Do you wish reincarnation were true?

[Elysian]

It gives one a sense of continuity, makes you feel that your attempts at creating a just society aren't wasted.

[eric922]

First of all, as a Buddhist I think there might be a chance that reincarnation does exist, though Buddhists don't really believe in reincarnation as in the migration of the soul after death, however I digress. I'm agnostic on that issue, as are a lot of Buddhist.

However, on to your original question, even if this is the only life I have to live, as long as I helped make the world a better place for the next generation, than it wasn't a waste.

[Ostrinski]

I was God in a past life.

[The Stalinator]

Yes, I'd like to be reincarnated.

[RedAnarchist]

It certainly would be interesting to experience reincarnation (even though you wouldn't know if you were reincarnated).

The idea that death is not the final end has been used a lot by organised religion to convince people to believe in their faith and not to want change in this life.

[roy]

Life's the longest thing we can experience. How could trying to create a just world be wasted?

Anyway, it'd be alright to come back as a human but I don't want all that bad karma turning me into an amoeba or something.

[Revolution starts with U]

Only if you could remember each life. Otherwise its just a waste of time. I want to learn!

[Ostrinski]

Perhaps if dying was comparable to resetting a game console, one had a menu to browse and search, choose what you wanted to do, what you wanted to reincarnate as, etc.

[dodger]

It gives one a sense of continuity, makes you feel that your attempts at creating a just society aren't wasted.

YES, YES, YES...i WOULD COME BACK AS A CONFUSED ADOLESCENT....I would de-ristrict myself .find an empty phone booth, change into my costume, fly off to a Tibetan Buddhist retreat and not utter a single word to anyone for the next 25 years.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

No, I wish there was a heaven where everything was perfect and everybody I loved was there. Reincarnation sounds like crap considering you'd have a pretty good chance of being born as some dirt-poor kid in India who has to slave for some asshole and you die early because working conditions are horrible.

[Elysian]

YES, YES, YES...i WOULD COME BACK AS A CONFUSED ADOLESCENT....I would de-ristrict myself .find an empty phone booth, change into my costume, fly off to a Tibetan Buddhist retreat and not utter a single word to anyone for the next 25 years.

I do that already.

[dodger]

I do that already.



THEN HEAVEN is JUST and MERCIFUL, Elysian.

For you are not curable, reclaimable, recoverable, redeemable, reformable, remediable, retrievable, saveable, salvageable it does pain me to say it

.... For the 5th time!


.............ELYSIAN: YOU ARE I N C O R R G I B L E!!!

[manic expression]

Reincarnation makes the most sense, I think. We know that matter and energy do not end but continue in new forms, and so who is to say this does not happen with our own existences?

[Deicide]

No. Once is enough for me.

I don't want to return to this party.

[Elysian]

Reincarnation makes the most sense, I think. We know that matter and energy do not end but continue in new forms, and so who is to say this does not happen with our own existences?

True. Maybe, Christians also believe in R, since they refer to jesus or john as Elijah or some other prophet.

[Bostana]

Not really,
It would be best if we just did our part in our lives then someone else's.

[Elysian]

For you are not curable, reclaimable, recoverable, redeemable, reformable, remediable, retrievable, saveable, salvageable it does pain me to say it



exactly what my gf said before surrendering to my charm.;)

[dodger]

exactly what my gf said before surrendering to my charm.;)

Yes I copied it from an old Valentine that I sent to myself. But it was meant sincerely never the less!!

[Tim Cornelis]

Reincarnation makes the most sense, I think. We know that matter and energy do not end but continue in new forms, and so who is to say this does not happen with our own existences?

Wooo, eneergyyyhh. Such pseudo-scientific mumbling makes me cringe.

Our "existence" is our brain. Our brain is not transferred to some higher metaphysical bullshit level, it rots away in the ground.

[Franz Fanonipants]

nope

[Raúl Duke]

Only if I'm re-incarnated into a house cat of a rich bombshell celebrity in LA and pampered to the extreme and given all the catnip I can ever desire.

or some such

but usually, no not really I don't care about the after-life.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Reincarnation makes the most sense, I think. We know that matter and energy do not end but continue in new forms, and so who is to say this does not happen with our own existences?Me, and several others. Aristotle (and/or plato) had a similar argument: we can remember stuff therefore there is a never ending cycle of rebirth. Can't remember what that was in...

Also, finally an excuse to argue in music!

6TajIq9I8BA
lyrics: http://www.metrolyrics.com/and-the-psychic-saw-lyrics-atheist.html

[Lanky Wanker]

Well, having gone through only 16 years of life I can already say I'd kill myself if I had to start over again, but with reincarnation I obviously wouldn't remember it unless I turned out like that pilot kid. I mean, being a baby again and getting boobies every day... though that would be kinda creepy considering she'd be the mother of my reincarnated self. Or if I'm raised by a gay male couple I suppose I wouldn't have that luxury. Anyways, boobies aside, I wouldn't want to give a blind 'yes' incase I'm thrown into the body of someone with "serious" difficulties in life, be it mental, physical, environmental etc.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Damn you're way smarter than I was at 16. I am jealous, sir!


Well having gone through 16 years of life I can already say I'd kill myself if I had to start over againDon't worry it gets better overall, though we focus on the increasing amount of bullshit.

[The Young Pioneer]

lol no.

I once met a Communist who believed in reincarnation. He said he was some obscure member of a royal family in Italy in his past life and was so guilt-ridden over it in this life he dedicated his life to communism and self-deprivation. He was pretty depressed and didn't enjoy life; I don't want that kind of carry-over guilt if I fuck up something now.

[Lanky Wanker]

Damn you're way smarter than I was at 16. I am jealous, sir!


Sarcasm? :rolleyes:



Don't worry it gets better overall, though we focus on the increasing amount of bullshit.

Most of the things I think about are the shitty things in life. Not necessarily mine, but just overall. My mind is usually having an argument with itself about one thing or another, so I'm on that road already lol. Yay for responsibilities and consciousness!

[MotherCossack]

Well, having gone through only 16 years of life I can already say I'd kill myself if I had to start over again, but with reincarnation I obviously wouldn't remember it unless I turned out like that pilot kid. I mean, being a baby again and getting boobies every day... though that would be kinda creepy considering she'd be the mother of my reincarnated self. Or if I'm raised by a gay male couple I suppose I wouldn't have that luxury. Anyways, boobies aside, I wouldn't want to give a blind 'yes' incase I'm thrown into the body of someone with "serious" difficulties in life, be it mental, physical, environmental etc.

well blow me down with a puff of smoke from the pipe of a tibetan hippy.
you, my good young sir, sound just like my own.....lanky fanker a.k.a. colonel cossack a. k.a. the son who shines with greasy adolescent, spotty, testosterone overloaded, ridiculously smart, aggressively unused to himself, unbelievably cute, hilariously clueless and surprizingly capable, brilliance.
ahhhh! you teenagers are so cute!

o.m.f.g.....
i am soooooo off-topic..... sorry!
thread-de-railer!!!!!!

REINCARNATION!?... yes please... i'll have some of that...
cant do much worse or make more of a bollocks of myself...
i'll have another go.... OF COURSE!!! like who would say no?
ooh... not for me dearie... i,ll just stay heere in the comfy coffin, going mouldy, feeding maggots and well... chilling out!! [ha ha ha ho hum!] if i get bored can i change my mind?
do we get to be something else.... is it fair ? do they rotate all the best parts... cos by my calculations.. i'm due for the top job!!

hey you know what.... i dont believe it... i want it to be true but...
kissing a frog... the chances of it turning into prince andrew are pretty remote.{thank f**k} it just seems ludicrous.

but yeah i wish....and all that... but its like dreaming about the euro lottery and planning what you 'd do with it... it feels like a cruel game to me.

the best we can hope for is that our body returns to it's component elements and they eventually get recycled... long process... which involves being a lump of coal for a million years.

[Lanky Wanker]

well blow me down with a puff of smoke from the pipe of a tibetan hippy.
you, my good young sir, sound just like my own.....lanky fanker a.k.a. colonel cossack a. k.a. the son who shines with greasy adolescent, spotty, testosterone overloaded, ridiculously smart, aggressively unused to himself, unbelievably cute, hilariously clueless and surprizingly capable, brilliance.
ahhhh! you teenagers are so cute!


That made me laugh. :D But y'know, I dress to impress.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Sarcasm? :rolleyes:Nope. I wasn't an anarchist until I was 19 or so iirc. At 16 I wouldn't have been able to express myself intelligently on a forum like this, as you are. My logic would have been horrific and mangled.


Most of the things I think about are the shitty things in life.I think a lot of leftists struggle with depression and then bipolar disorder and then drinking problems because of this.

But there's good news. I'm friends with a few old leftists and they're the happiest people I know. Knowing what you know will end up allowing you to enjoy life to its fullest and not stagnate in the rat race.

My advice to the young: smoke more weed* than I do, don't drink as much as I do, realize that no one expects more than you can easily do (and if they do they're an idiot), realize the world is NOT about to end, and that even if you feel bad and hate your situation you'll still have seventy or so years of better situations, and realize that your view of life has been created by your parents and your teachers (two random people and a collection of workers following a moronic role and teaching an absurd curriculum) and will expand. Also on school, take a look at these:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/4

*I do not advocate anything illegal because that would be illegal for some stupid ass reason. The above statement was a drunken, artistic, fair use, quote from this one guy I know.

[MotherCossack]

That made me laugh. :D But y'know, I dress to impress.

oh well... that the kernal most certainly dont do... still wouldn't it be funny if you went to the same youth club??
only joking!!! HAHAHAHA

[Franz Fanonipants]

My advice to the young: smoke more weed than I do

the best advice.

anyways i don't get this "if you are a leftist you are depressed shit"

but then again, i'm not an alcoholic so

[MotherCossack]

My advice to the young: smoke more weed than I do, don't drink as much as I do, realize that no one expects more than you can easily do (and if they do they're an idiot), realize the world is NOT about to end, and that even if you feel bad and hate your situation you'll still have seventy or so years of better situations, and realize that your view of life has been created by your parents and your teachers (two random people and a collection of workers following a moronic role and teaching an absurd curriculum) and will expand. Also on school, take a look at these:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/4

good post... but you make me feel so old...and random... i wanna be the centre of the universe [mine anyway] it feels wierd... letting go of my babies...
has to happen though!

RE: OTHER POST.
--------------------
what do you mean you 'dont get this depressed leftist shit?'
lucky sod...
depression is my default position and idont smoke funny fags or drink.

[Lanky Wanker]

Nope. I wasn't an anarchist until I was 19 or so iirc. At 16 I wouldn't have been able to express myself intelligently on a forum like this, as you are. My logic would have been horrific and mangled.


Oh I do feel flattered. :blushing: I'm good at complaining about life, I'll give you that. Politically I've got a while to go, but I'm not too bothered about comparing myself to others.



I think a lot of leftists struggle with depression and then bipolar disorder and then drinking problems because of this.


I remember someone saying in the recent thread about this that it's not leftists, it's people who use the internet excessively or something. :lol: I guess being leftists who use the internet a lot, we're all set up for depression and suicide. Sounds like we don't need genies and magic glass balls to tell us where our lives are going.



But there's good news. I'm friends with a few old leftists and they're the happiest people I know. Knowing what you know will end up allowing you to enjoy life to its fullest and not stagnate in the rat race.

My advice to the young: smoke more weed than I do, don't drink as much as I do, realize that no one expects more than you can easily do (and if they do they're an idiot), realize the world is NOT about to end, and that even if you feel bad and hate your situation you'll still have seventy or so years of better situations, and realize that your view of life has been created by your parents and your teachers (two random people and a collection of workers following a moronic role and teaching an absurd curriculum) and will expand. Also on school, take a look at these:

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/4

Cheers for the links, these texts look like my brain splattered on paper. Me and my friend/bassist write our lyrics on this kind of stuff, like how society strips people of their individuality with things like school and authority in general. She's a depressed/angry fucker just like me, so it's good to know I have at least one person who I can associate with. Think I just found a second person. I'm so surrounded by mindless idiots that I forget intelligent people exist sometimes. And about smoking more weed, I got that one planned out already... almost. :cool: Dealers shouldn't be this hard to find in East London!

