Does The Soul Survive After Death?

[lostone]

Harry Waton:

It was assumed that the soul has a conscious and actual existence separate and apart from the body. Such soul never existed. The soul is an idea of God, and this idea has a conscious and actual existence only in the body. Before the body comes into existence, the soul is only an idea in God; and, when the body dies, the soul again becomes an idea of God; but the soul has then no longer a conscious and actual existence. Finally, the immortality of the soul does not mean that, after the death of the body, the soul goes up to heaven and there continues to exist forever in a disembodied state. Such immortality never existed. The soul as an idea of God is eternal, but its conscious and actual existence continues through reincarnations in human bodies. It is with the soul as it is with the idea of the electric lamp. In the mind of men the idea may exist for ever, but the actual existence and function of this idea begins only when it becomes embodied in a material electric lamp. This is the true monistic view of existence. The idea and its material form are one and the same.

Part of Brahma's dreams?

 

[lostone]

Harry Waton:

It was assumed that the soul has a conscious and actual existence separate and apart from the body. Such soul never existed. The soul is an idea of God, and this idea has a conscious and actual existence only in the body. Before the body comes into existence, the soul is only an idea in God; and, when the body dies, the soul again becomes an idea of God; but the soul has then no longer a conscious and actual existence. Finally, the immortality of the soul does not mean that, after the death of the body, the soul goes up to heaven and there continues to exist forever in a disembodied state. Such immortality never existed. The soul as an idea of God is eternal, but its conscious and actual existence continues through reincarnations in human bodies. It is with the soul as it is with the idea of the electric lamp. In the mind of men the idea may exist for ever, but the actual existence and function of this idea begins only when it becomes embodied in a material electric lamp. This is the true monistic view of existence. The idea and its material form are one and the same.

Sounds like the Hindu concept of the many Dreams in the mind of Brahma. Except that then the so-called soul becomes just a piece of unnecessary baggage, if it all exists in only the mind of Brahma. Just another idealistic view of pantheism.

 

[Learner]

Awareness and consciousness, as I previously stated, concerns 'intelligent' minds,

Concerns? Who cares about concerns? You can't define awareness, consciousness or intelligence, so any conclusion derived from your "concerns" is bullshit.

That's good, I would have said to you, "don't be concerned" if you had felt you did.

which should mean... a virus is NOT one of those!

Things don't "mean" what you think they "should" - to anyone other than yourself.

You must mean, those on the thread wouldn't, other than myself, which is understandable - but if you're suggesting, or putting up the 'false impression' that I'm all alone in the whole "wai wai wherl" then you're wishfully in error.

A lot of us do rely, for better or for worse, on repeatable observations, science and math, to predict and explain the behavior of the matter and energy that comprise the universe that surrounds us.
We do not rely exclusively on those things in our moment to moment lives of course, because humans are plagued with language.

I am not arguing against the statement of the obvious.

And our language contains words like "awareness" and "intelligence" that have no rigorous meaning, and therefore do not lend to observation, explanation or prediction of any real phenomena, even if they are useful for communicating subjective things between humans.

If that's the perspective you're going by, then ok, fair pov. Being consciously aware of your self-being in the world 'does' have meaning... the simplicity of the idea escapes the professors of "wisdom", very simply, it's because it's a born attribute of all creatures capable of intellectual thought and will. It differentiates I suppose you could say .... between the non-existent written poetry from living cabbages in a patch, and humans making cabbage soup. (I jest)

The pitfall of discussions like this, is treating awareness, consciousness or intelligence like actual definable things that can be treated with logic to reach reliable conclusions. And that's what you're doing.

Is giving my pov on the topic matter, really a contributor to the pitfall of discussions (although it can't be helped, that what ever I say, will be taken to be, purely about religion)? I was asked what my definition was - not the I was arguing my view was better than your explanation, to which I am suddenly finding myself defending God and Christianity, besides the topic of the thread.

