A quick thought about existential reincarnation

[Attila]

A quick thought about existential reincarnation

Rebirth is when your ‘reality’ continues but not anything that you would describe it by e.g. personality, self, inner self and any transient describable natures. As there is only one reality [Buddha being or in druidry ‘caugant’ [divine infinite]] then there is no rebirth of the individual just many expression [including births] of that oneness, so in short the individual is not born again.

On the other hand I have been wondering lately about ‘physical’ reincarnation/transmigration; that information about you connects you to the next form or birth and within the context of universe.
Information ‘exists’ in a single space [does not occupy a volume like objects do], as does infinity [has no x,y,z, spatial locations], hence there is no effort or journey between incarnations but a direct connection.

With this explanation there is no need for other worlds ~ even though I still think they exist. Even the universe itself is cyclic and hence reincarnates, most probably from objects taking instruction from the information background. There is I feel a point between universes where objects don’t exist, and that ‘philosophical space’ or caugant is a fundamental aspect of universe, an eternal one could say. It is by this that all life reincarnates and/or transmigrates to another perhaps higher form.

[Explorer]

I can think of no evolutionary or natural reason for reincarnation. On the contrary, evolution seems to be wired for change and diversity. Death is part of that flow. The mechanism to continue physical life is sex. We reincarnated into our offspring, we are reincarnations of our ancestors.
And just like the building blocks of our bodies (the heavier elements) originate in exploded stars, so will those building blocks continue to be part of this planet, both in living and lifeless things. That is good enough for me.

If reincarnation of our mental existance would exist, despite the apparent evolutionary uselessness of it, we would all clearly remember things from our past lives, and not just the people with abundant imagination. The only thing that seems to come close to that sort of reincarnation, IMHO, is our human ability to store our thoughts and feelings in the memories of others, or in the environment in the form of monuments, cave art, books etc.

[cat]

I've been struggling with the concept of reincarnation for some time.

I agree with Explorer about ideas being passed on ect.

One thing if find really hard to deal with with reincarnation is where are all the extras coming from ?
is there sex on another plain as if not the maths doesn't add up.

I know this sounds odd but if there are a limited amount of 'spirits'( lets say) and the population is increasing here what is happening to fill the gap so to speak.Or is that a i don't know will never know type of question.

Personally and I guess it sounds a bit odd the nearest I can get to understanding (that might not be the best word to use here but i can't think of an appropriate one) reincarnation is the carbon cycle I guess this sorta sits ok with me with in Druidry but I've no idea what others think on it.

Dejavu is another example past life recall that is used to explain earlier experiences. I'm a skeptic on such things where the explanation is you have experienced it in another time/life.


I guess every time we learn some thing or interact in some way we are reborn (eek this is getting a bit Dr who ish)



i know they exist as a human experience but the explanation of them seem to depend on who you are asking.

I do know that the human mind is very powerful and also open to suggestion . I've experienced this through depression and the use of psychology be it in sport or therapy.

[Explorer]

Personally and I guess it sounds a bit odd the nearest I can get to understanding (that might not be the best word to use here but i can't think of an appropriate one) reincarnation is the carbon cycle I guess this sorta sits ok with me with in Druidry but I've no idea what others think on it.

yep, I agree. That is at least a form of reincarnation that we know about.
I don't know about other forms, and I don't trust people who say that they do but can't prove it.

I guess every time we learn some thing or interact in some way we are reborn (eek this is getting a bit Dr who ish)

It can be worse. Some people think that every new interaction leads to a new parallel universe. (my god, think of the bandwidth and storage capacity that requires ).

i know they exist as a human experience but the explanation of them seem to depend on who you are asking.

Exactly!
And each explanation has tons of assumptions, interpretations and misinterpretations behind it. And they are probably all wrong and incomplete also.
The Big Trick, IMHO, is to ignore all the explananations and simply keep it undefined.
That might be the best way to keep the mind open to Mystery, and the experiences and insights that go with it.

