Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help   FIGU-Website FIGU-Website
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View FIGU-Shop FIGU-Shop

Archive through January 26, 2005

Discussionboard of FIGU » The Creation-energy Teaching » The Spirit (Creation-energy), Spirit Forms and the Psyche » Archive through January 26, 2005 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Phaethonsfire
Moderator

Post Number: 341
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 05:38 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Feelings are directly created by conscious thought in the material consciousness, and work directly over the nervous system and are mostly expressed in the Solar plexus, a nerve center in the chest.
Feelings are therefore directly regenerated by their related thoughts, although some thoughts are 'abstract' and don't generate feelings at all, an example of that would be mathematical thoughts, etc.
The feeling of true love is a result of the knowledge that everything in the universe is connected to each other and that everything is in a unbreakable bond with each other, even when the physical dimensions of the material world seem to separate things. (The Law of Love)
The feeling of true universal love is one that results in the realization that EVERY thought, EVERY feeling and EVERY action, no matter how small or insignificant have their corresponding effects on the rest of humanity and the rest of the whole Universe.

The cause of emotions lies in a uncontrolled reaction of the material consciousness and the psyche to events which happen in close vicinity, for example when a wild animal is to attack suddenly.
Those emotions like fear and fighting had their function in the very distant past when man was very primitive and conscious logical thought wasn't developed as of yet, it kept him alive.
Nowadays the human is evolved to such a point where those emotions and primary impulses do more harm then good and must be controlled at all costs, because they cause uncontrolled thoughts and actions.
Emotions come from the basal ganglia, a center in the middle of the brain which is the center of all primitive impulses like, aggression, ecstasy, fear, etc, etc.
The reactions of fleeing and fighting have their roots here, and express themselves in the nervous system (which is the material part of the Psyche), mostly in the Parasympathic and Sympathic nervous systems, which on its turn has its effects on breathing, hart rate, sweating, etc.

Emotions need to be controlled altogether, while thoughts, feelings and actions need to be aimed to be as logical (in accordance with the Natural Creative Laws and Commandments of Creation) as possible.
Of course its impossible for a material human being to have an absolute control over his thoughts, feelings, emotions and actions, this because of the sheer limitations of his material body, but nevertheless, a best possible level of control should be aimed for.

Material human beings make much less progress then purespiritforms, because when you and I make mistakes, we have to make a correcting extra step to neutralize those mistakes (realizing what we did wrong, correct it and learn from it, which costs more time and energy) while pure spiritforms from the realm of Arahat Athersata and up dont have to make those extra steps because they come to the right conclusion every time.
Their pure logical thoughts create in their Spiritmind (Gemuet = spiritual counterpart of the psyche) sense-impulses of universal love, happiness and peace, etc, which are the foundations of enormous spiritual powers and abilities.

So, love is a law, once understood and implemented in the material consciousness that goes over to the spirit via the material subconsciousness, the spirit generates in its Spiritmind (Gemuet) the sense-impulse (empfindung) of love which is picked up by the Psyche which on its turn results in a feeling of love.
True love has NOTHING to do with emotions at all, in the material part its a feeling and consciousness-related force stemming from a knowledge about a creational law and in the spiritual part its a sense-impulse and the foundation of all spiritual force and creativity.
Salome(Peace in Wisdom),

Jakobjn

Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Janimetso
Member

Post Number: 6
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:03 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi all,
This is a response for Nils - he said under the topic Overpopulation, Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 06:56 am, (and on a post before that) that spermcells have spirits. I disagree with him, as I remember reading that it is ok and suitable to make an abortion within a certain limit of time from the fertilization; and that is because the spirit form doesn't enter the fetus until some time later. I don't remember the exact time when the spirit form enters the fetus. But certainly in my opinion spermcells don't have a spirit; they have some other type of energy that moves them. We, male beings, would be otherwise harboring a plethora of spirits in us.

Do you agree with me or am I wrong?

Kindly,
Jani Metso
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Scott
Moderator

Post Number: 595
Registered: 07-2000
Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 11:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Jani,

I believe the spirit enters the fetus after the 21st day after fertilization.

Regards
Scott
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Phaethonsfire
Moderator

Post Number: 344
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 11:34 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Cpl,


Since a very long time, the Earth human mixes up many things in life that are totally different, the definitions of emotion and feeling are no exception, because for the untrained and unknowing consciousness they appear the same while they are in fact very different from each other.

