Reincarnation and Relationality

The problem with modern minds is the naïve acceptance of what we've inherited from our ancestors. Instead of being embarrassed, contemptuous, and then, compassionate and understanding towards the traumas they've endured, we instead worship the stories, myths and philosophies we've inherited from them, without a lick of reason being applied to the value of these ideas vis a vis other values.

The issue is other values, and being aware of them. The mind-brain is a self-organizing dynamical system that operates along non-linear principles; it is the field of complexity theory, which speaks to how multiple interacting elements generate emergent properties under particular constraints. There is always interaction; and the interactions I speak of are the interactions of the underlying forces which bring matter into being into the various configurations that they assume with one another. The appropriate criterion should be the circle, and the ways matter tends to self-organize around a particular 'attractor', which necessarily occurs in this circular form.

When we come to the human mind, we must never forget what the basic criterion is; that is, the unit of selection - what would be the unit of selection for the human being? By unit of selection, I mean, "the teleodynamism", or teleology, or purpose, of the body's underlying dynamism. Dissipative structuring (Prigogine) is at all times semiotic.

What matters is your perspective - and so, what matters is your sense of the way the whole can exist, and the parts can exist. For instance, you could be a part within natures semiosis; and your struggles and suffering, while your own, and semiotically distinctive of your scale of being, is a part and process within natures larger meanings. Yet you, a human being, no doubt, express a sort of intelligence that finds its basis in the semiotic conditions, or physical conditionals for life to occur (i.e. gravity, thermodynamics, presence of water, etc) that is the nurturing background that fosters our experience.

So what is the unit of selection? "States of Self-experience", which occur from one moment to another, are the structures which dissipate the dynamics of our biological processes. It is the point which, through a fractal congruence between top (psychological state) and bottom (form of symmetry structuring), organizes the biodynamism of the organisms semiotic wholeness.

Within each brain-mind lies a history, a tableau, of countless past iterations of self experience with their corresponding quantitative effects. Each state exists along a spectrum between pride and shame, the basic contours of self-experience is social animals like humans. Perception of threat is highly refined; it is about intentionality; about feelings. Being judged - being evaluated, from the mind of a person who experiences, or knows us, in a negative way, semiotically sets off our amygdalas into arousal, causing a shift in metabolic functioning towards a defensiveness adaptedness, a state which we've learned through other interactions (prior to the adaptation, of course) which is more or less a function of how we've been afforded by our environments. Strong and confident others, who communicate with you, implicitly recognize your worthiness of their positive emotional intentionality towards you; the very act of a relaxed and enlivening interaction is an affordance: the bequeathing of a capacity for functionality as a self which otherwise would not exist without that interaction.

In this way, every self is structured by probabilism's that activate the probabalisms structured as their brain processes. Natural law is this - and it is all encompassing. The issue, the logical issue, pertains to relationality: to whether or not we realize how the 'before' affects, or even better, infects, the after with feelings that only exist in the context of the formula: B (T) + A = ESE, where B means 'before', T means 'trauma', A means 'after' (the trauma) and ES means the 'emergent experience' which has resulted from the influence of the 'before', on the way and manner reality can be interpreted in the after.

If you subscribe to the reality of a metaphysical image of something like a 'soul', then it would seem to pertain to the construction of the self, or the being who has acted, benefited, and suffered, because of the logical consequences of certain choices, in action, upon his own self-organization as a self. But it deals with something more basic: to symmetry, or to the law of complementarity, which in the Human being, has emerged in its unique stability as the law of love, or, in a non-traumatized (and so, non-sadomasochistic system) is unambiguously appreciated as the Golden Rule: do not treat others as you would not want to be treated.

People craft stories and narratives which have nothing to do with what is known by the sciences. They work totally in darkness, in ignorance, as a point at the top in rebellion against the logical structuring of the whole system. Reality is made to seem two; body and mind; homeostasis and mind. Consciousness is not recognized to be ruled by homeostasis, by the logical of dynamical coherency'; the logic of threat and safety is not appreciated; and so the possibility of trauma, of a trauma that persists physiologically as a biasing structure, is not appreciated as an emergent property: something that, if it didn't exist, would present a reality which is drastically different from the one one had constructed.

Lets say, at death, the structure you have is the external or projected representamen of all the meanings that flowed through and structured your system in existing. The meanings come from without - horizontally, and, subsequently become 'organized' vertically. The human at its apex is perched in the logic of thirdness; communication is not just raw feelings; or reflexive, or uncritized, enaction of behavior. The third is metacognition: thinking about your thinking, or rather, your reactions to feelings as that relates to the world around us. Learning is the third between feeling and reaction: it is through learning that the mind grows.