[Princess Luna]

Unless I have some connection to my past life, then it is irrelevent. When I die, I am gone and some girl whose is born in 2053 is totally different person even if she is actually me reincarnated, all my memories, personallity, every set that set me apart from the guy next to me is gone so I am still dead. Of course this is hypothectical because reincarnation isn't real and people who claim to have had past lives always pick somebody famous like Marie Antoinette, you never see people say they were a poor French peasant in their past lives.

[Zav]

There is reincarnation. Every breath you take contains atoms once breathed by and part of Marx, Che, Kropotkin, Durruti, and dinosaurs. You are a collection of atoms, and when you die, those atoms create more life, and become part of the rocks, oceans, and forests. All of you becomes part of everything. You may become your children and grandchildren, and perhaps a star one day. I find that much more beautiful than the idea of a soul.

[Lanky Wanker]

depression is my default position and idont smoke funny fags or drink.

I'd laugh if you got a warning for that. There's this newsagent we pass on the drive to Sainsbury's called 'fags n mags' and all I can think about is some American driving past it all like ":blink: ...the fuck?"

[Lanky Wanker]

oh well... that the kernal most certainly dont do... still wouldn't it be funny if you went to the same youth club??
only joking!!! HAHAHAHA

Oops, only just saw this post. Youth clubs aren't really my scene y'know, I'd rather be at a rave taking pills and drinking.

I joke, I joke.


Every breath you take contains atoms once breathed by and part of Marx, Che, Kropotkin, Durruti, and dinosaurs.

And the glass of water you just finished will have passed through Adolf Hitler's urethra at some point.

On a serious note though, I never looked at it that way. I mean, I obviously realised to some degree that stuff like that happens, but I never looked at it in the sense of reincarnation or the essence of life. God, where the fuck is weed when you need it. Thanks for the thought(s).

[manic expression]

Wooo, eneergyyyhh. Such pseudo-scientific mumbling makes me cringe.

Our "existence" is our brain. Our brain is not transferred to some higher metaphysical bullshit level, it rots away in the ground.
There are forms of life that exist without a brain, and surely enough we evolved from such lifeforms, therefore existence cannot be boiled down to that organ.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I remember someone saying in the recent thread about this that it's not leftists, it's people who use the internet excessively or something. :lol: I guess being leftists who use the internet a lot, we're all set up for depression and suicide. Sounds like we don't need genies and magic glass balls to tell us where our lives are going.

I think it's that and a mix of a lot of things.

tYFkbpHve74
66HUSPUz7ZQ

We critique all values and morality and forget to make new ones, begin to assume aspects of society are rotten just because so much of it is, know that the people walking around us would hate us if they knew us (which makes us turn our critiques on ourselves - which is basically the definition of depression). We're down about stuff all the time, and human brains are funny about not being able to take that without getting more sensitive to it. Also we're more likely to be aware of the cries of human and animal suffering. All of that's very fixable with some work.

I think the number one reason is that we don't feel at all obligated to act happy, and we do feel obligated to argue with/complain to people:


it is a belief in the happiness of others, an inexhaustible source of envy and jealousy which gives us a vicarious feeling of existence. I envy, therefore I am.
Cheers for the links, these texts look like my brain splattered on paper. Me and my friend/bassist write our lyrics on this kind of stuff, like how society strips people of their individuality with things like school and authority in general. She's a depressed/angry fucker just like me, so it's good to know I have at least one person who I can associate with. Think I just found a second person. :D


I'm so surrounded by mindless idiots that I forget intelligent people exist sometimes. And about smoking more weed, I got that one planned out already... almost. :cool: Dealers shouldn't be this hard to find in East London!It's all done through social networks, here at least. Try making a friendship with benefits with some of the most popular drones.

Another thing that might help with being down: remember that the stupidest people are the loudest, and there are some people with fledgling critiques/political agnosticism that just don't care, or take the path of least resistance.

As a preventative measure you might skim the wikipedia pages on CBT, depression, OCD, bipolar disorder, etc. Knowing psychology also helps you understand why people act the way they do, though it's a shame it's hard to approach it from a positive direction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology
Leave it to the capitalist system of funding science with tuition (which kills social mobility I might add) to come up with a pseudo-religious theory that treats people like cogs (as the overwhelming majority of society does).

Also this theory makes me happy and I think there's a bit of truth to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_approaches_to_depression#Analytical_r umination_hypothesis
^that's supposed to go to the analytic rumination section but revleft's redirect thing stops it.

Or you could just be a cynical joke machine like Shrike:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0608851h.html


Shrike again began to shout and this time Miss Lonelyhearts understood that he was making a seduction speech.

"I am a great saint," Shrike cried, "I can walk on my own water. Haven't you ever heard of Shrike's Passion in the Luncheonette, or the Agony in the Soda Fountain? Then I compared the wounds in Christ's body to the mouths of a miraculous purse in which we deposit the small change of our sins. It is indeed an excellent conceit. But now let us consider the holes in our own bodies and into what these congenital wounds open. Under the skin of man is a wondrous jungle where veins like lush tropical growths hang along overripe organs and weed-like entrails writhe in squirming tangles of red and yellow. In this jungle, flitting from rock-gray lungs to golden intestines, from liver to lights and back to liver again, lives a bird called the soul. The Catholic hunts this bird with bread and wine, the Hebrew with a golden ruler, the Protestant on leaden feet with leaden words, the Buddhist with gestures, the Negro with blood. I spit on them all. Phoohl And I call upon you to spit. Phoohl Do you stuff birds? No, my dears, taxidermy is not religion. No! A thousand times no. Better, I say unto you, better a live bird in the jungle of the body than two stuffed birds on the library table."Don't read that book if you're particularly depressed at the moment lol.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

There are forms of life that exist without a brain, and surely enough we evolved from such lifeforms, therefore existence cannot be boiled down to that organ.

Unless you subscribe to any form of the cogito. Heh, religious people and their solipsisms.

Most animals that don't have a brain have a ganglion if I remember my biology classes. The ones that don't are buff plants.

[magicme]

I don't mind either way, I wont be me anyway if I get reincarnated. Maybe my future incarnations will have a need for meaning of the kind you seem to be after, so those people might love the idea. But in my present incarnation I'm one materialistic thinker.

Oblivion doesn't bother me as a prospect one bit.

I'm just as interested in the idea that I might be some future human living a 20/21st century life through a virtual reality machine. I hope I logged into this life because I get to see the change come.

[manic expression]

Unless you subscribe to any form of the cogito. Heh, religious people and their solipsisms.

Most animals that don't have a brain have a ganglion if I remember my biology classes. The ones that don't are buff plants.
The post in question defines existence as our own brains, which isn't very rational for the reasons I pointed out. Trees exist and live, and yet they are without brains. The lifeforms we evolved from, too, lacked brains. If you object to this, I would be interested to hear why.

[Ocean Seal]

Wooo, eneergyyyhh. Such pseudo-scientific mumbling makes me cringe.

Our "existence" is our brain. Our brain is not transferred to some higher metaphysical bullshit level, it rots away in the ground.
Just a theory man I don't think that manic claimed that it was science. You can't expect to answer questions in metaphysics with science.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Well, he was using existence as you used it first:

who is to say this does not happen with our own existences?
which sounded to me more like a soul, or essence, than simply physically existing. And I agree with him/her that our essence is contained in a big, beautiful, mess of neurons.

Humans without brains can certainly still exist. Take Glenn Beck for example.

[Lanky Wanker]

We critique all values and morality and forget to make new ones, begin to assume aspects of society are rotten just because so much of it is, know that the people walking around us would hate us if they knew us (which makes us turn our critiques on ourselves - which is basically the definition of depression).


Well I know most people wouldn't like me, but the feeling is mutual. I've never really fallen into the sort of "I hate myself" depression, but more of an apathetic feeling which was probably due to the shitty weed I'd been smoking and depressing music I was listening to lol.



Another thing that might help with being down: remember that the stupidest people are the loudest, and there are some people with fledgling critiques/political agnosticism that just don't care, or take the path of least resistance.


I think that's part of the problem, realising that the only people being heard are fucktards.



As a preventative measure you might skim the wikipedia pages on CBT, depression, OCD, bipolar disorder, etc. Knowing psychology also helps you understand why people act the way they do, though it's a shame it's hard to approach it from a positive direction:


When I saw 'CBT' while reading this earlier I was listening to a band called CBT (cock and ball torture) and my mind made the connection. :o And yeah, I study psychology in school. We move onto all the stuff like depression and stress (which includes drugs, hellz yeah) next year though. As for OCD, my best friend has it so I recognise some of the symptoms in myself, though I know I don't have it. OCPD seems to just be a milder version of it with the routines and all that, and apparently isn't as much of a stress on a person's life as OCD is.



Or you could just be a cynical joke machine like Shrike:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0608851h.html
Don't read that book if you're particularly depressed at the moment lol.

The bit about the deaf and dumb girl is quite a downer. Don't read it if I'm particularly depressed? I don't think it makes much difference whether I'm depressed or on top of the moon. :lol:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

People who are seriously "into" reincarnation often say that its not sequential, one's "past" life could be in the 25th century and one's future life could be in the 19th century. Its trans temporal.

For a fun read Brian Weiss supposedly got people to recount their past (and sometimes future) lives under hypnosis.The book is a classic among the reincarnation crowd focusing on accounts from a patient of his, "Catherine".

http://www.amazon.com/Many-Lives-Masters-Hb/dp/0749913738

People have poked holes in the accounts of past lives. A "WWII fighter pilot" describes technology which didn't exist at the time.


More way out is Bruce Goldberg, originally a dentist in Baltimore who got involved in hypnosis. He did regressions and progressions on several hundred people and claims their stories correlate.

He has a trippy future history chronology in which they'll be world peace by the 22nd century, racism and discrimination will be abolished,and there will be two world governments on friendly terms with each other. Unfortunately humanity will regress and they'll be a limited nuclear war in the 24th century.

http://www.amazon.com/Past-Lives-Future-Revealed/dp/1564147398/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330202614&sr=1-1

For a real howler there's

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Dreams-Future-Chet-Snow/dp/1882530101/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330202662&sr=1-1

Supposedly the researchers did "future life progressions" on several hundred women in France.They exhaustively explain their statistical methodology and give detailed accounts of the world at various intervals.This is one of the most bizarre but entertaining books I've read. Interestingly so far everything they had predicted is wrong.

[Astarte]

No, I don't wish reincarnation were true - and here is theologically why!

I guess I believe in "reincarnation" but I usually think more of it as a kind of ascending transmigration... which implies more of an upward progress from lower material forms to being "reborn" as a spiritual being and after that reunion with the Godhead/Nirvana.

Some traditions within Buddhism, especially Milarepa's writings, heavily refer to this rebirth as a spiritual being along the way of progress towards reunion with the Godhead.

My main problem with the term "reincarnation" is that it applies transmigration, or at least how it is generally perceived in the west, as being very haphazard, i.e. "I hope I don't come back as a rabbit!". I call this haphazard because according to many spiritual traditions which accept reincarnation once a being has achieve a human body it is hard for them to come back as less than a human in the next life - maybe unless they were very, very, very bad(?).

Here is why it would be cool if reincarnation did not exist; theologically speaking - it would mean the end of the of the death/rebirth cycle - no more incarnating into robot bodies.

[Lanky Wanker]

When I'm high sometimes I get this feeling like I can sort of distantly connect with another life I've lived. I sort of feel it being in the 90s (I was born in 1995) in America, so maybe I died young. :D When I had some real trippy weed my mind was generating these images I felt as though I'd seen before that I've never actually seen which made me think it might be connected to a past life, maybe even one outside of this world as we know it. The images kept morphing and never stayed the same. I get so damn spiritual and shit when I'm stoned; I was even meditating to Japanese music last week lol.

