Proof of reincarnation.

The proof of reincarnation is that life sucks. Since life sucks it is a negative state. It is better to have never been born.

Therefore, since one is born, it implies an inherent inescapable gravity towards being alive. The desired state is to not exist, but is not attainable. Being alive is inescapable.

Thus, the only sane and rational philosophy is to create utopia of this earth. If one is not aimed towards a utopia, one is not an ally of the Light.

I’m gonna make a poll.
I agree strangely with your conclusion but not with the premise?

Isn’t entropy the default state? The “inherent inescapable gravity” is towards being dead. I would say life is more incidental: the expected outcome of the entropy within the relatively closed system of the earth’s atmosphere being lower than the usual level in the vast majority of space that is outside it.

As to whether this exceptional case of life on earth “sucks”, never having been born is a “null” state - there is no better or worse in pre-life or death: value judgments are restricted to the realm of life. Life is positive and negative and not even mutually exclusively, nor uniformly depending on what values are used to determine whether it is positive and/or negative.

The desired state is to live positively and not negatively in whichever ways you see them to be, but being alive is perfectly (albeit not easily) escapable due to entropy. Life is dying all the time. Utopia is thus sane in order to delay this, but optional, and the better/worse ways to do this depend.
When it comes down to who is an ally of the Light, most people see themselves as being such a way - but light comes in so many different colours. The whitest light is what emerges when all of these colours interact.

Eternal non existence is a state free from all suffering so it is therefore infinitely preferable to existence
As life is but an infinitesimal blip between two infinite states maybe it is better never to have been born

It’s also a state free from all pleasure/enjoyment/satisfaction/contentment, so it’s equally not preferable to existence. Eternal non existence is a null state.

Or the two infinite states are part of an infinite present that is life imagining them, in which case not being born is not really part of this infinity and not a relevant concern (or even possible to imagine).

There are two states : the state of existence which has consciousness and suffering and the state of non existence which has neither
You cannot have consciousness without suffering so the choice is binary and I choose non existence because it has no suffering at all

Yeah but it’s not just suffering… is my point.

Abstract said love is the gravity of the soul.

Nice. RIP.

A poetic depiction, with fidelity to the literal experience also.

You seem not to be choosing non-existence.

Yes, I found it quite clarifying in this context. He is missed.

I think, also considering that Abstract took his own life, that it can go either way.

I’d say, we suffer ourselves, and pleasure is a segment of this self-suffering, the segment we suffer voluntarily. I think the “key” to life is to know how to enjoy the greater part of the self-suffering.

It’s comically trivial but in my case it was Arnold Schwarzenegger who drove this home to me long ago. His Pumping Iron video taught me to seek out pain and love it in my workouts, I proceeded to always push for ten more pushups after I was out of strength, and within a week this had completely washed away my long lingering depression. Depression is perhaps fear of pain that won’t even be that bad, refusal of pain that is actually good.

Psychological pain is the same, to learn to endure it with joy makes the character very strong, and the only real joy is in strength.

By the same machinery, pitying a young person and pampering someone in that pity is an absolutely sure way of causing helplessness, depletion, and from there on, depression.

It is a matter of embracing or fleeing from the suffering that is necessarily always going to be. Embracing that suffering, hard for someone with a strong imagination and a dark side, i.e. for interesting people, is what Nietzsche’s philosophy pivots toward, but he couldn’t avoid inventing an eternal joy as compensation. The ultimate freedom is not to require compensation.

Reincarnation is a more ethical outcome for human lives than are oblivion or afterlives of reward or punishment.

Yes I agree.
It focusses the psyche on building.

It evokes the idea of the dharma, or Orlog, as the slowly pulsating and even slower changing fabric woven of the individual strains of karma, the paths that we walk, wyrd.
I find it easy to conceive how a valuing-tendency, which is what I see as the essential character of a being, can preserve its structural integrity in an electromagnetic cipher. After all our consciousness is just an electromagnetic affair. Our body is what we are conscious of.

