|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 18, 2021 0:20:58 GMT
The survival of the soul after death is the transition of one phenomenon, the soul, from one context of being to another. Considering context defines the phenomenon the change of context is the emptiness of both the soul and the context in themselves thus resulting in the aforementioned change.
The soul is thus a boundary of change where it exists as a changing entity where one thing is expressed through variation. This variation is the one phenomenon, the soul, existing in new and different forms.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 13, 2021 23:06:11 GMT
No souls can change. It was given once and for all. A soul acts like a rigid designator (in Kripke's and Putnam's sense). It was given/created by God himself. Anything that God did is immortal. Only immoral things which were made by human beings brought the element of death to this universe. Souls are what linking us with God. We cannot watch God, but presumably souls are able to do it.
And how a soul being a class of changes (no matter whether of phenomena or not) wouldn't be a soul. It would be anything, but a soul. The souls acts like ideas of Plato: it has an invariant of existence.
And why the Earth laws of transitions (you get this term from your Earth life, not from some others) should be fare for a soul? I don't think it's correct. We cannot locate a soul, except for some metaphysical hypothesis which also cannot be fairly taken.
|
|
|
Post by kyloscythe91 on Jun 14, 2021 5:47:47 GMT
The survival of the soul after death is the transition of one phenomenon, the soul, from one context of being to another. Considering context defines the phenomenon the change of context is the emptiness of both the soul and the context in themselves thus resulting in the aforementioned change. The soul is thus a boundary of change where it exists as a changing entity where one thing is expressed through variation. This variation is the one phenomenon, the soul, existing in new and different forms. do you think it's true that the universe we're in usually favors those who has the strongest principles and convictions? it's just that the higher mysteries of the afterlife...well, wouldn't the universe favoring such people help with that afterlife? just my thoughts on the afterlife i guess.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 14, 2021 9:20:33 GMT
The survival of the soul after death is the transition of one phenomenon, the soul, from one context of being to another. Considering context defines the phenomenon the change of context is the emptiness of both the soul and the context in themselves thus resulting in the aforementioned change. The soul is thus a boundary of change where it exists as a changing entity where one thing is expressed through variation. This variation is the one phenomenon, the soul, existing in new and different forms. do you think it's true that the universe we're in usually favors those who has the strongest principles and convictions? it's just that the higher mysteries of the afterlife...well, wouldn't the universe favoring such people help with that afterlife? just my thoughts on the afterlife i guess. Do you consider whether or not the Universe is cruel? And because of that we can either have some hope, or have only disappointments?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 14, 2021 21:59:35 GMT
No souls can change. It was given once and for all. A soul acts like a rigid designator (in Kripke's and Putnam's sense). It was given/created by God himself. Anything that God did is immortal. Only immoral things which were made by human beings brought the element of death to this universe. Souls are what linking us with God. We cannot watch God, but presumably souls are able to do it. And how a soul being a class of changes (no matter whether of phenomena or not) wouldn't be a soul. It would be anything, but a soul. The souls acts like ideas of Plato: it has an invariant of existence. And why the Earth laws of transitions (you get this term from your Earth life, not from some others) should be fare for a soul? I don't think it's correct. We cannot locate a soul, except for some metaphysical hypothesis which also cannot be fairly taken. The soul is defined by the body it takes and as such when the body changes so does how the soul Express itself. Its ability to continually change necessitates an underlying core form which expresses itself through variation. This core form, that of a loop, allows one thing to be expressed in a variety of ways. The soul is a loop and it expresses itself through further loops given all phenomenon are traceable as loops. Each form it takes is a new loop with the summation, or rather core, of all these various loops being a sphere. As a loop the soul takes the form of a sphere given the sphere is infinite 2d loops changing into further 2d loops thus resulting in the 3rd dimension of depth.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 15, 2021 0:26:37 GMT
No souls can change. It was given once and for all. A soul acts like a rigid designator (in Kripke's and Putnam's sense). It was given/created by God himself. Anything that God did is immortal. Only immoral things which were made by human beings brought the element of death to this universe. Souls are what linking us with God. We cannot watch God, but presumably souls are able to do it. And how a soul being a class of changes (no matter whether of phenomena or not) wouldn't be a soul. It would be anything, but a soul. The souls acts like ideas of Plato: it has an invariant of existence. And why the Earth laws of transitions (you get this term from your Earth life, not from some others) should be fare for a soul? I don't think it's correct. We cannot locate a soul, except for some metaphysical hypothesis which also cannot be fairly taken. The soul is defined by the body it takes and as such when the body changes so does how the soul Express itself. Its ability to continually change necessitates an underlying core form which expresses itself through variation. This core form, that of a loop, allows one thing to be expressed in a variety of ways. The soul is a loop and it expresses itself through further loops given all phenomenon are traceable as loops. Each form it takes is a new loop with the summation, or rather core, of all these various loops being a sphere. As a loop the soul takes the form of a sphere given the sphere is infinite 2d loops changing into further 2d loops thus resulting in the 3rd dimension of depth. For a soul there's no need to be able using varieties. Why? The loop has parts. A soul can't have them. Because, if it did, then soul wouldn't be immortal, and any soul is immortal. Even if a soul evolving and going levels through levels getting a sorta sphere shape, then it is even worse: that a soul does have parts, and in turn it isn't immortal.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2021 0:33:35 GMT
