Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Soulless

Soulless
May 15, 2012, 02:24:30 PM
Given a finite number of souls, any excess people born per iteration spill over into soulless broken people or solipsists:

Quote
“We are one more species without souls.”

I thought, there are souls, a constant number of souls.
 Due to the growing population, the soul per man ratio is decreasing over time.
Quote
Wow! Now there’s something I had never considered!
 That actually makes a great deal of sense.
 I’ve often observed that leftists have no souls, but the reason escaped me completely…
http://www.amerika.org/politics/moderation/comment-page-1/#comment-19695

Re: Soulless
May 15, 2012, 09:28:22 PM
There may well be something in this.
I don't know how it happens, but leftists really are soulless.
Maybe they start out with souls, and sell them along the way. Or kill them somehow.
Maybe the soul decides it wants nothing to do with the crass flesh it formerly inhabited.
But quite certainly, the soul is no longer present.
The life is gone, leaving only the protoplasm staggering blindly around, repeating unchanging dogma.
A slowly dying chicken, minus its head; immune to reason, reality, or any kind of recovery.
Scary stuff.

Re: Soulless
May 16, 2012, 10:46:45 AM
A soul is like a flower, if you don't take care of it, it will wither and die.

The real Life is a thorn stick into our heart. It gives us life (spirituality) but also pain. If you try to eliminate that pain, you have to pull out the thorn of your heart. But if you do it, you will lost your soul. No pain, no gain.

To exist doesn't mean necessarily to live. To live doesn't mean necessarily to exist. Leftists in general wants to exist (ego) but not to live (soul)

 There's also a seemingly crazy theory that some people indead have no soul. They are droids put on earth by aliens to try to study us or steal the human souls. If that's is right, no wonder a lot of leftists have no souls. They are materialistic. They don't believe in spirituality.


Phoenix

Re: Soulless
May 16, 2012, 10:05:28 PM
In my paradigm the concept of the soul is an obfuscation, a devilish attempt to frame one's true essence as external / apart from one's conventional person. In my paradigm the 'higher self' does exist on the right-hand path as an aspect of the divine serving as an idealized self via which the ego is sublimely transmuted towards a more impersonal or ascetic consciousness, whereas on the left-hand path the ego is the starting point and the idea is more to refine and expand upon it, using itself as the main point of reference in terms of control agency. So while I believe talk of an external 'soul' or 'higher self' is perfectly valid, to say it unequivocally applies to all people is to force people down the right-hand path, which is a horrible thing to do for those inclined otherwise and which seriously imbalances the human condition at large rendering it more sheepish and easy to manipulate.

And so evidently in my paradigm there can be no such thing as 'soul-less' people per se (although there can be seriously fucked up people in a variety of fucked up ways).

I appreciate the adage that whosoever shall seek to save their soul shall lose it.

As for a possible disconnect between human birth rate and the number of souls available, in my paradigm there's a whole astral universe beyond the physical realm and it would make sense that there's something of a backlog of souls waiting for incarnation / re-incarnation since the astral universe includes all those who've ascended over the countless years and from all planets not just Earth. Some would instead argue that the number of souls and people is balanced thanks to infinite parallel realities, but I strongly disagree with this new-age theory that, I must say, I consider to be crackpot.

Re: Soulless
May 17, 2012, 03:25:04 AM
Had to chip in on this.

"Soul" is a form.  It is singular, constant, and perfect.  Do you claim that the abundance of chairs in the world is limiting the "chairness" of newly made chairs?

The human is as much an emanation of its form as a chair is.  However, eventually, it is seen that all forms (and, thus, their physical emanations) are simply selective (dualistic) understandings of Brahman/Will, which is the real nature of "things".  Everything that exists can be seen to be infused with the same "soul", in this way.  Like physicality itself, we are all descended from eternity.

The strife and discord apparent now is preordained.  This is Kali Yuga.  People ignore the mind.  Deal with it.

Re: Soulless
May 20, 2012, 01:19:19 PM
Genesis tells us this:
God created man to tend the garden.
People generally don't get that, and instead focus upon having 'dominion' over it, and everything in it.
But what does 'garden' refer to, anyway?
What if man is 'the garden'?
To give birth-to, to raise, to nurture the 'soul'?
What if that act of creation is 'the purpose'?

