Alternative Mega Theories

[ViniB]

That is a great explanation - one doesn't know what one doesn't know. I suppose if we reincarnated with all of our memories we may not make any progress. If someone had an addiction they could not break, that would return, as well as other wrong turns and we may go in circles anyway.

But ain't this analogy the same as going in circles?? How can one learn a lesson in this context?

Let's say you eat a poisonous plant, after learning, and feeling, you won't eat it again right? So if someone wipes your memory there's a chance you can eat the plant again....

 

[Tapioca]

But ain't this analogy the same as going in circles?? How can one learn a lesson in this context?

Let's say you eat a poisonous plant, after learning, and feeling, you won't eat it again right? So if someone wipes your memory there's a chance you can eat the plant again....

Yes! Either way makes no logical sense.

 

[feralimal]

I would say, that it might not be about learning this or that detail in order to not repeat it, but it may be about a major upgrade that carries through to next life or whatever.

To use the computer metaphor, it maybe that it's not about correcting typos in document, so much as upgrading the operating system itself. Perhaps operating system upgrades carry through to the next life, whereas the details do not having been subjected to a reset of some sort.

This sort of information is in the realms of subjective intuition. When it comes to proving this or that, expressing the possible metaphysical geography, no one can say anything useful objectively except to point out logical errors and inconsistencies in the various claims. We simply do not and cannot have enough information to talk about certainties, eg does something (a soul?) survive after death, does it reincarnate, what is a soul anyway, etc - these ideas cannot be objectively proven. They are ideas/lines of thought that might (or might not) be useful to the individual.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

I would say, that it might not be about learning this or that detail in order to not repeat it, but it may be about a major upgrade that carries through to next life or whatever.

To use the computer metaphor, it maybe that it's not about correcting typos in document, so much as upgrading the operating system itself. Perhaps operating system upgrades carry through to the next life, whereas the details do not having been subjected to a reset of some sort.

This sort of information is in the realms of subjective intuition. When it comes to proving this or that, expressing the possible metaphysical geography, no one can say anything useful objectively except to point out logical errors and inconsistencies in the various claims. We simply do not and cannot have enough information to talk about certainties, eg does something (a soul?) survive after death, does it reincarnate, what is a soul anyway, etc - these ideas cannot be objectively proven. They are ideas/lines of thought that might (or might not) be useful to the individual.

Do you consider that your dedicated "agnosis" (agnosticism) qualifies you to pass judgement on such matters and give marks out of ten for the "alternative mega-theories" of others? Aren't your views and opinions always biased by your agnosis?

 

[feralimal]

Do you consider that your dedicated "agnosis" (agnosticism) qualifies you to pass judgement on such matters and give marks out of ten for the "alternative mega-theories" of others? Aren't your views and opinions always biased by your agnosis?

Hi,

I'm giving a unashamedly subjective response (not "judgement") to some metaphysical hypotheses that I come across. One is one's own expert on oneself and one's interpretations of whatever-it-is - so this is valid. And as these are metaphysical ideas (and therefore there isn't a way to check) - it is fine to have an opinion. The idea in this thread is if one grants this or that unprovable assumption (eg the existence of a soul, the idea or reincarnation), how far is it possible to push the idea and remain coherent, logical? Can one approach truth this way, perhaps?

My agnosis is dedicated to the objective reality that is provided by others. When someone says this happened in ww2 or the Ukraine or wherever, I recognise that this piece of information is created and then relayed via other humans. Humans are all undertaking interpretative work - not one of them is able to provide the true picture of truth, at best they can provide faithful testimony of their experiences. Hence, agnosis/skepticism is the right response to others' interpretations as one can only know a thing when one has verified it for oneself. I can't pretend that because I have heard this or that common belief, I now know it.. eg I don't know that we have been to the moon. Agnosis is really being clear on the difference between 'what one knows' and 'what one believes'. And then, to reflect that in what one says, ie not misusing language to indicate that one's beliefs are knowledge. This is a sort of trying not to propagate lies/misinformation to others.

PS I think we all operate under some sort of worldview that incorporates metaphysical/spiritual explanations. Eg most Westerners are operating under an 'ultra-radicalised materialistic collectivist' ideology, but would then criticise religious folk for their lack of materialistic values.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Hi,

I'm giving a unashamedly subjective response (not "judgement") to some metaphysical hypotheses that I come across. One is one's own expert on oneself and one's interpretations of whatever-it-is - so this is valid. And as these are metaphysical ideas (and therefore there isn't a way to check) - it is fine to have an opinion. The idea in this thread is if one grants this or that unprovable assumption (eg the existence of a soul, the idea or reincarnation), how far is it possible to push the idea and remain coherent, logical? Can one approach truth this way, perhaps?

