The Properties of Soul

Originally posted by Willtell
reply to post by Greylorn

 

The soul is made up of three distinguishable aspects; but operates as a unity of one.
ESSENCE
SPIRIT
TAU

THE SOUL IN MYSTICAL COSMOLOGY:
Christianity: Father. Son. Holy Spirit.
Yoga: Brahman. Vishnu. Shiva.
Islam: The Lord of men. King of men. God of men.
Theosophy: The Adept. The Goddesses. The Master.
Buddhism: The Buddha. The Sangha. The Dharma.

The three structures of the soul are represented in trinities across the entire spectrum of spiritual cosmologies. All these trinities are reflections of this inner world of the soul. The designation in Christian theology, of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is, for example, not applicable to “God” but the soul. The trinity of Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva is not a trinity related to the deity per se, it is a Hindu doctrine that is not necessarily related to a transcendent God, only as a triad of action: creator, destroyer and preserver that is relative to the soul.

In perfection, in which humans have lost, the soul operates as a perfect energy machine that outputs perfect perception and feeling free of suffering and negative energy.

There are 32 states of consciousness within this soul trinity

ALL the goal of spirituality is to regain the perfect soul in macrocosm and microcosm.

Another fine point is that of these 3 elements of the soul it is the ESSENCE that has been corrupted.

Thank you for the mystical pablum. I'm trying to establish the nature of soul in the context of physics, the only place that makes sense.

Your welcome for the pablum for the people like you need it!

You won’t get any understanding about the soul from physical things

It’s just not that easy. You have to understand the faculties of the spiritual organs whether you like it or not.

What you call pabulum is established knowledge that people like you are excluded from by your own arrogance. And ignorance of things unseen.

There is a physical basis of spirit but one couldn’t show you this because of your pre-conceived notions.

You want an easy answer, a one equals two thing, good luck.

Originally posted by Willtell
Your welcome for the pablum for the people like you need it!

You won’t get any understanding about the soul from physical things

It’s just not that easy. You have to understand the faculties of the spiritual organs whether you like it or not.

What you call pabulum is established knowledge that people like you are excluded from by your own arrogance. And ignorance of things unseen.

There is a physical basis of spirit but one couldn’t show you this because of your pre-conceived notions.

You mischaracterize me, so I'll need to explain myself a bit. I am no stranger to the "spiritual" side of reality. Raised a Catholic, I anticipated a life as a Jesuit. Then, alas, puberty set in. I remained a devout Catholic through three lost rounds of Roman Roulette until admitting that the Church's fundamental beliefs were at odds with what I'd come to regard as the only true and certain Bible-- the physical universe and the creations that thrive within it.

I studied many alternative beliefs and found none that met my newly found standard. After awhile I founded one, but of course it has no members.

I conducted my first telepathy experiment at age 12, and have since found a number of occasions to investigate the paranormal aspects of mind. I've trained two trance channelers, and have experienced all known paranormal phenomena but one. I've learned to use hypnosis to isolate the soul component of mind from brain, so as to work with either mechanism to accomplish the kinds of mind and body healing in an hour that would otherwise require years of expensive psychotherapy and social exercise. I keep a day job and do not charge for such work.

I've learned to teach country dancing, partnership style, a graceful but mostly under-appreciated art form that many are afraid to try because the dances are fast and busy, and the floor can get physically dangerous. By engaging dance at the level of beon/soul, I often get people who have never danced to get the basics with three minutes of talk and play, and have initiated the careers of a few gals who now dance competitively. IMO the most effective teaching uses the brain primarily as a conduit to reach the soul.

I've also learned a number of unusual healing techniques from others. They are totally non-intrusive at both the mental and biological level, involving touch. Except Reiki, which is best done without direct contact. The range of aliments that can be addressed with the light contact of another's fingers and focus of mind is extensive. I have no explanation for any of the techniques I use, and regard the explanations offered by the teachers of those techniques as bogus contrivances useful only to satisfy the mindlessly curious.

