Soul, the Living Mirror

Nick,

Another quick note. I read through the webpage you posed and found no explicit mention of the term “evolution” as you use it. In fact the word does not appear on the page. It seems to contain a good measure of propaganda against the Catholic Church, but nothing about evolution. Did I miss something? Did you post the wrong link?

Sorry Xander. I’m so accustomed to all this by now I forget that it is not the usual. Esoteric Christianity is not an attack on the Catholic Church simply because its essence existed long before the church moved towards Christendom. Conscious evolution is re-birth or in this case Christian re-birth or the conscious result of the alchemical help from Jesus’ time on earth and the quality of his death. The ideas have always been around but at periodic times, messengers from above must bring the necessary “being” to make it possible for humanity pass through this change of being necessary to retain the connection between heaven and Earth. Our being is of such a degenerated quality that except for those rare few, we are incapable from living in opposition to ourselves. We lack both sustained consciousness and the will necessary for our own evolution so we need help from above.

Evolution is change of being that moves it closer to the center. Mechanical evolution can proceed just so far. Darwin appreciated mechanical evolution but we still confuse evolution (change of being) with adaptation where being doesn’t change but adapts to external influences. A horse may adapt by becoming larger or smaller but its being is still the same.

The level of earth in our universe is unique in that it is the level at which the results of mechanical evolution can touch the lowest level of consciousness.

Animal life has evolved as far as it can. Some forms like worms and clams for example have only a physical function. Higher mammals also have an emotional life which is why Buddhism refers to it as sentient. However, without the mind capable of consciousness, it has also reached the height of its evolution. Man not only has the physical and emotional abilities but qualities of mind that can begin to receive conscious influences. It is this blend of mind, body, and emotions that allows man the possibility of conscious evolution. But conscious evolution requires re-birth, a change of being from one level of life to another and our habitual life doesn’t want this change. In mechanical earthly life, the idea of the caterpillar changing into a moth is similar but only mechanical so is limited to existence on earth. Man’s re-birth is conscious evolution and the creation of the soul or the completion of man’s evolution which is beyond the confines of the earth.

Here’s another small article. This can become very deep which would be foolish to post at this time.

home.mynewroads.com/~domo/Esoter … ianity.htm

Notice in this sequence leading towards the Kingdom how imagination transforms into attention:

I’m only reading/replying to xanderman… if that doesn’t bother anybody, I’m going to stick with that… I hope you are enjoying your discussions…

just to get maybe a stupid question out of the way… do you think the soul/spirit lives on after the physical body dies… or is this a different kind of soul/spirit?

What took them so long? No thinkers? Too busy working? What is “acceptable” society?

How is it different from the subconscious? (To me, it is different in that, Freud said we have no access to the subconscious – doesn’t mean he was right, though – do you see any other differences?)

Hmmm… maybe I’m not clear on what you mean by stimulus/response… but… I see this as stimulus: “It announced itself with the symptom” and this as response: “everyone searching for it.”

I was thinking something more along the lines of collective consciousness, otherwise known as the objective psyche (without reference to ‘images’). I don’t really buy the archetypical stuff – especially the anima/animus crud… but it could be an ego-defensive reaction, lol :laughing:

First I want to try an act of disambiguation. Soul and Spirit are different powers. Althought they influence each other, they are also distinct from each other. Please see the Spirit threadfor a fuller discussion on Spirit itself.

I am not certain if Soul continues after the body stops functioning. While Spirit certinaly does continue.

Historical events that contributed to the obscuring of this view of Soul include: “the battle to maintain Christian psychology against that of polytheistic antiquity.”

Acceptable soceity in the 1900s was the same society that considers itself civilized while other cultures that were quite different were considered “primative.”

Actually Freud said we did have access, calling dreams the “royal road to a knowledge of the unconscious activities of the mind.” Soul takes this beyond the region of mind, into its own space. Soul is beyond the mind and also beyond the perspective of epiphenomenalism in which the whole mind is a product of the physical brain. Soul is a power not just of human beings but of everything.

That is not quite what I meant. I meant that this power of relection take a person beyond the mechanical limits of responding automatically to stimulus from the environment. We can pause and use the power of reflection. One need not return hate for hate, or harm for harm.

I had not heard the term but I did a quick search and here is one of the key points I turned up:

The term objective psyche may describe the space but the contents of the space are still the archetypal images. The objective psyche without images would just be empty.

Xanderman wrote:

So, under these ideas, everything has a soul and therefore the power to reflect? Does he go into what this might entail?