My agnosis is dedicated to the objective reality that is provided by others. When someone says this happened in ww2 or the Ukraine or wherever, I recognise that this piece of information is created and then relayed via other humans. Humans are all undertaking interpretative work - not one of them is able to provide the true picture of truth, at best they can provide faithful testimony of their experiences. Hence, agnosis/skepticism is the right response to others' interpretations as one can only know a thing when one has verified it for oneself. I can't pretend that because I have heard this or that common belief, I now know it.. eg I don't know that we have been to the moon. Agnosis is really being clear on the difference between 'what one knows' and 'what one believes'. And then, to reflect that in what one says, ie not misusing language to indicate that one's beliefs are knowledge. This is a sort of trying not to propagate lies/misinformation to others.

PS I think we all operate under some sort of worldview that incorporates metaphysical/spiritual explanations. Eg most Westerners are operating under an 'ultra-radicalised materialistic collectivist' ideology, but would then criticise religious folk for their lack of materialistic values.

So you don't see it as a vegetarian judging a roast beef contest then? You are reinterpreting other people's ideas based upon your own personal agnostic "worldview." Then you are presenting them as some kind of informed critical review and even giving them 'marks out of ten', again based upon your own personal judgement. How is that any different to all the thousands of other media critics who spout their reviews of books, movies, TV, anti-vaccine information, who we should trust and who we shouldn't?

Of course "we all operate under some sort of worldview," but how much of that is shaped by middlemen who put themselves between the original source of information and the rest of us? Isn't that what this forum is all about - finding things out for yourself and not accepting the popular view of the mainstream, or any other middlemen, who have their own specific "worldview?" Shouldn't we be examining these alternative mega-theories for ourselves and making our own judgments and giving our own marks out of ten, instead of once again, giving away our sovereignty?

As the Pink Floyd song goes, "All in all you're just another brick in the wall."

 

[feralimal]

So you don't see it as a vegetarian judging a roast beef contest then? You are reinterpreting other people's ideas based upon your own personal agnostic "worldview." Then you are presenting them as some kind of informed critical review and even giving them 'marks out of ten', again based upon your own personal judgement. How is that any different to all the thousands of other media critics who spout their reviews of books, movies, TV, anti-vaccine information, who we should trust and who we shouldn't?

Of course "we all operate under some sort of worldview," but how much of that is shaped by middlemen who put themselves between the original source of information and the rest of us? Isn't that what this forum is all about - finding things out for yourself and not accepting the popular view of the mainstream, or any other middlemen, who have their own specific "worldview?" Shouldn't we be examining these alternative mega-theories for ourselves and making our own judgments and giving our own marks out of ten, instead of once again, giving away our sovereignty?

As the Pink Floyd song goes, "All in all you're just another brick in the wall."

I don't think you get it, no worries.

 

[Tapioca]

Humans are all undertaking interpretative work - not one of them is able to provide the true picture of truth, at best they can provide faithful testimony of their experiences. Hence, agnosis/skepticism is the right response to others' interpretations as one can only know a thing when one has verified it for oneself.

That makes sense. Take for example reincarnation. One explanation for disease, victims of crime, accidental deaths, etc is that person had a role to plan in God's grand design - involving everybody - compared to another explanation, getting what they deserve based on karma involving that individual.

 

[ViniB]

That makes sense. Take for example reincarnation. One explanation for disease, victims of crime, accidental deaths, etc is that person had a role to plan in God's grand design - involving everybody - compared to another explanation, getting what they deserve based on karma involving that individual.

And this is, IMO, the biggest argument against reincarnation because it trows free will out the window! And thinking about it, it's not that much of a difference from the simulation theory....

 

[Tapioca]

"Our scriptures make it clear that our world is a trap and maya is the trapping mechanism. It is the idea of butter or the temptation of curiosity or some wicked desire that brings us here in the first place and puts us in contact with the objects of our world. Once we taste it, we enter into a make believe world and stop thinking about going back. We become involved with the process of becoming and being, as embodied souls, imprisoned in our own thoughts and desire bodies, undergoing births and deaths, binding ourselves to the consequences of our own actions and delaying our own liberation. And who unleashes this potent force? God is described in the Hindu scriptures as Mayavi, the grand master of illusion. He casts his net of illusion to catch the individual souls that are swimming in the waters of life as free souls, enjoying the highest bliss. He then drops them in the lap of His dynamic energy or Shakti to take care of the rest of the process. Maya or illusion thus becomes a very potent instrument in the hands of the Divine Prakrti, the Primal Nature. Through the force of illusion, she holds the beings under its sway." - Maya - Grand Illusion Heart of Hinduism

According to Hinduism we were free souls, God caught and imprisoned us in this illusionary world.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

I don't think you get it, no worries.

I get it plenty thanks.

According to Hinduism we were free souls, God caught and imprisoned us in this illusionary world.

You should have read the whole article because it's not simply about that and it only makes sense as part of a reincarnation system. For example:

"One of the unique concepts of Hinduism is maya, which is actually used to describe our current state of existence, how much alienated we are from our true nature and how deeply entangled we become with the objects of our desires, weaving in the process a web of deceptions around ourselves that keep us conveniently concealed from the truth of who we are or what we should have been. It is a state in which each individual soul considers itself to be someone else, separate and distinct from the rest of creation"

 

[feralimal]

I get it plenty thanks.

