Following on from my previous post (although I had this idea several months ago from a fictional perspective) I was thinking about what happens to the Mind/Soul after death should it exist other than as an emergent property of the human brain.
My original idea (to be used in an Alternate Reality Game/Free Style Role Play Game) was that when the physical body dies the Mind/Soul is pulled back through time to its original point of conception/birth. The energy created in the passage back would effectively strip away most of the memories for that person so that when it returned it would mostly be a blank slate.
I know this sounds very like X-Men Days of Future Past however I had the idea before I saw the film.
Think of it as a reverse Wheel of Life (Indian philosophies) instead of being reincarnated in another organic body you get to live your life again and again in the same body endlessly until such time you achieve the perfect life and attain enlightenment.
Déjà vu is you remembering a previous repeat of your life which in theory would mean you are either on the right path or the wrong one depending on how you look at it.
Would this doom you to repeat your mistakes or make new ones?
This idea leads me to think of time as a flat plane where everything is happening all at the same time, an infinite Möbius strip with no boundary. The mind/soul is connected to the physical body at both ends of its life and when one end dies it snaps back to the beginning or I suppose the end which would cause an interesting effect upon a person.
Would memory provide the answer if you are in a repeat or not? Does everyone experience déjà vu?
An interesting thought experiment but no method to prove it.
Note: I am aware that the boffins have explained why Déjà vu occurs but it has no soul to it.
Showing posts with label Enlightenment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Enlightenment. Show all posts
Friday, 27 May 2016
Saturday, 21 May 2016
DIY Peace
What’s the best method of creating world peace, well before you go near any practical methods you really need understand the root causes of war. If we think of war as a crime (which it is) then we could proceed by breaking the causes into three steps:
Motive, Opportunity and Means.
Motive
The grass is always greener in your neighbours garden, is this a good enough to go to war? Your neighbour’s garden has oil underneath it, simplified you are greedy.
Your neighbour believes in different things to you, is this a good enough to go to war? What does it matter what your neighbour believes, oh wait a minute because your neighbour does not believe as you do therefore your neighbour must be evil, your neighbour threatens the status quo. Is religion an excuse or a reason?
Your neighbour's Great-great-great-great grandfather killed your Great-great-great-great grandfather, therefore your neighbour is evil. This can be down to how children at brought up, the people on the other side of the wall are bad.
Tradition can be a killer of good values, it does not let people have their own experiences to become less likely to kill someone they have never met based upon something happened five generations ago.
Your neighbour is bad person, head of the government, takes from the poor and gives to the rich – that would be revolution/civil war. A coup-d'etat would be a less violent method than full blown war.
Opportunity:
Well that happens a lot due the fact we tend live next door to every other country, islands fair better than most although that normally gives way to civil wars instead. Of course through alliances with other countries you get multiple countries invading one or worst two super powers using a small country as a battleground to fight between their opposing ideologies like Vietnam and Korea. Also a perfect battleground to test new weapons and guess what we are back to greed. Are opposing ideologies an excuse?
Means
The top 6 arms exporters in the world are:
USA, Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK.
They are effectively all the super powers on the planet, if they wanted peace to occur it would be a simple method converting their weapons factories over to something useful like alternative energy supplies and recycling all weapons. Money however TALKS!
To quote one of my favourite authors Issac Asimov: “Violence is the last refuge of incompetent”
Which would make mankind staggeringly incompetent for most of its history, we have failed to learn from our mistakes. This is irony on so many levels.
Enlightenment by Resistance
Would the absence of war mean peace or just a population under control? For any civilization to develop you must have change and for change to occur you need resistance to the status quo. If everyone agrees with everyone else then all that happens is stagnation, civilizations like that are easily destroyed by simple culture shock or the degeneration into the worship of the past, loss of science etc.
Violence should never be used as a form of resistance it gives in to our most basic of instincts which is why there have been very few periods in history where there is an absence of war. Man has failed to evolve in the last ten thousand years if we had war would be non-existent by now. Perhaps ten thousand years is too short of time to expect that amount of change to achieve enlightenment?
Unfortunately for us change is violent.
Motive, Opportunity and Means.
Motive
The grass is always greener in your neighbours garden, is this a good enough to go to war? Your neighbour’s garden has oil underneath it, simplified you are greedy.
Your neighbour believes in different things to you, is this a good enough to go to war? What does it matter what your neighbour believes, oh wait a minute because your neighbour does not believe as you do therefore your neighbour must be evil, your neighbour threatens the status quo. Is religion an excuse or a reason?
Your neighbour's Great-great-great-great grandfather killed your Great-great-great-great grandfather, therefore your neighbour is evil. This can be down to how children at brought up, the people on the other side of the wall are bad.
Tradition can be a killer of good values, it does not let people have their own experiences to become less likely to kill someone they have never met based upon something happened five generations ago.
Your neighbour is bad person, head of the government, takes from the poor and gives to the rich – that would be revolution/civil war. A coup-d'etat would be a less violent method than full blown war.
Opportunity:
Well that happens a lot due the fact we tend live next door to every other country, islands fair better than most although that normally gives way to civil wars instead. Of course through alliances with other countries you get multiple countries invading one or worst two super powers using a small country as a battleground to fight between their opposing ideologies like Vietnam and Korea. Also a perfect battleground to test new weapons and guess what we are back to greed. Are opposing ideologies an excuse?
Means
The top 6 arms exporters in the world are:
USA, Russia, China, France, Germany and the UK.
They are effectively all the super powers on the planet, if they wanted peace to occur it would be a simple method converting their weapons factories over to something useful like alternative energy supplies and recycling all weapons. Money however TALKS!
To quote one of my favourite authors Issac Asimov: “Violence is the last refuge of incompetent”
Which would make mankind staggeringly incompetent for most of its history, we have failed to learn from our mistakes. This is irony on so many levels.
Enlightenment by Resistance
Would the absence of war mean peace or just a population under control? For any civilization to develop you must have change and for change to occur you need resistance to the status quo. If everyone agrees with everyone else then all that happens is stagnation, civilizations like that are easily destroyed by simple culture shock or the degeneration into the worship of the past, loss of science etc.
Violence should never be used as a form of resistance it gives in to our most basic of instincts which is why there have been very few periods in history where there is an absence of war. Man has failed to evolve in the last ten thousand years if we had war would be non-existent by now. Perhaps ten thousand years is too short of time to expect that amount of change to achieve enlightenment?
Unfortunately for us change is violent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)