take on) her persona and attitude. It is a 'point of view and an attitude.' It is also very much a part of my total persona, yet her focus is narrowed and specialized.

Another example:
When I want to organize my house I take on another persona. It is like a narrowing of attitude and a gathering of knowledge for a single purpose. That purpose would be to organize my house. In order not to get distracted by other things, that psyche becomes a unit of consciousness in and of itself. It has its own attitude and opinions. It tells me to put things back where they belong. That is its function.

These units of focus and purpose can grow into quite extensive individuals with opinions and attitudes that may clash with some of my other units, but we all realize that we are part of the whole and we strive to understand each other and work together for the whole.

So which psyche is the real me? I don't know. It is like trying to find "Prime Source" sometimes.

It may be what I refer to as "the higher self"... (that entity who sends a life stream and gives this body life and incarnates in many other lives in this matrix.) But I think I do have a psyche that is the primary director of this life and this body. She delegates objectives and purposes.

We are many but we are also one.

I have another tidbit that serves to support why 'spirit' divides into separate individuals. It was from Bushidobillyclub on the following thread:


http://mingle2.com/topic/show/248342?page=4

He said:


"A First person perspective is incompatible with omniscience. You could say a first person perspective must by its very nature have limited knowledge of the world.


Omniscience is, as you know, ALL KNOWING.

Can a single perspective, a single point of view be "all knowing?" The answer is no. Hence many points of view are necessary for that property to be had by an "all knowing" consciousness.

But here is the catch. Normally you can only have access to the points of view that are under your jurisdiction. For me, these are my inner psyche's who are my inner different points of view. They are part of me. I can access their point of view at any time.

But I cannot access your point of view because you are not under my jurisdiction. In order to access your point of view I would have to ascend to a point of view above where yours fractured off from its source and then follow it to where your current psyche is operating.
(Theoretically of course.)

To me, “the spirit grows” is the point where I hang up.

Now let me make sure we’re talking about the same thing here – pantheism, where “All is The Whole and The Whole is all” and all “individuals” are simply different, viewpoints adopted by The Whole.

Now in order to adopt an “individual” viewpoint, The Whole must necessarily limit that viewpoint. That is, the individual viewpoint cannot be the viewpoint of The Whole, else it would be the whole. So, in adopting an individual viewpoint, The Whole is sort of “pinching off a part of itself”.

But then how is “growth” possible? There must be some “increase” in something for there to be any growth. So what is it that is increasing? The Whole is already everything there is, so the only thing that can “increase” is the individual viewpoint in relation to the whole. But that still doesn’t say what exactly is being increased.

The usual answer to that seems to be something like “awareness of the whole”. Now if that’s the case, then the purpose of the individual viewpoint is really to simply regain the limitations that were imposed on it in the process of being “pinched off” – and the ultimate result of achieving that purpose is reintegration with The Whole.

Net result – Zero.

In other words, the “growth” is only an apparency. There really is no growth – only “changing viewpoints”.

Now the issue of “creation” can be brought into the picture. That is, the individual viewpoints remain “pinched off” and their “growth” is a product of their own creation, independent of The Whole. But that presents a couple of paradoxes.

1) There is no longer a single Whole. There are two of them and thus the pantheistic view is violated.

2) When considering this in light of the concept of new beings being created by being “pinched off” from a “Higher Being”, the obvious question is “How did the first spirit come into being?” It cannot have happened via that same process of “pinching off”. So it must have happened through some other process – which would mean that all beings cannot have been created by that “pinching off” process.

"The true self can inhabit any point of view."

The ultimate true self is the whole. It can inhabit any point of view.

As Bushidobillyclub pointed out: "A First person perspective is incompatible with omniscience. You could say a first person perspective must by its very nature have limited knowledge of the world. "

Therefore, even "the whole" (or first cause) has limited knowledge UNLESS it can inhabit (access) any point of view generated by IT. That it can access or inhabit any point of view is what makes it "All knowing."



I think the question of where and what "first cause" is can be asked of any philosophy, religion, or theory. If you have an answer to that question according to what you believe, I would love to hear it.

The whole, whatever it is, is being 'increased.' or expanded. Knowledge is increased. Awareness is increased. It expands and it grows. It lives. It is a living expanding universe that contains infinite other living expanding universes.

Yes the whole is everything there is, but that does not mean it cannot grow and expand and be more. Why would you think it cannot increase and grow and expand? Do you think it will run out of room? Do you think that just because it is "all that is" that it cannot expand and grow?

Infinity is infinite. There are no limitations.



No the purpose of the individual is not to 'regain limitations' that were imposed on it in the process of being 'pinched off.' The purpose of the individual is a new point of view. They are new. They have only one view point and they do not and cannot contain all of the information of the whole, only their own, that they begin collecting from their unique point of view. Their purpose is FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WHOLE. GROWTH.

But that would have to mean that the “all knowing consciousness” is not a single indivisible entity. It is simply a label applied to an aggregate - like “mankind” is not a single indivisible entity, it is a label applied to an aggregate.

Now I don’t have any problem with that per se.

But it doesn’t support that “spirit division” concept.

What it says is that The Whole is a product of the interactions of the parts. In other words, The Whole does not create the parts – the parts created the whole – which is contrary to the idea that spirits start out as a whole and then “divide”. Otherwise the entire argument becomes circular – i.e. The Whole divides into parts and those parts then make up the whole.

The reason the primary consciousness is considered "all knowing" is because it was primary which means FIRST. All other points of view are within its body and domain and part of IT.

The first point of view. -- This first point of view is the one that has access to all points of view within the whole. (Its body)

You have access to all points of view within your body.

God consciousness: this is where you travel up through all points of view that spawned you until you reach the primary source. From that location, you can access all information. Information is stored in points of view... (individuals.)

Knowledge of what? Awareness of what? If The Whole is all there is, then all that says is that The Whole is gaining more knowledge and awareness of itself.

And the problem with that lies with the concept of “eternity”.

If we postulate that awareness/knowledge are increasing, then it must also follow that there was some point where knowledge/awareness was at Zero. And if The Whole is all there is, then there is no explanation for “first cause” other than “random chance” and the whole idea of self-determinism falls apart.

I’m sorry but any way I look at it, it all seems to rest on either a circular argument – The Whole created The Whole; or a contradiction – The Whole was created by something else and thus The Whole is not The Whole.

Yes, I get that.

And really all I’m saying is that the “heirarchical” structure is way too complex for my tastes. I prefer the much simpler hypothesis that all individuals are not “created”, but are eternal in their own right. That hypothesis appears to me to “cover all the bases” (i.e. aligns with all observed phenomena) and according to Occam’s Razor, would be more likely.

So really, the reason I choose mine is not because it explains anything any better. Both philosophies (apparently) explain all observed phenomena. It's only because it's simpler.