How I've come to view...

Discussion in 'SCIENTIFIC and ANECDOTAL research' started by Rod Turner, Feb 4, 2017.

  1. Rod Turner

    Rod Turner New Member

    Feb 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    ...the question of reincarnation.
    I have no supernatural belief. Everything is perfectly natural, maybe just hidden from human perceptions and instruments. That said I have come to accept reincarnation as a working hypothesis. I don't think it can ever be "proved" in the sense that we can prove the decay rate of isotopes, etc.
    My acceptance of reincarnation is rooted in my growing disdain and lack of respect for modern science. For example, when looking at the Creation/Evolution controversy I see a huge load of cheap, petty ego in the mainstream scientists defending random mutation/natural selection as the driving force of evolution. I am certainly not a Creationist, but I cannot see how the standard theory of evolution could have possibly given us the current world. As an outside observer I see both side s of the debate defending their own existential fears.
    Since it is impossible to know the ultimate truth while we are alive I just don't worry about it.
    I conjecture that some type of reincarnation phenomena is the real driver of the evolution engine. Mind is not contained within our skulls. There is a teleology to life and the Universe.
    Tinkerman, matthew46 and SeaAndSky like this.
  2. SeaAndSky

    SeaAndSky Senior Registered

    Dec 11, 2014
    Likes Received:
    Florida, USA
    Hi Rod,

    You've definitely hit the nail on the head in terms of current materialistic theories of "evolution", and overall I don't find much to disagree with in your critiques, though I am definitely a believer in divinity and divine guidance and control in terms of whatever process brought us to where we are at this point. And yes, it is headed towards a definite end/goal.

    In terms of natural vs. supernatural in the reincarnation process, a lot depends on where the line is drawn between the two, which could be very difficult in many cases. Technically, I believe that only the divine can be referred to as "super" natural--i.e., beyond or transcending the created universe (or multiverse if preferred). In terms of involvement in the reincarnation process, this leaves room for a lot of realms, entities and possibilities between the levels of the physical universe we currently know about and the transcendent and supernatural deity. However, once again, I believe the entire process is ultimately under divine guidance and control with, once again, a definite end or goal.

    In terms of knowing ultimate truth, that's too big a topic for a short sentence, but it is certainly true that our knowledge and understanding is circumscribed by our limitations. What and how much we can ascertain/realize/perceive beyond that is an open question, though I also believe in limits. I.e., only an infinite being can truly comprehend an infinite being. The finite cannot truly comprehend the infinite, though it can hold/reflect as much of it as its limits allow (the old glass of water vs. ocean analogy).

    On your concluding statement, as you will have perceived, I also believe the whole thing is directional and has a goal, and that "mind" is not restricted to "brain". I likewise agree that reincarnation relates to the process of moving towards that goal, but the particulars of the process are certainly open to debate. Thanks for your thoughts!

  3. fireflydancing

    fireflydancing Registered

    Oct 27, 2016
    Likes Received:

    I hope you don't mind, but what do you mean by finite...

    Can I deduce from your words that we as humans are finite beings?
    Do you refer to our bodies or to our souls?


    Could you explain to me what you mean by this analogy?
    This is not what the upcoming quantum physicists are trying to explain. I don't ask this for a debate on physics because I am not a physicist, but I want to understand how to register your remarks in my mental map of belief systems.
    Tinkerman likes this.
  4. Rod Turner

    Rod Turner New Member

    Feb 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Has the idea of Morphic-fields, ala Rupet Sheldrake, ever been discussed here? If I were betting on the final truth, I would bet on a universe-wide information field as the source of teleology and form-creation we see now.
  5. Rod Turner

    Rod Turner New Member

    Feb 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    I suppose I should say That my statement "I have no supernatural belief" mostly means I have rejected the anthropomorphic "god" of my childhood religious programming and now view the Universe as Divine in and of itself.
  6. matthew46

    matthew46 Registered

    Dec 14, 2014
    Likes Received:
    I hope you dont mind me joining this thread but have a thread under parapsychology and from my own experiences only since oct 2014 i find other peoples views interesting. I had no supernatural belief whatsoever prior to oct 2014 in fact my way of thinking would be very much seeing is believing and in any event it could be proved with science or physics. However through my own experience i at first was guided to the pyramids and it was at that point i began to see life is not quite as i thought. My experiences have told me that time has no meaning in the afterlife where everything is infinite...the world as we know it today will at some point in the future become extinct maybe in 1000yrs or 50 billion it doesnt really matter therefore its just as likely to evolve again ...this could be 500000 billion yrs or more its a continuing cycle there is no begining there is no end...just like life its all about learning and everyone needs the time to learn. Going back to the basic info i read about the pyramids coupled with my own experience i feel reincarnation very much part of who we are and why we are ...
    Not sure if it makes sense im no acedemic or scientist just someone who had a life changing few years and have been guided in this direction. Thanks all
  7. Rod Turner

    Rod Turner New Member

    Feb 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Thank you matthew. I concur that a major event can change us, shattering our world view and elevating our consciousness.
    matthew46 likes this.
  8. cgaman

    cgaman New Member

    Jun 18, 2017
    Likes Received:
    What is it about the pyramids that changed your perspective?
  9. baro-san

    baro-san Active Member

    Mar 28, 2017
    Likes Received:
    (1) There is a relatively large number of books and documentary films that present proof of reincarnation, but you may choose to believe that their authors presented false evidence. The first example that popped into my mind is CBS' movie "Search For Grace" that is based on an independent investigation of a past life regression case of dr. Bruce Goldberg's.

