|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Those who remember my "Alternative Challenges to Evolutionary Theories of Origins" thread - which got deleted after about 432 pages - should know that I never walk away from a thread due to fear of losing an argument...
Any thoughtful person can reflect on the many different bodies (beginning from our baby body) that we have gone through during this one lifetime. Although the material body is always changing, we generally realize that our essential identity has never changed - we know that we have always been the same person throughout different stages of bodily development and decline.
The theistic position (I'm in agreement with) is that our individual consciousness is a symptom of our spirit-soul ,which is an atomic particle of the totally conscious Original Person, who is the source of everyone and everything...
When consciousness is absorbed in the bodily concept of life, one is prone to identify one's self entirely with the current gross (and subtle) body - even if we lose all our limbs and get heart transplants. And - for those who insist that the brain is the source of our individual consciousness - what about brain transplants? Would the original person be replaced by the person who donated the brain - or would the consciousness of the person who received the new brain somehow operate the new brain (as if it were an extremely complex machine). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_transplant
The theistic goal is to transcend the evolutionary cycle of repeated birth and death, spirit-souls transmigrating throughout all the different species of life within the material universes, until we ultimately purify our consciousness and return to the self-luminous, infinitely variegated spiritual universe, reclaiming our original God-like bodies - which are not subject to birth, old age, disease, or death. Descriptions of that realm attractively portray it as a kind of immense repertory theater with singing, dancing and never-ending pleasure pastimes harmoniously performed in association with other liberated souls, including the Supreme Soul...
Anyway, for those who may be interested, the basics of reincarnation (from Vedic and other points of view) can be found here:
http://www.harekrishna.com/col/books/KR/cb/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2014 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Damn, I wish I had a joint right now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Otus
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Is your atomic particle material? If so, I can't really distinguish your position from a hardcore materialistic one. If not, then is it a neutral Spinozian monad similar to what Russell and Whitehead had in mind? Or is it a full on positive Liebnizian monad? Or is it something else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
Playing these types of games should start with the phrase
Wouldn't it be cool if... |
The rhetorical problem there is that I don't think it would be cool. Endless reincarnation would be pretty horrifying, actually. So horrifying that historically, people who have accepted it as a base assumption have tried to come up with a solution to it. Even genuine immortality seems like it would be of ambiguous value at best. Endless existence coupled with constant obliteration of the mind and rebirth into other circumstances with no end in sight? You can't even come to terms with such a plight, because any mindset you achieved which was capable of coming to terms with it will be wiped away with your next death. Give me, "When you're dead, you're dead," over that any day. |
Quite right.
And given that most of these 'fantasies' were made up long ago...we can rather pedantically dismiss them as 'uncool'. And why not? Most archaic systems have been replaced with 'better' ones.
So...'when you're dead, your dead" is only 'cooler' than those other uncool ones.
How about coming up with something cool? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| How about coming up with something cool? |
As an uncool person who, in an uncool fashion, admonishes people to defy the very concept of coolness, I'm afraid I can't help you with that. But maybe Albert Camus, coolest of all philosophers, can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
Playing these types of games should start with the phrase
Wouldn't it be cool if... |
The rhetorical problem there is that I don't think it would be cool. Endless reincarnation would be pretty horrifying, actually. So horrifying that historically, people who have accepted it as a base assumption have tried to come up with a solution to it. Even genuine immortality seems like it would be of ambiguous value at best. Endless existence coupled with constant obliteration of the mind and rebirth into other circumstances with no end in sight? You can't even come to terms with such a plight, because any mindset you achieved which was capable of coming to terms with it will be wiped away with your next death. Give me, "When you're dead, you're dead," over that any day. |
I think endless reincarnation would be fine as long as we could never conclusively establish that we were being endlessly reincarnated. Which is just as it is.
Nonetheless, I think there's a book that agrees with you called "The Unbearable Lightness of Being." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| "When you're dead you're dead" is not cool because it is derived from the false egoistic idea that the gross material body is the only real "you"... |
I don't think that's necessarily true. One can differentiate between oneself and one's body while still not accepting life after death. I differentiate between dancers and their dance, yet absent the dancers, the dance is not there. Indeed, if we thought the "gross material body" were the only real "us," then we'd still consider ourselves present after death, as the body is still clearly there. Yet we don't consider ourselves still present, so that's clearly not what's going on.