Before my last physiological aftermarket-part installation I engaged a handful of friends to keep me in their thoughts while I was under the knife. Didn't ask for prayer, which is an entirely different thing. Prayer is asking an outside force to intervene. Positive thoughts are direct intervention. The surgery went twice as fast as it had taken on my other limb, and I healed faster and with less pain.

May I invite you to do the same for a friend, tomorrow, September 9th at 9am Mountain Standard and California time? (noon Eastern time, 11am Central, and 10am Mountain Daylight time). His name is Bruce. He is an old soldier, the only commander who got all of his men out of Vietnam alive, after which he served his country as a U.S. Army Special Forces officer for another 30 years before retiring with his hearing mostly blown out from a near-miss grenade, and his heart tired and worn out from crying. Bruce will be under the knife for one, possibly two hours, so anytime in there would be good.

Please don't pray. Just send your best thoughts to a man who deserves them for serving all of us to the best of his many abilities. He is one of the men who served with absolute honor, often facing down his fellow and superior officers to keep things right. Send your thoughts to Bruce at the VA Hospital in Tucson, Arizona, Monday Sept. 9th, 9am and onward. Thank you. I'll let you know if he survives.

Now, back to topic. Religions are mostly confused and hypocritical, but for many they offer standards for life and hope. They no longer teach the principles of their founders. As with any entity that loses its basic principles, religions are declining slightly in numbers, but significantly in numbers of intelligent members. Speculative science is filling the explanatory gap, and IMO these aspects of science, beginning with Darwinism and current with Big Bang theory, are the most perniciously stupid ideas ever devised.

My job is to replace them with something better-- a physics-friendly version of soul and God.

Originally posted by Willtell

There is a physical basis of spirit but one couldn’t show you this because of your pre-conceived notions.

And the truth is that you cannot show me the physical basis of spirit because you are completely ignorant about physics, and determined to stay that way.

Originally posted by Willtell
You want an easy answer, a one equals two thing, good luck.

As with most religionists you are as dreadfully ignorant of your religious roots as you are of fundamental physics, and of the neglected connection between them. There does not seem to be much that I can do to change that. Perhaps another reader will read this and get his mind back.

Religions are mostly based upon the principle of one cause, multiple effects. Religions are the authors of the "many from one" concept, or as you phrase it, "a one equals two." One God creates, for no rational reason, a universe full of beings. Why? And more importantly, how?

Big Bang theology has followed this errant footstep like rednecks follow "bigfoot" tracks. One mysterious "singularity," and no cause, equals a complete universe for these incompetent nitwits. Only Democrats, liberals, and other religionists who are accustomed to cognitive dissonance could abide such nonsense.

On the other side of the metaphysical fence, we have the absurd belief that one cosmic micropea, or one impossible "physical singularity" spontaneously blew up, without cause, to form the entire physical universe. This is the stupidest idea ever invented by overpaid scientists who should know better. It makes phlogiston theory look like a masterstroke of physics genius.

The biggest difficulty that I have dealing with religionists, including pseudo-scientists wedded to the agreement system in which they were indoctrinated, is their preconceived notions which prevent them from competently interpreting anything that they read which might be ever so slightly contrary to their beliefs.

I assume from the ignorant tone of your posts that like many of the nits who've posted to this thread, you have ignored the OP and not taken the trouble to study the three posts that preceded this one. Had you done so you might have learned something. While ignorance and stupidity are second cousins, the decision to have intercourse with a cousin is a matter of choice.

You wrote, "There is a physical basis of spirit but one couldn’t show you this because of your pre-conceived notions."

Had you bothered to peruse, or even read any of my prior posts, you would appreciate the abysmal ignorance of your comment. My writings are an attempt to connect the heretofore mystical, spiritual and nonsensical notions about spirit with physical reality, despite religionits dragging their mental feet in the dark ages.

My theory, my book, and my posts are all about integrating your "physical basis of spirit," with a highly successful branch of science known as physics. Do you notice any similarity between the words "physical" and "physics?"

The largest impediment to the success of science-based ideas about the spiritual is the enormous number of religionist pinheads who are incapable of learning any physics and who therefore do their best to prevent any alternative ideas from finding the light of day. Ignorant religionists who operate according to these principles have, and will be always with us. Do you happen to know any of them?

