What Of Your Soul?

I am in complete agreement. I’ve said the same things with different word arrangements, but nobody here believes or understands my meanings in the slightest, well until now…you. It is a Hurculean task and possible, but with help to complete the transition. I never was able to transition without help, but I do not know where the help came from? Have you separated your inner mind from your outer mind?

zinnat

Who is he, zinnat?

I am sorry to say that most of this sounds more like Dissociative Identity Disorder to me than anything else, zinnat.

As for the below…

I have also heard of that explanation – I call it more of an excuse THAN actually not remembering.

But if that even could be true - I do not believe in reincarnation/past lives - though there was a time when I had my musings about it -it might just depend on the INDIVIDUAL him/her -self.

Some of us never learn from our past experiences In This Life. We do not take the time to reflect on them, try to learn from them, from our mistakes and their consequences. We simply are not interested in becoming more, learning to know ourselves. We choose not to examine our lives, our journey, to learn.
We are just plain lazy.

Perhaps that perspective in quotes is simply one gained and adapted from observations made in this Life.

Aside from that, I find no reason why remembering/knowing/understanding our past lives (if we had them) would be a stumbling block for more personal human evolution and growth. We would just have to work on it.

Tell me, how would that keep someone from learning. Give me an example.

Some of our lives are tragic and chaotic, we feel shame, disgrace, guilt but we can still learn from that, transcend that, come to understand that some things just do not have answers.
We may, in fact, come from out of past lives, but to me they are still a part of this one singular life.

The way I look at it, the perspective you used - that others believe - is just a way to sweep under the carpet the fact that we just cannot know many things for the most part – they are just too unexplainable – so we say something like that.

Perhaps Rilke’s words come home to roost here…

“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”

I love these so-profound words of his.
Why do we always have to force the answers to fill in the gaps?

Reincarnation cannot be proven either way. But what might be proven to self is WHY we choose to accept something that there is just no evidence for…though we cannot help ourselves at times. It is a part of our default human natures.
Believing things does not necessarily make them So.

with love,
sanjay
[/quote]

with love,
sanjay

Wandydarling, though i am not sure about i should ues he or she.

You may say so.

We all invariably learn from our experiences. We cannot stop learning even if we want. Yes, we may or may not realize this learning. Laziness does not come in the way of learning in any way. Secondly, the learning is meant for soul(subconscious) mind only, which keeps leaning all the time through circumstances and experiences by default. Thirdly, we all use or rather have to learn different things, not the same.

The actual problem with the remembrance of the past lives is less with past lives but more with what else is stored in the soul(subconscious) mind. Remembrance of the past lives will only create confusions regarding relations. But remember, the soul life is not about only its human incarnations. Besides it, it has its own life which far longer that humans and operates in a different dimension too. If humans become aware of that anyhow, they will never able to learn ever.

Again, you may say so.

Read this link.

iisis.net/index.php?page=sur … s&hl=en_US

There are many such other cases too.

with love,
sanjay

What does to some extent mean? I don’t understand what you are doing. What exactly do you accomplish for a few minutes and what do you witness?

It took me years to figure out what I needed to do to make my projection happen. I wasted a lot of time and effort trying to understand what the right conditions needed to be and the conditions need to be ideal.

I am told that there are different types of separations such as remote viewing versus a complete astral projection. Some folks even consider lucid dreams a form of the soul separating, but I do not. I am able to do a complete separation rather than a remote viewing.

I completely agree but even with the best will in the world it can be hard to achieve. I would like to end my life being absolutely certain of nothing but I do not know if my mind could take it that far. Being human does not exactly help because sometimes I am prone to thinking emotionally rather than logically. Nevertheless I have made some progress in the last seven years since I first started learning which is good but I do not want to become complacent as there is so much more to be done

The soul isn’t physical; the soul is metaphysical. Exclusively.

So you mean something intangible, something that cannot be seen or felt (touched)?
Something which never dies, is eternal? That kind of metaphysical?

I mean the metaphysical type.

Okay. So define that in your own words - not google’s. lol

What is the metaphysical soul to YOU.

I would say that the soul is an unconscious drive. It’s immanent and transcendent.

Arminius,

I may be wrong here but couldn’t you explain most things away with that terminology - a thing in itself, thing as such, like a tree, rainbow, animal, human, ad continuum? What story do those things tell, aside from that?

