this is akward. i have had this theory with reincarnation that i couldn't quite figure out yet. im not sure if anyone remembers when they were young and didn't understand language, but they still understood concepts and ideas and what not. this theory i have had is in that stage i guess. i'm not sure of the language needed to explain it but it makes sense to me. i'm slowly figuring out how to phrase the concepts of the theory and this post is going to figure into it somehow.

anyways, what SBC said is not special or unique, which is why i laughed at her. maybe she's not a girl but she thinks like one. no one can consciously remember the very first time they were instilled with consciousness and became aware of reality, thus the infinite emotions of always being here. your not special SBC, everyone has those feelings. they are called universals.

And why should I even stoop to believing you? Why don't you go ahead and prove it? I'm just interested in seeing why you say "your not." ... Obviously, you don't know yourself very well. If you did, you wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

Oh, really? What actually makes any reincarnation feeling universal? Everyone's experiences and emotions associated with this sort of thing aren't the same, aren't universal. I mean, give me a break, if the Universe wanted us to be the same boring creature, we never would've developed as we are now, and we would never know whether we did or not.
And I don't recall exactly mentioning that I remember the very first time I was instilled with consciousness and thus, became aware of reality. That's such a ridiculous notion, and not even hypnosis can get you there. If you thought I was implying it, you must understanding me wrong. I never said that I was unique or different from anyone else. And another thing, you know nothing about me, dearie. And I know nothing about you. Have you ever wondered just what it was that made me find out about my inner self, instead of dwelling on my outside self and worrying about what others think of me?

I do believe in reincarnation.
I recommend two books by the late Joe Fisher:



THE CASE FOR REINCARNATION

Life Between Life

They may be out of print but are worth hunting down.
Convincing to put it mildly.

One thing first.. deja vu can also be an occurance when your mind makes you believe that you have already done something, thereby making the sense of deja vu occur. It's a proven fact... though why our minds do it I dont know... if I could find the damn scientific shit on it I would.


About this fly business... let me point out something. We can supposedly use hypnotism in order to allow people to call forth their information pertaining to past lives. If this is true, than that would mean people could also have nightmares wherein they are remembering the past, since the subconcious itself dictates what we see in our dreams, and if something such as us being a fly in the past remains within our minds, our subconcious could call it forth.

That would mean you could actually remember being a fly... hell.. I've done something akin to this once myself.. twas an odd and scary dream.

SavageBloodyCat, your argument is contradictory. If you don’t believe Circ, here are two pretty quotes from you: “I never said that I was unique or different from anyone else” and “perhaps I'm just better connected to my inner self than anyone will be their entire lives.” Hmm. Perhaps you're just a typical moron, who is forgivable, but Circ can't say that, because it would be 'name calling.' Instead, Circ will just say your opinion is moronic.

Onward, to the crux of the argument: reincarnation! Assume for a moment that reincarnation is a reality. Yes, Circ knows this is very hard, but just try for the sake of argument. If this is true, every human (considering how far down the chain or history we are) would have to have a reincarnated spirit in them. Additionally, so would every other being that is capable of having a ‘spirit’: from your sperm cells, to flies, to cows, all the way back to humanity. Further assume that spirits divide like amoebas with each reincarnation event, in order to meet the supply-and-demand of all these bodies that need a soul, and the good karma ascends in the reincarnation hierarchy while the bad karma goes down, just to keep that tentative balance. For the last assumption, assume that only ‘sentient’ entities can attribute memory to the spirit, before it divides.

So far, Circ appears to be making a better case for reincarnation than anyone else on this board thus far has (that Circ has read about). After all, it explains the balance of spirits with bodies, as well as so few people having a memory of a reincarnation event. So, perhaps reincarnation is true; but the people who claim to have such memories are liars.