Emotions are always negative and purely response driven impulses of a lower part of the material brain. While feelings are generated by thoughts, and therefore are just like their inducing thoughts, either neutral-positive (logical), or unbalanced-negative or unbalanced-positive.

You mention sympathy as being an emotion, that is fully wrong because sympathy is a feeling caused by thoughts, you can only be sympathic with a person if you consciously understand his/her situation and/or if you think similar like him/her. The negative feeling of pity is often mistaken with sympathy, but its foundation is totally different from that of sympathy.
Affection is a emotion stemming from a sexual-physical desire in a person which is steered from ones sexdrive. When a person sees a very sexually attractive woman or man then its an affection, an emotion caused by a reaction from the basal ganglia. This emotional reaction is because of the primary impulse that, that other person can satisfy ones own sexual drive, which is in fact a 'selfish' physical response, because something is wanted for ones own self from that other person.

In order for the Earth human to learn how to master and control his emotions, feelings and thoughts there are two phases:

1. Self-containment.
2. Self-control.

The first phase, which is self-containment is the situation where emotions, feelings, thoughts are created in oneself, but their effects are limited by countering thoughts, in this phase feelings, thoughts, and emotions are existent, but not or much less acted upon.

The second phase is self-control which inhibits the creation of emotions, feelings and thoughts altogether which are negative/unbalanced because out of the knowledge and intrinsic awareness that any and every unchecked emotion, feeling and thought has enormous effects on oneself and of whole mankind and beyond.

Currently, the Earth human is just in the first phase of this evolution, there are only a very few people who have mastered self-control out of the awareness what unchecked feelings, emotions and thoughts can truly do.

So, it can be know for absolutely sure that emotions are NEVER existent in the spiritual realm and certainly not in Creation itself. In the realm of the pure-spiritual there only exist the sense-impulses (empfindung) of true love, happiness, harmony, etc.


A quote from the book 'Gesetz der Liebe' / Law of Love page 15:

Weisheitsbedingte, echte Liebe im Rahmen der schopferischen Gesetze und Gebote ist etwas vollig anderes als die rein emotional erzeugte affektive liebe, die also gefuhlsbetont ist, und die falsche Liebe, die Scheinliebe, die jederzeit und gar aus nichtigen Grunden einfach beendet werden oder gar in Hass usw. umschlagen konnen. Im Gegensatz dazu ist die weisheitsbedingte, echte Liebe ein born des Ewig-Bestandigen, das absolut unabhangig ist vom Alter und Aussehen sowie von der Personlichkeit des Mensen, wahrend bei einer falshen oder affektiven und eben emotionalen Liebe das alles ebenso eine wichtige Rolle spielt wie so oft auch der materielle Reichtum, der Beruf und die gesellschaftliche Stellung usw.
------------------------------------------------------
Translation:

Wisdom-orientated, real love within the scope of the Creative Laws and Commandments is something completely different then purely emotionally generated affective love which is rich with false feelings, and the fake love, the false love, can be overturned into hatred, etc because of any little reason.

In the contrast to the false-love is the wisdom-orientated, a real well of love of the everlasting Eternal-Creative absolutely independent from the age and appearance as well as from the personality, social status etc.
While in false love, all those things DO matter.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote:

Wirkliche, Weisheitsbedingte Liebe:

Ein Harmonische Zustand der absoluten Verbundenheit in allen Dingen in unzerstorbarer Form ohne zeitliche Begrenzung.

------------------------------------------------------
Translation:

Real and Wisdom-orientated love:

A harmonic existence of an absolute bond in all things in indestructible form without any timely limitations.

End translation
------------------------------------------------------

I have to include that the palette of feelings is so huge that it takes an average of 42,000,000,000 years of evolution to learn them and to know them all, for that reason alone, only a relative few human races in the universe are able to, this excludes the Plejarens as much as the earth humans.


In another post I will deal with the topic consciousness extensively.
Salome(Peace in Wisdom),

Jakobjn

Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Nils
Member

Post Number: 30
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 11:44 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Janimetso:

Thanks for your seriously meant answer. I think that the moderator is right to lift his index finger to let us consider moving the discussion to this thread.

Yes, I'm convinced that any male harbors numerous spirits (I've noticed that many prefer to use a longer word for spirit, but it means the same to me).

