View Full Version : World Outlook
Hermann asked me to comment on his theory of “rational weltanschauung” which he says means a rational look at our world that includes a spiritual world at a deeper level. (Hermann, please correct if I am misquoting you)
As I understand, he proposes that “Souls” exist as part of our being and when a person dies, the soul travels to the spirit world to be born again to learn and grow and develop for eternity. Also that most people driven by the material world do not accept such beliefs because it cannot be proven on a scientific basis.
Hermann should know that Christians believe in “Soul” but may not be in re-incarnation. Majority of the population believe in God in one form or another. Those who argue that God does not exist also believe in God privately. Practically all Hindus and Buddhists believe in re-incarnation of soul.
Unfortunately, our technology is not advanced enough to prove soul or reincarnation at present. Since majority of the people on this planet believe in this, this is the world outlook of that majority and is taken into account in the daily life as such. If this is a part of Maslov’s hierarchy of needs, so be it.
Those who doubt the existence of soul, say that where all these soul come from? Certainly not from past, because our population is growing. Then we have to create a soul or spirit world, then we have to cover our tracks saying the universe is full of souls and so on. There must be a simpler answer to all this.
I am not totally convinced that soul exists but if it does, it could be that soul is like a branch program that is part of a greater program. That when the usefulness of the branch program ends, that program is assimilated by the large program to write a new program based on the information of the branch program. To proceed in this line of thinking, one has to assume that there exists a higher brain which has both physical and electrical characteristics (like Earth and its electrical activities). Whether we can identify such a higher brain from inside is like saying that your heart is aware of your brain and can communicate to reduce the cortisol level in the blood. It may not be a lost cause. If a branch program develops itself close to the level of the main program (through reincarnation) it is possible to be aware of the main program.
Therefore, the bottom line is, if this outlook provides some value/benefit to your life and to the society, I say Go for it – after all billions of people still believe in a spirit world .
07-26-01, 06:48 AM
Thanks for your detailed comments to my "rational weltanschauung", described at:
It is true when you say "Unfortunately, our technology is not advanced enough to prove soul or reincarnation at present", but I would also not expect this from technology. On the other hand, when you state "Those who argue that God does not exist also believe in God privately" shows some kind of split mind and in my opinion it would be better to combine private and official thinking.
I do not regard the soul as a part of being. The soul is me and by body just belongs to me. Nobody cannot avoid basic assumptions - with the assumption of a spiritual world with individual souls everything becomes very easy to understand. Therefore I will repeat here the 5 sentences, which demonstrate my way of thinking:
1. Our brain is a huge hardware computer developed by evolution just for the purpose of survival.
2. This computer has no possibilities for loading or developing new software.
3. There is a spiritual world with individual souls having intellectual capabilities, who want to take part on the material life
4. Evolution produced a proper interface for them, because this gave a great advantage for survival
5. Now the brain serves just all sensors and actuators in the body and follows instincts, but the soul does the intellectual part with flexible thinking. E.g. during playing chess the soul is doing all strategic evaluations, because the development of a chess program was certainly not needed for survival.
The interesting thing is here, that if these 5 sentences were true, no scientist would have noticed that during research!
When you are asking, where all the souls come from, then this seems to be easy when you assume that all souls start its development from nothing as explained on my website. This corresponds to an increasing population and due to reincarnation there is no explosion in number.
If you regard the development of an individual soul as a branch program, then I would agree with "If a branch program develops itself close to the level of the main program (through reincarnation) it is possible to be aware of the main program". Here I would only add that the individual development is not restricted to reincarnations on earth and therefore the progress must not become visible here.
07-28-01, 09:19 AM
That was a bit confusing, I must say... You have developed a very strange view, that I´ve never heard of before. So I find it rather interesting to read about. Where do all the souls come from? Well, this universe is the mother of souls that inhabits it. It´s like a circle , or spiral that continually grows. Everything has a soul, even cells, atoms, the smallest particle and the largest. Otherwise it wouldn´t exist. The essence of existence is the love of being and to experince the love of being you must have a soul. Evolution didn´t take place just for evolutions sake. And then the souls came later. That is what you belive , if i have understood you right? The souls are there from the beginning to the end, and then all over again. On another level, and like this it continues until the smallest atom has developed a consciousness as large as the universe. But since time is simultaneous, it all happens at once, right now. Evolution is an illusion. The atom is already the universe, and the other way around. As humans, our challenge is to understand this, and to gain the same consciousness as the universe, and the atom. But this challenge is already challenged, if you can really see. We don´t need a brain to survive, because we can never die. :cool:
Am I rambling again?:D
You're not rambling ... you're just babbling.
