Earwa > General Earwa
What is the Eärwan Soul?
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on October 20, 2018, 08:00:09 pm ---Good stuff -
Soul here refers to the phenomenal experiencer that exists during one's time in the Inside right?
--- End quote ---
Yes, the Soul is that which experiances, the Spirit that which is marked and so "holds" the experiential nature.
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on October 20, 2018, 08:00:09 pm ---So is it then the impression of the body that the Spirit recreates in the afterlife due to its conditioning?
--- End quote ---
Well, the Body is both the physical vessel, but it also is a part (perhaps even the biggest part) of the experiential character of life. So, indeed, I would imagine that part of the "passed on" portion of that must be an impression of the body. How could we imagine experience from a point of reference that is not of the Body? Surely we can imagine it, but only from the perspective of a Body.
Wilshire:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on October 20, 2018, 08:00:09 pm ---Good stuff -
Soul here refers to the phenomenal experiencer that exists during one's time in the Inside right?
So is it then the impression of the body that the Spirit recreates in the afterlife due to its conditioning?
--- End quote ---
Welcome back sci :)
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: Wilshire on October 23, 2018, 04:36:51 pm ---Welcome back sci :)
--- End quote ---
Thanks!
--- Quote from: H on October 22, 2018, 02:18:00 pm ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on October 20, 2018, 08:00:09 pm ---Good stuff -
Soul here refers to the phenomenal experiencer that exists during one's time in the Inside right?
--- End quote ---
Yes, the Soul is that which experiances, the Spirit that which is marked and so "holds" the experiential nature.
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on October 20, 2018, 08:00:09 pm ---So is it then the impression of the body that the Spirit recreates in the afterlife due to its conditioning?
--- End quote ---
Well, the Body is both the physical vessel, but it also is a part (perhaps even the biggest part) of the experiential character of life. So, indeed, I would imagine that part of the "passed on" portion of that must be an impression of the body. How could we imagine experience from a point of reference that is not of the Body? Surely we can imagine it, but only from the perspective of a Body.
--- End quote ---
I think experience in the Bakkerverse is through the Monad, the body only serves as a filter conditioning the experience to be from a limited perspective. (The body, after all, is within the the experience of the phenomenal.)
We've had POVs divorced from bodies - Saubon, Malowebi have experiences of existing without a body. Saubon feels himself whirling in the Void before entering a new body in the afterlife. Malowebi witnesses his own beheading.
The WLW - both the nameless one & Sorweel - also see the world from a vantage point that seems to include their body.
My guess is the "Spirit" is an Observation Frame, the perspective of Creation from a particular vantage point seemingly divorced from the God. The "Body" is the limited boundary of experience, and the "Subtle Body" is the recreation of this boundary due to the conditioning of the Spirit. I guess "Soul", to me, is nothing but the restriction of experience narrowing to a POV within creation.
I think we're on the same page here, for the most part? I chose the word "Monad" b/c Monads have a continued reflection of the Whole, the View from God's eye. If a Spirit could, in Blake's terms, cleanse its "eyes" it would see the Infinite. But then it would just be the God, and thus experience Oblivion.
Francis Buck:
So assuming these ideas are on the right track generally speaking, what does that make of the Proxies used for stuff like the Gates to the Coffers, or the Wathi doll? I've never totally understood that but I suppose a Proxy (if just a soul) is basically like a metaphysical computer running a sorcerous program?
I find this even more confusing with regards to Shauriatas and the Larvals. I know it's described that he "jumps from one to the other "more as the intervals between them than inhabiting the Larvals themselves...but what exactly does that mean?
Francis Buck:
To continue on a thought process from the Moengus thread (it's a better fit here):
Quoting myself from there:
--- Quote ---It [the God-of-Gods] seems to most resemble a fusion of Demiurgic qualities with that of Hegelian and/or Theosophical "Nature". I'm uncertain whether or not it qualifies as the Absolute -- I'm inclined to believe that if anything is the Absolute, it is the No-God, but I'm by no means certain of that either!
And what of the Meta-God? Was that just a throwaway line meant to be an alternative title to the God-of-Gods, or...something else? I wonder if there might not also be the Hegelian/Theosophical equivalent of Spirit, or "fohat".
--- End quote ---
Some possibly relevant conceptualizations of Spirit, or Weltgeist -- "World-Soul" -- according to Hegel:
--- Quote ---...it turns out that the agent of knowing all along has been Spirit -- even before it knew it was conscious, self-conscious, reason or spirit. Largely, this is a journey of increasing self-awareness. Spirit is thus the active element in consciousness.
In the section called "RELIGION", Hegel will argue that the death and resurrection of Jesus and the reception of the Holy Spirit is the recognition in history that we are the divine Spirit that is consciousness engaged in the task of knowing itself. For Hegel, Jesus is a man who realizes he is God, who dies, and then is "resurrected" as Spirit's self-consciousness in all men that they are Spirit -- meaning they are the conscious part of the universe that makes what surrounds us a "universe" (as a concept for us) and gives things meaning).
For Hegel, this turns out to be necessitated. You can understand this necessity either as a contingent necessity built into the nature of consciousness or as an absolute necessity built into the inevitability of everything that happens in the world. I would tend towards the latter as an interpretation of Hegel's own view.
It's mentioned in one of the answers above, but Spirit is ultimately panentheist or pantheist insofar as it turns out that God is Spirit and we are Spirit and all we do is Spirit. But this is because the objects, etc., we know and perceive are already being imbued with Spirit through our acting and perceiving.
Im not sure if that's helpful for you, but it's a brief sketch of what happens in PhG as it relates to Spirit.
What about "world Spirit"? Well, it turns out World Spirit is the recognition that consciousness is ultimately non-individual. The cultural backgrounds, etc., in which we think make it so that the agency of understanding is not localized but rather occurs within societies and cultures as their agency. For Hegel, this also includes their destiny. World Spirit is the necessity of the unity of rational consciousness that Hegel believed happens inevitably (whether this is contingent or necessary inevitability is a matter of debate).
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---There's actually a way to talk about this idea with physics: invariants. A well-known invariant is the conservation of mass–energy. In a closed system, we strongly believe that while energy can move from one place to another, it is never created nor destroyed. Barfield claims that we need an invariant to have it be 'evolution' instead of "one-damn-thing-after-another". He doesn't use the word 'invariant'; instead, he uses the word 'spirit'. The spirit stays the same while other things change; indeed, Barfield has the spirit causing the change.
Philosopher Jonathan Pearce recently posted The “I”, personhood and abstract objects, in which he argues against the existence of a "continuous 'I'". In other words, there is nothing to a person which keeps him/her the same person over some time period. There is no continuous 'identity'. If there is no continuous identity of persons, surely there is no continuous identity of groups of people, including villages and nations.
It seems to me that maybe Hegel is using the idea of a spirit to unify a group of people. From what you say, he also has the spirit acting on groups of people, like Barfield. One could say that the spirit very gently manipulates people, a bit like the recent experiment Facebook ran on manipulating people's emotions. Perhaps spirits use some sort of nonlocal causation, which cannot even be identified without "zooming out" enough.
--- End quote ---
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/14533/what-did-hegel-mean-by-world-spirit
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version