Why does Circ claim this?: because nobody would remember being a dog, a cow, a sperm cell, or a grass hopper. Circ has heard no credible story of reincarnation in his life. ‘Feeling as old as a dinosaur,’ and probably as small-minded – likely story. Also, most of these bodies which people claim to have had their spirit inside of aren’t capable of good or evil; just consider the fly. It can do no bad or good, as it lacks ethical standards. That’s why most flies are called drones. You cannot split karma (good/bad) when the creature with the spirit has no attributes that make it good or bad. And the only reason karma would put a person into such confinement would be for the purpose of punishment, which serves to make karma incredibly stupid, as no memory of that confinement would be passed on. If that were so, everyone would have terrible memories of being trapped in an insect’s body and being swatted, eaten, and otherwise tormented.

Additionally, in light of the fact that animals, insects, and plants have been around PRIOR to humanity (as proven by science), these karmatically neutral spirits would never have raised themselves out of their inferior habitations, and reached the point of occupying a sentient body.

So, we come to a question: are people who claim to be reincarnated liars, is karma stupid, or is the entire theory a sham? Interesting, and Circ would be amused to see who could prove one of those possibilities to be true.

As I have already stated, it has been proven that the mind will create an event wherein the person themself will believe they once were a part of that event, even though that event never occured.

This, in turn, would be considered deja vu, if the person went and did the event once more. The problem is that it isn't actually deja vu that we are talking about, but regression into a state of the mind wherein the person will say what they subconciously believe has occured.


This, in turn, would mean that the mind itself creates past lifetimes, wherein the person who created this stuff would be drawing on existing information that they didn't even really know anything about.

Another problem is when statements during hypnosis are sent forth and are highly accurate to what has happened in the past.



Allow me to point out something. A psychic can say that, when helping the police during a murder investigation, that they see a building, which is white, and appears to be at least one story tall, and that the building itself has a strange aura of green about it.

The person could be right just by being so damn general.. but a person can also say something specific, and still have the potential for being right, mainly due to the fact that there will be hundreds, if not thousands, that will wind up being wrong.


This means that the success stories themselves are nothing more than the few and the proud idiots who wound up being right with their subconcious guessing.


But why does the mind do this? Well.. that's easy. A lot of people fear death, and so they would like to believe that they are reincarnated, since that would mean that upon death they would wind up living, if not immediatly then shortly afterward. Another thing is to make them feel special, as though they have a purpose for existing, and that is to carry a spirit.

So, in the end, reincarnation is actually not real, and people are just hopeless fools.

now to just pester circ on chat so he can read this..

i wanted to reply to your other post in the proverbs thread but it was to incoherent. this one is short thought so it is a bit easier to understand. there's a number of reasons for you to get off your high horse and "stoop" to believing me. mainly because you won't see much with your head in the clouds. i know very little about myself and about my existence. that is not what seperates us though. i think about self, and existence alot. i meditate, i theorize, i experiment. one thing i don't do though, is play make-believe.

i explained this in the post you quoted. consciousness can not remember it's inception. so memory fades backwards in time and doesn't reach an origin. memory creates a feeling of infinity. which is why it is a universal. because everyone's memory functions the same.

again humans are a species and for the most part we all function the same. that is why we have universals. there are cultural universals, physical universals, universal ideas and what not. i did not misunderstand you. i was explaining your feeling of always being here. everyone has it. if there was no record of history, this feeling would be very prominent.

this is what you said.

i think the implications are there. but maybe im still having trouble deciphering your style of speaking.

this is one thing i hate about religion. it creates a starting point from which to explore the world. but religion is crap so people end up clutching at straws. i have a friend who has read up on all that karma shit. she has told me about some of it. we both have ideas about reincarnation. hers are more developed then mine. what sucks is that hers stem from religious ideas so they seem very biased.