Please recognize the difference.
07-28-01, 06:37 PM
Are you being rude? :(
07-29-01, 08:10 AM
You are just being rude....again!!!! Grow up!
07-29-01, 09:26 AM
Thanks for your response, but also I have difficulties to follow your argumentations. Can I find anywhere a more detailed description about your philosophy or is there an organisation behind?
In my opinion, evolution is certainly not an illusion, but a very effective process for developing highly organized biological species, which goes on in parallel with the development of individual souls - there is no one after the other. Whether the soul is generally needed or not, that is the big question in this forum, but the brain is at least needed for controlling all body functions.
For being so long getting back to you but I wanted to see how the Formula 1 race at Hockenheim, Germany, turned out.
Re. your comment: "You are just being rude....again!!!! Grow up!"
I don't think I was being particularly rude, just accurate. And what's with this thing of females telling me to grow up? I attained my present height, 5'8" (don't know the metric equivalent), a good while ago and refuse to wear lifts.
The interesting aspect regarding the females who have directed that comment to me is that most often they have been ... shall we say, rather full bodied ... Rubenesque, if you would ... and usually because I have refused to flatter them by attributing intelligence when none was present. I hope you don't fall into that category. Particularly after having referred to yourself as 'a babe' when replying to HOWARDSTERN on another thread.
Take care ;)
Sorry to you too, kmguru. I know the above may seem pretty far afield, but you must admit, it does in a sense refer to my personal world outlook.
07-29-01, 06:09 PM
Why is that a contradiction to some? Well, I don´t know what you put in the word babe, but to me it´s just someone who looks good. But that´s a totally different dicussion. Well, I´m not very rubenesque, but I still think you should grow up. Why? Because you don´t reply to what I´m actually writing, instead you feel the immature urge to prematurely judge my personality in a very condescending way. After you have known me for a couple of years, then you are welcome to share your thoughts on the nature of my personality. ;)
Back to topic then.... The soul is all we have. Maybe this can be hard to grasp if you have been taught to think the other way around, but try to follow me, just for fun... :). Without a soul, there would be nothing. The soul is the energy of life. Evolution is an illusion to serve the education of the souls. The education of souls serves the further education of the universe. All happens with the greatest compassion and love for the existense. The body is just a physical vehicle for the soul. Carefully designed for the purpose. There are many, many books to read about this view of the nature of the existense. For example the Seth books, by Jane Roberts, The Seat of the Soul by Gary Zukav, the books by Martinus, a danish philosopher. And many moore. To get the whole picture though, or as large as a human can possibly perceive, I suggest heavy meditation among with the reading. One book will not do the trick, because one author alone does not have all the answers. :)
07-30-01, 04:09 AM
I could agree with your last explanations completely, when you would replace your sentence with "illusion" by "Evolution is a great process for the biological development of higher species where souls always take part - it serves for the education of individual souls via many reincarnations towards higher species".
Can you agree with that as well or where are you objections?
07-30-01, 05:38 PM
But the purpose of the education of the soul is not to reach higher species in the flesh.
07-31-01, 02:23 AM
I can agree, too. The purpose of evolution is the education of souls in a dualistic view, where also higher species are needed for. The souls took always part in evolution, but in connection with lower species, they were passive, while in connection with higher species they were active and had major influence for developing the advanced brain. But in any case (with involvement of souls - or without in materialistic view), the driving force in biological evolution were only Darwin's rules (mutations and survival of fittest). Therefore evolution is in any view a great process and no illusion.
07-31-01, 09:54 AM
You do know that all is illusion, don´t you? The whole physical world? :D
08-01-01, 12:17 AM
No, this is not my opinion. Why do you think so? Have you any reason for that?