[MotherCossack]

I'd laugh if you got a warning for that. There's this newsagent we pass on the drive to Sainsbury's called 'fags n mags' and all I can think about is some American driving past it all like ":blink: ...the fuck?"

ohhh yeeeahh!.. arnt i a stupid cow...you know what i mean ....-with a slightly paranoid, guilty look over her shoulder-...

anyway since you are clearly a man of many smoking buns !!.. puffing candy... and all that razz [got a jizla anyone]
i confess i feel obliged to explain that i am one whose earliest memories involve theatrical snortings of big black lumps of black resin much to the amusement of all the grown ups. i remember being in awe of them and the attention i recieved as the performing kiddie was most happily welcome.
maybe it put me off... by the time i was anywhere near old enough to smoke it... i had become bored to death op the whole thing.
more likely it was the fact that, although it was always available, i got fed up with the rubbish effect it had on me physically... i always got a headache, felt lethargic and crap.
i spent about 10 years trying to flog a dead horse... but every single time i indulged the result was the same..
i tried every single method of delivery.... nothing!
IN THE END I CONCLUDED : that shit just dont work on me!


and i still have a lot of trouble with reincarnation....
but hell since we are all made out of long dead stars... i suppose anything is possible... with a large dose of patience.

[piet11111]

Well better then permanent non-existence i suppose but i don't think its true.

[Jimmie Higgins]

When I'm high sometimes I get this feeling like I can sort of distantly connect with another life I've lived. I sort of feel it being in the 90s (I was born in 1995) in America, so maybe I died young. :DKurt Cobain?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Only if you could remember each life. Otherwise its just a waste of time. I want to learn!Hell yeah. If I'm going to believe in an afterlife, then it's one where I get to keep my consciousness. I mean if all your current self gets for an afterlife is to be hazily remembered by some other person while they/newyou talk to a psychic... forget that.

I guess as a way to prepare yourself and deal with death, reincarnation at least wouldn't give you false hope since one way or another your personal experience is the same. But you can be an atheist and still come to grips and peace with the inevitable without it too, so I don't see the attraction to that specific belief of some religions.

[Lanky Wanker]

Kurt Cobain?

Possibly, but it has this sort of high school feeling to it. I'm pretty sure he dropped out of high school lol.

[Искра]

No. Gods, reincarnations... and all that bollocks... belong to like... medival?

[Lanky Wanker]

i confess i feel obliged to explain that i am one whose earliest memories involve theatrical snortings of big black lumps of black resin much to the amusement of all the grown ups. i remember being in awe of them and the attention i recieved as the performing kiddie was most happily welcome.
maybe it put me off... by the time i was anywhere near old enough to smoke it... i had become bored to death op the whole thing.
more likely it was the fact that, although it was always available, i got fed up with the rubbish effect it had on me physically... i always got a headache, felt lethargic and crap.
i spent about 10 years trying to flog a dead horse... but every single time i indulged the result was the same..
i tried every single method of delivery.... nothing!
IN THE END I CONCLUDED : that shit just dont work on me!


Damn, sounds like you had a long childhood. Well at least I know my method of suicide when life gets too much.

[MotherCossack]

laugh OUT loud!! very good...
the 10 years i refered to did in fact encompass my early.. so called teenage and young adult years!.... but yeah... really its been 44 years and i'm still trying .
and maybe snorting was a poor choice of verb... smelling theatrically is more accurate...
i was tempted to leave the image of a little mad child trying to snort a huge lump of black cheese where it was... but i dont want exaggerate my immense powers of cooldom i dont need to.!
oops.... head just exploded.

[Lanky Wanker]

and maybe snorting was a poor choice of verb... smelling theatrically is more accurate...


I'm gonna use that one if my parents ever catch me doing any powders. "I was just smelling it, seriously! Deodorants can get me high and I smell those when we go shopping..."



i was tempted to leave the image of a little mad child trying to snort a huge lump of black cheese where it was...

Black cheese? I suppose the slang back then was a bit more creative than what we have nowadays. :lol:

On the topic of drugs and parents, I had a dream last night that I had some weed soaking in milk (fuck knows why I did it, I know my initial intention wasn't to make edibles) and my mum saw it. She mentioned it and I asked what she was talking about to see if she knew what it was and she did, and she was obviously cool with it. I'm sure this isn't the only dream where I've had cannabis confirmation from my mum... my dreams are such a tease.

[Rafiq]

Reincarnation was a Feudalist concept designed to give peasants and serfs a concept that they have shit lives because that's what they deserve. It saddens me fools on here buy such sugarcoated elitist shit.

[Elysian]

Reincarnation was a Feudalist concept designed to give peasants and serfs a concept that they have shit lives because that's what they deserve. It saddens me fools on here buy such sugarcoated elitist shit.

You have a way with words, don't you?:blushing:

[Lanky Wanker]

Reincarnation was a Feudalist concept designed to give peasants and serfs a concept that they have shit lives because that's what they deserve. It saddens me fools on here buy such sugarcoated elitist shit.

And that was Rafiq with today's slap of reality... catch him again tomorrow at 6pm. :D

[GoddessCleoLover]

Basically agree with Rafiq that we ought to reject reincarnation as a reactionary concept that is entirely contrary to science and reason.

[manic expression]

Reincarnation was a Feudalist concept designed to give peasants and serfs a concept that they have shit lives because that's what they deserve. It saddens me fools on here buy such sugarcoated elitist shit.
It might have been used in that manner in the past but it doesn't define it. The idea of people of the same trade coming together in associations to promote their interests is feudalist too.

And anyway, reincarnation is a concept that goes way back before feudalism. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's feudalist.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I've always been interested in the idea of reincarnation, only because I've always felt that it'd be easier to understand other people's ideas and all if I'd lived they life they had.

Did that sound creepier than it was intended to?

[manic expression]

which sounded to me more like a soul, or essence, than simply physically existing. And I agree with him/her that our essence is contained in a big, beautiful, mess of neurons.
If we're just a mess of neutrons then should we care if a certain mess of neurons ends the functioning of another mess of neurons? I do think there is more to humanity, and indeed more to existence (human or otherwise), than simply physical matter.


Humans without brains can certainly still exist. Take Glenn Beck for example.
Well played. :lol:

[Krano]

No i don't like the idea of reincarnation, what if antifa member reincarnates into a nazi? not cool.

[Lanky Wanker]

No i don't like the idea of reincarnation, what if antifa member reincarnates into a nazi? not cool.

Well what if a nazi is reincarnated as an antifa? :cool: Nazis are made though, not born.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

If we're just a mess of neutrons then should we care if a certain mess of neurons ends the functioning of another mess of neurons?Nothing human is alien, one knows that another person has the same capacity to feel, love, and create as they do, isn't that enough?

But there is no inherent, metaphysical, reason not to kill someone. Everything is permitted and we are the only judges - hell is other people.

[manic expression]

Nothing human is alien, one knows that another person has the same capacity to feel, love, and create as they do, isn't that enough?
Exactly, but how many of these things are purely physical?


But there is no inherent, metaphysical, reason not to kill someone. Everything is permitted and we are the only judges - hell is other people.
There are few inherent, metaphysical reasons for anything in this world. In some ways, the only constant throughout all the known history of the world is the cycle that we all share: things are created, maintained and destroyed...and then created once more.

[Decolonize The Left]

Lol at this thread.

In order to even conceptualize reincarnation as coherent, you have to accept any number of totally bogus and cracked-out ideas:
1) There's such a thing as a 'self'
2) This thing is metaphysical
3) This metaphysical thing magically passes between physical bodies
4) During this magical process, there is some reason to the passage
5) This reason is due to a larger purpose of magical things
6) This larger purpose of magical things can be understood by an individual magic thing

Etc...

I mean seriously, why not just ask if we'd all like to come back as unicorns and dragons? I know I would and it's way more interesting than religious mumbo-jumbo which serves no purpose other than to placate the human will.

- August

[eric922]

Reincarnation was a Feudalist concept designed to give peasants and serfs a concept that they have shit lives because that's what they deserve. It saddens me fools on here buy such sugarcoated elitist shit.
Reincarnation predates the rise of Feudalism by centuries. It's factually incorrect to call it a feudal concept, since it predates the feudal mode of production by centuries. Heaven is a much better example to apply to the Feudal era.

[eric922]

Lol at this thread.

In order to even conceptualize reincarnation as coherent, you have to accept any number of totally bogus and cracked-out ideas:
1) There's such a thing as a 'self'
2) This thing is metaphysical
3) This metaphysical thing magically passes between physical bodies
4) During this magical process, there is some reason to the passage
5) This reason is due to a larger purpose of magical things
6) This larger purpose of magical things can be understood by an individual magic thing

Etc...

I mean seriously, why not just ask if we'd all like to come back as unicorns and dragons? I know I would and it's way more interesting than religious mumbo-jumbo which serves no purpose other than to placate the human will.

- August
Well Buddhists believe in something similar to reincarnation and they believe that the concept of "self" is just an illusion. In fact non-self is one of the 3 Buddhist marks of existence along with suffering and impermanence.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well Buddhists believe in something similar to reincarnation and they believe that the concept of "self" is just an illusion. In fact non-self is one of the 3 Buddhist marks of existence along with suffering and impermanence.

Yes I'm very familiar with Buddhism. It's still a bunch of bullshit because it's entirely idealist.

- August

[Rafiq]

Reincarnation predates the rise of Feudalism by centuries. It's factually incorrect to call it a feudal concept, since it predates the feudal mode of production by centuries. Heaven is a much better example to apply to the Feudal era.

In it's origins it was to control the oppressed classes with more ideological mystification.

Kind of like now, the working people are called "Lazy" and "It's poor people's fault they are poor". This was the function of reincarnation for it's time.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

Exactly, but how many of these things are purely physical?They're abstractions, just (Saussurean) signifiers. But they are ultimately caused by a set of chemical and electrical states. Throw some tryptamines or lysergic acid in and you'll discover a whole new set of chemical states. A billion years of natural selection can accomplish a lot.


There are few inherent, metaphysical reasons for anything in this world. In some ways, the only constant throughout all the known history of the world is the cycle that we all share: things are created, maintained and destroyed...and then created once more.

I'd reduce it to physics.

[RGacky3]

1) There's such a thing as a 'self'


If you believe intentionality and consciousnes are real then you have to believe there is a self.

Even if you believe in weak emergence you still end up with something that can easily be called a "self."


2) This thing is metaphysical


If the self is a real thing, (you don't even need to get close to duelism to think that), then that thing is either empirically measurable objectively, or it must be non physical, considering its almost always purely subjective and so far science has'nt been able to figure out intentionality and consciousness leaves the question up in the air.

3-6: There is no reason to believe any of that stuff, (i.e. that the mind can survive loss of the brain, if it is more than an illusion, that the mind can cross over to bodies).

[El Chuncho]

It certainly would be interesting to experience reincarnation (even though you wouldn't know if you were reincarnated).

The idea that death is not the final end has been used a lot by organised religion to convince people to believe in their faith and not to want change in this life.

Not traditionally with Dharmic faiths as the goal is to cease to exist in the Wheel of Samsara, the cycle of birth and rebirth. By doing good and striving for perfection, your karma increases and causes you to have better reincarnations and then, finally, parinirvana - the obliteration of egoism and suffering. This means that you should never not want change in this life as it would mean being complacent and not striving for spiritual perfection; and being reborn again. It is why Bhiksu are meant to perform charity and good deeds. Samsara is seen as suffering, and thus just staying the same would cause you to just stay in the cycle and suffer.

Reincarnation is not the ultimate goal of Dharmic paths, ''non-existence'' or non-egoism is.

[El Chuncho]

1) There's such a thing as a 'self'


Define ''self''. Anatman means ''no-self'' because groups such as Buddhists do not acknowledge a self, because they believe in impermanence of all things. Reincarnation in Buddhism is not really the passing on of a ''self'', only mental processes. ''Self'' is simply a delusion. In other words, a dying being more or less passes on certain memories etc. to another, but it is not really passing on a ''self''. In theory, this would mean that a reincarnated person is not really the same being but it simply believes it is (unconsciously).

And as there are Buddhists on this forum (Buddhism doesn't negate socialism, hence Vietnamese Buddhists were often members of the Viet Cong or Viet Minh; you'd probably disagree with labeling them as socialist, though), how would you reconcile ridiculing their believes (''bullshit'') with advocacy for polite discussion?

