Fluidology

[Aupmanyav]

Our souls will reincarnate for as long as we need to achieve the spiritual evolutionary level set by God, with or without mutations. Some groups of people call that enlightenment. When that day comes, we won't need bodies any longer.

My question was "What happens to our 'supposed' souls once we become 'ancient humans'?"

 

[RJM]

Welcome

I don't accept Shipwright's ideas about Jesus being some sort of 'special fluid' being. I don't accept the jargon around the soul being an electromagnetic entity with only one polarity. I don't agree with the idea of a panel of 'advanced soul' angel judges who decide our fate after death. Lots of the other stuff too. Perhaps I need to read it more carefully; I will do.

It's interesting. Well developed concepts. However Shipwright doesn't ring my bell as a guru. No offence intended.
He is entitled to his ideas, but I personally disagree with much of what he teaches ...

I also have a problem with repeated physical reincarnation upon the planet earth. As soon as I hear it, my guard goes up. But I'm not sure if that is what Shipwright means? I agree with the Buddhist concept of 'rebirth' upon many possible worlds and planes and dimensions. Is this concept of 'rebirth' as opposed to 'reincarnation' what is meant here?

The corporeal plane is everything there is in what we perceive as matter, in which we live every incarnation. Humankind currently incarnates bodies and lives on Earth, but the intelligence bestowed by God allows humans to find ways to colonize other worlds within the corporeal plane.

However -- what do we really know?
Thanks for the interesting thread

 

[RJM]

@plouton6
Please accept my apology for all the edits trying to get the above post right. The words are important. I've no wish to cause offence about something you hold dear.

There is a lot to agree with as well, imo

 

[plouton6]

My question was "What happens to our 'supposed' souls once we become 'ancient humans'?"

My answer was: they will still reincarnate as future humans until they don't have to anymore.

 

[RJM]

The soul leaves the spiritual plane to live the life that it has planned and arrives to the corporeal plane at the time of birth. When a baby is born, half of the soul incarnates by occupying a certain area of the brain, and the other half stays outside the body. The soul then becomes a spiritual-corporeal hybrid entity.

The two halves remain attached to each other throughout the whole life. When the body dies, the two halves are rejoined, and the soul eventually returns to the spiritual plane.

The half that stays outside the body, above the head, is called perispirit. The perispirit is responsible for intuition, which is their form of communication with consciousness. Intuition is used to provide guidance and protection. The perispirit is called guardian angel by certain groups of people.

I like this

 

[plouton6]

Welcome

Thanks!

I don't accept Shipwright's ideas about Jesus being some sort of 'special fluid' being. I don't accept the jargon around the soul being an electromagnetic entity with only one polarity. I don't agree with the idea of a panel of 'advanced soul' angel judges who decide our fate after death. Lots of the other stuff too. Perhaps I need to read it more carefully; I will do.

The whole point is for people to judge the information for themselves. Please let me know your thoughts on specific points if you're willing and able to share them.

It's interesting. Well developed concepts. However Shipwright doesn't ring my bell as a guru. No offence intended.
He is entitled to his ideas, but I personally disagree with much of what he teaches ...

That's just how human knowledge evolves. There's no evolution in unanimity.

Maybe someday someone will come along with ideas that could be viewed as middle ground. Maybe these ideas were meant to be discarded while making room for new ideas to come. Maybe science will find evidence to confirm some of these ideas.

I also have a problem with repeated physical reincarnation upon the planet earth. As soon as I hear it, my guard goes up. But I'm not sure if that is what Shipwright means? I agree with the Buddhist concept of 'rebirth' upon many possible worlds and planes and dimensions. Is this concept of 'rebirth' as opposed to 'reincarnation' what is meant here?

Maybe our souls are living simultaneous lives in parallel universes. Maybe it's not a simultaneous process.

Maybe rebirth means that our souls live on in the spiritual plane when our bodies die, and after a while leave the spiritual plane to return to the corporeal plane (possibly in a different dimension).

However -- what do we really know?

Exactly. Maybe we're all just guessing at something we'll never be able to fully understand.

Thanks for the interesting thread

I'm glad you found it interesting. If it made you think for a second, it was worth it.

@plouton6
Please accept my apology for all the edits trying to get the above post right. The words are important. I've no wish to cause offence about something you hold dear.