I can easily believe that everything has a soul. Humans, animals, even inanimate things. But, I’ve never been able to put good words to why I believe this. It’s difficult to explain to someone else. Can Hillman do it? And does he discuss what say, a mountain or river, might be able to “do” with a soul? It could reflect, but can it change itself. Could potentially a river decide to move a different way, or change itself in some other fundamental way should it decide to?

A mountain and a river must have a perfect soul, reflecting everything perfectly. They are made up of the same stuff as our soul is, they are simply complete? A mountain plays the role of a mountain, a river plays the role of a river, always flowing downwards, always seeking the lowest ground. This is Truth.

A

I could believe that as well. But, in theory, couldn’t a mountain have an imperfect soul? And what is it about us or other creatures from attaining this? Obviously I think the point is that we might be able to, although much reflection and “work” would need to be done, but it would be possible. So are our souls then perfect when they are formed, or are they flawed from the beginning?

Sorry, I’ll start processing all of this and give thoughts not questions in a bit here. Work’ll make you question stuff. :smiley:

There is a chinese concept that observes nature as ‘the ten thousand things’ coming into being with full potential. There is no ‘other-directed’ influence. Being arrives complete. It is “self-so” and comes into being, matures, and returns without intervention from without. Each and everything is as it is to be. Even humanity has this capacity, but we are also capable of losing sight of our inner nature - that is our struggle. To return to our inner nature.

JT

You say certainly – how can you be certain about the Spirit’s immortality, but not the Soul’s? I saw the Spirit thread shortly after I last replied in this one.

ok about what took them so long… :slight_smile:

hmm… I’m pretty sure Freud said the Id cannot be accessed… it’s been a while, but I thought what he said about dreams was pretty much like saying “you can look, but can’t touch.” Don’t remember if he mentioned lucid dreaming. I am confused about soul being beyond mind. If it is beyond mind, the mind cannot access it. I think I just don’t understand ‘soul’ if anything in the universe can possess it… 'cause when I think of exploring ‘soul’ and when I think of ‘power’ I think of beings with minds…

I see. Well, you mention reflection, I think ‘mind’ and I wonder what’s up with having to call it a ‘soul’ and think that non-persons have soul-power. Only beings with ‘mind’ can reflect and delay response to stimulus.

I had not heard the term but I did a quick search and here is one of the key points I turned up:

Well… what about to a blind person? Is something else meant by ‘images’ than … ‘actual’ images? It’s just not makin’ sense to me… [ edit ] I think of the objective psyche as basically the default settings like basic human needs and stuff and everything contributing to the way we can all “think” – and then after we have our very first experience is when we start processing information… some of it consciously… some gets done below awareness through subconscious processing… that sort of processing that is the same in all of us is what I was thinking with ‘objective psyche’… that ‘hum’ we all have that makes us able to think… I think the only reason we have similar images/myths over the ages is because we are exposed to similar stuff (I mean… as far as anima/animus… we’ve all been exposed to ways of categorizing gender… in cultures where the categories are not so cut-and-dry, the anima/animus thing wouldn’t really make sense… so I think “swallowing” the anima/animus idea is … going with custom… rather than thinking for oneself)… and not because it has been recorded in genetics or something like that. I have heard that part of our ‘programming’ is the reason why babies are attracted to eyes… stuff like that… but… I don’t know.

I am certain of Spirit’s immortality because of what I understand it to be. It is the very source of life itself. It cannot die because it is metaphysical. It is not dependant on any physical system to function. All physical systems break down, but being metaphysical Spirit has no-thing to break.

Soul on the other hand is ambiguous. It is neither physical nor metaphysical. It stands in-between. As such it has aspects of both. So part of soul may be immortal and part of it may be perishable.

I’ll fully admit that I am no expert on the works of Freud.

I was thinking about this on the way to work today. Mind might be the shallow end of Soul. Or Soul might be the deep region of the mind. I disagree with epiphenomenalism ( the idea that mind is completely a product of the physical brain ) which puts me into metaphysical position.

The power of choice is only one of the benefits of having the capacity to reflect.

As for non-persons having a mind, let’s look at that for a moment. Imagine a sleeping man. Does he have a mind? He is unaware and unresponsive. Yet we would not say that he has lost his mind, nor that her lacks a mind. It is not too difficult to judge that he still has a mind. But he is in a special state of mind we call unconsciousness.

Now take this further. Does a tree have a mind? It displays no awareness and no responsivness. So it appears to not experience anything like human waking consciousness. Does it experience something like unconsiousness? Yes. A tree is like a man in the deepest slumber.