Part of the problem with Rteacher's worldview is the way in which it took incredibly unsophisticated ideas and polished them with the utmost sophistication. You've got a huge corpus of poetry, complex metaphysical speculation, and ethical mandate, all trying to justify "a kind of immense repertory theater with singing, dancing and never-ending pleasure pastimes harmoniously performed in association with other liberated souls, including the Supreme Soul..." Participation in an endless cosmic musical as the ultimate reward?
| Rteacher wrote: |
| in Sankskrit (arguably the most sophisticated and scientific language) |
I can't let you get away with this one. Sanskrit is sophisticated, but there's nothing scientific about it. It's absurd when Koreans talk about Hangeul as a "scientific alphabet," and it's outright anachronistic when Indophiles talk about Sanskrit as a "scientific language." Yes, I'm aware of that "research" paper (an op-ed piece disguised as research, really) that suggests Sanskrit as a computer language. I'm also aware of exactly how much progress has been made towards that end: effectively zero. Indeed, what people forget is that part of the sophistication of Sanskrit lies in its ability to phrase things ambiguously; to write sentences which are open to multiple interpretations. In short, exactly the kind of thing with which a computer would struggle. Sanskrit is beautiful, I appreciate the impressiveness of Panini's grammatical work, and I've even toyed with putting in the immense effort of learning it, but there's nothing uniquely "scientific" about it.
| Rteacher wrote: |
| And dismissing out of hand because they are too old is decidedly not cool and smacks of cultural ageism... |
Well, I'm hesitant to embrace terms like "ageism," being as they are little more than a linguistic fad reflective of cultural dysfunction, but it's certainly the case that an idea being old has no impact on its truth value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
I think endless reincarnation would be fine as long as we could never conclusively establish that we were being endlessly reincarnated. Which is just as it is. |
I suppose, but mandatory ignorance for the sake of one's own well being would be a pretty horrible state of affairs in its own right. A world so terrible that not realizing how terrible it is can be counted as a blessing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smithington
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| We are playing a thought game. |
Really? I thought we were discussing the nature of reality. You seem to be alone in your idea that we're just playing about here. Whether or not reincarnation is true goes to the very heart of the nature of existence. It's a pretty important matter. However, if we are just engaging in a thought game then that's a different matter. So long as we know that, and are just having a bit of intellectual fun. But I doubt RTeacher and others would agree with that take on the discussion. I suggest you go back to page one and follow the discussion more carefully. Read slower if you want, out loud even. Perhaps ask a friend what the bigger words mean. Then, if you feel you've something to contribute beyond insults, please carry on. We look forward to your contribution. Otherwise, maybe there's a thread about the Kardashians or Beyonce that you can contribute to.
Last edited by Smithington on Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
I think endless reincarnation would be fine as long as we could never conclusively establish that we were being endlessly reincarnated. Which is just as it is. |
I suppose, but mandatory ignorance for the sake of one's own well being would be a pretty horrible state of affairs in its own right. A world so terrible that not realizing how terrible it is can be counted as a blessing? |
Prometheus's blessing, I would say. Forgetful reincarnation or the long sleep, either way human consciousness is bounded within the realm or scope in which it can remain sane.
As for the world being wonderful or terrible, well, doesn't that depend? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Smithington wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| We are playing a thought game. |
Really? I thought we were discussing the nature of reality. You seem to be alone in your idea that we're just playing about here. Whether or not reincarnation is true goes to the very heart of the nature of existence. It's a pretty important matter. However, if we are just engaging in a thought game then that's a different matter. So long as we know that, and are just having a bit of intellectual fun. But I doubt RTeacher and others would agree with that take on the discussion. I suggest you go back to page one and follow the discussion more carefully. Read slower if you want, out loud even. Perhaps ask a friend what the bigger words mean. Then, if you feel you've something to contribute beyond insults, please carry on. We look forward to your contribution. Otherwise, maybe there's a thread about the Kardashians or Beyonce that you can contribute to. |
You cannot back up your condescension with anything solid.
| Quote: |
Learn the difference between something being hypothetically "possible" and it being "likely." From what we have learned about the world, and ourselves, over the past century reincarnation (or any other form of after-death consciousness) is unlikely in the extreme.
It's "possible" that if I look out my window after posting this I'll see a purple monkey fly past. Is it possible? Yes. It being "likely" is a different matter altogether.
Logic 101.
Enough with this bronze-age nonsense. |
Yeah, how exactly are you going to evaluate the likelihood of reincarnation? Practice the scientific method on reincarnation.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To come to the conclusion that my consciousness once inhabited another body in the past, and will inhabit another once I'm dead, we have to make a whole lot of unwarranted assumptions - that my consciousness and my body are somehow separate. That there is a mechanism in place that transfers my consciousness from body to body and that it doesn't just randomly do so. That there is somewhere out there a consciousness engine that is producing new consciousnesses for new people since there are now more than ever before. It pretty much requires a god.