Originally posted by rival
Your claim that the body is physical and therefore anything
interacting with the body must be physical is only relevant if
we humans can perceive ALL that is physical. It's hubris to
assume that we can.

If there is a soul it is certainly an ethereal entity that exists outside
our meager understanding of science,

If we do discover the soul, or the essence of the soul, I expect God
(if he exists) will be right there waiting around the corner for us.

His first words will be, "...what took you so long?"

This is what im saying.

Anything interacting with the physical body, must by physical is a bunch of bullcrap with no scientific evidence.

For example, thoughts seem to happen within the body. By this very definition, thoughts must be physical, but they're not!!!!!!

Think of a rock, now put that thought in my hand so I can hold it, lol.

Come on op!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by dominicus

Originally posted by rival
Your claim that the body is physical and therefore anything
interacting with the body must be physical is only relevant if
we humans can perceive ALL that is physical. It's hubris to
assume that we can.

If there is a soul it is certainly an ethereal entity that exists outside
our meager understanding of science,

If we do discover the soul, or the essence of the soul, I expect God
(if he exists) will be right there waiting around the corner for us.

His first words will be, "...what took you so long?"

This is what im saying.

Anything interacting with the physical body, must by physical is a bunch of bullcrap with no scientific evidence.

For example, thoughts seem to happen within the body. By this very definition, thoughts must be physical, but they're not!!!!!!

Think of a rock, now put that thought in my hand so I can hold it, lol.

Come on op!!!!!!!!

Apparently there is no end to the number of terminally ignorant people who mistake the programs installed in their brains for understanding. These nits are characterized by either their unwillingness to read, or their inability to comprehend the very little that they choose to read.

reply to post by Astyanax


What kinda music do you make?

reply to post by Greylorn


Feel free to tell me I am wrong, as you do... but from my perspective, it seems as if you have started from the conclusion that what you perceive as 'yourself' existing, exists forever and is special. And then from that singularity of an idea, you looked around and invented a story as to justify that original belief. How is anyone who claims the eternal soul exists any different from what I have described in you and your actions and motives?

reply to post by Greylorn

Quite a clever chap, aren't you, Greylorn?

At any rate, you use the word 'stupid' and its synonyms rather freely. A sure sign of intelligence, as I'm sure we all agree.

These "great" books were full of antiquated intellectual claptrap, ideas that did not work, with their failures evident from the outset.

"The principle of thought and action in man," for example, is a stupid definition.

"animal lovers" are utter nitwits.

I've no need to explain stupidity. Pointing it out ought to be good enough.

Nor do I give (Gottfried Leibniz, inventor of the calculus) an iota of intellectual credit.

I can imagine (Leibniz) talking to his dog, and thinking that because the stupid animal cocked its mindless head and looked at him that it understood a word of his speech.

IMO Mdm.B is as FOS as Seth, Kryon, RamDass, and their glut of New Age religionist followers. I do not follow nitwits.

Had you bothered to peruse, or even read any of my prior posts, you would appreciate the abysmal ignorance of your comment.

the truth is that you cannot show me the physical basis of spirit because you are completely ignorant about physics

I often make the mistake of thinking/hoping that the person to whom I am responding is personally thoughtful and intelligent, as I did in your case.

I keep a list of nitwits

One mysterious "singularity," and no cause, equals a complete universe for these incompetent nitwits.

Only Democrats, liberals, and other religionists who are accustomed to cognitive dissonance could abide such nonsense.

This is the stupidest idea ever invented by overpaid scientists who should know better.

many of the nits who've posted to this thread

religionist pinheads who are incapable of learning any physics

Apparently there is no end to the number of terminally ignorant people who mistake the programs installed in their brains for understanding. These nits are characterized by either their unwillingness to read, or their inability to comprehend the very little that they choose to read.

Kindly note that what I'm doing in this series of threads is expressing, piecemeal, a complete theory that describes the origin of the occasional intelligent, conscious mind; then the origin of the universe, and its purpose; then the origin of biological life, and its purpose.