[DaRC]

I guess every time we learn some thing or interact in some way we are reborn (eek this is getting a bit Dr who ish)

It can be worse. Some people think that every new interaction leads to a new parallel universe. (my god, think of the bandwidth and storage capacity that requires ).

I have one word to explain all that...infinity

[DJ Droood]

I guess every time we learn some thing or interact in some way we are reborn (eek this is getting a bit Dr who ish)

It can be worse. Some people think that every new interaction leads to a new parallel universe. (my god, think of the bandwidth and storage capacity that requires ).

I have one word to explain all that...infinity

it is only 9:10 am and my mind is already blown, man!

[cat]

yup! infinty apparently carbon can't be destroyed only transformed!

cat wrote:
I guess every time we learn some thing or interact in some way we are reborn (eek this is getting a bit Dr who ish)

Explorer wrote:

It can be worse. Some people think that every new interaction leads to a new parallel universe. (my god, think of the bandwidth and storage capacity that requires ).

DaRC wrote:

I have one word to explain all that...infinity

That reminds me of 'Terry Pratchett ' trousers of time.

nicked from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_history

Terry Pratchett's works include several references to alternate histories of Discworld. Men At Arms observes that in millions of universes, Edward d'Eath became an obsessive recluse rather than the instigator of the plot that he is in the novel. In Jingo, Vimes accidentally picks up a pocket organizer that should have gone down another leg of the Trousers of Time, and so can hear the organizer reporting on the deaths that would have occurred had his decision gone otherwise. Indeed, Discworld contains an equivalent of the Time Patrol in its History Monks. Night Watch revolves around a repair of history after a time traveler's murder of an important figure in Vimes's past. Thief of Time presents them functioning as a full-scale Time Patrol, ensuring that history occurs at all.

ps hows this layered quotes thing work?

[Red Raven]

If reincarnation of our mental existance would exist, despite the apparent evolutionary uselessness of it, we would all clearly remember things from our past lives, and not just the people with abundant imagination.

Is it possible that mental existence could be present without the individualistic self identity you appear to be instrinsicly linking it to? Therefore evolution may be nothing more than a process for the creation of ever more complex mental environments?

The only thing that seems to come close to that sort of reincarnation, IMHO, is our human ability to store our thoughts and feelings in the memories of others, or in the environment in the form of monuments, cave art, books etc.

Using Atilla's analogy, reincarnation may be derived from the information background which has developed from numerous contributors, therefore, using evolutionary principles, the next incarnation develops using evolved background information contributed to by it's ancestors (mental DNA?). And if the background information is key to the establishment of self identity of a current incarnation, the information it receives cannot be the same as "past lives" because that information is not the same as previously, which may go some way to explaining why a consistent self identity is not "carried forward" through time. The self identity of an individual therefore being specific to the environment of background information it receives in it's particular life span.

RR

[Explorer]

If reincarnation of our mental existance would exist, despite the apparent evolutionary uselessness of it, we would all clearly remember things from our past lives, and not just the people with abundant imagination.

Is it possible that mental existence could be present without the individualistic self identity you appear to be instrinsicly linking it to? Therefore evolution may be nothing more than a process for the creation of ever more complex mental environments?

Possible, but unlikely.
It is also possible that everything started with a big blue blob, and that evolution is nothing more that the receding of blue, allowing other colors to emerge. But that is unlikely also.

What is wrong with simply following the evidence that suggests that we are physical lifeforms in a physical world, with a complex organ in our heads that makes it possible to think, plan and imagine our way though life? Why make that bigger than the evidence suggests? Isn't using your imagination to create imaginary realities a bit like trying to lift yourself up by the shoelaces?

The only thing that seems to come close to that sort of reincarnation, IMHO, is our human ability to store our thoughts and feelings in the memories of others, or in the environment in the form of monuments, cave art, books etc.

