Sometimes I ask myself, how does reincarnation work?
If you can accept that its a plausible idea from the standpoint of the 'observer self', then you could be lead to the following idea: how does it
Most people simply and casually accept the 'research' of ancient cultures, yet I am skeptical of this, because such cultures could never have
understood that once something happens i.e. a traumatic experience - you cannot undo it, by definition: a part of your early brain was dynamically
constructed to coordinate with certain harsh realities. Your brain is ALWAYS, at all times, in a point-counterpoint with an 'object' to which it is
dynamically related to.
So, if the thermodynamic perspective is accepted, and its understood that traumatic experience leaves "holes" in the evolution of personality that is
necessarily negative, then you could contemplate something which most religious traditions, surprisingly, are loathe to consider: that the individual
personality isn't fundamentally real; and furthermore, the system develops as one, which, from the human beings perspective simply means this: you
"self", is not ontologically yours, but a species attractor: objective knowledge of any 'other' is necessarily derived from the fact that your brain
has only come to think about
things as a matter of coordinating your interactions with other Humans.
Communication for speech is the
reason we can think about ourselves. Our hand is an implicit symbol of the "grasping" that our minds engage on; our specific form of mouth, tongue
shape, eye whiteness, and the hyoid bone in our throat, all mediate interpersonal communication. Yet, somehow, it is believed that the human mind
could exist independently of its human body - as if the body we're a mere "passive container", doing nothing more than "holding" the mind.
This is what is so remarkable about modern science: it is getting rid of dualism as a plausible belief system, while at the same time modifying how we
think about what a container 'is'. Jude Currivan, in her recent book The Quantum Hologram, believes the container is the pixilation/encoding at the
planck scale (i.e. smallest possible size), which would imply that the "counter point" of the observing consciousness derives from a very tiny level,
but still, relative to the mind, is necessarily "bigger".
Flip the view point around, though, and consider your existing brain. What is this brain, other than a product of evolutionary interactions with a
horizontal relational field. Horizontally - a viewpoint which the ancient Easterners seemed to be immune to even noticing (barring Confucianism; I am
speaking more about Indian civilization, which apparently managed to make a perennial caste system seem perfectly legitimate) - interactions in a
commonly shared 'external' environment means that the way and manner that a system even works derives from historic interactions in space-time. And
furthermore, and more importantly, it is the horizontal dimension which is real - structuring - and imposing the limits of what can and cannot be
In effect, if you cannot accept the horizontal dimension, you are, in effect, completely insane, and unable to think coherently about anything
objective. The denial - something mentally articulated by the self - is like a scaffold which 'blocks' any knowledge of what doesn't want to be known.
So, for instance, threads by the poster "astrocyte" will incite irritation or a roll of the eyes, or what have you. A personal reaction familiar to
"your way of being you", but nevertheless, a perfectly predictable process from the standpoint of biological self-regulation. To be told what you
yourself have personally not much believed, that the environment constructs the human mind bit-by-bit, to which the human is progressively afforded
more and more conscious awareness to get an 'encompassing' awareness of, so that knowing can be translated into a conceptual and linguistic 'naming',
thus spreading the energy coherently from the right brain to the left brain - is not something that the right brain, hyper-identified with what it
believes to 'be real', can effectively get around. Brain dynamics (i.e. chaos/anxiety/collapse/despair) forbid it.
To put all the above conversation into the context of this thread: nobody is spiritually "above" other people in any fundamental sense, but only
relatively i.e. as per the present life. So, for instance, I experience myself to be unusually knowledgeable in this life, vis-à-vis the world I live
in, and yet I find my self believing that my life or my existence is following the law of the whole - not the part i.e. my own individual
consciousness. Who and what I am, I believe, is relative to my place in the human whole, which, because it is so complex and still so poorly
understood, may not be a matter of 'individual' souls 'progressing' individually, but a matter of individual souls progressing within the context of
the developing whole.
Thus, my theory of reincarnation, if I could be said to have any thoughts on the matter, would be the following: when we live, we have desires; and
our desires are that which defines how it is we orient and move in the world. Desires, however, are formed by interactions; and interactions are
subject to chance encounters which can set people off on very different paths.
The question is, and the one I think each of us should seriously ask ourselves is, does the way I live express the wholeness of what I feel or desire?
That is, I think desire is the essential incarnating element of the process - that 'spark' which exists as a potentiality within the teleos of a human
body. Certain contexts appeal to certain desires, and so, may 'incarnate', as it were, the pure potentiality associated with a previous life, which,
in not being expressed properly in its last form, is finally given "outlet" or expression in a new body.
Thus, a Buddhist monk can become a pimp, simply because such a desire may have been there. Or, conversely, a studious loner academic could become a
business man with a wife and kids. The life of one world, in fostering a desire for 'being in a different way' - a desired, or envied lifeworld -
could maintain itself, and be that part of the last individual which 'animates' the purpose/process of its new life.
What is interesting about this perspective is that it describes the evolution of what we value most - our individuality - not in terms of an "I" with
a specific sort of sense of itself, but a "We" which exists, and seeks to exist, for a pretty good reason: its fun, awesome, great, expansive.
I find the whole urge to 'spiritually transcend' to be an odd sort of dualism. It's dualistic because it acts as if its transcendent interests don't
ignore a big chunk of reality; "maya", as Currivan notes, can also be interpreted as "partial", rather than 'illusory'. To assume that reality - the
expressed world - isn't a necessary or desired counterpoint, is, I think, a very wrong attitude to have about and towards existence.
edit on 15-9-2017 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)