Jump back, way back and lets see if things have changed since 2002. has there been any philosophical attitude changes. We have our own timeline / library here. Its a shame to just let those threads just sit there…I got curious about the history of thought on this forum.
Here is a small nugget of gold from the past:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=138840
We still discuss this but, lets discuss with ghosts of the past mayhap one may come to life. What say you all??
I see my soul as nature and nurture…Its the energy in our brain that makes us who we are.
Just the energy in your brain? I know you’re saying your brain is connected to your past and your context, but you’re still saying there is a particular result - the energy in your brain. As if it’s not always changing, as if how you see yourself isn’t constantly connected to how others see you…
That would be the nurture. Our mental growth and changes are creation of a maturing soul/ evolving soul.
How others see you is nurture? OK, sure. But what you’re saying is that there is no innate essence to people, and this directly contradicts what is traditionally meant by a soul. If a soul isn’t permanent, single, and separate - it’s not a soul. It’s just a judgment regarding identity. It’s an imputation.
Is a soul homogeneous or heterogeneous? In some ancient mythos the soul was believed composed of more than one part. In Egypt the soul consisted of the ka and the ba. The ba was the nonphysical aspect of the human personality; the ka was a spiritual twin, detached from the personality, who shadowed the person throughout his life, and after death was associated with eternal life. In ancient Finnish mythos, the soul was comprised of several parts which (I believe) were released and separated again after death; I can’t remember all the complexities of this ancient belief. I’m curious about the Hindu idea of the soul; is anyone familiar with that? rebecca
You forget I also said nature with nurture. You seem to be stuck on nurture Why?
mel, I am not familiar with Hindu. As we live this
life it evolves past what it was the moment our bodies gain sentient knowledge. Our physical affects our evolution as well as how we live, so that would be two parts in away. Perhaps the thought was there but taught differently?
Hi rebecca,
I can tell you how Hinduism perceives the soul.
The fact of the matter is all major ancient mythologies perceives almost in the same way. There is no difference in Hindusim and Islam. Christianity also talkes in the same manner but the difference with eastern ones is that it is less metaphysically probed, thus looks different on the surface.
Hinduism postulates that human existence is divided in two parts; physical body and soul. The further detail of soul varies in different subsets of Hinduism. Some says that it is just like human body but immortal, while other says that it is further divided in two parts; the body of the soul and eternal consciousness. They consider this eternal consciousness is the root cause of this whole cosmos; eternity.
with love,
sanjay
I think you’re misunderstanding me, Kris. Let’s put it this way - what is the difference, to you, between the soul and the personality? Is there some fundamental difference, or do those words mean something very similar?
The ‘I’ knows that this body is going to drop dead as others do, it is a frightening situation and it does not want to come to an end. So it creates the belief that there must be something beyond, it projects an afterlife, immortality of soul, God and so on. The problem is not whether there is a soul, whether there is a center, whether there is a God or not; it is fear operating as belief, that is passed on from generation to generation. It is this knowledge that makes us think that there must be something beyond and even experience it. Iow, ideas of a soul and life after death are born out of the demand for permanence. That is the foundation of man’s religious thinking: the demand for permanence.
Actually science has already proven in a way that we do not just cease to exist.
Just off the top of my head, I would say that one of the differences would be Ego.
I don’t see “soul” as having ego, whereas one’s personality has ego consciousness.
Stillness is to the soul as movement is to the personality.
Would that make ‘my soul’ oxymoronic? And what would ‘soul’ actually refer to? I mean, you’re characterizing it but not defining it.
The soul at least to me is distinct from the personality.
But to use the terminology of soul personality would not be an oxymoron to me - if anything, it might point to sameness in a way.
I would say that still movement is an oxymoron.
I think the only way that you can eventually define something is by characterizing it…by perceiving and intuiting its nature and its qualities…what it MAY BE and what it MAY NOT BE…and that something else in between.
And then you have to put it into its proper category…shoe, music, dance, eternity…
But Arc, you’re presupposing ‘it’. It’s a huge leap from an experience of stillness, to ‘soul’. If you’re going to defend ‘soul’ you have to define what it is. You can’t just say it’s characterized by stillness, or lack of ego. Windless lakes are still. Mailboxes lack ego.
Aah! Yep I did misunderstand anon
I see soul and personality as the same. Or rather one being.
Your experiencing structure cannot conceive of any event that it will not experience. It even expects to preside over its own dissolution, and so it wonders what death will feel like, it tries to project the feeling of what it will be like not to feel. But in order to anticipate a future experience, your structure needs knowledge, a similar past experience it can call upon for reference. You cannot remember what it felt like not to exist before you were born, and you cannot remember your own birth, so you have no basis for projecting your future non-existence.
That is irrelevant as science proves we go on.
what is it that you think reincarnates? … if that’s what you’re talking about.