Using Atilla's analogy, reincarnation may be derived from the information background which has developed from numerous contributors, therefore, using evolutionary principles, the next incarnation develops using evolved background information contributed to by it's ancestors (mental DNA?). And if the background information is key to the establishment of self identity of a current incarnation, the information it receives cannot be the same as "past lives" because that information is not the same as previously, which may go some way to explaining why a consistent self identity is not "carried forward" through time. The self identity of an individual therefore being specific to the environment of background information it receives in it's particular life span.

RR

But why the need for imaginary 'mental DNA' when we already have provable physical DNA to pass on information from previous lives (of your ancestors).

Could it be that you work your way backwards?
Like centuries of religious doctrine left the idea embedded in our society that there is something like 'soul'. Not because anybody had any evidence to support that idea, but simply because they said so in a holy book about gods, angels and other invisible frieds and foes. And if there is a soul, then it must go somewhere, then there must be afterlife, reincarnation, etc, etc.

But what if nothing of the sort exists? Nobody has found any evidence for it.
We have discovered many miracles and uncovered many mysteries. Atoms, DNA, black holes, the intricate complexities and reprocity of nature. We can even trace our roots back through our 'previous lives' by tracing genes. We can do more 'magic' than any of the ancients could ever imagine. Encoding our thoughts and emotions in symbols, sending them across the world in a second for others to decode. WIth our magical language of math we can even describe multidimensional realities that can not be imagined. We can prolong life, revive extinct organisms, we can even create artificial life. These are miracles! And the complexity of Life and reproduction is the biggest miracle of all. Isn't that enough?

We looked so hard and deep that we can now do what people thought gods did. But in the process, we found no gods, no soul, no heaven, no supernatural entities.
So the guys who wrote those old books were obvously wrong, that can happen. And it is logical, because they didn't have the resources that we have.
Why is that so hard to accept? Only because you can't prove something that doesn't exist, people keep looking for it, I find that fascinating. (and a bit disturbing)

I also think that real understanding lies beyond accepting that some stuff is simply not true, even if you believed in it for your entire life.
Heh, perhaps I'm wrong, but I won't remember it in my next incarnation.

[Red Raven]

Possible, but unlikely.

Possible is enough for me.

It is also possible that everything started with a big blue blob, and that evolution is nothing more that the receding of blue, allowing other colors to emerge. But that is unlikely also.

I would have hoped that this type of condescending attitude was beyond this forum. If my posts appear to be ill informed then I don't really appreciate a school lecturing type of scolding. Like I say, I expect better, maybe my expections of this place are misplaced. Finding intelligent discourse is getting increasingly difficult nowadays.

What is wrong with simply following the evidence that suggests that we are physical lifeforms in a physical world, with a complex organ in our heads that makes it possible to think, plan and imagine our way though life? Why make that bigger than the evidence suggests? Isn't using your imagination to create imaginary realities a bit like trying to lift yourself up by the shoelaces?

Bigger? If it's part of reality, much like probability waves are speculated to be or the higgs particle existence, then how can you ignore it? Or is that the point, maybe we shouldn't be looking?

But why the need for imaginary 'mental DNA' when we already have provable physical DNA to pass on information from previous lives (of your ancestors).

Could it be that you work your way backwards?
Like centuries of religious doctrine left the idea embedded in our society that there is something like 'soul'. Not because anybody had any evidence to support that idea, but simply because they said so in a holy book about gods, angels and other invisible frieds and foes. And if there is a soul, then it must go somewhere, then there must be afterlife, reincarnation, etc, etc.

As usual, depends on what you are willing to concede is evidence as such.

But what if nothing of the sort exists? Nobody has found any evidence for it.
We have discovered many miracles and uncovered many mysteries. Atoms, DNA, black holes, the intricate complexities and reprocity of nature. We can even trace our roots back through our 'previous lives' by tracing genes. We can do more 'magic' than any of the ancients could ever imagine. Encoding our thoughts and emotions in symbols, sending them across the world in a second for others to decode. WIth our magical language of math we can even describe multidimensional realities that can not be imagined. We can prolong life, revive extinct organisms, we can even create artificial life. These are miracles! And the complexity of Life and reproduction is the biggest miracle of all. Isn't that enough?