I'm not engaging meaningfully with you here, cos I don't think you are approaching this in the spirit of having a genuine conversation about metaphysical topics. It seems much more like you are making a personal attack. You are free to attack, I am free to ignore.

I have an agnostic position about objective world information, unless I personally verify that info. I am also happy to talk about subjective (internal) experience - one can't be agnostic about one's own experience, one's ideas, etc.

 

[Tapioca]

You should have read the whole article because it's not simply about that and it only makes sense as part of a reincarnation system. For example:

"One of the unique concepts of Hinduism is maya, which is actually used to describe our current state of existence, how much alienated we are from our true nature and how deeply entangled we become with the objects of our desires, weaving in the process a web of deceptions around ourselves that keep us conveniently concealed from the truth of who we are or what we should have been. It is a state in which each individual soul considers itself to be someone else, separate and distinct from the rest of creation"

I did read it. Your quote goes into more detail about the illusionary world.

 

[Tapioca]

And this is, IMO, the biggest argument against reincarnation because it trows free will out the window! And thinking about it, it's not that much of a difference from the simulation theory....

I think the reincarnation idea is all about free will (directed by consequences) and believing God is in charge of everything is about the illusion of free will. The Christian/Jewish idea of God is that you can be free of bad consequences - hell - if you ask God for forgiveness. You can direct your own path.

 

[ViniB]

I think the reincarnation idea is all about free will (directed by consequences) and believing God is in charge of everything is about the illusion of free will. The Christian/Jewish idea of God is that you can be free of bad consequences - hell - if you ask God for forgiveness. You can direct your own path.

I can in theory direct my path but i don't have any memory of my choice whatsoever?? See the contradiction? It doesn't matter in which way i look at it, can't make any sense in it

 

[Tapioca]

I can in theory direct my path but i don't have any memory of my choice whatsoever?? See the contradiction? It doesn't matter in which way i look at it, can't make any sense in it

It doesn't make sense to me either. Personally, I believe in God and lean towards God knowing best rather than being run by a memory erasing reincarnation machine.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

I'm not engaging meaningfully with you here, cos I don't think you are approaching this in the spirit of having a genuine conversation about metaphysical topics. It seems much more like you are making a personal attack. You are free to attack, I am free to ignore.

And yet, you feel free to make personal accusations, rather than engage meaningfully.

I did read it. Your quote goes into more detail about the illusionary world.

It wasn't my quote, it was yours. One of the fundamental features of Hinduism is the belief in reincarnation and maya, or illusion, is the 'trap' that causes further reincarnations. Karma is the result of the freedom to choose one's actions during any particular reincarnation. The karma that you accumulate has an influence upon your subsequent reincarnation (rather than God deciding for you) which places you in the ideal circumstances to progress - but that's your choice. You can't really use the Hindu concept of maya to disprove reincarnation as they are interdependent within that belief system. I'm not arguing for or against reincarnation, but their concept of maya has nothing to do with the afterlife 'Matrix' "Don't go into the Light" theory that became popular a while back following the Star Trek Voyager episode 'Coda'.

 

[Tapioca]

It wasn't my quote, it was yours.

Your quote is different from mine. I was not arguing either side. I added another view about the soul trap.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Your quote is different from mine.

It's the subsequent paragraph from your source.

I was not arguing either side.

Personally, I believe in God and lean towards God knowing best rather than being run by a memory erasing reincarnation machine.

So, that's not an argument for either side then?

I added another view about the soul trap.

So did I.

 

[Sudevi]

That is a great explanation - one doesn't know what one doesn't know. I suppose if we reincarnated with all of our memories we may not make any progress. If someone had an addiction they could not break, that would return, as well as other wrong turns and we may go in circles anyway.

I think the whole idea of being reincarnated to correct or make up for past wrongs is so much tit for tat. We can't possibly stop making mistakes in this world, and so we'd reincarnate endlessly which I can't believe is the point.

I've come to believe there are purposes to our lives here. One is a general purpose for all of us to develop and grow a personal relationship with the Divine (insert your preferred name for God) in whatever form or belief system that works best for you individually. The other purpose is our individual one, and so hard for one person to say what it is for another. But my guess is that it has something to do with what inside you that you deeply want to express, that gives you greatest joy and fulfillment. Dealing with the obstacles and conditioning that keep you from that fulfillment might be your personal purpose.

I don't know how to attach one of the above posts to respond to but I'd like to say something about the Silent Hill game. I have never played it and after reading some of the responses here, I won't be watching the links, either. I've had some experiences while in a state between waking and dreaming in the world of spirits. I'm not an expert and sure don't want to be. But I now believe it to be a place without morals or ideals, a sort of wild wild West where anything goes. I believe it exists between heaven and hell (for lack of better descriptive words) with the more lovely astral experiences towards the heavenly side and the darker, scarier experiences towards the hellish side. Personally, I find it to be a distraction -- however fun to dabble in -- from my life purpose. There is no ultimate wisdom there and much that can do serious psychic damage. My basic recommendation would be to avoid anything that shuns the Light if you must go there.