I don't mean to be mean, but this thread is utterly devoid of any ACTUAL meaning, no matter what you or anyone else is able to read into it to support religious poppycock. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't entertaining.

No worries. I do like engaging in discussions, more so seriously, and I have actually learned things, especially about ideological perspectives.

Entertaining - yes, it's understandable from my end, I find it can be entertaining too, depending on the type of post or response.

 

[Elixir]

I would have said to you, "don't be concerned" if you had felt you did.

Did WHAT? Respond to the word “concern” as if it was a physical thing that could be measured in units?

Being consciously aware of your self-being in the world 'does' have meaning...

Sure. So does “situational awareness”. So does “spiritual awareness”. So do myriad types of “self awareness”. So does “Being consciously aware of your self-being in the world”
SO WHAT? It’s word salad without a context.

I am suddenly finding myself defending God and Christianity, besides the topic of the thread.

I don’t think gods, extant or not, require your defense. But maybe they do appreciate your effort.
The idea of souls without gods could be a little bit interesting though. How would souls not created by gods come to exist, or evolve? It’s hard to see evolution working on eternal entities unless they self-replicate, especially in a god-created universe, so a thread about souls, to me, invokes god(s) directly. Gods imply religion to me. YMMV
And of course I would like to hear your ideas of how the differences between god-made and other (evolved?) souls might effect a person’s life experience….

 

[lostone]

I can imagine a universe that allows souls but not god(s). Souls being sort of mini-gods, in that case. To grant the possibility of that, however, does not mean I would consider it a very plauseable possibility.

 

[No Robots]

Sounds like the Hindu concept of the many Dreams in the mind of Brahma. Except that then the so-called soul becomes just a piece of unnecessary baggage, if it all exists in only the mind of Brahma. Just another idealistic view of pantheism.

Erm, did you miss the part that says, "[t]he idea and its material form are one and the same?" Everything is part of the eternal necessity of existence. All phenomena are material manifestations of eternal ideas. Waton elaborates:

The purpose of the soul is to function in this material world forever, for this is the absolute, infinite and eternal purpose of God himself. God therefore has an idea of the form of the body, and this idea is the soul herself. Since the soul is eternal, it follows that the essence of the body is eternal. And here we see a most remarkable confirmation of a belief entertained by mankind generally and by Jews in particular, namely, that the resurrection of man means also a resurrection of the body.

 

[No Robots]

With regard to pantheism, ie. the identity of God to the material world, Waton states:

For thousands of years mankind believed that God is separate and apart from the material world. This was an illusion, which caused mankind infinite suffering and struggle. The time has now arrived for realizing that God is the material world. There never was a God outside of and independent of the material world. Since, however, theologians and mankind generally believed that God was outside of the material world, the atheists were right in denying the existence of such God. But now the atheists will fully agree that a God who is the material world always existed and always will exist.

 

[lostone]

With regard to pantheism, ie. the identity of God to the material world, Waton states:

For thousands of years mankind believed that God is separate and apart from the material world. This was an illusion, which caused mankind infinite suffering and struggle. The time has now arrived for realizing that God is the material world. There never was a God outside of and independent of the material world. Since, however, theologians and mankind generally believed that God was outside of the material world, the atheists were right in denying the existence of such God. But now the atheists will fully agree that a God who is the material world always existed and always will exist.

Which removes the need for religion of any sort. Be nice to each, in that case, is all the religion anyone needs.

 

[abaddon]

With regard to pantheism, ie. the identity of God to the material world, Waton states:

For thousands of years mankind believed that God is separate and apart from the material world. This was an illusion, which caused mankind infinite suffering and struggle. The time has now arrived for realizing that God is the material world. There never was a God outside of and independent of the material world. Since, however, theologians and mankind generally believed that God was outside of the material world, the atheists were right in denying the existence of such God. But now the atheists will fully agree that a God who is the material world always existed and always will exist.

Which removes the need for religion of any sort. Be nice to each, in that case, is all the religion anyone needs.