The soul is defined by the body it takes and as such when the body changes so does how the soul Express itself. Its ability to continually change necessitates an underlying core form which expresses itself through variation. This core form, that of a loop, allows one thing to be expressed in a variety of ways. The soul is a loop and it expresses itself through further loops given all phenomenon are traceable as loops. Each form it takes is a new loop with the summation, or rather core, of all these various loops being a sphere. As a loop the soul takes the form of a sphere given the sphere is infinite 2d loops changing into further 2d loops thus resulting in the 3rd dimension of depth. For a soul there's no need to be able using varieties. Why? The loop has parts. A soul can't have them. Because, if it did, then soul wouldn't be immortal, and any soul is immortal. Even if a soul evolving and going levels through levels getting a sorta sphere shape, then it is even worse: that a soul does have parts, and in turn it isn't immortal. 1. The loop is a singular entity that has the same endpoint as a beginning point. 2. The soul as a loop changing into further loops necessitates it is composed of multiple loops all of which are part of the universal loop which takes the form of a sphere.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 15, 2021 5:23:51 GMT
How does a soul change? Does it age or die?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 15, 2021 5:50:34 GMT
For a soul there's no need to be able using varieties. Why? The loop has parts. A soul can't have them. Because, if it did, then soul wouldn't be immortal, and any soul is immortal. Even if a soul evolving and going levels through levels getting a sorta sphere shape, then it is even worse: that a soul does have parts, and in turn it isn't immortal. 1. The loop is a singular entity that has the same endpoint as a beginning point. 2. The soul as a loop changing into further loops necessitates it is composed of multiple loops all of which are part of the universal loop which takes the form of a sphere. In "Phaedo" Socrates disproved that a soul was changing. No it couldn't. Any changes suppose parts (no matter which and what shape), and having part means decomposition of these parts sooner or later. Maybe a soul could live long enough for a time, but such souls aren't immortal.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2021 16:14:17 GMT
1. The loop is a singular entity that has the same endpoint as a beginning point. 2. The soul as a loop changing into further loops necessitates it is composed of multiple loops all of which are part of the universal loop which takes the form of a sphere. In "Phaedo" Socrates disproved that a soul was changing. No it couldn't. Any changes suppose parts (no matter which and what shape), and having part means decomposition of these parts sooner or later. Maybe a soul could live long enough for a time, but such souls aren't immortal. The souls attachment to things which change necessitates the soul changing with these thing that change. This change of the soul through attachment is hell after death where the soul takes on the same nature to the things it is attached to. To change is to diverge and this divergence occurs through it being burned and torn apart perpetually. Given the soul is perpetual, as its source is perpetual, necessitates this process as a continual death of the soul. Attachment To Things Which Are Relative Necessitates The Soul Taking On A Relative Nature. Dually a soul which is attached to things which are eternal keeps its nature and does not go through a process of continual divergence but rather maintains its whole form.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2021 16:14:42 GMT
How does a soul change? Does it age or die? See above.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 15, 2021 16:48:25 GMT
In "Phaedo" Socrates disproved that a soul was changing. No it couldn't. Any changes suppose parts (no matter which and what shape), and having part means decomposition of these parts sooner or later. Maybe a soul could live long enough for a time, but such souls aren't immortal. The souls attachment to things which change necessitates the soul changing with these thing that change. This change of the soul through attachment is hell after death where the soul takes on the same nature to the things it is attached to. To change is to diverge and this divergence occurs through it being burned and torn apart perpetually. Given the soul is perpetual, as its source is perpetual, necessitates this process as a continual death of the soul. Attachment To Things Which Are Relative Necessitates The Soul Taking On A Relative Nature. Dually a soul which is attached to things which are eternal keeps its nature and does not go through a process of continual divergence but rather maintains its whole form. Your Jesuit theory is too complex to my mind. I think introducing the hell - the total hell! - you're adding the endless numbers of problems to this tiny problem. Socrates answered that a soul has no parts and it is equal to an idea. And that's all. Ideas exist eternally. God creates ideas. Ideas have no parts.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2021 16:52:25 GMT
The souls attachment to things which change necessitates the soul changing with these thing that change. This change of the soul through attachment is hell after death where the soul takes on the same nature to the things it is attached to. To change is to diverge and this divergence occurs through it being burned and torn apart perpetually. Given the soul is perpetual, as its source is perpetual, necessitates this process as a continual death of the soul. Attachment To Things Which Are Relative Necessitates The Soul Taking On A Relative Nature. Dually a soul which is attached to things which are eternal keeps its nature and does not go through a process of continual divergence but rather maintains its whole form. Your Jesuit theory is too complex to my mind. I think introducing the hell - the total hell! - you're adding the endless numbers of problems to this tiny problem. Socrates answered that a soul has no parts and it is equal to an idea. And that's all. Ideas exist eternally. God creates ideas. Ideas have no parts. Hell is particulation of the soul, it is the particulation of ideas. Where once the idea was unified and simple it becomes complex and fragmented.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 15, 2021 17:07:30 GMT
Your Jesuit theory is too complex to my mind. I think introducing the hell - the total hell! - you're adding the endless numbers of problems to this tiny problem. Socrates answered that a soul has no parts and it is equal to an idea. And that's all. Ideas exist eternally. God creates ideas. Ideas have no parts. Hell is particulation of the soul, it is the particulation of ideas. Where once the idea was unified and simple it becomes complex and fragmented. How an idea can be docomposited? I can't even imagine anything like that. Surely, we can tell anything what firstly come into our minds, but it can't be with an idea. It is a monolith, not a module. Hell contain souls; not "souls contain hell".
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 15, 2021 17:22:05 GMT
Hell is particulation of the soul, it is the particulation of ideas. Where once the idea was unified and simple it becomes complex and fragmented. How an idea can be docomposited? I can't even imagine anything like that. Surely, we can tell anything what firstly come into our minds, but it can't be with an idea. It is a monolith, not a module. Hell contain souls; not "souls contain hell". A line can be broken down to a series of further lines. A circle can be broken down to angles. A concept such as a cow can be broken down to legs, head, utter, etc.
|
|