Thanks for your kindness and insights. No offense taken. You're very respectful.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe our souls are living simultaneous lives in parallel universes. Maybe it's not a simultaneous process.

The idea of simultaneity is too often too readily overlooked. Because we are creatures in time and space, we think in terms of succession, but if one steps out the spatio-temporal domain, then 'succession' and 'simultaneity' lose some of their meaning.

I wonder if we in the West invest too much in the idea of 'self' as 'me', whereas the Self, selfhood as such, is a meta-human condition, neither spatial nor temporal. I tend to think 'reincarnation' more accurately means 'life goes on', rather than this individual existence repeats itself ad infinitum.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My answer was: they will still reincarnate as future humans until they don't have to anymore.

How will we reincanate when we have lost our souls? As you said the pre-humans do not have any souls. Next time, we are going to face this situation.

 

[Ella S.]

@plouton6
Please accept my apology for all the edits trying to get the above post right. The words are important. I've no wish to cause offence about something you hold dear.

There is a lot to agree with as well, imo

Personally, I'm not sure that there's anything in here that I agree with. I re-read all of the posts a few times to try to find something.

In my own subjective opinion, I find particular controversy with the conservative attitudes towards suicide and abortion given here.

 

[plouton6]

The idea of simultaneity is too often too readily overlooked. Because we are creatures in time and space, we think in terms of succession, but if one steps out the spatio-temporal domain, then 'succession' and 'simultaneity' lose some of their meaning.

I couldn't agree more. Time is a human construct, and space is human perception.

I wonder if we in the West invest too much in the idea of 'self' as 'me', whereas the Self, selfhood as such, is a meta-human condition, neither spatial nor temporal. I tend to think 'reincarnation' more accurately means 'life goes on', rather than this individual existence repeats itself ad infinitum.

I guess we agree on this one too, at least partially. The self is thought. When thought is free from corporeal restraints, space and especially time lose meaning.

 

[plouton6]

How will we reincanate when we have lost our souls? As you said the pre-humans do not have any souls. Next time, we are going to face this situation.

Maybe we have different definitions of what ancient humans mean. Now I can see what you were really questioning.

I said every ancient human had a human soul. If it was genetically human (23 chromosomes instead of 24, besides other requirements science may bring to light), there was a human soul in it. If it was not genetically human, it was probably an ape with an ape soul, which probably still is reincarnating as an ape.

I never said anything about losing souls. I said human souls started incarnating when the first humans appeared on Earth, and will continue doing so in the future even if future humans are different (provided they're still humans).

There'll be a day when we won't need to reincarnate anymore, and people will probably stop having children and then die. Even then, our souls won't be lost. They will return to the source (God).

Nothing in the universe is really lost.

 

[plouton6]

In my own subjective opinion, I find particular controversy with the conservative attitudes towards suicide and abortion given here.

It's interesting that you find it conservative to say that a fetus is not a living person. I probably can't say that in front of my Evangelical, Republican brother if I want to keep the peace between us.

I'm not here to try to convince anyone (I hate it when certain religious people do that) and I realize your comment wasn't directed at me, so I won't argue. I wouldn't even if you did talk to me. I'm just answering questions and making clarifications in this thread.

I just like noticing different perceptions. I didn't see this one coming.

 

[Cino]

Time is a human construct, and space is human perception.

Is it your belief that human perception could function without time and space?

If a human nervous system perceiving time and space was altered, by the motion of a scalpel or projectile through space, would the perception not be affected or even terminated?

If the arrow of time did not exist except in human perception, would neurons even be able to metabolize sugars, releasing energy to enable the reactions of transmitters across synapses? What would it mean for a potential to travel along the neural membrane, and for the synaptic gap to clear after the synapse fired? How would the signals that are perceived be processed?

Is the ongoing fusion reaction in the sun, which is the source of energy for practically all life on earth, a human perception? Would plants do photosynthesis if no humans were there to witness it?

I'm not here to invalidate your beliefs, but very curious how such a radically idealist world-view addresses questions like the ones I asked.

 

[plouton6]

Is it your belief that human perception could function without time and space?

If a human nervous system perceiving time and space was altered, by the motion of a scalpel or projectile through space, would the perception not be affected or even terminated?

