Thank you for the clarification. I would say that it is the case that societies are, in a way, like this, with emergent properties and histories. However, it is necessary to never lose track of the individual as an agent, with his/her own motivations, manipulations of the social system, and so forth. This is why theory about culture is complex. People are not simple automatons, and so how they use culture and contribute to it is creative. Yet culture still has emergent phenomena- or, perhaps more accurately, culture is an emergent phenomenon of humans living in groups.
Do you mean that humanity is plural, or that each of us, individually, is plural? And what are our parts? Is being human an emergent phenomenon itself of these parts or is it a consequence of one or more of the parts? I see myself as plural, but the question of what that means is an interesting one.
I would agree that for many, only parts of the human person are concerned with consciousness. However, I would not say this is true for all human beings or that it we are unable to extend this goal state to encompass all parts of being human.
That we are concerned with our relationship to the earth is not in opposition to higher meaning. Some religions believe it to be so, but I would heartily disagree. I would humbly offer from my own experience that, if one believes consciousness and meaning to be in opposition to the earth/Gaia, then one has not understood one's relationship to her very well. Indeed, the other beings of the earth and Gaia herself can be encouragement on the inner journey toward awareness and a meaningful life.
I would offer that the predominant Western viewpoint of the earth's creatures as "lower" than ourselves and as having nothing to offer us spiritually is not spiritually accurate, but rather arises from our own limitations borne from our consumerist based cultures, and one that is not universal.
There are lessons to be learned in incarnation- lessons of balance and life. There are reasons we incarnate. We can be masters of our stomachs, and this isn't very difficult to do, nor is doing so a necessary indication of enlightenment or awareness. But balancing the needs of ourselves as organisms and who we really are spiritually can be instructive toward understanding a relationship between physical life and form and the spirit. At least, that's what I'm finding on my journey.
I disagree. Some people, from a very young age, can recognize the difference between the two, as well as differentiating between the drives of the physical body, the energetic body, the mind, the social being, the soul, and the spirit. Of course, I may be quite inaccurate and it's very hard to communicate it, but early on I could recognize the diversity of such within myself- a physical animal body, an energetic body, a mind (personality, cognitive and learning style, etc.), a social being (which I can only partially define as its identity is constructed in social relationship), a soul (with its unique history), and a spirit (the essence that is in God). Like an onion, except the layers impact one another. At least, this is how I see it at this point based on observation.
It seems that when I talk to many people, they feel rather unified within themselves and do not recognize these distinctions. But then, they also have difficulty defining themselves as separate from socially-bound identities. Somehow, the norm for me is to see myself as multiple beings at once, or, more aptly, as a spirit with a history (soul), that is housed temporarily in a bunch of other stuff.
I would put forth that knowing, understanding, and perspective are different things and I hesitate to discuss them without any operational definitions. Furthermore, I would say there are things we can experience but not know, experience but not understand, that still shift our perspective in meaningful ways. So we can learn, and some of my own most foundational moments of learning, have been from these shifts in perspective... which typically come about through questioning, not answering. It is not in knowing or understanding something that I learn, but in questioning something. But then, all that depends on what you mean about understanding and knowing. Empathy, for example, can be a great learning tool that includes a sense of understanding. But it would be different from understanding how a television works. The former kind of understanding can come with shift in perspective, a broadening of our awareness. The latter is just comprehending information. I hesitate to say that it works the same for everyone.
My own spiritual path is deeply rooted in both spirit and the physical earth/life. The two go together for me. If you have interest in my perspective, I'd have to think a bit before trying to articulate the meaning of life. That our essence is spirit does not make life meaningless. Life, the incarnation of spirit and the consequence of the creativity of God, is far from meaningless. And indeed, the more I have recognized the spirit, the more I have seen the inherent sanctity and beauty of life.
I do not believe there are levels. I'm too animistic for that. I think beings are on individual paths toward awareness of the Divine, and so we can separate ourselves (or not) from It. However, I don't think we have the capacity to know what or how other beings experience life, so to ascribe other beings to a "lower" level is a bit irrelevant and disrespectful of other life-forms. Furthermore, my own spiritual experience has taught me much from what people often take to be "lower" forms with no spiritual life whatsoever, and I would propose that any being that is thought of as "lower" and incapable of sentience, communication, or wisdom is likely to be unable and/or unwilling to assist one in the spiritual journey... just as humans have been with one another. When we are open to learning from other beings, they are generally willing to share their journey as well, which has the capacity to accelerate our own.
I'm not sure what to make of the idea of a "seed" of a soul. Evolve into what? Devolve into what? Disperse how? I'm not trying to be difficult, but just trying to nail down what your operational definitions are. What is a soul compared to the seed? Are both the soul and the seed spiritual entities, and, if not, how does the transformation work?
Well, yes, but then those that serve as food are reaching their own potential, right? And in a sense, it is a very great potential... they are sacrificing their future for the future of other beings. In nature, these cycles are what keeps everything going. Now, I'm not arguing that the soul works the same way. I'm simply saying that typically, attempts to make nature-based analogies fall flat. Nature has its own wisdom and, generally speaking, the problems of humanity are due (in part) to our forgetting how to live in a respectful way in Nature. We may argue that selfishness and greed are "natural" but that is only half the truth, as altruism is also natural.
I'll not get too far into it here, but if one considers reincarnation, then the question of awakening is not "if" but "when."
Nick, given your recent passing disparaging remark in another thread re to "New Age" thought, thought I'd mention that the views put forth here by Path comprise what I consider to be the core "New Age" paradigm, one which I believe makes the most sense out of various bits of experiential evidence from a variety of sources such as NDE's and parapsychological research into "after-death" communications among other avenues of research. earl