The body is thus a temple for the consciousness to be conscious of itself through a world of others causing development of bliss with the circumference of tragedy. It would have all emerged from the ground up though, like Darwin said, this complex EM soul thing that could for all I can fathom well survive in the storms of Jupiter or the Hexagon atop Saturn or in the venomous clouds on Venus, or in the Suns magnetic nodes, but it can’t have emerged there and decided or been designated to inhabit life - for where would life have come from? Life isn’t some kind of golem, precreated for spirit to inhabit it. But when we began to walk erect, the chemistry of our brain disconnected from the instincts and hooked into the EM patterns causes by the churning stomach in which we form, from our perspective, the pit. Thats how Id imagine it working, if.

Of course as soon as this happened, the species would have changed completely.
(It may explain our loss of our animal hide, to better be able to receive and transmit the EM. The hearts field is of course especially strong, given its physical function.)

And in this sense birds, especially flock birds, would seem to live in a state almost beyond life and death, as it would be experienced by a human.

Inconveniently this belief also leads to greater keenness vs past civilization and their religions. A lot of curious souls become lost in this daemonic darkness.

Reincarnation poses significant problems with the notion of identity.

Seeing as all you really need for a sense of identity is a story of memories with sufficient congruence in key areas, such as in what other people say about you relative to your memories and explanations of your current state relative to your memories.

How then, seeing as only a very small number of people claim to have knowledge of past lives and even then there’s no good evidence beyond coincidence, and either actively or passively picking up information about the person you claimed to be, is there any ground to claim that the person “reincarnated” is in fact the same person as they were in “their” past life? Even more impossible, then, is learning/growing across lives since not only can this not transfer when there’s no verifiable memory of the past life to learn/grow from, but it’s not even the same “you” between which lessons are transferred.

This isn’t to say you can’t believe in it even though it makes no sense, and this might motivate you to try for a reward even though you’ll never get it…

Identity is based on a bit more than just memories. Ones ability to recognize themselves in the mirror or recognize their name need not depend on the memory of when they learned to recognize their reflection or their name. Of course, recognition IS a kind of memory, but not the kind I gather you’re talking about (I.e. recollection of past events).

The idea of reincarnation revolves around the idea of a soul, the core “you” that survives death. It depends on the idea of some persisting thing with a continuous identity–one end connected with your death in one life, the other with your birth in the next. This identity need not be your own self-identity, so you don’t need to recognize yourself in that persisting thing.

Then I shouldn’t have said “all you really need for a sense of identity is”, but instead spoken of a necessary element to identity (amongst other elements) that by itself poses significant problems with the notion of identity persisting between a life and its reincarnation. How does my point fare now?

What is the significance of “some persisting thing” when nobody recognises/experiences it, not even yourself? It’s just supposed to be this kind of “secret present you get in a subsequent life that nobody would ever know but believe me it’s there and you should respect and be grateful before it based on faith”? You could believe this is the case even if no such thing existed, for sure, and you’d have this wonderfully entirely fabricated reason to be grateful and respectful even though it’s based on a “useful” lie… The capacity to make up “unfalsifiable stuff that if believed is useful” is no doubt a human capability - but just because we can do it, does that justify it? There’s plenty of things that humans can do that aren’t justifiable.

It’s already true that the same atoms will probably persist between one entity that dies and then in another that is born, in just the same way that they’re exchanged between living and dead things all the time while you’re alive, and even entirely replaced by different atoms over the course of the same lifetime - never mind between lives, “reincarnated” or not.
My point is that if atoms can do the same thing as “the soul” and have no bearing on identity whatsoever, why does the soul? You could just define the soul as they only thing(s) that persist “within” a person (identifiable to continue to be the same person) that do have a bearing on identity, but then obviously you immediately run into problems with what this actually is. Otherwise it’s just a myth. In computer programming it would be an uninitialised pointer - the pointer would exist, it would point to “something” fairly random in memory but it would be gibberish unless by coincidence, and even if it wasn’t gibberish by accident and the software let the program compile anyway, you’d just run into an error.