If the arrow of time did not exist except in human perception, would neurons even be able to metabolize sugars, releasing energy to enable the reactions of transmitters across synapses? What would it mean for a potential to travel along the neural membrane, and for the synaptic gap to clear after the synapse fired? How would the signals that are perceived be processed?

Is the ongoing fusion reaction in the sun, which is the source of energy for practically all life on earth, a human perception? Would plants do photosynthesis if no humans were there to witness it?

I'm not here to invalidate your beliefs, but very curious how such a radically idealist world-view addresses questions like the ones I asked.

I appreciate a philosophical line of questioning like this one.

I believe time and space belong to the corporeal plane. We can't function without them as incarnated humans, and space is a big part of the corporeal plane.

Physicists dispute the notion of time in some theories, so to speak. The events we observe in the universe are a form of time travel, and space travel itself would be a form of time travel if we went to the next solar system and then back to Earth. Time does play a big role in the corporeal plane, but contemporary science indicates such role may be more fluid than our everyday strict notion of time.

Anyway, the spiritual plane operates in different conditions, in which time and space as we know them don't exist (which doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist in another form, as part of a different dimension). Our true selves, our souls, are free from the restraints of the corporeal plane when our bodies die, and thus aren't subject to time and space as we know them. That's what I meant.

Plants have their own souls and their own purposes in God's creation (from a human perspective, it's mostly to feed us and other animals). I'd rather think they'd still exist and do their own business if humankind wasn't around, since they were on Earth long before we came to be and may as well continue existing here if (or when) we stop reincarnating. Maybe God didn't create life exclusively in places where there's self-aware life. Maybe we'll find planets that are strictly jungles, with nothing but plant life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I couldn't agree more. Time is a human construct, and space is human perception.
I guess we agree on this one too, at least partially. The self is thought. When thought is free from corporeal restraints, space and especially time lose meaning.

I am in agreement with you here. That is 'Advaita Hinduism' (non-dualism).
I would go on to say that when thought is free from corporeal restraints; even religions, God/Gods/Goddesses, prophets/son/messenger/manifestation/mahdi loose meaning. These are corporeal things.

"tyaja dharmam adharmaṃ ca ubhe satya anṛte tyaja। ubhe satya anṛte tyaktvā yena tyajasi tat tyaja ॥"

Abandon religion and irreligion, and truth and untruth, both. After leaving both, truth and untruth, abandon that through which you abandoned these.
Sannyasa Upanishad, Chapter 2, Verse 17.

Tyaja - abandon, dharmam - religion, adharmam - irreligion, ca - too, ubhe - both, satya - truth, anṛ(i)te - untruth, tyaktvā - having abandoned, yena - by which, tyajasi - you abandoned, tat- that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is the ongoing fusion reaction in the sun, which is ..

You think the galaxies, sun, earth and life are for real? They too are human perceptions.

 

[Cino]

Physicists dispute the notion of time in some theories, so to speak.

Is the subject matter of the theories you have in mind applicable to the processes I asked about?

 

[Cino]

You think the galaxies, sun, earth and life are for real? They too are human perceptions.

Do they go away when no human is watching?

Did the sun not shine on our pre-human ancestors?

 

[Thomas]

I couldn't agree more. Time is a human construct, and space is human perception.

Hmm ... I don't think so.

To me, time and space are conditions of a finite cosmos, and if the Infinite is really infinite, then finitude must be within its parameters.

The self is thought. When thought is free from corporeal restraints, space and especially time lose meaning.

And yet thought suggests a process, with its own time and spaces, perhaps?

I prefer to see it as The self is being. Thought is a category that belongs to certain orders of being.

Some of the angelic orders, for example, are, but don't think, they just are.

 

[Paulus]

It's a long read, but worth it. It has many parallels with the spiritist doctrine, especially since you mention perispirit (a typical spiritist term and only used in this thread on the forum by the way). I disagree though with:

Even though God has a plan for humankind collectively, God does not interfere with the progress of events in individual human lives. While we should thank God for the gift of self-aware life and appreciate God’s creation, there is no point in asking God for interference in any part of our individual journey.

Why shouldn't we ask God? He is God after all.

Kind regards,
Paulus