Greylorn, I am truly ashamed that you judged me as intellectually worthy of your attention, and sincerely hope that I have now said enough to make you write me off as a nitwit along with all the other nitwits. Having your respect feels a bit like I imagine it must feel to have scabies.

Oh, and by the way,

My diligence involved learning some physics.

Not enough, laddie. Not nearly enough.

reply to post by ImaFungi

The kind of music that makes country dancers break their heads.

You got mail.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Feel free to tell me I am wrong, as you do... but from my perspective, it seems as if you have started from the conclusion that what you perceive as 'yourself' existing, exists forever and is special. And then from that singularity of an idea, you looked around and invented a story as to justify that original belief.

What a shame that other self-proclaimed genius, fulllotusqigong has been banned. They would have got on like a house on fire.

I wonder how long the OP has with us. Care to place a bet?

Greylorn

Originally posted by dominicus

Originally posted by rival
Your claim that the body is physical and therefore anything
interacting with the body must be physical is only relevant if
we humans can perceive ALL that is physical. It's hubris to
assume that we can.

If there is a soul it is certainly an ethereal entity that exists outside
our meager understanding of science,

If we do discover the soul, or the essence of the soul, I expect God
(if he exists) will be right there waiting around the corner for us.

His first words will be, "...what took you so long?"

This is what im saying.

Anything interacting with the physical body, must by physical is a bunch of bullcrap with no scientific evidence.

For example, thoughts seem to happen within the body. By this very definition, thoughts must be physical, but they're not!!!!!!

Think of a rock, now put that thought in my hand so I can hold it, lol.

Come on op!!!!!!!!

Apparently there is no end to the number of terminally ignorant people who mistake the programs installed in their brains for understanding. These nits are characterized by either their unwillingness to read, or their inability to comprehend the very little that they choose to read.

YEs, I am a nit, I am whatever you say I am, and if I wasn't, then why would you say I am?

Anyway, you said it here:

Anything that interacts with something that is physical is itself physical, pretty much by definition.

Once I got to that, I laughed, because if that is your supporting principal, then the rest is hubris......

Please posit some scientific or philosophical or scholarly proof or evidence that it is this way.

"By definition...." means nothing to me!!!!! Definition is relative semantics.

Please back it in some way, otherwise its all woo woo woo

Astyanax

Quite a clever chap, aren't you, Greylorn?

At any rate, you use the word 'stupid' and its synonyms rather freely. A sure sign of intelligence, as I'm sure all other nitwits agree.

Kindly note that what I'm doing in this series of threads is expressing, piecemeal, a complete theory that describes the origin of the occasional intelligent, conscious mind; then the origin of the universe, and its purpose; then the origin of biological life, and its purpose.

Greylorn, I am truly ashamed that you judged me as intellectually worthy of your attention, and sincerely hope that I have now said enough to make you write me off as a nitwit along with all the other nitwits. Having your respect feels a bit like I imagine it must feel to have scabies.

Oh, and by the way,

My diligence involved learning some physics.

Not enough, laddie. Not nearly enough.

And how would you know?

You have done a fair amount of work selecting out-of-context remarks of mine. Are you hoping for a job with the Democrats?

I knew when I set about presenting my ideas that dogmatists from both religionist and atheist sides would reject them. It is extremely difficult for the ordinary, well-programmed human brain to accept ideas that conflict with its programs. I confess to some surprise, however. Atheists like yourself have proven to be far more angry, and vehemently dogmatic, than the most rabid Christians I've encountered (elsewhere).

I try to evaluate people based upon an assessment of their overall intelligence. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and often error on the side of intelligence. Please accept my heartfelt apologies for overestimating yours.

I've never experienced scabies. There must be some kind of ointment that you could apply.

Dominicus

Greylorn

Originally posted by dominicus

Originally posted by rival
Your claim that the body is physical and therefore anything
interacting with the body must be physical is only relevant if
we humans can perceive ALL that is physical. It's hubris to
assume that we can.

If there is a soul it is certainly an ethereal entity that exists outside
our meager understanding of science,

If we do discover the soul, or the essence of the soul, I expect God
(if he exists) will be right there waiting around the corner for us.