    (2) I think that there's no Creation/Evolution controversy. There could only be a Creation / Spontaneous apparition controversy, and an Evolution / No evolution controversy. It is very possible, and likely, that whatever was initially created went, goes, and will go through an evolutive process. Also, Creation doesn't imply the existence of one or more deities in the religious sense. All this issue is like the more recent "man-made climate change (aka as global warming)", where people argue vehemently based on faith more than real data, and where a lot of false evidence is promoted.

    (3) We won't know the whole truth even after we die, because the truth is infinite. I also subscribe to having a working hypothesis about life, reincarnation, and such, and although I don't "worry about it", I definitely take it seriously.

    "Science" and "scientist" are names quite often pushed by those who want to shut you up, but don't have valid arguments to present. It's a "faith based" attitude, in the manner religions operate. Science and scientists were many times proven incorrect, and that's expected, as people's knowledge evolves.
  10. PatrickW

    PatrickW New Member

    Aug 16, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Exactly what happened to me. My entire perspective of existence has just been changed and progressed beyond description.
  11. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Jul 17, 2017
    Likes Received:
    .......But if one is, what happens to the others, which in the first place are
    not one, yet may partake of one in a certain way? The others are other than the
    one because they have parts, for if they had no parts they would be simply one,
    and parts imply a whole to which they belong; otherwise each part would be a
    part of many, and being itself one of them, of itself, and if a part of all, of each
    one of the other parts, which is absurd. For a part, if not a part of one, must be
    a part of all but this one, and if so not a part of each one; and if not a part of
    each one, not a part of any one of many, and so not of one; and if of none, how
    of all? Therefore a part is neither a part of many nor of all, but of an absolute
    and perfect whole or one. And if the others have parts, they must partake of the
    whole, and must be the whole of which they are the parts. And each part, as the
    word ‘each’ implies, is also an absolute one. And both the whole and the parts
    partake of one, for the whole of which the parts are parts is one, and each part
    is one part of the whole; and whole and parts as participating in one are other
    than one, and as being other than one are many and infinite; and however small
    a fraction you separate from them is many and not one. Yet the fact of their
    being parts furnishes the others with a limit towards other parts and towards
    the whole; they are finite and also infinite: finite through participation in the
    one, infinite in their own nature. And as being finite, they are alike; and as
    being infinite, they are alike; but as being both finite and also infinite, they are
    in the highest degree unlike. And all other opposites might without difficulty
    be shown to unite in them.
    Once more, leaving all this: Is there not also an opposite series of
    consequences which is equally true of the others, and may be deduced from the
    existence of one? There is. One is distinct from the others, and the others
    from one; for one and the others are all things, and there is no third existence
    besides them. And the whole of one cannot be in others nor parts of it, for
    it is separated from others and has no parts, and therefore the others have no
    unity, nor plurality, nor duality, nor any other number, nor any opposition or
    distinction, such as likeness and unlikeness, some and other, generation and
    corruption, odd and even. For if they had these they would partake either of
    one opposite, and this would be a participation in one; or of two opposites, and
    this would be a participation in two. Thus if one exists, one is all things, and
    likewise nothing, in relation to one and to the others.
    But, again, assume the opposite hypothesis, that the one is not, and
    what is the consequence? In the first place, the proposition, that one is not,
    is clearly opposed to the proposition, that not one is not. The subject of any
    negative proposition implies at once knowledge and difference. Thus ‘one’ in the
    proposition—‘The one is not,’ must be something known, or the words would
    be unintelligible; and again this ‘one which is not’ is something different from
    other things. Moreover, this and that, some and other, may be all attributed
    or related to the one which is not, and which though non-existent may and
    must have plurality, if the one only is non-existent and nothing else; but if all
    is not-being there is nothing which can be spoken of. Also the one which is
    not differs, and is different in kind from the others, and therefore unlike them;
    and they being other than the one, are unlike the one, which is therefore unlike
    them. But one, being unlike other, must be like itself; for the unlikeness of one
    to itself is the destruction of the hypothesis; and one cannot be equal to the
    others; for that would suppose being in the one, and the others would be equal
    to one and like one; both which are impossible, if one does not exist. The one
    which is not, then, if not equal is unequal to the others, and in equality implies
    great and small, and equality lies between great and small, and therefore the
    one which is not partakes of equality. Further, the one which is not has being;
    for that which is true is, and it is true that the one is not. And so the one which
    is not, if remitting aught of the being of non-existence, would become existent.
    For not being implies the being of not-being, and being the not-being of not being;
    or more truly being partakes of the being of being and not of the being
    of not-being, and not-being of the being of not-being and not of the not-being
    of not-being. And therefore the one which is not has being and also not-being.
    And the union of being and not-being involves change or motion. But how can
    not-being, which is nowhere, move or change, either from one place to another
    or in the same place? And whether it is or is not, it would cease to be one
    if experiencing a change of substance.............
  12. Native Son

