AWAY WITH THE FAIRIES

or

HE COULD BE

light-years ahead of the mob. It’s hard to tell. I use to dismiss rubbish like this out of hand—

“Consciousness, once thought to be only the product of brain chemistry, is now viewed as the eternal driving force for all that exists, and through physical form, manifests itself in order to experience”

—read more:  LINK  

—but these days I can’t be so dogmatic, regardless of how offensive my once-was-rationality finds it. I find myself mentally shrieking at the screen: “Oh, yeah? Says who, Bub? Other than you, that is!” and dread the (more…)

Come again~?

.

IT’S NOT AS IF

I mentioned it first. But: reincarnation returns.

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER (1)

  • I do not believe in reincarnation
  • I do not disbelieve in reincarnation
  • I just don’t know
  • But I do tend more towards belief than not

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER (2)

  • I am an agnostic
  • I am an atheist as well
  • and am anti organised religions (which exist to milk the vulnerable)

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER (3)

  • to me nothing is impossible (as a concept)
  • but everything can be graded in various degrees of ‘probable’

UPFRONT DISCLAIMER (4)

Sometimes I feel safer with the Socratic method. No apologies offered or accepted. Thus:

Disregarding much New Age and Spiritualist rubbish—is it not possible that the physical selves we see at any instant are simply three dimensional slices of four dimensional objects ( … obviously)?

RIGHT HERE

You may take a break. My point is made; but we can always gild the lily a little a bit, like this—

GIVEN

that our minds can achieve little (if anything) in this physical world without a physical body to apply the necessary forces when required—can we not assume that our physical body is nothing more than a tool that our mind uses to achieve its ends?

Everything physical is subject to the laws of the physical world which means erosion, wear, and tear. So if (when) the vehicle wears out we simply put it down and take up a new one? This one question begs myriads more—beginning with the obvious ‘why’?

  • Why,
  • for what purposes,
  • to what ends?

What’s the point—why ask me: I don’t know.

All I can offer is theory, conjecture, and a warning to be wary of anyone who can answer that question.

THE OBVIOUS

facile answer here is of course good old God. We are here to serve good ol’ God’s purposes. And having got that out of the way, let’s get on with the post …

TO NOT DIGRESS

at primary school we were once asked “What is the purpose of a flower?” Most of the kids said the same (effectively a consensus) “To make the world beautiful”. When the teacher got to me I think I disappointed him because I passed—I didn’t have an answer. To me a flower was simply a flower, a fact of life as much as rocks and that was that. His answer when it came, grandly delivered fell quite flat: “To make another flower!”.

SO …

if I were to accept the concept of reincarnation it would be simply as another fact of existence; one for which I couldn’t post a reason. I wouldn’t attribute grandiose purposes to it, or unverifiable evolutionary paths such as from rock to seaweed to flower to worm to ant to bug to serpent to bird to dog to low-caste human to high-caste human to saint to angel to ‘reunion with the godhead’ etc etc.

I COULD ACCEPT REINCARNATION

as a fact on the basis of our disposable body as a vehicle/tool combo. I’m with Voltaire in that it would be no more remarkable to be born twice than once.

WHAT I WOULD FIND MOST REMARKABLE

would be if there were any carry-over from one incarnation to the next. Unless the mind can or does actually affect the body? But that’s for another post …

.

KISMET

.