If God is the world then the world should be reverenced. The feeble "be nice to each other" sentiment doesn't quite cover it.

 

[lostone]

With regard to pantheism, ie. the identity of God to the material world, Waton states:

For thousands of years mankind believed that God is separate and apart from the material world. This was an illusion, which caused mankind infinite suffering and struggle. The time has now arrived for realizing that God is the material world. There never was a God outside of and independent of the material world. Since, however, theologians and mankind generally believed that God was outside of the material world, the atheists were right in denying the existence of such God. But now the atheists will fully agree that a God who is the material world always existed and always will exist.

Which removes the need for religion of any sort. Be nice to each, in that case, is all the religion anyone needs.

If God is the world then the world should be reverenced. The feeble "be nice to each other" sentiment doesn't quite cover it.

I was making an effort to be bland

 

[No Robots]

Development of the soul requires effort and suffering. There is nothing bland or feeble about it.

 

[lostone]

Considering that this is mere speculation, unprovable, strong opinions are not called for, and to be avoided.

 

[abaddon]

Development of the soul requires effort and suffering. There is nothing bland or feeble about it.

I thought "the soul herself" was God's "idea of the form of the body" and is eternal?

If 'she' is eternal then why does she need to be developed? And why is suffering involved?

 

[lostone]

As for reverence, we better treat this world with respect and use its resources wisely, or we will exhaust them, and become extinct sooner than need be so. And being kinder to each other would be its own reward, and make life better for everyone. Whether or not all this speculation has any truth to it or is just a pipe dream.

 

[No Robots]

Development of the soul requires effort and suffering. There is nothing bland or feeble about it.

I thought "the soul herself" was God's "idea of the form of the body" and is eternal?

If 'she' is eternal then why does she need to be developed? And why is suffering involved?

God is dynamic, process, work. God has an objective, to know himself in infinite forms. The destiny of man is to understand his soul as united with the whole of nature, with god. God is subject to the law of equivalents: there is a quid pro quo for everything. For god to attain absolute self-knowing, he must plunge into absolute unknowing. The rise from unknowing to knowing requires effort and suffering.

 

[abaddon]

Development of the soul requires effort and suffering. There is nothing bland or feeble about it.

I thought "the soul herself" was God's "idea of the form of the body" and is eternal?

If 'she' is eternal then why does she need to be developed? And why is suffering involved?

God is dynamic, process, work. God has an objective, to know himself in infinite forms. The destiny of man is to understand his soul as united with the whole of nature, with god. God is subject to the law of equivalents: there is a quid pro quo for everything. For god to attain absolute self-knowing, he must plunge into absolute unknowing. The rise from unknowing to knowing requires effort and suffering.

Perhaps "God" is a wholly unconscious physical process who's slowly evolving towards greater awareness.

And maybe there's hope for a POV that's similar to what you're saying, in recent speculations by scientists. The One by Victorio Paz, a physicist, is a book on my list I haven't got to yet... but it's the sort of thing that's become my interest too. It's about monism from the POV of a physicist. In The Romance of Reality the author "shows us the evidence that suggests that the universe is a “self-organizing” system, one that is moving toward increasing complexity and awareness." (These aren't earth-shaking books, I'm just using them as examples to say that the interest in monism is out there and getting more popular.)

After all, as we all know, speculation is how we figure out where we've all been wrong and what new and better outlook can be found.

My opinion on gods and souls is they're outmoded ways of talking about emergent phenomena -- things no less real (but far more significant) than the energy and matter from which they emerge. Some pre-modern thinkers like Plotinus need another look, to see if we didn't misunderstand them by thinking "that's all just supernaturalist woo". But they also need to be updated. The real enemy is the hyper-reductionism that makes "it's all just chemistry" seem like a non-psychotic thing to say.

 

[steve_bank]

A fart is a dnamic process.

It seems to be everywhere but nowhere. Farts are mystical beyond our understanding..