It's much easier if we just assume that consciousness is the product of brain function and it's gone when you're gone since we don't need all those hypothetical mechanisms for transferring and generating consciousnesses to come to this conclusion.
Ergo, until I see actual, physical evidence of reincarnation, I'm not believing in reincarnation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
To come to the conclusion that my consciousness once inhabited another body in the past, and will inhabit another once I'm dead, we have to make a whole lot of unwarranted assumptions - that my consciousness and my body are somehow separate. That there is a mechanism in place that transfers my consciousness from body to body and that it doesn't just randomly do so. That there is somewhere out there a consciousness engine that is producing new consciousnesses for new people since there are now more than ever before. It pretty much requires a god.
It's much easier if we just assume that consciousness is the product of brain function and it's gone when you're gone since we don't need all those hypothetical mechanisms for transferring and generating consciousnesses to come to this conclusion.
Ergo, until I see actual, physical evidence of reincarnation, I'm not believing in reincarnation. |
God might be found within us, that's the easy part. Some of the other obstacles require a bit more than what Occum's Razor might permit.
Nonetheless,
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/magic-mushroom-brain/
| Quote: |
| “The big question in neuroscience is where consciousness comes from,” Petri said. For now, he said, “We don’t know.” |
Embrace the mystery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nano
Joined: 09 Feb 2013
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't frequent the Korean forum but somehow stumbled upon this thread and would like to make a contribution.
I would like to encourage everyone to practice Vipassana meditation. Humanity has been trying to look for the answers to the big questions for centuries but collectively have not looked in one place: within. The truth of this universe cannot be learned from books, limited materialistic science, human logic/reasoning/rationale because all of these discoveries are just mirrors of the observers internal reality. The truth isn't found through "evidence", religion, intellectualism, belief systems or assuming that what we see is all there is and trying to form some type of cause/effect relationship between it all. When you get better at Vipassana, you will fall into states where you have silenced the mind and all that remains is consciousness. But here is the thing, if consciousness was nothing but a physical part of your brain, you wouldn't be able to be conscious of it because in a physical reality, you cannot see your frame of reference from your frame of reference. For example you have eyes which see the external world, but you can't have your eyes see your own eyes. With consciousness, the observer and observed are the same, thereby proving its non-objectivity.
Soul reincarnation does exist. A soul is a fragment of universal energy. The same unlimited energy which creates every material object. So from one perspective a soul exists, but from another it doesn't because a soul is inseparable from the rest of the universes energy. So for those that question reincarnation because of the increasing population, it is because there are infinitely many souls. You have a soul, the air you breathe has a soul, the laptop you're on has a soul. Energy is aware and alive. We are multidimensional because we exist on different levels: Energetic (soul, i.e. energy prior to big bang), emotional, mental, and physical. Every single material object exists on these planes; inseparable. The physical body, is the mental body, is the emotional body, is the soul. Our nervous systems are sophisticated antennas which communicate through these different levels. and translate them into a physical expression.
Everything we see physically was first created mentally. We all share the same mind but our nervous system/brain are calibrated differently to receive different thoughts and information. The mind created the body and the environment that surrounds it. Our external physical reality which seems static and solid is actually an illusion and is just the by product of which ever thoughts we allowed to materialize from the infinitely large archive we call the mind.
The world we live in is a hologram which projects our internal reality outward in order for us to learn and expand from. So for those that doubt anything "spiritual" or "supernatural" you will have many explanations and reasons as to why it's all non sense. Likewise for someone who believes in Christianity, they will always find reasons why it's the "right" religion. Truth is found when you detach from ALL belief systems, ideas, etc through Vipassana and self-acceptance so that what remains is nothing but the truth. Our current scientific model is becoming inefficient because the universe does not operate according to cause/effect, linearity, greater than/less than or human logic. Logic is not static and is just one way to perceive the world in a mechanistic sense. Advancement does not come from being more intellectual/rational, all that comes from that is an increase in narcissism, the need to be "right" and talking down to others because you think they are stupid. This is currently a problem with those that practically worship science. Everyone wants to flex their ego and show off how smart they are by reading and regurgitating information as if it's the infallible truth. Everyone has their own "scientific evidence" to support their own worldview. Everyone wants to look cool by always siding with science in everything because scientists are put on a pedestal and idolized for their intellect and power. Science/technology has created great advancements using this method but have also created some of the worst ecological disasters. Science which complements nature is acquired as the collective consciousness increases; not by intellect alone.
For all that I've said I don't want anyone to believe anything I said. The truth you must realize it yourself when you start to look within. Simply believing what I said because it matches your worldview or it makes sense to you is not the same as discovering it yourself. The absolute truth cannot be spoken about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