Me? I agree with religions tolerance. Though I am an agnostic atheist, I believe that any socialist can be a member of almost any religion privately, as long as they reconcile it with their socialistic belief. Buddhism might indeed be ''bullshit'', but they still have a right to believe it without ridicule and buzzwords (''reactionary'', ''bourgeois'') being thrown at them, especially as Dharmic faiths do traditionally have rationalist and atheistic (the Samkhya school of Hindu Orthodoxy is atheist, in fact) elements within them which are not usually found in other religions.

[Decolonize The Left]

If you believe intentionality and consciousnes are real then you have to believe there is a self.

Even if you believe in weak emergence you still end up with something that can easily be called a "self."

I'll accept intentionality as a linguistic extension of 'willing' - that is the act of following a logical process through action.


If the self is a real thing, (you don't even need to get close to duelism to think that), then that thing is either empirically measurable objectively, or it must be non physical, considering its almost always purely subjective and so far science has'nt been able to figure out intentionality and consciousness leaves the question up in the air.

The 'self' is not a real thing.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Define ''self''. Anatman means ''no-self'' because groups such as Buddhists do not acknowledge a self, because they believe in impermanence of all things.

Right, but I'm not even debating in this arena.

"Impermanence" is a highly human thought - the notion that time is linear (which it isn't) and that things have a state which can be readily recognized and that this state is either permanent or impermanent according to human evaluations through time.

Furthermore, how do you separate one thing from another - i.e. at what point does your subjective valuation decide when a thing is or isn't, and when it is permanent or not?



Reincarnation in Buddhism is not really the passing on of a ''self'', only mental processes.

Nonsensical statement. If 'mental processes' are the electronic impulses within the brain, how are they "passed on" if the brain remains? The electronic impulses (nerve firings) operate on neuron pathways - they are chemical processes.


''Self'' is simply a delusion.

Agreed.


In other words, a dying being more or less passes on certain memories etc. to another, but it is not really passing on a ''self''. In theory, this would mean that a reincarnated person is not really the same being but it simply believes it is (unconsciously).

Lol. More problems.

What is a "being?" How does this "being" "pass on" "certain memories" given my previous reply re: neurons?


And as there are Buddhists on this forum (Buddhism doesn't negate socialism, hence Vietnamese Buddhists were often members of the Viet Cong or Viet Minh; you'd probably disagree with labeling them as socialist, though), how would you reconcile ridiculing their believes (''bullshit'') with advocacy for polite discussion?

Because their beliefs are bullshit. I am more than willing to apologize for the manner in which I made my previous statements - absolutely. And I do apologize for my rude post.

But I certainly will not apologize for declaring that a bunch of metaphysical nonsense is just that.


Me? I agree with religions tolerance. Though I am an agnostic atheist, I believe that any socialist can be a member of almost any religion privately, as long as they reconcile it with their socialistic belief. Buddhism might indeed be ''bullshit'', but they still have a right to believe it without ridicule and buzzwords (''reactionary'', ''bourgeois'') being thrown at them, especially as Dharmic faiths do traditionally have rationalist and atheistic (the Samkhya school of Hindu Orthodoxy is atheist, in fact) elements within them which are not usually found in other religions.

I did not apply any buzzwords to anyone of any faith. In fact, my statement was:

I mean seriously, why not just ask if we'd all like to come back as unicorns and dragons? I know I would and it's way more interesting than religious mumbo-jumbo which serves no purpose other than to placate the human will.

Unicorns and dragons have just as much evidence in their favor (probably more) than the notion that human beings have a soul/whatever that can move between bodies after death.

Fact. Deal with it.

- August

[El Chuncho]

Right, but I'm not even debating in this arena.

Then don't comment ''in this arena''.


"Impermanence" is a highly human thought

Doesn't matter, it doesn't really infringe on the point I was making, which really boils done to you not really knowing much about something you are meant to be critiquing.


the notion that time is linear (which it isn't) and that things have a state which can be readily recognized and that this state is either permanent or impermanent according to human evaluations through time.

Human soul can either be permanent - it isn't to an atheist...in fact, most atheists would argue that it doesn't exist unless we are defining consciousness as a soul. In fact, consciousness is impermanent (''not lasting or durable'') because it ceases to exist with the modern. Whether the soul is permanent or impermanent doesn't have much to do with a linear concept of time, because it is a fact that human life is impermanent.

Also, there is no evidence that time is anything other than linear; nor evidence really to support that it is. We cannot really measure time.


Furthermore, how do you separate one thing from another - i.e. at what point does your subjective valuation decide when a thing is or isn't, and when it is permanent or not?

It has nothing to do with me, I merely pointed out your gaff in claiming that Buddhists believe in the ''self'', which they do not.





Nonsensical statement. If 'mental processes' are the electronic impulses within the brain, how are they "passed on" if the brain remains? The electronic impulses (nerve firings) operate on neuron pathways - they are chemical processes.

I do not agree with it. I think that once you die, you die. I am simply arguing that you should really do more research into the concept of anatman, and also that you should actually be a better ''poster boy'' for your tendency (respectful discussion). You can put your views across without insulting or denigrating a religion that, I believe, two members in this thread adhere too. As long as they are good socialist, who cares what they believe the afterlife will be like? I'd say that'll just die, but it is not important because I'll hardly be apply to stand there and smugly say ''I told you so'' when we are all dead!



What is a "being?" How does this "being" "pass on" "certain memories" given my previous reply re: neurons?

It was just my phrasing. Buddhist technically do not believe in ''beings'' in the sense that they believe in a ''self''. What they pass on and how they do it is not really important because I am an atheist, I just do not really care what other believe and especially not when Buddhism does have some admirable traits; but you could probably say that for most religions. Religions are not really a problem unless someone is a dangerous fundamentalist.




Because their beliefs are bullshit. I am more than willing to apologize for the manner in which I made my previous statements - absolutely. And I do apologize for my rude post.

How does your apology fit with you repeating your claim that beliefs they hold dear are bullshit? You could be a bit more polite in debating, you know, especially when you advocate respectful discussion in your main tendency. It just seems a little hypocritical to me.


But I certainly will not apologize for declaring that a bunch of metaphysical nonsense is just that.

That is fine. I think almost everything in Christianity or Anarchism are nonsense, but I'd apologize if I have seriously offended someone who didn't really attack me or my beliefs as strongly., I'd certainly try to avoid calling their beliefs ''bullshit''. No one is asking you to believe in Buddhism, I just think you should have been more polite and done more research.

[Guy Incognito]

Hell, I'm not sure it's NOT true. Who can say that when one consciousness dies, another isn't born? Oblivion makes sense after death. But someone else is born every time. Maybe souls (if such a thing exist) are finite. And by that I mean, in this infinite universe, maybe you die here, and are reborn on another world, billions of lightyears away. Who knows? Fun to think about though.

[manic expression]

The 'self' is not a real thing.
From what foundation do you make that claim?

[RGacky3]

I'll accept intentionality as a linguistic extension of 'willing' - that is the act of following a logical process through action.


Which means that all acts of causality include intention, but clearly they don't, when a baseball bat hits a baseball the ball does'nt "indend" or "will" to travel in the way it does.

However we percieve intentionality in our actions, if intentionality exists, even if its determanistic, that seperates Us from other objects without a "will" or "intentionality."

You then have the problem of consciousness.


The 'self' is not a real thing.

- August

Thats begging the question, I'm saying there is a thing as the self.

[Decolonize The Left]

Human soul can either be permanent - it isn't to an atheist...in fact, most atheists would argue that it doesn't exist unless we are defining consciousness as a soul. In fact, consciousness is impermanent (''not lasting or durable'') because it ceases to exist with the modern. Whether the soul is permanent or impermanent doesn't have much to do with a linear concept of time, because it is a fact that human life is impermanent.

You first need to define "soul" and "consciousness." I'm not willing, and no one should be, to just accept that magical things exist because a book says so.

No one has done this, to my knowledge, and until someone does (as I stated before) we might as well be talking about unicorns.


Also, there is no evidence that time is anything other than linear; nor evidence really to support that it is. We cannot really measure time.

Einstein's theory of relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity) basically proves that time is not linear. Time is the fourth dimension (dimensions aren't linear) and is a constant when seen from within said dimension.


I do not agree with it. I think that once you die, you die. I am simply arguing that you should really do more research into the concept of anatman, and also that you should actually be a better ''poster boy'' for your tendency (respectful discussion). You can put your views across without insulting or denigrating a religion that, I believe, two members in this thread adhere too. As long as they are good socialist, who cares what they believe the afterlife will be like? I'd say that'll just die, but it is not important because I'll hardly be apply to stand there and smugly say ''I told you so'' when we are all dead!

This is a discussion forum. It's meant to debate things.

If you have a problem with ideas being challenged on the grounds that they're nonsensical mythical crap, then you have a serious problem with the purpose of this forum.

In general I'm a very polite poster and yes, my tendency is such, but this does not restrict me from occasionally using a dirty word or telling someone that what they believe is nonsense.


How does your apology fit with you repeating your claim that beliefs they hold dear are bullshit? You could be a bit more polite in debating, you know, especially when you advocate respectful discussion in your main tendency. It just seems a little hypocritical to me.

I hear you and I appreciate your tone and choice of words. If you weren't here, I'd probably be flying off the handle a bit more.


That is fine. I think almost everything in Christianity or Anarchism are nonsense, but I'd apologize if I have seriously offended someone who didn't really attack me or my beliefs as strongly., I'd certainly try to avoid calling their beliefs ''bullshit''. No one is asking you to believe in Buddhism, I just think you should have been more polite and done more research.

No, actually, I think I'm totally justified in calling religious belief "bullshit." If there's a religious comrade on this forum who takes that personally, and thinks that I somehow think that they aren't as good or something because they believe in nonsense, then they need to reassess how they value what someone says about them. My saying religious belief is bullshit has nothing to do with how I view a comrade on this forum, or anywhere for that matter.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

From what foundation do you make that claim?

Common sense - the same foundation we all have for evaluating claims.

So let's evaluate together, shall we?

Can anyone define the "self?"
Wiktionary says:
"An individual person as the object of his own reflective consciousness."

Several problems:
1. What makes an individual person? Think of multiple personality disorder, does this person have numerous selves?
2. How can a self be "the object" of itself? This implies multiple personality disorder in everyone...
3. What the fuck is reflective consciousness and why does this imply more nonsense?

Reflective consciousness is 'consciousness' which mirrors something else. In this case it is meant to mean that one's consciousness reflects one's individuality. But this is, in turn, also nonsensical. Because one's consciousness is one's individuality (supposedly) - hence it cannot reflect itself at all without being something else, which means there's no individual or many individuals.
But furthermore, what is consciousness? Wiktionary says "the state of being conscious, aware." But how does this state of being aware somehow signify individuality?
A computer can be made to take in all the happenings of light in a given area, you could then make the linguistic jump that that computer is "aware" of all the light in that area. Is this computer an individual? Maybe, depends on the context of individuality. Is this computer conscious of that light? Technically speaking, yes it is.

In short:
"The self" and "consciousness" are linguistic terms which do not refer to anything physical but have evolved over time to be seen as such.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Which means that all acts of causality include intention, but clearly they don't, when a baseball bat hits a baseball the ball does'nt "indend" or "will" to travel in the way it does.

However we percieve intentionality in our actions, if intentionality exists, even if its determanistic, that seperates Us from other objects without a "will" or "intentionality."

You then have the problem of consciousness.

No, I don't have the problem of consciousness. I'm saying that the "self" is a linguistic fiction which we have written over many, many years. It is a necessary fiction at this point, as we use it for all sorts of social interaction including our basic daily outlook (me: here, that person: there).

Likewise, intentionality exists in-so-far as "the will" exists. The will is another linguistic fiction, but one which is equally as useful as the self. For example:

"I" sit here and "will" myself to type this sentence.

^Nonsensical. There is no I, no self to will anything. What there is is action. I didn't will myself to do shit, I just did it. And "I" didn't even do it, this physical animal did. We write everything else into these facts and then believe them to be real when they are just linguistic descriptions.


Thats begging the question, I'm saying there is a thing as the self.

Burden of proof is on you, my friend.

- August

[Ele'ill]

I meet people that I've known before but haven't.

[RGacky3]

Burden of proof is on you, my friend.

- August

No its not, the self being a real thing is the common sense intuition and is accessable by experience.

Your the one going against intuition and experience so you have to lay down the proof.