But with early life trauma the self is set alone a different attractor: the attractor of defensiveness - of threat. The break in the self's sense of connection with the horizontal is cut off; and meanings form in individualistic ways - just like the others relating with him.

Threat, or fear; love, or safety. Feeling states incline thoughts; and thoughts are there to regulate, or justify, feeling states. It is almost always on observing a reflexive cognitive reaction to a feeling state that you learn why you're doing that: to defend yourself from these feelings.

It is in this way, and with this logic, that the self progresses in its coherency. But not all self's accept this; some wish to believe they have a right to negate and deny it. They revolt against it on the naïve assumption that they know what it means to violate love. For whatever reasons they give, they do not acknowledge that power is their attractor, the love of holding it, and wielding it over others, is their idol. Yet, since they grow - literally feel more expansive - by interactions with the Other (humans, and now, interacting with a particular thought that helps them), they are behaving in an inherently insane way; a way that is nothing more than a positive feedback loop gone haywire, generating a human rationalization machine in the process.

If you were to retract the hologramic 3d form into the point, it would take with it the truth of the horizontal from which its 'unicity' as a form was primarily formed. Hell would then be knowing, as being the other, the meanings of the experiences they experienced from their perspectives, vis-à-vis you and your actions. In lieu of the heaven-hell after life experience, we could perhaps see reincarnation as the great equalizer.

As to reincarnation, I must admit, its a very attractive concept. It makes sense, since we see, of course, complementarity everywhere, why not expect to find it also in the processes of living and deeath, or being and non-being? But is there really ever a non-being? Is there, perhaps, something in us, some 'remainder', that always emerges, again and again? Lets say this remainder is 'what you deserve'. A life of suffering would result in a life of pleasure; since that is what you deserve. Similarly, a life of pleasure and taking advantage of others, no matter what illusions they have about what "should" happen when they die, would result in a reincarnation in a state for what the past self-deserved. In this way, no one is "innocent", and humanity, together, marches to one drum.

I just finished watching resurrection.

I have no idea what you mean.

You are a man of many words.
Let us pretend that there is only one life.
Just pretend.
Would that change things for the better?
This is an honest question.

I hope you're compiling a handbook.
Trauma destroys, love creates caring beings.

The ego and sense of self is a complex structure within, being pushed back and forth, but rationality saves, consciousness can deviate. We can make choices and choose how to respond and as such grow the 'soul'. Perspective is critical.

As for reincarnation - I find being an observer to an incompetent human-race to difficult, I don't wish to see this again.
They need help, far beyond what we can provide.

a reply to: Astrocyte


The truth is none of us truly know, nor can accurately postulate in this current "whatever" we are in. I always enjoy your logical attempts at trying to figure why we are here. Sometimes we are like dogs chasing our collective tails, I can say this because I've done it for years. And more questions I come up with beget more questions, instead of answers.

It's almost like a Chinese finger trap the harder we pull, the tighter it gets. But there is nothing wrong with critical thinking, because I think all roads will lead to Rome, eventually.

I had a better grasp on things when I was under the age of 5, now I understand I truly know nothing.

reincarnationafterdeath.com...

There are many more as well. Dug into, researched and found, scientifically, to be true. Reincarnation exists. As faith in religious dogma's continue to decline and people turn to facts on which to base their beliefs, we will start getting into why reincarnation exists.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
reincarnationafterdeath.com...

There are many more as well. Dug into, researched and found, scientifically, to be true. Reincarnation exists. As faith in religious dogma's continue to decline and people turn to facts on which to base their beliefs, we will start getting into why reincarnation exists.

We can't prove reincarnation exists, nor we can prove it doesn't.

Reincarnation could be nothing more than people tapping into a collective consciousness. But if reincarnation exists, then where did all the other people come from, because we have 7+ billion people on this planet, when we started out with only a few.

There is something greater, and I personally believe we are all connected, and part of a oneness, but the current illusion we are in make it difficult to see, and remember.

All premisses, the propositions of which set forth the possibility of incarnation and the other form of end, reincarnation. The first point of which begins with any human witness, on the planet, to aggregate the sum of beings and thus, the psychological dimension of consciousness of which composites a series of interrelations of these experiences, memory. Memories are the relative, private and personal kinds of events which occur uniquely to each being. Any precedence in scientific observation especially in the form of psychology is incredibly relative and indifferent from the point of experience observable by a human witness beyond the unit of memory. The total of which is taken of those memories to exist beyond the mind currently possessed of that human being, of a deceased mind, that is not at present living, and in whatever form remains decayed. This serves more as a philosophical preliminary to the actual method, thus, only theoretical in essence for it precludes an evident bases of experimentation and external validity in observation appreciable by all.