Imagining the Soul

"Now, against the backdrop of Christou and Jung, let us look at what James Hillman, the founder of the archetypal school, has to say about soul.

. . .[W]e are not dealing with something that can be defined; and therefore soul is really not a concept, but a symbol. Symbols, as we know, are not completely under our control, so that we are not able to use the word in an unambiguous way, even though we take it to refer to that unknown human factor which makes meaning possible, which turns events into experiences, and which is communicated in love. The soul is a deliberately ambiguous concept resisting all definition in the same manner as do all ultimate symbols which provide the root metaphors for the systems of human thought. “Matter” and “nature” and “energy” have ultimately the same ambiguity; so too have “life,” “health”, “justice” and “God,” which provide the symbolic sources for the points of view we have already seen. (Hillman, Suicide and the Soul, 46-47.)

Clearly, there is no contradiction with Christou in this passage. Soul again is not an ontological entity, but a symbol for the place from which meaning grows. The soul is a “root metaphor” here in Hillman’s humanities-influenced language and a “first principle” in Christou’s more philosophical style.

The last point made about soul, that it refers to the imaginative possibility in our nature, is a Pandora’s box. The obvious question that comes to mind, “What are imagination, fantasy, and image?” It is this aspect of Jung’s work that the archetypal school has amplified so vigorously. It seems safe to say that all of Jung’s ideas on fantasy and imagination apply here as well. Hillman says that he follows Jung quite closely with respect to fantasy. As for the relationship between soul and imagination, Edward Casey, in his book, Imagining: A Phenomenological Study, says “imagining is the moving agent of soul, its main motor and primary possibilizer.”

cgjungpage.org/learn/article … es-it-mean

Scientist can’t explain our world, the philosophers and theologians can’t explain it either.

So, all we can do is to describe it and to do it in the most possible way of correctness and conclusiveness, stringency, thus by using logic in connection with our experiences.

Wouldn’t you say that at least the scientists, if not totally, at least in some part, have had great success in explaining the world/the Universe?
They may not be able to explain its Very Origin but still…

How does one go about using logic when it comes to terms like soul?
I also think of the soul as a symbol just as the psyche is. They are akin to each other to some degree.

The success of the scientists is pretty great. But nonetheless, we have to admit that this success refers mainly to a short time of history and to certain times in history more than to others. And by the way: I was not talking about the success of the scientists. I was talking about the scientists’ incapability of explainig our world.

The current scientific knowledge contradicts the older one, although (or because?) the older one was probably more successful than the current one, at least in a relative way,.

Philosophers and theologians have already been unsuccessful for a long time; and according to many people (regardless of the facts about them), philosophers and theologians are just redundant.

What remains?

An example: We want to know whether or not a soul exists. I can guarantee you that science is the wrong address when it comes to this question. On the other hand, theology and philosophy have currently a more bad than a good reputation in general, at least in the West.

Therefore I said:

And there is hope, as almost always.

Those terms do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight … and so on and so forth. The opposite is true. With those terms we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.

Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.

These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: “As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables”. And they are not only epistemologically important.

The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains “most things away”? - In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly.

Arminius

I think that you misunderstood me here and for good reason.
What I meant was that anything could be spoken of in that terminology but a thing in itself doesn’t really point to anything ~~ says nothing about that thing.
That is also why I asked: "What story do those things tell, aside from that?
They tell Nothing.

So I totally agree with your quote above. .

I may not be getting you here. By those terms in this instant, are you speaking of the ones which I mentioned above; namely, trees, rainbow, animals, etc."

Before I convolute things further, again, the other things refer to the trees, etc.

Or are you referring to a thing in itself - are you saying that that is a workable expression to gain knowledge and understanding about things?

So perhaps you do mean a thing in itself? Perhaps the in itself paves the way to search out the truth of things?
As you know, philosophically speaking, insofar as terminology goes, I am not that sound.

I get it. Kind of like having money in the bank in a way for a rainy day. Something of value to fall back on.

Yes, unchangeable. Like gravity, yes?

[/quote]
That is an interesting statement. But natural constants would appear to be pre-determined and not so random, though I may be wrong, hmmm, but social and spiritual ones?
What do they have in common for YOU? I may not even be asking the right question here to get at a proper answer.

Spiritual constants, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like “pi” or “root two”. They work! They function!

The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word “spiritual” may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law …