 

[No Robots]

And maybe there's hope for a POV that's similar to what you're saying, in recent speculations by scientists. The One by Victorio Paz, a physicist, is a book on my list I haven't got to yet... but it's the sort of thing that's become my interest too. It's about monism from the POV of a physicist. In The Romance of Reality the author "shows us the evidence that suggests that the universe is a “self-organizing” system, one that is moving toward increasing complexity and awareness." (These aren't earth-shaking books, I'm just using them as examples to say that the interest in monism is out there and getting more popular.)

After all, as we all know, speculation is how we figure out where we've all been wrong and what new and better outlook can be found.

My opinion on gods and souls is they're outmoded ways of talking about emergent phenomena -- things no less real (but far more significant) than the energy and matter from which they emerge. Some pre-modern thinkers like Plotinus need another look, to see if we didn't misunderstand them by thinking "that's all just supernaturalist woo". But they also need to be updated. The real enemy is the hyper-reductionism that makes "it's all just chemistry" seem like a non-psychotic thing to say.

I've always thought you were a pretty forward thinking person, abaddon. The problem is that our science is reductively materialist. To combat this, it is indeed necessary to look at systems that recognize thought as primordial. I have allied myself with those who see Spinoza as providing the foundations for a solution. Now, attempts have been made to capture Spinoza for the materialist camp, but this is futile. Here is Waton on the subject in 1938:

When we reflect on the whole philosophy of Spinoza, we see that it readily lends itself to a materialistic interpretation. Indeed, the communists try to make of Spinoza a materialist. It is true that Spinoza's philosophy is materialistic, but the communists overlook a very significant fact. Let us return back to the idea. We learned that to understand an idea, we must see it in its material form; but, to understand the universal nature of an idea, we must see it in the idea itself. It is the idea that realizes itself in a material form, but it is not the material form that gives rise to the idea. Hence, while it is true that we can look on existence in its material forms, but these material forms are only the realization of the ideas of God.

Thus, it is matter that is emergent from thought, and not vice-versa. This is strictly a logical priority: in effect, the idea and its materialization are coterminous, that is, when they are considered under the aspect of eternity.

 

[No Robots]

A fart is a dnamic process.

It seems to be everywhere but nowhere. Farts are mystical beyond our understanding..

I'm sure there are people who would take a shit in front of the Mona Lisa just to prove how free they are of any semblance of dignity.

 

[No Robots]

As for using the words "god" and "soul", I don't have an issue with it, but Constantin Brunner makes a point of using a more rigorous terminology:

God - soul - spark: another name would be more fitting. To call the child by its right name we must call it the Cogitant [das Denkende]. That is the proper name for the Father, the Absolute. This name is proper and unmistakable and designates our relationship to it; our relationship to the Absolute is wholly that of ideatum to Cogitant. This is the Absolute: the Cogitant, thinking all our thoughts for us, forming all egos and yet being itself non-ego. Our ego is our ideatum of our feeling, knowing and willing; compared with this ego our Cogitant is nothing, and yet it is the sole, the truly highest “‘something”’, id quo majus cogitari nequit [that than which nothing greater can be conceived]. Indeed, everything that cannot be true of “God” is true of the Cogitant in us; this is something that must be affirmed by everyone who is willing to say that what is, is indeed, and what is not, is not. Similarly, however, if he wants to assert that he understands what he understands, and does not understand what he does not understand, he must go on to say that this absolute nature of the Cogitant within him is something beyond his comprehension. It is not cognizable; it is what no eye has seen, no ear has heard and no intelligence has grasped. Here, too, therefore, what the non-thinkers attribute to their God actually characterizes the Cogitant in us, albeit the difference is that the Cogitant in us is really there and cannot be denied by anyone. Atheism contests the existence of an external God; but there can be no similar argument against the Cogitant in us. With regard to the Cogitant in us it is impossible for one to say “It is,” another “It is not” and a third, ‘‘I don’t know whether it is or it isn’t.”” No one who understands even the words of the following exposition concerning THE COGITANT can doubt that THE COGITANT is the Absolute.