Is it in the nature of humanity to sit back and say "we have enough now, everyone stop!"? When the next technological leap is made (no doubt on the back of someone's "imagination") therefore we should reject it and announce our contentment at how far we have come?

We looked so hard and deep that we can now do what people thought gods did. But in the process, we found no gods, no soul, no heaven, no supernatural entities.
So the guys who wrote those old books were obvously wrong, that can happen. And it is logical, because they didn't have the resources that we have.
Why is that so hard to accept? Only because you can't prove something that doesn't exist, people keep looking for it, I find that fascinating. (and a bit disturbing)

Just like many a (belatedly) celebrated scientist when told such a thing could not exist, stuck with the courage of their convictions, maybe we should sucumb to the better "wisdom" of our peers perhaps? Don't rock the boat?

I also think that real understanding lies beyond accepting that some stuff is simply not true, even if you believed in it for your entire life.

And sometimes it is neccessary to find this out the hard way for the lesson to be learned.

RR

[Explorer]

It is also possible that everything started with a big blue blob, and that evolution is nothing more that the receding of blue, allowing other colors to emerge. But that is unlikely also.

I would have hoped that this type of condescending attitude was beyond this forum. If my posts appear to be ill informed then I don't really appreciate a school lecturing type of scolding. Like I say, I expect better, maybe my expections of this place are misplaced. Finding intelligent discourse is getting increasingly difficult nowadays.

Perhaps you misunderstood my intention then.
I was simply taking a step back and showing you how it looks from where I stand.
And from where I stand it looks just as strange as somebody saying that he believes that 'Big Blue Blobs' are the origin of everything.

I don't think that you realise that not everybody thinks that it is absolutely normal to believe in stuff like reincarnation, gods and afterlife.
And in the very least you can expect some opposition if you post idea's that others find absurd. This is a discussion board after all isn't it?

We've come far in other fields, like our physical understanding and exploration of life and the universe. Isn't it time to also adapt our spirituality to modern times?
Instead of choosing the same path of superstition, impossibilities and fairy tales. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the real wonder and miracles that we see everywhere around us?
I am a druid also, I am in awe of life, I celebrate the passing of seasons, the cycles of life. And I investigate and defend truth, which is why I respond to idea's that I regard as leading away from truth..

I also think that real understanding lies beyond accepting that some stuff is simply not true, even if you believed in it for your entire life.

And sometimes it is neccessary to find this out the hard way for the lesson to be learned.

Indeed. Do you dare to question?

[Red Raven]

Perhaps you misunderstood my intention then.
I was simply taking a step back and showing you how it looks from where I stand.
And from where I stand it looks just as strange as somebody saying that he believes that 'Big Blue Blobs' are the origin of everything.

To me, it appeared to be trying to establish a baseline that suggested my understanding of such a thing was woefully inadequate and you were bringing yourself down to my level, for the sake of further discussion. If this is not the case then I am prepared to accept that.

I don't think that you realise that not everybody thinks that it is absolutely normal to believe in stuff like reincarnation, gods and afterlife.
And in the very least you can expect some opposition if you post idea's that others find absurd. This is a discussion board after all isn't it?

I have started to frequent this forum again for that very purpose, I welcome opposition as it presents the opportunity to develop further (when done in a mutally agreed structured framework).

We've come far in other fields, like our physical understanding and exploration of life and the universe. Isn't it time to also adapt our spirituality to modern times?

Something that I am actively engaged with myself at this time. I just don't experience the divide between scientific frameworks and spiritual ones that people working in the scientific field impose on themselves (and I understand the very good reasons why this is neccessarily the case for those people). In fact, in my own developing framework, one actively engages with the other.

Instead of choosing the same path of superstition, impossibilities and fairy tales. Wouldn't it be better to focus on the real wonder and miracles that we see everywhere around us?