This nicely accounts for the behaviour and reality of the atheistic left.

What if we are not born with a soul, after all, but are intended to use our lives to create one, as we go?
To head for consciousness in order to create the soul from a standing start?
This, in itself, is the basis of a true religion.
One that makes something honorable of man, rather than the empty, egotistic parasite he is, without any such goal.

Leftists are soulless by neglect, then, rather than by innate nature.
Man is intended to be a Garden of Eden, unto himself, and that is why he lives at all.



Re: Soulless
May 22, 2012, 11:12:03 AM
All through religious history, it has been assumed, taught, accepted, that we are all 'perfect souls'.
But one look at people lying, cheating, scheming, raping and pillaging should tell us otherwise.
Even young children, long assumed to be perfect, before becoming like the rest of us, are innately selfish, often spiteful creatures.
This does not suggest a pre-existing soul.

Why do so many wonder what the purpose of living is?
Why the concern with The Meaning Of Life?

Do you have a soul? Are you sure?
Maybe it's time to get busy on that.


Re: Soulless
May 23, 2012, 07:42:33 AM
I think one way to "gain" our soul is to revere to the Life, God or whatever we name it. To the common man, thinking about their own soul can lead to the illusions of the realm of the ego. 

Re: Soulless
May 23, 2012, 09:50:38 AM
You 'think'?
Reverence for life is found where there is no thought.
Remove thought, and consciousness has its chance.
Consciousness is what soul needs in order to grow.
Like 'we are what we eat', soul is consciousness.
Suspend thought, and life floods in.
This is why modern western man has such a hard time with consciousness.
Too much thinking, even when there is nothing to think about.

Phoenix

Re: Soulless
May 23, 2012, 10:33:48 AM
You 'think'?
Reverence for life is found where there is no thought.
Remove thought, and consciousness has its chance.
Consciousness is what soul needs in order to grow.
Like 'we are what we eat', soul is consciousness.
Suspend thought, and life floods in.
This is why modern western man has such a hard time with consciousness.
Too much thinking, even when there is nothing to think about.

Not only does thought need to be removed, emotional hangups need to be dealt with or you'll never get past a certain level. Emotional hangups can prevent one from experiencing no-thought, and they can taint the experience of no-thought with aggression and hostility. To address these emotional hangups some thought is required.

Re: Soulless
May 23, 2012, 10:47:11 AM
Some thought is always required, but only when it is required.
Then it must be put back in the toolbox for the next time it is required.
Man's natural state is a no-mind state, and this renders him almost supernaturally effective.
Thought is a slow process, prone to error, and never to be used when time is of the essence.

Thinking is a tool. It is not who, or what one is.

Re: Soulless
May 29, 2012, 08:49:31 PM
All through religious history, it has been assumed, taught, accepted, that we are all 'perfect souls'.
But one look at people lying, cheating, scheming, raping and pillaging should tell us otherwise.
Even young children, long assumed to be perfect, before becoming like the rest of us, are innately selfish, often spiteful creatures.
This does not suggest a pre-existing soul.

Why do so many wonder what the purpose of living is?
Why the concern with The Meaning Of Life?

Do you have a soul? Are you sure?
Maybe it's time to get busy on that.
I really enjoyed this post, as well as the others you left in this thread. Here I use the term "enjoyed" in the digestive sense, mind - it has caused me a lot of thought since I first saw it.

Do you have any writings, personalities, events, etc., to refer to as having led you to this particular concept?

Re: Soulless
May 29, 2012, 11:41:15 PM
The path was long, the influences many.
The biggest single influence, religion-wise was taoism.
And reality-wise: a crow. An actual crow :)
But a taoist, like many other things, is something I was.
While a crow is something I became, and now will always be.

Crow makes a fine totem:
It is said, by some, to be a keeper of the sacred law.
That fits.




Re: Soulless
June 02, 2012, 11:29:45 AM
Who, among us, claims to be conscious?
If you do, what is consciousness?
Can you describe it?

Re: Soulless
June 02, 2012, 02:03:59 PM
Terrestrial neurology at its more complex/developed/evolved stages