I have been researching the topic of soulmates for a while. After combining models of psychology and various spiritual study I came to the following diagram which should represent the human’s connection with the devine. I have published it in more detail on my site in my signature under Love tips/finding a soulmate. Summarizing in brief in as close as I can to a tabular format here is my breakdown of each individual.
I think we recognize soulmates through our spiritual connection i.e. the astral plane which we live in along with the earthly plane during our regular life and return to after we die on earth. The Universe eyeing through us consolidates everything within it by the celestial to which we try to connect through various means such as religion, spiritual study etc. The other way to connect to the spiritual planes is through sexuality by a combination of two energies rising to the Celestial as being one, becoming I.
roll 2 die onto the map and then go left the number on the die with 1, and right with the other, and then look for people with the street address of the dies multiplied by the letters in the word
Although only a summary of your analysis, I find it riddled with unexamined explicit assumptions and an odd mix of pseudo-science, science (noted by the use of the word “psychology”), religion (noted by te use of words like “soul”), and “new-age” mysticism.
The first question that comes to mind is why must a soul mate exist, and is the question scientific, religious, philosophical, or nonsense. I add the last part in the spirit of critical analysis for any analysis. If the question is in more than one category, then please state the questions that go towards those categories, and then you analysis thereof.
Unexamined explicit assumptions
Here is a short list of some concepts related to some of your unexamined explicit assumptions: Soul, spirit, astral plane, astral body, celestial plane, soul mates, reincarnation, and the link suggested in this line “The other way to connect to the spiritual planes is through sexuality by a combination of two energies rising to the Celestial as being one, becoming I.”
The existance of many of these entities are not universally accepted, let alone the relationships you try to use, outside of the “new-age” community. As you may not have noticed, the ILP boards is not part of the new-age community (although some members like yourself may be). Thus each and every concept listed above, and any purported relationship, must be examined from a philosophically rigorous point of view, as this is a philosophical discusion board.
Thanks mystyc for your assumption that all philosophy is based on science and that which does not fall with the parameters of such science is pseudo. The last time I checked the definition for philosophy on dictionary.com and Websters it said “Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline” as the No.1 definition and “investigation of nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods” in No. 2. Note the last portion “rather than empirical methods” in no. 2. This means that philosophy is not the field of science alone.
Having said the above, I still did not get what you intended to say about the above analysis from a more broader perspective than that it could be related to “new age.” All knowledge is related to other knowledge in one way or another. How many fields of study arise out of your body behind which Universities spends billions for research? Does it mean that simply because one field might not be widely discussed from one perpective, you believe it does not deserve “investigation of nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning”?
What if that which seems an assumption to you is a reality to millions of people who look at it from another angle? I still would appreciate if you could elaborate on why you think it is an assumption. What have you observed in your “investigations” and “reasonings” that imply this is not a reality, or if it is a reality, in what way it could more accurately represent your idea of reality?
This isn’t meant to be a smart comment, it’s serious. If you have to ask that question, they aren’t your soulmate. If they are, you will know, without words or philosophical analyisis…
Well if anything science is psedo-philosophy. Because it contains a overly ambitious set of assumtions. But certianly something that is less stringent than science is not going to be philosophy. At least not analytic philosophy. Maybe your a continental.
True. It does not, however, mean that one can simply invent concepts off the cuff and expect people to accept them as valid.
Then it is an assumption. If you cannot prove it instantly it is an assumption, no matter how much it might be part of some habitual ontology.
The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the validity of the model suggested, indeed I want to know why you conceive of people as individuals rather than parts of a collective. There’s another assumption for you to try and validate.