It sounds like you are describing information from research into human instinct. That is a facinating area, but it is not the same as this investigation.

We live in an age where the idea of social engineering is still powerful. The idea that society can be restructured through rational analysis and careful planning is looked on with hope. But the rational mind may not be able to reform soceity. In other worse there are powers and patterns that we must honor, or else they will do us a world of mischief and harm.

Ok, so a tree/mountain/river is akin (not the same as) to a sleeping man. This does explain some of that home-y feeling. Like, you always know when you’re home. You and your house have spent so much time that your souls partially reflect each other. But, this also explains how you can have this feeling at places you’ve never been before. Its reflection, its soul is close to what yours is. Just like you can feel a connection to some people, even when they are doing nothing or sleeping. It also explains how you can feel completely wrong in a place as well.

This can also help explain why some people have certain bonds with animals, and vice-versa. Some people are naturally better with animals and other people for that matter then some. This could be partially training, but it could also be that they have a soul which is similar in feeling to that which they are working with. It provides a kind of understanding.

And this combined with the spirit idea from the other thread gives us a complete picture. Very nice.

Dear Skydaemon,

Yes!

I like where you have taken this idea. This is a marvelous way to address resonance. It is not about body relating to body, but about Soul relating to Soul. Reeaching out with Soul to another ensouled being. No matter in what form you encounter Soul, still there is a connection there.

And of course it is not all beautiful, there is the horrific there too. Some places have bad chi, are cursed ground or in some other way provoke Soul tension.

Ah, so when we ‘see’ into the soul of another, human/tree/city whatever, we are really seeing into our own soul. So the knowing of another soul is really a knowing of our own soul or the knowing of our own soul is really a knowing of another’s soul. ‘Know thyself’. If we are so inclined that is. I expect then that the deeper we begin to ‘see’ ourselves the deeper we begin to align or merge with the Soul of the world.

A

[Nice avatar Xander. Very nice.]

Just a slightly different viewpoint, but whether we call it soul or spirit, it seems to me that what we are about is simply being sensitive to the life force in ourselves and others, and celebrating the qi in all. Then again, maybe not. That might be too simple.

JT

I would say that it is both that simple and yet not. Although for the ideas here and in the spirit thread, the soul is separate from the spirit (animating force). But, I do think that it is as simple as finding that sensitivity and understanding in/with the soul and other souls. A simple thing to say, but not easy to accomplish. It is a very difficult task to reflect and realize in this way, yet we do it all the time. We find homes in nature, with other people, and in our own homes. All these places resonate (good word X) with our soul and theirs.

I would say that it is easy to accomplish but hard to achieve, if that makes any sense. (And that’s at least for most people)

Skydaemon writes:

If I may, it can be an accomplishment, but it can’t be acheived. It can’t be a goal, but only an understanding…

I do know what you were driving at, and it made sense. :smiley:

JT

what you guys are talking about reminds me of Zajonc’s ‘repeated exposure’ and how it’s effect generalizes to other similar stimuli…

Well, xanderman… I’ll just focus on a few things here.

‘Unconscious’ (without dreaming) is the same as ‘dead’ and ‘no mind’ and ‘no experiencing’. You can’t experience non-experience. A tree is dead, without mind, like a man in the deepest slumber (without dreaming).

It moves with the rest of the universe. That’s the closest I get to what you seem to be saying. Soul is what you feel of the moving universe. Self-conscious minds experience the moving of the universe – the rest of the universe (including trees and sleeping people) do not. The universe moves… one great big dance hall… yup, got soul. Ok, that’s the snot talking.

I agree. Is it possible to know which powers/patterns are part of the natural way of things, and which are due to … well … ‘repeat exposure’ (training)? I just don’t know about that. Some seem obvious (but perhaps there are natural roots to every little miniscule bit, and we just say ‘unnatural’ as a way of saying ‘immoral’ or ‘‘really makes life hard for me and my loved ones, and that’s not how things are supposed to go’’?)… some not at all obvious.

Aren’t mischief and harm part of the natural powers and patterns? To honor… or not to honor?

I’m really tired and stuff, sorry if that was incoherent.

Within the waters
Is the entire world;
There is nothing in its depths
But reflections of mountains and rivers.
A fish breaks the surface
And then disappears again.
What need is there to borrow
The wind and thunder?

  • Ingen (1592-1673)

A

so do we have a solution yet???

Yes, look deeper. See through, and see through, and see through…