Where exactly is superstiton and fairy tales mentioned in this thread? It is my experience that whenever the scientific mindset is questioned, the "default" position of "it's all superstition and fairy tales" emerges. I did not take a position of associating this thread with said position, I thought the basic premise was interesting and worth discussion, supernatural entities and folklore don't appear to me to be part of what is required in this discussion.

I am a druid also, I am in awe of life, I celebrate the passing of seasons, the cycles of life. And I investigate and defend truth, which is why I respond to idea's that I regard as leading away from truth..

Though there is a viewpoint that says truth is entirely subjective.

And sometimes it is neccessary to find this out the hard way for the lesson to be learned.

Indeed. Do you dare to question?

All the time, sometimes to the point of annoyance.

RR

[Explorer]

Something that I am actively engaged with myself at this time. I just don't experience the divide between scientific frameworks and spiritual ones that people working in the scientific field impose on themselves (and I understand the very good reasons why this is neccessarily the case for those people). In fact, in my own developing framework, one actively engages with the other.

Ah, there we may have some common ground then.
Although I usually view this from the opposite perspective. I often see 'spiritual' people making that divide between spirituality and science. Claiming knowledge about all kinds of supernatural phenomena, and then offhandedly saying 'but it can't be proved by science'. But, to be honest, I've indeed seen the ultra-rationalists do the same thing, claiming knowledge and truth, but denying the insights that meaningful experiences can give.

But perhaps we agree here then.
In my opinion science and spirituality describe the same world, except from a different perspective. Science is about facts, spirituality about meaning.
When something contradicts, then usually one doesn't understand what science is, or confuses spirituality with something else.
There is no contradiction, only paradox, in my opinion.

So, back to reincarnation...
A meaningful concept, full of spiritual repercussions. I can see how it would change people's perspective and behaviour if they believe in it. I can even understand how they experience it, when going deep enough into their inner selves. I have had a mystical training also, I know how it works from experience.

But, scientifically it is extremely unlikely. Statistically, logistically, and from a physics point of view.
But also if you look at where the idea comes from, a religious idea from a past where people didn't know what we know now.
It is endlessly more likely that it is a figment of human imagination than something that really exists.

So... a contradiction? Only if you believe that it is physically real. In which case you are contradicting yourself, because you said that that divide between science and spirituality isn't there for you.

But if you are able to see it as just a meaningful spiritual concept, without the need to claim as really existing out there in the universe, then it has become a paradox. Then both truths exists side by side.

And in my opinion, that is where a real lessons in mystery lie, in the ability to look through the paradoxes. (heh, I talk to trees also )

[Red Raven]

Ah, there we may have some common ground then.
Although I usually view this from the opposite perspective. I often see 'spiritual' people making that divide between spirituality and science. Claiming knowledge about all kinds of supernatural phenomena, and then offhandedly saying 'but it can't be proved by science'. But, to be honest, I've indeed seen the ultra-rationalists do the same thing, claiming knowledge and truth, but denying the insights that meaningful experiences can give.

But perhaps we agree here then.
In my opinion science and spirituality describe the same world, except from a different perspective. Science is about facts, spirituality about meaning.

Absolutely, agree with this last statement.

When something contradicts, then usually one doesn't understand what science is, or confuses spirituality with something else.
There is no contradiction, only paradox, in my opinion.

Again, agreed.

So, back to reincarnation...
A meaningful concept, full of spiritual repercussions. I can see how it would change people's perspective and behaviour if they believe in it. I can even understand how they experience it, when going deep enough into their inner selves. I have had a mystical training also, I know how it works from experience.

But, scientifically it is extremely unlikely. Statistically, logistically, and from a physics point of view.

From a physics point of view, if one considers reincarnation as life in the future, then it is possible because from that physics point of view, existence in the past and future are as likely as existence in the present. Or, there is no reason for it not to exist anyway.

So... a contradiction? Only if you believe that it is physically real. In which case you are contradicting yourself, because you said that that divide between science and spirituality isn't there for you.