she believes in planes. she says that right now we are in the third plane of existence. souls are introduced into this plane as sentient beings. they live, they experience and then they die. through this life experience they evolve, and they grow, and they understand their existence a little more. they are then reintroduced into the plane to learn and evolve more. the process is likened to that of a math student. their is a hierarchy of sentient beings the soul is introduced into systematically. first graders are taught numbers. after the school year if they have a good understanding of numbers they advance to second grade and learn addition and subtraction. again they progress to third grade and learn multiplication. im not sure where the process starts. im not sure if plant life is part of the hierarchy or not. logically i think it would be. anyways, some souls repeat a grade a bunch of times, some souls are excellent learners and progress rapidly and graduate into the fourth plane of existence. she believes a soul will be a number of sentient beings before evolving enough to be introduced into the fourth plan. but the final sentient being before progressing is a human woman. this is not to say that a soul will not have been a woman before, but that it's last vessel in the third plane will be a woman. because the gift of life is the most powerful and beautiful moment in human existence and it is likened to the inception into the fourth realm. she also has other ideas about why a woman will be the last vessal. she said something about the polarity of emotion that comes with being a woman. the issue of mother hood makes sense to me, but the bias of valuing emotion over logic does not. either way, souls leave the third plane slower then they enter. which makes up for the burst of human population.

Yes, that's just your opinion on my opinion. It's not moronic. Has anyone forgotten that the answers to philosophy aren't the only answers? I thought that there were no right OR wrong answers. There are only opinions. I'm not going to call your side "moronic." I just am going to use it as a tool to further understand what we're really all arguing about. Maybe the reason is that you can't understand me, and instead of asking why or how or anything of the sort, you just assume things. As a friend of mine once put it... "An open mind's a full mind."

I do think the reason I won't get my head out of the clouds is because people like you can be found on the ground. What makes me easier to understand? It's not the shortness of my message. It has to be something else. Maybe I'm not showing you the connections between what I talk about and the subjects' are like. Not everyone likes metaphors.
Actually... What separates us is the physical reality. I did once say you didn't know yourself very well and see, since you've been thinking, you actually found out about that. But if you say you've been thinking about self and existence often, there should've been some things coming up from within you while you mediate.
Just because I do things differently than you doesn't mean mine is "make-believe." So excuse me, if you think I actually insulted you.

But I still don't understand you. I think individually from everyone else, so I still believe that we're not all the same. Even if you mean that everyone has the same feeling of "Been here once", that feeling should convey only what they feel has been their last experience in the reincarnation cycle. Isn't that it?
Yes, I see your point a bit that everyone's memory functions the same, but I don't think memories ever had a point of origin, though. I think it's only the created infinity, but I don't think anyone's felt what true infinity is like. Real infinity might be totally different in concepts understood as time.
- I think this feeling is still going to be prominent because the records of history aren't exactly accurate. It's been the people in power that wrote about it, and it's usually biased on their own views of religion, the world around them, and their side of fighting in a war. Ah... That's it. You were talking about archetypes... They're a concept of a universal idea that everyone can relate to, regardless of race or whatever. The idea of reincarnation is old, though, but there could be several archetypes attached to it.
If you're having trouble deciphering my style of speaking, just ask. It's really common sense, and I've tried to understand yours, and your point of view. Now before you go off and make me feel insulted again...

Circ wonders about SavageBloodCat. How is it they misunderstood what he meant when he said their agument is moronic? He was talking about the contradictory phrasing they used, NOT the philosophy about reincarnation. You cannot be normal and better than everyone else at the same time. Furthermore, the very tone of your posts make you appear to have no 'credibility' (as ErrantRogue likes to say) and also causes you to act so incredibly narcisstic it is disgusting.

Also, there are right or wrong answers. 1 + 1 = 2. The world is round (or a geoid, if you prefer). Things can be contradictory. The point of philosophy isn't establishing the concept that there is no truth, but quite the opposite. The point of philosophy is finding the ultimate truth.

All I got to say is... "Whatever."

That's logic. It's clear-cut, black and white. Where there ARE right and wrong answers. Logic is the coming to conclusion about a certain situation with given, proven facts divined from that same situation. Or so I've always defined logic.

Philosophy can be about both, the fact that there is no truth, and yet there is an ultimate truth. Reminds me of something a child said in the movie The Matrix. I love that movie. "There is no spoon." I can't remember the earlier sentence before that...