Dynamics of Reincarnation

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 work?

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 done.

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.

To quote you in your OP:

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.

I think you will find that Buddhism discusses reincarnation in much this manner you are attempting to explain. They speak of "Self" or what you might call the 'observer self' as an aggregate of perceptions and yes, largely illusory.

-

a reply to: Astrocyte

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.

Such a "matter-of-fact" renditions of YOUR perception are like farts in the wind without any supporting links or evidence. I respect what you do, but don't be surprised if no one understands or takes you seriously. I can tell you all about reincarnation from a Theurgic perspective, but I'm not sure if that fits your paradigm.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Excellent post! causal knowledge is evident and your style of communication is appropriate for this forum.

I feel your pain!

a reply to: Black_Fox

I love the way this is presented in a way we can relate, pieces to the puzzle everywhere

I found this story to be pretty amazing,

a reply to: Astrocyte

I have read your thread three time now and I understand you, the desire as you explain, does indeed influence your subsequent lives, there is however another influence, which has your best interest at heart.

We are propelled along through the human experience in the same way as an intense word association, i.e. the first word that always comes to mind.. purely allegorical!

As you describe, the interaction and influences afforded to us incrementally, compound upon conscious evolution, in a way to ensure human experiences are profoundly understood.

Iek

I imagine if its a thing, it could work a bit like my hobby of computer gaming.

I launch a game, I play on it for awhile, have fun, have frustration, and ultimately it ends. I then may choose to fire up a different game, having a different experience. All of this is for the learning and entertainment of me the person living vicariously through these games.

So...sure. That. Do I remember anything from my "past life"..sure, I do, but Mario doesn't know what Pac Man was up to. Now, If I am playing fallout, I might make a fort that reminds me a bit of skyrim (bleedover), but thats simply from my perspective fond memories of that game...but does my avatar understand why he is making a scrap metal rendition of Riverwood? naa...if he had some awareness, he may be "remembering" something from a "past life".

Anyhow, just my hypothesis

a reply to: mericks74

I spend a disproportional amount of my time alone, I find it necessary. I also go out into the world in my full joy, although people are transparent and I see things that don't agree with me. I understand them though and I feel for them (hard at times) That's life and the learning of.

5*

a reply to: Astrocyte

This scaffold concept, is related to the Amydgala due to it storing memories and that it serves as experience in that sense, and that usually with the expansion of awareness, it sort of breakdown like a compactor to ether or not restructure it self, hint the more I know the more idk? However is that horizontal dimension of sort of like an event Horizon too?

As for a mass collective, it is only going to worry about one thing...itself, artificial or grim.

How fragile our animations an ego be.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Thank you for the thought provoking post, a very interesting perspective, although I fear posts like yours are becoming more scarce as ATS turns into Critic Central.

Like Charlie Chaplin once said - our cleverness has made us bitter and cynical..... yeah, no $hit

We'll see how long it takes them to change from deny ignorance to deny arrogance

a reply to: Astrocyte

My significant desire is to not reincarnate.

Life isn't bad, however I felt I've done all of this way to many times.

So I'd say I'm not gonna next time around.

Reincarnation was abandonded centuries ago by ancestors of the people who are working on computer technology. Meanwhile many people who still regard reincarnation as fact are still working on improving their loo system. Nice people and I wish they solve those basic problems. Without reincarnation there are also lots of problems, just overall better. Reincarnation is a distraction from reality and does not do much for progress of humanity as a whole, that is it had a use centuries ago but doesn't have one today. At worst it can cause confusion and lead to a Messiah complex or some grandiose idea of having been several different people throughout time with weighing in their actions and so perception of that individual. Basically "Hey I was Jesus in my last life, now you all have to worship me and do everything for me for the rest of my existence". Or even "Hey I happen to know I existed before so I am older and more developed than you, now listen and do as I say or prepare to live your life as an idiot, in which case I will no longer talk to you". Either way there is always some kind of underlying personality problem.

I believe in an afterlife myself but this existence is the first, the one and only or popularly phrased as "yolo". Beings who are without cause who have always existed and emerge and reemerge cyclically doesn't make any sense to me but one big multiplayer computer game starting from level 0 with an infinite number of levels where an individual spirit evolves or even with an endgame would.

Believing one has problems from another life is really like positive possession or attachment with a ghost and working with it's problems, both might benefit. Otherwise it's a waste of time and there are better things to do with ghosts or best: nothing at all and only paying attention to the living, just have patience one might meet individuals who have passed again at some moment.

a reply to: spliffster

Reincarnation is a distraction from reality and does not do much for progress of humanity as a whole, that is it had a use centuries ago but doesn't have one today.

Nonsense. People who believe they will be reincarnated want to make sure they have a decent, even better world to reincarnate into. You sleep in the bed you made!

On the other hand, the Abrahamic faiths, with their "doomsday" theologies, are clambering at the prospect of destroying the planet to bring about "Heaven on Earth. They're of the belief that they can force God's hand to bring "The End of Days", the "2nd Coming of Christ" and the "New Jerusalem". Very dangerous indeed!

a reply to: Astrocyte

If I am honest there seemed to be a whole lot of agrandizing, in order to post a very interesting concept. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be "true", at least in a sense. I doubt it is "all the truth" in any sense though. Thanks for sharing it.

a reply to: Astrocyte


The way I understand it is this:

The Self "dies" (You ARE energy and energy doesn't 'die' it just 'transfers'..) Then You 'judge' the things that You've done and You'll also sense what those things You did, did to 'others' You get to 'feel' the consequences.

During this review period, You decide whether or not You wish to return, some MUST return (They have yet to learn the things needed to progress onward) You'll have up to "49 Earth days" in order to choose to 're-boot'...

There are some who just keep coming back over and over again...

More info in "The Tibetan Book Of Living And Dying" not to be confused w/The Tibetan Book Of The Dead"

Stay Hydrated.... either way.