His first words will be, "...what took you so long?"

This is what im saying.

Anything interacting with the physical body, must by physical is a bunch of bullcrap with no scientific evidence.

For example, thoughts seem to happen within the body. By this very definition, thoughts must be physical, but they're not!!!!!!

Think of a rock, now put that thought in my hand so I can hold it, lol.

Come on op!!!!!!!!

Apparently there is no end to the number of terminally ignorant people who mistake the programs installed in their brains for understanding. These nits are characterized by either their unwillingness to read, or their inability to comprehend the very little that they choose to read.

YEs, I am a nit, I am whatever you say I am, and if I wasn't, then why would you say I am?

Anyway, you said it here:

Anything that interacts with something that is physical is itself physical, pretty much by definition.

Once I got to that, I laughed, because if that is your supporting principal, then the rest is hubris......

Please posit some scientific or philosophical or scholarly proof or evidence that it is this way.

"By definition...." means nothing to me!!!!! Definition is relative semantics.

Please back it in some way, otherwise its all woo woo woo

I do not think that anything I write would strike more than two or three neurons on the way in, so I'll put you on my N-list, with thanks for your comment. You will find other threads that are better suited to you.

Astyanax
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Feel free to tell me I am wrong, as you do... but from my perspective, it seems as if you have started from the conclusion that what you perceive as 'yourself' existing, exists forever and is special. And then from that singularity of an idea, you looked around and invented a story as to justify that original belief.

What a shame that other self-proclaimed genius, fulllotusqigong has been banned. They would have got on like a house on fire.

I wonder how long the OP has with us. Care to place a bet?

Alas, the like-minded (or whatever) have finally found one another. Hope I get invited to the wedding. I'll bet on my lasting until the Packers win another Superbowl, despite your prattling. The moderators on ATS are smart and fair referees.

BTW, your post and my reply are off-topic. Can we get back on it, please?

Greylorn

Dominicus

Greylorn

Originally posted by dominicus

Originally posted by rival
Your claim that the body is physical and therefore anything
interacting with the body must be physical is only relevant if
we humans can perceive ALL that is physical. It's hubris to
assume that we can.

If there is a soul it is certainly an ethereal entity that exists outside
our meager understanding of science,

If we do discover the soul, or the essence of the soul, I expect God
(if he exists) will be right there waiting around the corner for us.

His first words will be, "...what took you so long?"

This is what im saying.

Anything interacting with the physical body, must by physical is a bunch of bullcrap with no scientific evidence.

For example, thoughts seem to happen within the body. By this very definition, thoughts must be physical, but they're not!!!!!!

Think of a rock, now put that thought in my hand so I can hold it, lol.

Come on op!!!!!!!!

Apparently there is no end to the number of terminally ignorant people who mistake the programs installed in their brains for understanding. These nits are characterized by either their unwillingness to read, or their inability to comprehend the very little that they choose to read.

YEs, I am a nit, I am whatever you say I am, and if I wasn't, then why would you say I am?

Anyway, you said it here:

Anything that interacts with something that is physical is itself physical, pretty much by definition.

Once I got to that, I laughed, because if that is your supporting principal, then the rest is hubris......

Please posit some scientific or philosophical or scholarly proof or evidence that it is this way.

"By definition...." means nothing to me!!!!! Definition is relative semantics.

Please back it in some way, otherwise its all woo woo woo

I do not think that anything I write would strike more than two or three neurons on the way in, so I'll put you on my N-list, with thanks for your comment. You will find other threads that are better suited to you.

You sir coughsarcasmcough, are a gentleman and a scholar. I'm glad you can articulately support all of your points, by definition.

I look forward to ignoring and avoiding all future trollings you post.
Thanks for waste of time....
....catch you on the other side......the non-physical plane.

*** note to self.....ignore all greylorn trolling

reply to post by Greylorn


I apologize, I should have followed an old aphorism, I took the time to contribute to what I thought was a meaningful op. But you and your great knowledge chose to belittle my contribution. You aren’t worth responding to again


Next time I will follow that old aphorism:

CAST NOT PEARLS AT THE FEET OF SWINE!