No, I don't have the problem of consciousness. I'm saying that the "self" is a linguistic fiction which we have written over many, many years. It is a necessary fiction at this point, as we use it for all sorts of social interaction including our basic daily outlook (me: here, that person: there).


You do, because if there is no self then how do you explain conscious experience?

We can easily imagine that you have a thing exactly like a human, with the same sensory apparatus and ability to respond to stimuli but without any conscious experience, just purely mechanical, but since we HAVE conscious experience you have to explain how that is.

Your begging the question.


^Nonsensical. There is no I, no self to will anything. What there is is action. I didn't will myself to do shit, I just did it. And "I" didn't even do it, this physical animal did. We write everything else into these facts and then believe them to be real when they are just linguistic descriptions.


Again your begging the question, actuals that are done by the human animal feel intentional by the human animal, its not a linguistic trick, humans actually have the intuition of will and intention, i.e. I type because I decide to type.

EVEN IF you have a pure determanistic philosophy you have to explain where the feeling of intentionality comes from.

You want to talk about you in the third person, but you have conscious experience and you have intentionality.

Even if you say its an illusion, or a trick, it is tricking a person.

You can't answer objections to a theory by just restating the theory.

[Elysian]

I meet people that I've known before but haven't.

I understand this, but I don't.

[Elysian]

No, I don't have the problem of consciousness. I'm saying that the "self" is a linguistic fiction which we have written over many, many years. It is a necessary fiction at this point, as we use it for all sorts of social interaction including our basic daily outlook (me: here, that person: there).

Likewise, intentionality exists in-so-far as "the will" exists. The will is another linguistic fiction, but one which is equally as useful as the self. For example:

"I" sit here and "will" myself to type this sentence.

^Nonsensical. There is no I, no self to will anything. What there is is action. I didn't will myself to do shit, I just did it. And "I" didn't even do it, this physical animal did. We write everything else into these facts and then believe them to be real when they are just linguistic descriptions.



Burden of proof is on you, my friend.

- August

You sound like a Buddhist. They don't believe in the self or I, whatever.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

If the next life / body was based on my deeds, I'd live in constant fear of doing something that means I wind up an intestinal worm or something...too much pressure and diminishes the value of life itself, I think, so hope it's not true.

[zoot_allures]

Not necessarily reincarnation in particular, but I do wish there was some kind of afterlife. The idea that one day I'll simply be snuffed out of existence is not at all appealing to me. Unfortunately, I've never been remotely tempted to believe anything else.

[Saviorself]

I certainly don't wish reincarnation were true, I think one go around at life is enough. Nor do I wish life after death were real as I have no desire to exist for eternity - that would get extremely boring. Of course, never having experienced death, I could be wrong and the joke could be on me. But, in weighing the evidence, I really doubt that I am.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I guess I would like reincarnation as long as I still had the option to kill myself permanently if I wanted to. I'd rather just go to some afterlife with lots of pillows, crazy trippyness, the power to imagine anything into existence (including ten more seasons of firefly) and sexually experienced women (screw virgins).

[manic expression]

Common sense - the same foundation we all have for evaluating claims.

So let's evaluate together, shall we?

Can anyone define the "self?"
Wiktionary says:
"An individual person as the object of his own reflective consciousness."

Several problems:
1. What makes an individual person? Think of multiple personality disorder, does this person have numerous selves?
2. How can a self be "the object" of itself? This implies multiple personality disorder in everyone...
3. What the fuck is reflective consciousness and why does this imply more nonsense?
1.) The self isn't personality, those are two different things. An individual person is made by virtue of being a recognizable human entity...as common sense as it gets.

2.) That's the whole point...when we look into a mirror we realize that we're looking at ourselves. That's when we realize that we are ourselves, which is the basis of the self.

3.) Consciousness is our knowledge. If we know that we exist then the concept of ourselves has entered our consciousness. Regardless, the existence of the self is not dependent on consciousness so it's a moot point.


Reflective consciousness is 'consciousness' which mirrors something else. In this case it is meant to mean that one's consciousness reflects one's individuality. But this is, in turn, also nonsensical. Because one's consciousness is one's individuality (supposedly) - hence it cannot reflect itself at all without being something else, which means there's no individual or many individuals.
But furthermore, what is consciousness? Wiktionary says "the state of being conscious, aware." But how does this state of being aware somehow signify individuality?
A computer can be made to take in all the happenings of light in a given area, you could then make the linguistic jump that that computer is "aware" of all the light in that area. Is this computer an individual? Maybe, depends on the context of individuality. Is this computer conscious of that light? Technically speaking, yes it is.

In short:
"The self" and "consciousness" are linguistic terms which do not refer to anything physical but have evolved over time to be seen as such.
With respect, I think you're making all sorts of assumptions that are unnecessary. It really comes down to this: is an individual simply a bunch of atoms or is there something more to it? Obviously, who and what we are cannot be boiled down to mere physical matter, because if a tree loses its leaves no one will say that it is less of a tree for it. Likewise, if you see someone who has lost an arm, you do not calculate how much less of an individual s/he is because of the lack of the limb. Such as it is, we are more than mere physical matter.

And that's really the point...the self does not refer to something physical, and so the question becomes what happens to the self when the physical functions of life cease; one of the answers is that the self retakes physical form, which is reincarnation.

[NewLeft]

I read the 20 cases for reincarnation before, I don't think I wanna reincarnate.. I don't wanna live another life and be stuck in a wheel of suffering.

[Revolution starts with U]

1.) The self isn't personality, those are two different things. An individual person is made by virtue of being a recognizable human entity...as common sense as it gets.

2.) That's the whole point...when we look into a mirror we realize that we're looking at ourselves. That's when we realize that we are ourselves, which is the basis of the self.

3.) Consciousness is our knowledge. If we know that we exist then the concept of ourselves has entered our consciousness. Regardless, the existence of the self is not dependent on consciousness so it's a moot point.


With respect, I think you're making all sorts of assumptions that are unnecessary. It really comes down to this: is an individual simply a bunch of atoms or is there something more to it? Obviously, who and what we are cannot be boiled down to mere physical matter, because if a tree loses its leaves no one will say that it is less of a tree for it. Likewise, if you see someone who has lost an arm, you do not calculate how much less of an individual s/he is because of the lack of the limb. Such as it is, we are more than mere physical matter.

And that's really the point...the self does not refer to something physical, and so the question becomes what happens to the self when the physical functions of life cease; one of the answers is that the self retakes physical form, which is reincarnation.

No. Humans, apples, a.d rocks, etc don't exist. Existence is just atoms, energies, and systems of orginization happening in a dynamic now. Apple, like self, is just a symbol you mind places on like forms to better understand the world.

[manic expression]

No. Humans, apples, a.d rocks, etc don't exist. Existence is just atoms, energies, and systems of orginization happening in a dynamic now. Apple, like self, is just a symbol you mind places on like forms to better understand the world.
Then why do you care if a non-existent symbol starves to death at the symbolic age of 3 because it lacked non-existent apple symbols?

Humans aren't apples and I can prove it. Both exist because we can sense them with each of our senses.

[Revolution starts with U]

Do I? Does everyone? Do you think a rock cares?

Where does one draw the line between archaic and modern homo sapiens? We don't, we draw an approximation because its arbitrary. All that has changed is form and function, not the physical material.

All things can be explained without resorting to a soul. The world of platonic forms exists entirely in the heads of sentient beings as symbols designed to simplify the complexity of pure being.

[manic expression]

You didn't answer the question. Do you care, and if so, why?

First, though, you said humans don't exist. Now you're saying they exist but that it's hard to figure out their relative definition when you look at the wider history of human development. I think this is all moving away from the idea that the self is the self regardless...it is pure being, physical matter is not all we are.

[Revolution starts with U]

You didn't answer the question. Do you care, and if so, why?

First, though, you said humans don't exist. Now you're saying they exist but that it's hard to figure out their relative definition when you look at the wider history of human development. I think this is all moving away from the idea that the self is the self regardless...it is pure being, physical matter is not all we are.

No. I'm consistently saying "human" is just a symbol we use to define like forms. That nothing exists except the comprehensive, complex, and dynamic right now. Any subdivisions you percieve is a function of mind creating identities to simplify existence and develop understanding.

Sometimes I might care, others I might not. Other people might never care. I might want to save the child, I might want to save a rock too. I might do nothing. Personally I care because I identify with existing, and am grateful to existence for it. But this is still an illusion created by the ego, defined as the identity self. In reality I cannot be seperated from reality, and so the only real difference between I and you is form and function. Yet being includes both of us, the ground we stand on, and even the supermassive black hole at the center of distant galaxies.

[Revolution starts with U]

Let me be clear that the things being symbolized do exist, as in are part of reality. Its the non-oneness we see that is the illusion. This illusion is a function of thought. We simply could not discuss, even with our self, the complexity of pure being. We must simplify it by grouping like forms and symbolizing them as apple, chairs, humans and "the" (as in the only..lulz) wind.

The "self" as a symbol is a protection mechanism. I refer to myself as I to make if clear where my priorities are: in protecting and growing my ability to be aware. I can use the concept of "we" to identify with others, and create collective self to protect and develop.

Rocks don't have self's. So we can say that I is a function of life, at least. Plants and bacteria seek nutrients, but cant act. So any sense of self they have is irrelevant. So we can assume a functional sense of self is a product of thought. We can go even further and say that self does not matter unless and until their is a language with which to express itself, as language tends to codify everything and try to define concretely.

[RGacky3]

No. Humans, apples, a.d rocks, etc don't exist. Existence is just atoms, energies, and systems of orginization happening in a dynamic now. Apple, like self, is just a symbol you mind places on like forms to better understand the world.

I personally agree (I don't believe in platonic forms or anything).

But consciousness and intentionality are something that dead things DO NOT experience but we do.

Apples as far as we know don't experience things and don't intend to do things, or at least feel like they do. That being the case you have to explain that in a way that seperates it from things like apples and rocks.


I might do nothing. Personally I care because I identify with existing, and am grateful to existence for it. But this is still an illusion created by the ego, defined as the identity self. In reality I cannot be seperated from reality, and so the only real difference between I and you is form and function. Yet being includes both of us, the ground we stand on, and even the supermassive black hole at the center of distant galaxies.

Except the "I" is different from an apple and a rock in the sense that the "I" has experiences and intentionality, EVEN IF it is an illusion it has be be an illusion to someone, someone has to be having that illusion so its still experience and you have to explain the "I."


The "self" as a symbol is a protection mechanism. I refer to myself as I to make if clear where my priorities are: in protecting and growing my ability to be aware. I can use the concept of "we" to identify with others, and create collective self to protect and develop.

Again, if the self is a protection to protect YOUR priorities and YOUR abilit to be aware there is still a thing with priorities and awareness that you have the explain, and is what the "I" refers too.

I think your idea (and I tend to agree) is peter van inwagons metaphysics of mereological nihilism i.e. there are no "things" sub atomic particles don't make up anything, UNLESS that something leads to an "I" or subjective, so rocks are just collections of particles and don't make something as a whole (other than in our minds to organize matter), but there is no way to get rid of the "I," because you cannot deny the existance of intentionality and awareness, and athose are properties that some thing has.

[manic expression]

No. I'm consistently saying "human" is just a symbol we use to define like forms. That nothing exists except the comprehensive, complex, and dynamic right now. Any subdivisions you percieve is a function of mind creating identities to simplify existence and develop understanding.
Well, any subdivisions we perceive is a function of the mind perceiving what exists.


Sometimes I might care, others I might not. Other people might never care. I might want to save the child, I might want to save a rock too. I might do nothing. Personally I care because I identify with existing, and am grateful to existence for it. But this is still an illusion created by the ego, defined as the identity self. In reality I cannot be seperated from reality, and so the only real difference between I and you is form and function. Yet being includes both of us, the ground we stand on, and even the supermassive black hole at the center of distant galaxies.The differences between you and I, even restricted to the "right now", are many, but the most important being the one that you notice: you are not me and I am not you. Being might include both of us and everything but it does not erase that distinction. Form and function, then, is a physical representation of who we are and what we are doing; it is not the end to either of us. Both form and function change greatly throughout life but the individual remains that individual.

[Revolution starts with U]

Excellent responses! I'm busy til late tomorrow and will respond then.