08-01-01, 01:54 AM
WE ARE ALL PART OF A GREATER COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS
For more information: consult Carl Jung
<B>Carl Jung (1875-1961), synchronicity & the collective
Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and colleague of Freud's who broke away
from Freudian psychoanalysis over the issue of the <a href="unconscious.html">unconscious
mind </a>as a reservoir of repressed sexual trauma which causes all neuroses. Jung founded
his own school of analytical psychology.</p>
<p>Jung believed in <a HREF="astrolgy.html">astrology</a>, <a HREF="spiritul.html">spiritualism</a>,
<a HREF="telepath.html">telepathy</a>, <a HREF="kinesis.html">telekinesis</a>, <a HREF="clairvoy.html">clairvoyance</a> and <a HREF="esp.html">ESP.</a> In addition to
believing in a number of occult and paranormal notions, Jung contributed two new
ones in his attempt to establish a psychology rooted in occult and <a HREF="pseudosc.html">pseudoscientific</a>
beliefs: <em>synchronicity</em> and the <em>collective unconscious</em>. </p>
<p>Synchronicity is an explanatory principle; it explains "meaningful
coincidences" such as a beetle flying into his room while a patient was describing a
dream about a scarab. The scarab is an Egyptian symbol of rebirth, he noted. Therefore,
the propitious moment of the flying beetle indicated that the transcendental meaning of
both the scarab in the dream and the insect in the room was that the patient needed to be
liberated from her excessive rationalism. His notion of <b>synchronicity </b>is that there
is an acausal principle that links events having a similar meaning by their coincidence in
time rather than sequentially. He claimed that there is a synchrony between the mind and
the phenomenal world of perception. </p>
<p>What evidence is there for synchronicity? None. Jung's defense is so inane I hesitate
to repeat it. He argues that "acausal phenomena must exist...since statistics are
only possible anyway if there are also exceptions" (1973, <i>Letters</i>, 2:426). He
asserts that "...improbable facts exist--otherwise there would be no statistical
mean..." (ibid.: 2:374). Finally, he claims that "the premise of
probability simultaneously postulates the existence of the improbable" (ibid. :
<p>Even if there were a synchronicity between the mind and the world such that certain
coincidences resonate with transcendental truth, there would still be the problem of
figuring out those truths. What guide could one possibly use to determine the correctness
of an interpretation? There is none except intuition and insight, the same guides that led
Jung's teacher, <a HREF="psychoan.html">Sigmund Freud</a>, in his interpretation of
dreams. The concept of synchronicity is but an expression of <a href="apophenia.html">apophenia</a>. </p>
<p>According to psychiatrist and author, Anthony Storr, Jung went through a period of
mental illness during which he thought he was a prophet with "special insight."
Jung referred to his "creative illness" (between 1913-1917) as a voluntary
confrontation with the unconscious. His great "insight" was that he thought all
his patients over 35 suffered from "loss of religion" and he had just the thing
to fill up their empty, aimless, senseless lives: his own metaphysical system of <em>archetypes
and the collective unconscious. </em></p>
<p>Synchronicity provides access to the archetypes, which are located in the collective
unconscious and are characterized by being universal mental predispositions not grounded
in experience. Like Plato's Forms (<i>eidos</i>), the archetypes do not originate in the
world of the senses, but exist independently of that world and are known directly by the
mind. Unlike Plato, however, Jung believed that the archetypes arise spontaneously in the
mind, especially in times of crisis. Just as there are meaningful coincidences, such as
the beetle and the scarab dream, which open the door to transcendent truths, so too a
crisis opens the door of the collective unconscious and lets out an archetype to reveal
some deep truth hidden from ordinary consciousness.</p>
<p>Mythology, Jung claimed, bases its stories on the archetypes. Mythology is the
reservoir of deep, hidden wondrous truths. Dreams and psychological crises, fevers and
derangement, chance encounters resonating with "meaningful coincidences," all
are gateways to the collective unconscious, which is ready to restore the individual
psyche to health with its insights. Jung maintained that these metaphysical notions are
scientifically grounded, but they are not empirically testable in any meaningful way. In
short, they are not scientific at all, but <a href="pseudosc.html">pseudoscientific</a>. </p>
<p><b>See related entries </b>on <a href="apophenia.html">apophenia</a>,
and <b><a HREF="pseudosc.html">pseudoscience</a>.</b> </p>
<p><b>further reading</b> <br>
08-03-01, 04:17 PM
Religion and science, I don't like to mix.
Its like gin and tonic, some people like it I don't. Intresting thought though.
In Jungs time, the mathematics did not exist to start formulating any basis for the synchronicity. Research is underway to relate Chaos theory and find a common thread in what seems to be in perception only.
Those who are into Chaos theory and Fractal Science may be able to shed some light in to this area.
Thank you for bringing Jung's work in to light. My understanding is that Stephen Wolfram is working on some esoteric mathematics that will explain how Synchronicity occurs.
09-29-01, 08:56 AM
Hermann has said:
the development of a chess program was certainly not needed for survival. The ability to play chess is a misuse of the faculty to analyse interpersonal relationships in a group.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.