But if you are able to see it as just a meaningful spiritual concept, without the need to claim as really existing out there in the universe, then it has become a paradox. Then both truths exists side by side.

I tend to think of it like the existence of information, no physical form in a lot examples, but present anyway.

And in my opinion, that is where a real lessons in mystery lie, in the ability to look through the paradoxes. (heh, I talk to trees also )

So do I sometimes

RR

[andromeda]

I think that the problem is that we as collective have the imprints of the past where some of our brothers and sisters explored the way of collective destruction with the excuse of religion or spirituality

The wounds are still fresh and that turned many people away from spirit and into atheism and science as a way of filling the need for meaning

In the past too spirituality and sciences were inseparable at many levels, for example alchemy. People used to go to the seers to seek advise, healing and ideas

I pray that one day we will be able to go back to the reunion of spirituality and sciences but not from a fanatic perspective as it has been with religion and sciences in our times

[DaRC]

It is also possible that everything started with a big blue blob, and that evolution is nothing more that the receding of blue, allowing other colors to emerge. But that is unlikely also.

I would have hoped that this type of condescending attitude was beyond this forum. If my posts appear to be ill informed then I don't really appreciate a school lecturing type of scolding. Like I say, I expect better, maybe my expections of this place are misplaced. Finding intelligent discourse is getting increasingly difficult nowadays.

Perhaps you misunderstood my intention then.
I was simply taking a step back and showing you how it looks from where I stand.
And from where I stand it looks just as strange as somebody saying that he believes that 'Big Blue Blobs' are the origin of everything.

In the spirit of harmony and tolerance it's also worth remembering that for some people English is not their first language and also that English has a wide diaspora of dialects (from South West America to North East Scotland) so that tone / attitude can easily be misinterpreted.

[Explorer]

In the spirit of harmony and tolerance it's also worth remembering that for some people English is not their first language and also that English has a wide diaspora of dialects (from South West America to North East Scotland) so that tone / attitude can easily be misinterpreted.

True ... english is not my native tongue, and that probably shows in the way that I express myself.
I don't always find it easy to delicately weave the exact right tone of voice into my words in english, especially when you also take cultural differences into account. So I usually express myself in a more direct way, with some (hopefully) clarifying examples of what I mean (like those Big Blue Blobs). Which can sometimes misunderstood as being rude one purpose, which is usually not my intention.

Heh... perhaps we should switch to dutch for a while? .

[Red Raven]

In the spirit of harmony and tolerance it's also worth remembering that for some people English is not their first language and also that English has a wide diaspora of dialects (from South West America to North East Scotland) so that tone / attitude can easily be misinterpreted.

True ... english is not my native tongue, and that probably shows in the way that I express myself.

I should have realised, unreserved apologies Explorer, I appear to be demonstrating the modern tendancy of quick to take offence

RR

[Explorer]

I should have realised, unreserved apologies Explorer, I appear to be demonstrating the modern tendancy of quick to take offence

Really no need to apologize RR, you didn't offend me. But I appreciate the sentiment.

[Attila]

Ooh sorry I missed so much, here’s a few things;

- Ideas being passed on ancestrally is not the same as reincarnation where the property of being is passed on, and not necessarily any of its inherent ideas [rebirth].

- population expansion creates more beings, consciousness occurs wherever there is life. In other words its kinda like an ocean, when the correct circumstances occur then the relative consciousness does so too.

- there are no limits.

- the physical derives from the informational background; it is secondary [holographic]! There is no way to logically conceive universe as primary if physical ~ consider how you’d even centre it within the context of infinity, or how you’d start it if it were purely physical.

- I don’t think we are reborn in every moment, the cardinality of that doesn’t add up, things are so much more fluid and probabilistic than that.

Some people think that every new interaction leads to a new parallel universe.

Its nonsense imho; everything is 'connected'...
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 4&t=177837

- my only expectation is that there is the experiencer and that cannot be described physically, which also applies to information. If it is not physical then by what would the physical bring about its demise?

_