[Revolution starts with U]

I personally agree (I don't believe in platonic forms or anything).

But consciousness and intentionality are something that dead things DO NOT experience but we do.

Apples as far as we know don't experience things and don't intend to do things, or at least feel like they do. That being the case you have to explain that in a way that seperates it from things like apples and rocks.


Tho I would not be surprised if consciousness/awareness was intrinsic to the universe, on a basic physical level... they are still merely systems of orginization. Self-replication (life) happened, and found that awareness and intent are efficient ways of protecting/directing replication.




Except the "I" is different from an apple and a rock in the sense that the "I" has experiences and intentionality, EVEN IF it is an illusion it has be be an illusion to someone, someone has to be having that illusion so its still experience and you have to explain the "I."

The mind has that illusion. As it is said in Hinduism, "not what the eyes see, but where the eye has means to see, that is true Brahma (the Universe)." Being is all that is, and awareness is pure consciousness. Mind is a function of awareness. Awareness "sees," and the mind/ego identifies.
A basic principle of Zen is that mind/ego acts. Being merely is.




Again, if the self is a protection to protect YOUR priorities and YOUR abilit to be aware there is still a thing with priorities and awareness that you have the explain, and is what the "I" refers too.

Yes, as I thought I had made clear (my mistake, much apologies), self-ness is a function of higher order self-replication. It was found evolutionarily advantageous to symbolize reality; first one creates a self, a thing that needs. At this point one is no longer encumbered by the reactive nature of plant life, and can act (as in, have intention). This inherently creates an "other." As consciousness developed, it was able to further and further identify things. But identification is not holistically being. It is just a function of being.
I relate this to the biblical story of Adam, and how he was given provenance to "name all the creatures of the world." Why? Because G-D would not see creation as seperate from himself, and would have no need for naming. This almost certainly isn't the point as seen by its original writers. But I think it makes an apt metaphor nonetheless.

I think your idea (and I tend to agree) is peter van inwagons metaphysics of mereological nihilism i.e. there are no "things" sub atomic particles don't make up anything, UNLESS that something leads to an "I" or subjective, so rocks are just collections of particles and don't make something as a whole (other than in our minds to organize matter), but there is no way to get rid of the "I," because you cannot deny the existance of intentionality and awareness, and athose are properties that some thing has.
I'm not familiar with Inwagon, but I will check it out. That seems to be about what I am saying. I am saying that when you become aware that "I" is just a symbol, you no longer identify with it on a fundamental level. You are ever present awareness. Self is merely a transient and relative function of you; it's the creator of ends and the means that lead there.



Well, any subdivisions we perceive is a function of the mind perceiving what exists.

Only in the mind does it exist. Without mind like forms (all forms... all things) are meaningless. Without identification, that is to say thought, there is only a vast field of energy expressing itself in various ways. Identification is a tool for simplification of the oneness that is existence (you know, the UNIverse). Apples are real. But they are only apples, that is to say "not oneness" in the mind.

The differences between you and I, even restricted to the "right now", are many, but the most important being the one that you notice: you are not me and I am not you.
Do I notice that? If I shake your hand will we not trade millions of electrons, our oils on our skins mix, feelings/emotions be created? Are not all things transient and relative, even the universe itself? I AM you, and the chair you sit on. The difference between the two of us is not much more between the difference of the voice in your head and the one that listens.

Being might include both of us and everything but it does not erase that distinction. Form and function, then, is a physical representation of who we are and what we are doing; it is not the end to either of us. Both form and function change greatly throughout life but the individual remains that individual.
"It is not the end to either of us..." I agree. Being does not erase that distinction. What it does is show that distinction to be a simplification mechanism for self-defense. Once you become aware of the symbolic nature of the self, that is to say become aware of the self, a space is created between awareness and identification. Timelessness, that is to say the ever dynamic right now, as opposed to past and future, becomes realized. Any distinctions hereupon made between "things" are recognized to be merely illusory representations of the oneness of existence.

Probability is intrinsic to nature, or so we think right now (and I tend to think will be conclusively proven true), and it creates variety. Variety creates change. A to B means change is intrinsic to nature. Yet nature remains one thing, the ultimate thing. The thought that variety and oneness cannot be the same thing at the same time is delusional at best.

[RGacky3]

Tho I would not be surprised if consciousness/awareness was intrinsic to the universe, on a basic physical level

There is a philosophy of consciousness that says that, but I don't quite understand it.


they are still merely systems of orginization. Self-replication (life) happened, and found that awareness and intent are efficient ways of protecting/directing replication.


Awareness and Intent still holds that there is SOMETHING that is aware and intent.

If your claiming that evolution crated the self is uncontroversial (relatively), but that does'nt change the fact that there is a self.

Calling it a system of organization is confusing what it's purpose may be with what it is, there still is a self that is aware and has intentions.


The mind has that illusion. As it is said in Hinduism, "not what the eyes see, but where the eye has means to see, that is true Brahma (the Universe)." Being is all that is, and awareness is pure consciousness. Mind is a function of awareness. Awareness "sees," and the mind/ego identifies.
A basic principle of Zen is that mind/ego acts. Being merely is.


Its self contradictory, the mind has the illusion that it exists? Its circular, the mind exists, and there is a subjective, if it makes a distinction between itself and something else it may be an illusion, but you still have thatc which has the illusion.


self-ness is a function of higher order self-replication. It was found evolutionarily advantageous to symbolize reality; first one creates a self, a thing that needs. At this point one is no longer encumbered by the reactive nature of plant life, and can act (as in, have intention). This inherently creates an "other." As consciousness developed, it was able to further and further identify things. But identification is not holistically being. It is just a function of being.


I don't think that helps, because there is no reason to think that awareness changes anything from an evolutionary viewpoint, when pure mechanical reactions without awareness would work just as well, the same with intentionality.

Also if it was found advantageous to symbolize reality you need to symbolize it TO SOMEONE, so again its circular. The self is not a symbolized reality, that is what it does however.


This inherently creates an "other." As consciousness developed, it was able to further and further identify things. But identification is not holistically being. It is just a function of being.


Could you explain that to me? I don't think I understand it, (I'm not familiar with eastern philosophy, if that is what your refering too).


I'm not familiar with Inwagon, but I will check it out. That seems to be about what I am saying. I am saying that when you become aware that "I" is just a symbol, you no longer identify with it on a fundamental level. You are ever present awareness. Self is merely a transient and relative function of you; it's the creator of ends and the means that lead there.


Here is a little intro do Peter's metaphysics
http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-Things-Really-Exist-Part-1-of-2-Peter-van-Inwagen-/1088
http://closertotruth.com/video-profile/What-Things-Really-Exist-Part-2-of-2-Peter-van-Inwagen-/1087

As far as what your saying with the "I", if it is ever present awareness (what about intentionality?), that only explains what it does, not what it is, it IS aware, but you still need something to be aware, if the buck stops at awareness however, you need to somehow make an account of that, (which leads you sometimes dangerously close to idealism).


Do I notice that? If I shake your hand will we not trade millions of electrons, our oils on our skins mix, feelings/emotions be created? Are not all things transient and relative, even the universe itself? I AM you, and the chair you sit on. The difference between the two of us is not much more between the difference of the voice in your head and the one that listens.


Electrons are not "I," as far as you are saying it the "I" is awareness (as far as I understand, or at least a function of awareness), All things are relative, but relativity REQUIRES the subjective, it REQURIES a vantage point.

The differences between "you" and "I" is "you" will never have the same experience as "I" nor will you have the same intention, any intention you have is an intention of what you will do, and experience you have is from a vantage point that I don't have.

[RGacky3]

BTW, forgive me if I'm not getting your argument, perhaps it would be better to put it out more simply, like in premis+premis=such and such follows. Or something, as these kinds of discussions get messy quick when just writing about them.

[Left Leanings]

It's an interesting question. As an atheist and a secular humanist, I do not believe in reincarnation at all. But do I wish it was true? No. I would prefer, I think, bodily resurrection. Or why not straightforward immortality?

There's a hell of a way to go, to wrestle power from the removed and wealthy elite, so immortality would be quite a good thing, I think. We would have time enough to work towards and change the world for the better - and enjoy it once we got there.

But me, I think this is the only life of which we can have any knowledge, and when we physically die, our identities, consciousness etc, cease to be also.

I have to do something useful with my life, though. And seeking ways to commandeer the resources of the world, in a direction that will secure the basic material essentials for all, is quite enough to make me happy :)

[Revolution starts with U]

There is a philosophy of consciousness that says that, but I don't quite understand it.

Well, you can take it all the way back to Hermeticism with their concept of G-D as the All-mind; the one who knows all. I have an open mind for this not because of what they say, but merely because of the sucesses of actual hermetics in the arts and sciences.
There are other theological interpretations, that G-D wanted to know himself and so created the universe.
There's also the quantum consciousness idea, which is really just a take on the Copenhagen interpretation. If, they say, wave functions need to be observed to collapse, does it not follow that the universe itself (or some other universal being) is aware, observing the interactions of particles? The simple response to this question is that interaction is a form of observation and needs no conscious awareness. But its an interesting question nonetheless.
There are many other various interpretations. I don't quite believe this is a correct view. BUt, like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if it is.




Awareness and Intent still holds that there is SOMETHING that is aware and intent.

If your claiming that evolution crated the self is uncontroversial (relatively), but that does'nt change the fact that there is a self.

There is. Just as there is an audience aware of the magicians tricks. Your awareness is just a point in the universe, an expression of energy. It is like an atom, or the pull of gravity; a small piece of the giant whole. In order to make sense of what it is observing it creates a self. No surprise. In doing so it creates the other.
For example let us assume an apple seed develops consciousness. It will say "I am me, a seed. I can't wait to break the bonds of this apple that is holding me back." But to us humans, the seed is just a part of the apple. In the same way, your self is just a part of the universe; a seed contained in an apple differentiating itself from the apple. Sure there are differences. But in reality seed and apple just make up one complex system.


Calling it a system of organization is confusing what it's purpose may be with what it is, there still is a self that is aware and has intentions.

I don't deny that. Illusions are not fake. They are just one thing appearing to be another. In the same way, the self is real. It only appears to be something seperate from the universe by mind.




Its self contradictory, the mind has the illusion that it exists? Its circular, the mind exists, and there is a subjective, if it makes a distinction between itself and something else it may be an illusion, but you still have thatc which has the illusion.

Just as it appeared to me that Chris Angel can walk on water, it appears to my mind that my "self" is anything more than a conceptual tool. The reason I know that self is merely a linguistic device, a conceptual tool, is that I can refer to the apple as it's self, the seed as it's self... even my hand as it's self. How can my self include my hand, which is also it's self? It can because "self-ness" is just a symbol the mind uses to simplify the complexity of reality.



I don't think that helps, because there is no reason to think that awareness changes anything from an evolutionary viewpoint, when pure mechanical reactions without awareness would work just as well, the same with intentionality.

Animals, those who can act with intent, was an evolutionary leap allowing proaction, rather than just the reaction that rocks and plants live by. If the sun doesn't come anymore, the plant dies. An animal can just move to a new spot where there is sun.
Higher order consciousness, let us say human consciousness (but that's such an anthrocentric view) is merely a far more complex version of awareness.



Also if it was found advantageous to symbolize reality you need to symbolize it TO SOMEONE, so again its circular. The self is not a symbolized reality, that is what it does however.

You symbolize it to your self, correct? So are you something different to yourself?



Could you explain that to me? I don't think I understand it, (I'm not familiar with eastern philosophy, if that is what your refering too).
For the self to exist it must differentiate itself from "the other." It says "this is me, that is not."
Humans have developed consciousness to the point where we can include part of the other in ourselves with the concept of "we." We say, as I had just said, "ourself," as in "we'll just do it ourself." This should totally obliterate, in the mind of anyone paying attention, that the self is anything more than a device minds use to simplify reality. I could just as easily say "I created the big bang myself" and that make sense, if I consider myself all of existence... which I do, because I don't recognize the atomized concept of self.




As far as what your saying with the "I", if it is ever present awareness (what about intentionality?), that only explains what it does, not what it is, it IS aware, but you still need something to be aware, if the buck stops at awareness however, you need to somehow make an account of that, (which leads you sometimes dangerously close to idealism).