    Native Son Member

    Jul 17, 2017
    Likes Received:
    ......The one which is not, then, is both in motion and at rest, is altered and
    unaltered, and becomes and is destroyed, and does not become and is not destroyed.
    Once more, let us ask the question, If one is not, what happens in regard
    to one? The expression ‘is not’ implies negation of being:—do we mean by this
    to say that a thing, which is not, in a certain sense is? or do we mean absolutely
    to deny being of it? The latter. Then the one which is not can neither be nor
    become nor perish nor experience change of substance or place. Neither can
    rest, or motion, or greatness, or smallness, or equality, or unlikeness, or likeness
    either to itself or other, or attribute or relation, or now or hereafter or formerly,
    or knowledge or opinion or perception or name or anything else be asserted of
    that which is not.
    Once more, if one is not, what becomes of the others? If we speak
    of them they must be, and their very name implies difference, and difference
    implies relation, not to the one, which is not, but to one another. And they
    are others of each other not as units but as infinities, the least of which is also
    infinity, and capable of infinitesimal division. And they will have no unity or
    number, but only a semblance of unity and number; and the least of them will
    appear large and manifold in comparison with the infinitesimal fractions into
    which it may be divided. Further, each particle will have the appearance of
    being equal with the fractions. For in passing from the greater to the less it
    must reach an intermediate point, which is equality. Moreover, each particle
    although having a limit in relation to itself and to other particles, yet it has
    neither beginning, middle, nor end; for there is always a beginning before the
    beginning, and a middle within the middle, and an end beyond the end, because
    the infinitesimal division is never arrested by the one. Thus all being is one at
    a distance, and broken up when near, and like at a distance and unlike when
    near; and also the particles which compose being seem to be like and unlike, in
    rest and motion, in generation and corruption, in contact and separation, if one
    is not.
    Once more, let us inquire, If the one is not, and the others of the one
    are, what follows? In the first place, the others will not be the one, nor the
    many, for in that case the one would be contained in them; neither will they
    appear to be one or many; because they have no communion or participation
    in that which is not, nor semblance of that which is not. If one is not, the
    others neither are, nor appear to be one or many, like or unlike, in contact or
    separation. In short, if one is not, nothing is.
    The result of all which is, that whether one is or is not, one and the others,
    in relation to themselves and to one another, are and are not, and appear to be
    and appear not to be, in all manner of ways.
    I. On the first hypothesis we may remark: first, That one is one is an identical
    proposition, from which we might expect that no further consequences could be
    deduced. The train of consequences which follows, is inferred by altering the
    predicate into ‘not many.’ Yet, perhaps, if a strict Eristic had been present,
    he might have affirmed that the not many presented a different aspect of the
    conception from the one, and was therefore not identical with it.
    Such a subtlety would be very much in character with the Zenonian
    dialectic. Secondly, We may note, that the conclusion is really involved in the
    premises. For one is conceived as one, in a sense which excludes all predicates.
    When the meaning of one has been reduced to a point, there is no use in saying
    that it has neither parts nor magnitude. Thirdly, The conception of the same is,
    first of all, identified with the one; and then by a further analysis distinguished
    from, and even opposed to it. Fourthly, We may detect notions, which have
    reappeared in modern philosophy, e.g. the bare abstraction of undefined unity,
    answering to the Hegelian ‘Seyn,’ or the identity of contradictions ‘that which is
    older is also younger,’ etc., or the Kantian conception of an a priori synthetical
    proposition ‘one is.’
    II. In the first series of propositions the word ‘is’ is really the copula; in the
    second, the verb of existence. As in the first series, the negative consequence
    followed from one being affirmed to be equivalent to the not many; so here the
    affirmative consequence is deduced from one being equivalent to the many.
    In the former case, nothing could be predicated of the one, but now
    everything—multitude, relation, place, time, transition. One is regarded in
    all the aspects of one, and with a reference to all the consequences which flow,
    either from the combination or the separation of them. The notion of transition
    involves the singular extra-temporal conception of ‘suddenness.’ This idea
    of ‘suddenness’ is based upon the contradiction which is involved in supposing
    that anything can be in two places at once. It is a mere fiction; and we may observe
    that similar antinomies have led modern philosophers to deny the reality
    of time and space. It is not the infinitesimal of time, but the negative of time.
    By the help of this invention the conception of change, which sorely exercised
    the minds of early thinkers, seems to be, but is not really at all explained. The
    difficulty arises out of the imperfection of language, and should therefore be no
    longer regarded as a difficulty at all. The only way of meeting it, if it exists,
    is to acknowledge that this rather puzzling double conception is necessary to
    the expression of the phenomena of motion or change, and that this and similar
    double notions, instead of being anomalies, are among the higher and more
    potent instruments of human thought...........

Share This Page