ImaFungi
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Feel free to tell me I am wrong, as you do... but from my perspective, it seems as if you have started from the conclusion that what you perceive as 'yourself' existing, exists forever and is special. And then from that singularity of an idea, you looked around and invented a story as to justify that original belief. How is anyone who claims the eternal soul exists any different from what I have described in you and your actions and motives?

Okay. You're wrong. Now that we have that settled, let's consider the whys and wherefores.

Thank you for the intellectual honesty involved in attributing your perspective to yourself. It is certainly not mine.

I began my thinking into metaphysical areas after perceiving myself as existing, and aware of that, and capable of choosing the information that I acquired. Slow and gradual process.

I was taught by Catholic nuns and priests that I would exist (as an immortal God-created soul) forever. Yet it occurred to me early on that things which have origins (e.g. my "soul") would naturally have terminations.

I have never claimed that "the eternal soul exists." Only stupid people who are programmed by absurd religious beliefs would do that. Dishonest individuals and Democrats would strive so blatantly to attribute their absurd beliefs to someone who has never voiced them. Kindly apologize for that false attribution on your part.

I have used the term "soul" in its normally religious contexts, after pointing out on other OPs and their associated threads that I do not hold to the traditional religious notion of soul, and have replaced it with a physics-based concept, "beon." Beon is not eternal, and not created by any God.

At the personal level, the only reason that I write these ideas is in hopes of achieving the classical Buddhist concept of "Nirvana," which contrary to popular belief is not a synonym for heaven. Nirvana means "extinguished," or deprived forever of conscious self-awareness and the intelligence that brought it into being. According to classical Buddhism, this can only be a conscious choice made from the highest levels of Buddhist enlightenment.

(No, I am not a Buddhist. However in the case of the longevity of beon/soul, our theories overlap.)

You wrote, "And then from that singularity of an idea, you looked around and invented a story as to justify that original belief."

That is your imagination trying to intrude upon my reality, rather rudely and ineptly.

Ideas are not "singularities." You need to let loose of that BS. An idea may be a singular event. BUY AND READ THAT AFOREMENTIONED DICTIONARY, please!

I did indeed invent a story, but it is more about you and the other several billion people on this planet than it is about me. The invention of a story does not make it wrong. After all, every powerful theory (Thermodynamics, Relativity, QM, etc.) begins with invention. Over time a few good minds (I'm waiting for them to appear here) are capable of looking beyond their programming and seeing the value in an alternative theory. Most alternative theories are crap. Mine may be as well, but I've put a fair amount of honest work and thought into it and think that it deserves a fair trial.

The problem with a trial is finding a jury of legitimate peers, individuals who have the rare intellectual integrity to evaluate another's ideas at face value, instead of from their own programmed belief systems.

Willtell
reply to post by Greylorn

 

I apologize, I should have followed an old aphorism, I took the time to contribute to what I thought was a meaningful op. But you and your great knowledge chose to belittle my contribution. You aren’t worth responding to again


Next time I will follow that old aphorism:

CAST NOT PEARLS AT THE FEET OF SWINE!

Hey, take your "pearls," presumably of wisdom, back. You are welcome to them. The OP had some content, but your post consisted of religious dogma.

IMO those who have accepted a religious dogma that works for them should keep it, and especially should keep it to themselves, or share it with the gullible. I do not want people like you to evaluate my ideas or consider them. They are not for you. They are for the undecided, the few genuine agnostics, and for those who describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious."

Keep your beliefs, if they work for you. And live by them.

If you feel that they are worth sharing with the multitude, start your own thread and get out of here.

reply to post by Greylorn


Just for your rudeness I just may stay and do the world a favor and reveal to it your bottomless ignorance.

For starters; my post had little to do with religion, or BTW, mysticism.
Its something called metaphysics.

Certain knowledge is metaphorical and allegorical and hidden so people with your disposition will never get it.

Because a guy like you would likely build an atomic bomb if you were given real knowledge, something that the whole universe takes its time to keep from for that very reason.

I have forgotten more knowledge than you will ever have!