I guess I was not clear. "I" am first just the awareness; that which doesn't change over time, and if lost, "I" becomes irrelevant. Then, after that I am self; function and form. You can lose form and function. You can stop being a football player, or musician. You can gain weight, lose weight, go blind. All these things you can lose, and if you still have awareness your mind can still formulate self. But if you lose awareness, you lose mind, and cannot formulate a self.




Electrons are not "I," as far as you are saying it the "I" is awareness (as far as I understand, or at least a function of awareness), All things are relative, but relativity REQUIRES the subjective, it REQURIES a vantage point.

Yes, but it's just a vantage "point." It's the tip of the cliff you're looking off. But don't mistake the vantage point for the entirety of the cliff. That's all I am saying.

The differences between "you" and "I" is "you" will never have the same experience as "I" nor will you have the same intention, any intention you have is an intention of what you will do, and experience you have is from a vantage point that I don't have.
It's just one apple seed thinking itself different than another. As I said, there are differences. But we're both just cogs in a wheel. There is no reality seperate from you.

[Revolution starts with U]

BTW, forgive me if I'm not getting your argument, perhaps it would be better to put it out more simply, like in premis+premis=such and such follows. Or something, as these kinds of discussions get messy quick when just writing about them.

If there is but one existence then all things are just parts of a whole.
There is but one existence (by definition).
All things are just parts of a whole.

From an individual's perspective we could put it like this:
If I am aware, then I must be aware of something.
If I am aware of something then it must exist (on some level).
If things cannot be fundamentally seperated from existence, than all is one.
I am aware of something and things cannot be fundamentally seperated from existence (by definition; the UNIverse).
Therefore, all is one.

[RGacky3]

I added numbers for simplicity



1. If I am aware, then I must be aware of something.
2. If I am aware of something then it must exist (on some level).
3. If things cannot be fundamentally seperated from existence, than all is one.
4. I am aware of something and things cannot be fundamentally seperated from existence (by definition; the UNIverse).
5. Therefore, all is one.

My problem comes at 3, the subjective is dependant on an objective (although not necessarily, one could be aware of himself, or of god, in meditation for example), but that objective could be anything, the objective that IS does not create the subjective, it could be anything. So here is my revised version.

1. If I am aware, then I must be aware of something.
2. If I am aware of something then it must exist (on some level).
3. If I am aware of something I could be aware of something else.
4. Had the objective been different I would be aware of that.
5. Had the subjective been different, I would not exist, but the objective would.
6. There are things true of me that are not true of what I am aware of.
7. There are things not true of me that are true of what I am aware of.
8. Me and what I am aware of are not the same thing.

Also, you cannot say the mind creates the self in your arguments because the mind IS the self.

When you talk about the hand being part of you, yeah, its part of the organism, but if its seperated the organism still exists, as a repoducing and functioning whole, but the hand is'nt part of it (see peter van inwagens metaphysics).

[Revolution starts with U]

I added numbers for simplicity



My problem comes at 3, the subjective is dependant on an objective (although not necessarily, one could be aware of himself, or of god, in meditation for example), but that objective could be anything, the objective that IS does not create the subjective, it could be anything. So here is my revised version.

1. If I am aware, then I must be aware of something.
2. If I am aware of something then it must exist (on some level).
3. If I am aware of something I could be aware of something else.
4. Had the objective been different I would be aware of that.
5. Had the subjective been different, I would not exist, but the objective would.
6. There are things true of me that are not true of what I am aware of.
7. There are things not true of me that are true of what I am aware of.
8. Me and what I am aware of are not the same thing.

Also, you cannot say the mind creates the self in your arguments because the mind IS the self.

When you talk about the hand being part of you, yeah, its part of the organism, but if its seperated the organism still exists, as a repoducing and functioning whole, but the hand is'nt part of it (see peter van inwagens metaphysics).

Could you rephrase your first sentence? I'm not sure I follow. IF I understand correctly, I would remind you that the subject IS an object. Objective comes first, subjective is a substratum.

I'm not saying all things are the same. I'm simply pointing out reality, that existence is all-connected and indivisible. Only when mind, and therefore ego, comes into play do differences matter.

[Revolution starts with U]

Mind, like single felled organisms creates and continually recreates the self. Any identity you place on yourself is a thought. You are obviously more than a thought. This is why your thoughts, ideas, and views can change drastically, but sense of self remains. Self is deeper than thought and you're aware of that. It is that awareness that mind identifies as self fundamentally. But awareness alone doesn't identify. Only mind identifies, and as such only mind can create a sense of self and other. Awareness without identity has no means of differentiation, and so differences are irrelevant. (The universe doesn't do science, thinkers do. Universe just be's. )

Heisenberg said the reason we have trouble understanding QM is our language is too noun based when all of reality is verbing. I tend to agree. I also think its why we don't understand ourselves. Language as yet HAS to be noun based, as it is based in ego, the identity creator. Identities don't create themselves, we do. So our self must be deeper than identity. It is the awareness where thought happens? Perhaps. But awareness is not tangible and so cannot be seperated from what it observes. You, then, are the world you are aware of, all of it.

And G-D said, I AM that I AM. Jesus asked is it not written ye are gods. If God is being undefined, and we are gods, then we are being undefined... just to throw a Theo's perspective out there.

I would like to further discuss your assertion, or criticism, that things can be seperated from existence. How so?

[Guy Incognito]

It's an interesting question. As an atheist and a secular humanist, I do not believe in reincarnation at all. But do I wish it was true? No. I would prefer, I think, bodily resurrection. Or why not straightforward immortality?

There's a hell of a way to go, to wrestle power from the removed and wealthy elite, so immortality would be quite a good thing, I think. We would have time enough to work towards and change the world for the better - and enjoy it once we got there.

But me, I think this is the only life of which we can have any knowledge, and when we physically die, our identities, consciousness etc, cease to be also.

I have to do something useful with my life, though. And seeking ways to commandeer the resources of the world, in a direction that will secure the basic material essentials for all, is quite enough to make me happy :)

I dunno, I think I would like to be reincarnated into a grizzly bear in the Alaskan wilderness. Think about it:

1.) You wake up, trundle over to the river and eat salmon that practically hop into your mouth.

2.) The only creature on the planet you have to actually worry about is a human, and only then if they have a REALLY big rifle and the drop on you.

3.) Free honey, as beestings don't hurt enough to deter you from diving in face first.

4.) Tree based backscratcher.

5.) Everything is terrified of you.

6.) Sleep for a few months at a time when it's cold out. Now that's what I call a nap!

7.) Your young are ADORABLE.

and

8.) You're a friggin bear, you do whatever you please.
:lol:

[Left Leanings]

I dunno, I think I would like to be reincarnated into a grizzly bear in the Alaskan wilderness. Think about it:

1.) You wake up, trundle over to the river and eat salmon that practically hop into your mouth.

2.) The only creature on the planet you have to actually worry about is a human, and only then if they have a REALLY big rifle and the drop on you.

3.) Free honey, as beestings don't hurt enough to deter you from diving in face first.

4.) Tree based backscratcher.

5.) Everything is terrified of you.

6.) Sleep for a few months at a time when it's cold out. Now that's what I call a nap!

7.) Your young are ADORABLE.

and

8.) You're a friggin bear, you do whatever you please.
:lol:

It's an interesting idea. But what does Hindu theology say about this? I think once your karma is sufficiently 'good' for you to be reincarnated into human form, you don't actually reincarnate into a (so-called) 'lower' form of animal life, like a bear, just into another human form, until eventually you attain moksha (liberation) from samsara (the cycle of birth and rebirth).

I could be wrong about this, but I think this is the position taken by at least some Hindu theologians and schools of thought.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Since people hardly ever remember being born, let alone alleged "past lives", what difference would it make?

Reincarnation implicitly assumes the existence of something similar to a soul, and that opens up a whole bunch of other questions which I have never seen satisfactorily answered; where do souls come from? World population of humans has been reaching numbers never seen before in human history. Are souls divisible? and so on and on and on.

Personally, I've never understood the impulse to impute the existence of a ghost within the machine. The only plausible way I can imagine consciousness surviving the demise of the body, is if functions relevant to consciousness are transferred to some other substrate capable of supporting those functions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading).

In other words, reincarnation, being an expression of our own awareness of our mortality, is not something that can happen naturally. It is yet another part of this indifferent universe that we will have to actively work to change, using things that actually work, like science, if we find it unstatisfactory.

I can understand why someone would love life enough not to want it to end too soon. But in that area religion and mysticism have nothing to offer but false hope. On the other hand, science and technology, through their mutually reinforcing advances, are bringing us greater understanding of what makes us tick. Through that understanding lies the hope that one day we will conquer death, at least among humans, once and for all.

[Revolution starts with U]

To be fair, consciousness is stored/expressed electronically, and Earth is one gigantic electric field.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To be fair, consciousness is stored/expressed electronically,

I understand that electrical impulses are involved, but I'm also given to understand that chemical signalling plays a significant role in brain function.


and Earth is one gigantic electric field.

The Earth has an electromagnetic field generated by the movement of the molten interior. The Earth "is" a planet, which are generally composed of many things besides electromagnetic fields.

[godlessfilthycommiedog]

I'd rather just die... Just thinking about living forever makes me feel exhausted:lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Word. Point still stands. Its wildly unlikely, but possible. Not to mention "spooky action at a distance" which seems to suggest info needs no medium nor travel under certain circumstance.

As materialists I don't think we should 100% rule these fringe things out, like reincarnation and esp, etc. Hut we can take heart that it will be materialists that explain it correctly.

[Azraella]

I can understand why someone would love life enough not to want it to end too soon. But in that area religion and mysticism have nothing to offer but false hope.

Not all religious people actually believe in an afterlife or reincarnation. (I don't, not really*) Some Christians(and I think Muslims) think heaven is a metaphor for something achievable(Tolstoy did not believe in an afterlife and he was a devout Christian). I think many Buddhists fit into this as well.


*It's certainly a corruption of the religion to dwell on it.
---

All life forms are a small wheel, a tiny and totally spurious cog in a vast machine. I might live for another thirty years. Existence, creation, the universe may survive much longer - 13 billion years or more perhaps. If I do my job and live as I have endeavored to all my life it may be that I will have some presence (in a wholly abstract way) for some time after I die. I could go quite happily in that knowledge although I will go, regardless. There is ironically a bible quote which sums up how I feel about the end of my life:



Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest Nonexistence is the supreme holiday.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Word. Point still stands. Its wildly unlikely, but possible. Not to mention "spooky action at a distance" which seems to suggest info needs no medium nor travel under certain circumstance.

Isn't that a quantum-scale phenomenon? And aren't neurons way too large for quantum-scale effects to be statistically meaningful?


As materialists I don't think we should 100% rule these fringe things out, like reincarnation and esp, etc.

Of course not. But reincarnation would depend on the existence of a soul, or at least something that is transferred between lives. All the evidence gathered so far strongly suggests the brain as the locus of consciousness, and that consciousness cannot survive the destruction of the brain without (at this point speculative) technological assistance.

Somebody on this forum suggested to me that perhaps consciousness like a TV signal - but TVs pick up signals that we can detect with other instruments. What is the carrier wave of consciousness? What is the source of these waves?

See how no matter how one ends up trying to revive dualism of some kind, it always carries with it a buncle of unanswered (and perhaps, unanswerable) questions?


Hut we can take heart that it will be materialists that explain it correctly.

Indeed. I can't help but think if the supernatural did exist, and interacted meaningfully with material reality, science would still be able to study it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

*It's certainly a corruption of the religion to dwell on it.

By what standard?


All life forms are a small wheel, a tiny and totally spurious cog in a vast machine. I might live for another thirty years. Existence, creation, the universe may survive much longer - 13 billion years or more perhaps. If I do my job and live as I have endeavored to all my life it may be that I will have some presence (in a wholly abstract way) for some time after I die. I could go quite happily in that knowledge although I will go, regardless. There is ironically a bible quote which sums up how I feel about the end of my life:

I think it's a bunch of crap to have been born into such a huge and wonderous universe only to have a few scant decades during which to experience it. That's a problem I'd like to see fixed.


Nonexistence is the supreme holiday.

