Netphoria Message Board

My conception of the "Soul" is mannered in rather abstract fashion as it differs greatly from more conventional definitions. As the years have ravaged on my young mind, peppering it with escapist riddles, childish fantasies and sobering ruminations I have begun to envision a sophistication in my philosophizing that might actually lead to some place of contentment. Ideologies are constantly fluxating from one end of the spectrum to the next, with a person as gullible as I that is a dangerous thing. However, I now have chosen to adopt the outsiders perspective, a place of detatchment where I can analyze and detect the important issues of the entire spectrum without tainting each of its rich colors by standing amist them. For example, lets say theism=blue, polytheism=red, atheism=green and so on. An atheists green is likely to have a warped perception of the theists blue my imposing its own criteria of what constitutes logic, reason, fantasy ect and order of importance of these wonderful things...

Basically-I've decided that there is a difference between studying the forest from the trees, above the trees, within the trees and so on. Hey great analogies popping up here... Better than the spectrum one. We could call polytheists squirrils, theists avaions, and atheists sharks. Or we could say polytheists are branches, theists are trunks and atheists are like molechules. All understandably have durastically differing vewis on reality and what not...I love metaphors.

Anyway, I am saying that I'm kind of ripping the the roof off the house and studying each room at the same time rather than always studying from the kitchen and never setting foot in the other rooms when it comes to contemplating. (Ohh, I like this analogy too. Better jot that one down) I'm trying too see how they all come together to create a framework of reality that I can work with and in effect deduce my own unique conclusions about it.

The first causalty is ego. Ego is the worst thing imaginable when it comes to philosophy. Not that it isn't useful; It's downfall is in that it sucks up energy like a black hole, smears ones perceptions like a pint of beer, spreads the pieces of a jigsaw and hides all of the eges, dictates the commentary of observation, laughs during the sad parts in a movie, runs when it should be walking, eats when it should be sleeping and stuff. Its irritating, I can't personally get my ego to shut up for 4 consecuative seconds. Consequently, I can't make any progress without first aknowlegeing, and accepting that my ego will play an integral part in my conclusions. In all likelihood, from day one I was doomed to fall prey to the nihilistic spiderweb of misery, or fall in love with the whims and whispers of the metaphysical. In truth, my whole life I've been bouncing back and forth between the two...

Primarily, ego has a lot to do with social context but I don't feel the need to dive into that right now. In any discussion their are a million issues, digressions, epiphanies, mental shortcomings, that shouldn't be indulged in. Otherwise, we would never ever ever get anything accomplished at all and likely die off of starvation, or go crazy with sleep deprivation, or kill eachother with ego-driven holy wars and what-not.

The most important consideration needed in understanding my philosophy is that I place equal importance on everything. On logic, on flights of fancy, on science, on emotions, on ego, on many many many things. After all, they all exist in this reality don't they? Should they not be entitled to equal oppurtunity? With that in mind I try not to make any assumptions about each of them. Which of course takes a real long time stripping them down to their bare marrow and figuring out how the peices are supposed to fit.

Also, being the most important consideration needed in undestanding my philosophy is that I place no importance on everything. Especially concerning that which is in my head, which of course is everything. I entertain the possibility that the true nature of that which we call reality is so diluted by that which we call the human mind (its perceptions, thoughts ect) that we fall victim to assumptions ad infinitum. Including our assumptions about assumptions.

This leaves me in the most rubust vaccuum I can imagine in trying to contemplate the possibilties of spirituality, namely the "Soul".

At this point, my own philosophy striates into places I'm grossely incapable of comprehending with my limited education and mental inequity. Here on the surface of this vast sea of contemplation I can tell you that I now agree unequivocally that anything at all is possible. It is possible there is an afterlife, it is possible that there is such thing as a soul, it is possible that there are infinite dimensions, parrallel universe and yes, regretably its even possible there is a heaven, there is a hell; though I don't tread those waters often. And lastly, it is even possible this life is all there is. What we see is all there is but I do consider it unlikely.

Reality, in my estimation is ineffeble. More importantly I see reality as more supernatural than any fable concieved by humans without question. So few people really take a moment to consider the surreal vastness of space, the overwhelming complexity of consciousness (the human brain), the sheer imagination and creativity vibrant in everysingle atom in this universe we call home. It is undeniably supernatural in my mind that reality exists at all, continues to exist, and for the time being plays cheif cook and bottle washer to these majestic creations of life we see present on this planet in this passing ever-so-transient moment.

Whenever people squabble over explanations of concousness and whether or not there really is a soul I can't help but be fascinated by the purity of both sides of view. In one lineage of reason we find brilliant deductions about the nature, workings, functions of the human brain and in the other we find arguements invoking the intagible properties of conciousness. Of course, reductionists argue that there is no need for a soul and I'm thinking they may be correct, even so they fail to even address the issue of 'experience'. It is because of this I wonder if reality itself is akin to a musical instrument (say... a hapr) being played upon by lifeforms (namely, their brains) that creates fleeting vibrations that have a sound and melody all to their own. Maybe we just can't dissect these sounds and melodies the same way we can the strings, but it makes them no less succeptable to mortality.

There are so many metaphysical ideas I'm kicking around like a bruised and tattered alluminum coke can down this dizzying road of life. Many of them do allow for a 'soul' albiet in much different contexts than conventional notions (lets face it, right now nueroscience has the soul by the testicicles. Ideas have to evolve in order to survive). I believe in forever.