The closest I can imagine to being dead is being stuck in a dreamless sleep... forever.

What kind of holiday is that?!

[Red Rabbit]

The closest I can imagine to being dead is being stuck in a dreamless sleep... forever.

What kind of holiday is that?!

The best holiday ever?

[Azraella]

By what standard?

Asatru is a deed religion. Even if there was nine or so destinations in the afterlife, you don't get there for a lack of belief or what-not. It's how you die. Most attempts to codify Heathen ethics tend to focus on doing things now and being proactive rather than passive. Do things now rather than waiting for something else to do it for you. The statement "we are our deeds" sums up about 80% of the Heathen worldview on life and death.



What kind of holiday is that?!


I was not at a place in life to understand sacrifice and humility at the young age of 5

My father answered a similar question with one sweeping sentence. He said "miss, people die as the leaves fall from a tree, to make place for more on the branch as spring comes." I found solace in this answer. I found respect for my father for having such an answer to an all important question for my young narcissistic mind. It appealed to my saviour side. I would die because others needed to exist as I did. I thought I was quite lucky to have even been allowed to burgeon and flower this branch of life.

My guilt at my wasted years of opiates consume me sometimes as I feel I have let down the gift of life. I remind myself that I am a hundred times the person I ever would have been had I not followed that path. Addiction and recovery have taught me that suffering is quite a teacher and it has made me appreciate the time I have left to be an example to my son and loved ones. A social conscience is important to me, for when I fall from the branch, and my body becomes fuel for the future leaf, I will know my energy will never die. It will be recycled many times in this format. I am merely a cellular structure which falls to waste as an apple turns to mush, this mush so ever important to feed the coming apple or green bean. A huge compost pile of human organs, a daffodil the result of this pile, or maybe pollen for the bee to transport.

I find comfort that my life will end, the lights turned off and not be forced to relive the uncertainty again that I am so important. Be happy you are all alive, the odds were against you.

If the universe is infinite, then I think we are nothing. Rejoice that we became a blink in the eye out of nothingness and had such a chance to live such an interesting experience which is the self before you return to a collective compost pile. We are all winners of the ultimate lottery, some have different prizes but we won none the less. The odds were stacked greatly against you from ever reading this insignificant writing. What purpose was set forth for you? Probably nothing was really planned out, so make it a priority to fill your life with purpose and integrity, it will help when the passing of self arrives, a peacefulness will help the final flick of the switch.

[MotherCossack]

Not all religious people actually believe in an afterlife or reincarnation. (I don't, not really) Some Christians(and I think Muslims) think heaven is a metaphor for something achievable(Tolstoy did not believe in an afterlife and he was a devout Christian). I think many Buddhists fit into this as well.

It's certainly a corruption of the religion to dwell on it.
-

Nonexistence is the supreme holiday.

this does not really equate with the christianity that i have been exposed to ... in various forms....all my life
i roman catholicism
2 anglican catholicism
3scottish puritan
4 anglican
5 methodist

i dont think i was ever encouraged to dismiss the afterlife concept..... indeed i dont recall it ever being anything other than an integral part of the ongoing worship infrastructure.
it was tied in with all the bible teachings to which i was exposed .
i cannot recall a sermon when it was not mentioned, at least in passing.
as for the christian funeral service..... having been in the unhappy position of recently been called to partake of such an event, indeed participate also, as it was the funeral of my late and very, dear grandad... i can quite catagorically state that the minister was clearly modern in outlook and her service was carefully tailored to meet our needs... but it was firmly rooted in the assumption that
1/ christ rose and
2/ my grandad is currently residing with god in a lovely big house with all that he could possibly wish for.... except life i suppose.

i am not a committed atheist or anything.... it would be nice if i could believe it..... but it is like pretending to be blind without covering up your eyes.....bottom line is... you can see.
all that stuff about just having faith.... well it makes no sense to me... feels much more like extreme wishful thinking.
there is something to be said for having faith in the collective goodness of us as a guiding light or a beacon of hope... although clearly climbing onto such a pedastal.... well it is a long way down and so is quite possibly going to backfire horribly....
i can also see logic in the worship [in a broad sense] of the earth/nature. well more the love/ reverence really..... it is certainly going to do more good caring for the planet on which we live ... than giving money to a church run by people with questionable motives, on behalf of a god that has done nowt but preside over bloody wars fought in his name.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Asatru is a deed religion. Even if there was nine or so destinations in the afterlife, you don't get there for a lack of belief or what-not. It's how you die. Most attempts to codify Heathen ethics tend to focus on doing things now and being proactive rather than passive. Do things now rather than waiting for something else to do it for you. The statement "we are our deeds" sums up about 80% of the Heathen worldview on life and death.

Heathenry in its modern guise is an atypical religion, so I guess it attracts atypical people. I was speaking about religion generally.


I was not at a place in life to understand sacrifice and humility at the young age of 5

My father answered a similar question with one sweeping sentence. He said "miss, people die as the leaves fall from a tree, to make place for more on the branch as spring comes." I found solace in this answer. I found respect for my father for having such an answer to an all important question for my young narcissistic mind. It appealed to my saviour side. I would die because others needed to exist as I did. I thought I was quite lucky to have even been allowed to burgeon and flower this branch of life.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have a bit of a problem with that. The universe is big enough for all of us. The reason a tree sheds its leaves is because the cost of keeping them through the winter exceeds any benefit gained in keeping them. But human beings like you and me don't operate under such a ruthless imperative. We have the capacity to create material abundance and more equitable societies that allow us to hold on to people instead of discarding them like so many dead leaves.


My guilt at my wasted years of opiates consume me sometimes as I feel I have let down the gift of life. I remind myself that I am a hundred times the person I ever would have been had I not followed that path. Addiction and recovery have taught me that suffering is quite a teacher and it has made me appreciate the time I have left to be an example to my son and loved ones. A social conscience is important to me, for when I fall from the branch, and my body becomes fuel for the future leaf, I will know my energy will never die. It will be recycled many times in this format. I am merely a cellular structure which falls to waste as an apple turns to mush, this mush so ever important to feed the coming apple or green bean. A huge compost pile of human organs, a daffodil the result of this pile, or maybe pollen for the bee to transport.

I find comfort that my life will end, the lights turned off and not be forced to relive the uncertainty again that I am so important. Be happy you are all alive, the odds were against you.

I dunno, this sounds far too much like "be happy with what you have", which strikes me as a kind of useful message for the current ruling class. I'd like to be wrong on this.


If the universe is infinite, then I think we are nothing. Rejoice that we became a blink in the eye out of nothingness and had such a chance to live such an interesting experience which is the self before you return to a collective compost pile. We are all winners of the ultimate lottery, some have different prizes but we won none the less. The odds were stacked greatly against you from ever reading this insignificant writing. What purpose was set forth for you? Probably nothing was really planned out, so make it a priority to fill your life with purpose and integrity, it will help when the passing of self arrives, a peacefulness will help the final flick of the switch.

If life is a lottery, then I want to cheat "the house" for everything it has got! There's no reason that such a thing as existence should be rationed out in a truly infinite universe.

[RGacky3]

Could you rephrase your first sentence? I'm not sure I follow. IF I understand correctly, I would remind you that the subject IS an object. Objective comes first, subjective is a substratum.

I'm not saying all things are the same. I'm simply pointing out reality, that existence is all-connected and indivisible. Only when mind, and therefore ego, comes into play do differences matter.

What I'm saying is that you CANNOT just explain away the subjective, or the mind/ego, by saying that the mind/ego is dependant on other things.

My whole argument is that mind and ego and intentionality and consciousness exist, you can't explain them away.

[MotherCossack]

Asatru is a deed religion. Even if there was nine or so destinations in the afterlife, you don't get there for a lack of belief or what-not. It's how you die. Most attempts to codify Heathen ethics tend to focus on doing things now and being proactive rather than passive. Do things now rather than waiting for something else to do it for you. The statement "we are our deeds" sums up about 80% of the Heathen worldview on life and death.




My guilt at my wasted years of opiates consume me sometimes as I feel I have let down the gift of life. I remind myself that I am a hundred times the person I ever would have been had I not followed that path. Addiction and recovery have taught me that suffering is quite a teacher and it has made me appreciate the time I have left to be an example to my son and loved ones. A social conscience is important to me, for when I fall from the branch, and my body becomes fuel for the future leaf, I will know my energy will never die. It will be recycled many times in this format. I am merely a cellular structure which falls to waste as an apple turns to mush, this mush so ever important to feed the coming apple or green bean. A huge compost pile of human organs, a daffodil the result of this pile, or maybe pollen for the bee to transport.

I find comfort that my life will end, the lights turned off and not be forced to relive the uncertainty again that I am so important. Be happy you are all alive, the odds were against you.

If the universe is infinite, then I think we are nothing. Rejoice that we became a blink in the eye out of nothingness and had such a chance to live such an interesting experience which is the self before you return to a collective compost pile. We are all winners of the ultimate lottery, some have different prizes but we won none the less. The odds were stacked greatly against you from ever reading this insignificant writing. What purpose was set forth for you? Probably nothing was really planned out, so make it a priority to fill your life with purpose and integrity, it will help when the passing of self arrives, a peacefulness will help the final flick of the switch.




i was writing my far less interesting post while this was posted.... so i missed it... you know like you do if it sneaks on when you are mid-post.... but as i read i find a simple honest truth in what you say... nearly spot on actually.....
except you sound a good deal more sorted than i feel. it is like you were a wreck down there but now you have travelled along.... clearing up the mess and working out stuff .... and have pretty much arrived up here... having finished the grand clear up and sort out.... so all the unwanted , unhelpful, harmful, irrelevant baggage is gone and the only negative is that you wasted time.

i wish my life was that clear cut. i have kind of wasted huge passages of time chasing chemical solutions and playing the fool.
i have driven people to distraction with my misplaced loyalties and seemingly infinite capacity for self-destruction.....
i have thrown caution to the wind having children that nobody thought i was capable of bringing up... or for that matter that i and my doctor thought i was capable of even giving birth to.
i have amazed everyone with the durability of my maternal capabilities and have 4 pretty decent individuals who i am proud to call my children.
you all know colonel cossack, the eldest, and agree, i hope, that he is pretty cool.
i have done all that.... while trying to deal with all the other stuff in a sporadic, haphazard, clumsy way.
and here we are.... and i have to admit you sound a hell of a lot more centred than i feel.
still..... your words resonate powerfully...and your conclusions regarding life and it's meaning.... makes a lot of sense.
i just think that maybe.... to my dying day i will struggle with an perpetual need to either spoil some of the good i have created.... or think the worst of the good i have created.
either way it hurts and takes the edge off everything


at my worst i feel that i would spoil any batch of compost and in effect be toxic waste.... at best i pretty much hope i manage to acheive one useful, memorable thing before i go. [a thing that i can be, and my kids too, proud of]

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

Find the reincarnated souls of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Che, etc. And combine their sperm into commie mega sperm. Then find rosa luxemburg's soul and impregnate her with the sperm. Wait nine months until she gives birth. Then the child will be the most communist person ever and we'll have a new Karl Marx.

[dodger]

Find the reincarnated souls of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Che, etc. And combine their sperm into commie mega sperm. Then find rosa luxemburg's soul and impregnate her with the sperm. Wait nine months until she gives birth. Then the child will be the most communist person ever and we'll have a new Karl Marx.

Karl Marx...with a Multi-PERSONALITY Disorder........MORE LIKE.!!!

[Revolution starts with U]

What I'm saying is that you CANNOT just explain away the subjective, or the mind/ego, by saying that the mind/ego is dependant on other things.

My whole argument is that mind and ego and intentionality and consciousness exist, you can't explain them away.

I'm not explaining it away, just explaining it. Subjectivity was an adaptation life found advantageous for its self promotion.

Mind is energy, energy is matter in another form, mind is material. If you can concieve it, it exists on some level, as energy of mind, therefore material. So, if it exists, its material. Ergo, ideas will effect reality, on some level at least, and can be shown to influence behaviors.

Subjectivity is merely a subset of awareness: the aspect of it that identifies, ie symbolizes, true being so as to simplify, plan, and act. There's really just fields of energy, not really things as such.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yes, it's kind of weird that everything just ends when you die.