To continue the technicalities of rebirth, I believe that the egg on the contrary is under the wings of the female beings spirit. To fertilize this egg requires a strong sperm cell with a spirit stronger that the spirit of the female to rid the egg of the spirit of the female to ensure success.

I' sure that the spirit during all these attempts to achieve the real and open life has further developped it's willpower and perserverance and thus grown stronger. If it takes 150 years on average to get to that point, many, real many attempts have been made.

Imagine the spirit of a being from a far galaxie with a completely different life form. This would be the first lesson in the art being a mammal.

I aggree that we as males habour this incredible number of spirits. That's life as mammal. That's what our spirits have learned to cope with to succeed in grabbing an open life.

I've been considering a huge number of theories about the spirit during many years, and I've felt slightly ichy about them. It has to make sense deep within. To me my explanation makes sense. Surely, I respect yours and others different views.

Kindly as well and as ever,
Niels
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Cpl
Member

Post Number: 51
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 06:28 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Dear Jakob,

Thank you for your reply.

"...the Earth human mixes up many things in life that are totally different, the definitions of emotion and feeling are no exception, because for the untrained and unknowing consciousness they appear the same while they are in fact very different from each other."

But they do have so many different recognized definitions and meanings, this is what makes the terms confusing in use.

"Emotions are always negative..."

Happines is an emotion as well as a feeling, at least in the English language.

happiness
1: good fortune: good luck: PROSPERITY.
2a: a state of well-being charaterized by relative permanence, by dominantly agreeable emotion ranging in value from mere contentment to deep and intense joy in living... (Websters Third Int'l)

If happiness and joy were negative I could agree with you. The good news is they are not. There simply are good, positive emotions.

"Affection is a emotion stemming from a sexual-physical desire in a person which is steered from ones sexdrive."

This is simply inacurrate. "Affection" is by no means necessarily sexual, though it can be. A person has affection for his/her mother and father, siblings and others and this emotion has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

affection
1 A mental state; an emotion, feeling.
2 Disposition towards something, bent, inclination.
3 Goodwill, kindly feeling, love. (Shorter OED).

Thus 'affection' certainly does not mean per se anything sexual. "Goodwill and kindly feeling" have absolutely nothing to do with sex. By definition and in use 'affection' is very often characterized as a feeling of goodwill toward others.

One endearing image I have of Billy is seeing, on TV, his smile that seemed to have a genuine kindly goodwill, warmth and affection to all. This is not a sloppy, emotional affection, but that affection which is "goodwill, kindly feeling" toward others. That simply isaffection, and IMO the more genuine kind.

If someone insists on denying the actual definitions of words that don't fit into their philosophy isn't that someone uttering by definition half-truths?

I grant you the foundation of pity is very different from the foundation of sympathy. But they just do in fact, by defintion, overlap.

sympathy
3a Concordance or harmony of inclinations or temperament, making people congenial to one another; mutuality or community of feeling.
b The quality or state of being affected by the suffering or grief of another; a feeling or expression of compassion or condolence. (Shorter OED.)

Sympathy is predominently a passive feeling but there is obviously an active - expressive -- component/definition too.

pity
1 The quality of being pitiful or merciful; clemancy, mildness.
2 Tenderness and concern aroused by the suffering or misfortune of another; compassion, sympathy.
4 Grief, distress; remorse... (Shorter OED)

These meanings and definitions just do overlap. If you/Figu wish to rewrite the dictionary because you think it is all incorrect, I honestly think you should write your own Glossary of terms so people can know where you are coming from and what you mean by popularly defined words that have different meanings to the ones you wish to give. I don't know whether you would find many agreeing, but at least people would then find these discussions less confusing and more logical. Perhaps the problem is with the English language. It is a hodge-podge of eclectic verbosity, I suppose. I'm not sure how different it would all be in German.

"The negative feeling of pity is often mistaken with sympathy,..."

But while their foundation is different their branches do indeed overlap, as the dictionary attests. It all depends on degree. And in life there are all degrees. These words are attempts at defining our organic experience and evolution.

I fully concur with all you say about self-containment, self-control; and the quotes are beautiful. The term "Real and Wisdom-oriented love" is an excellent term.

I shall mention this for other readers too, as you may already be aware of it: "affective-love" is love that has an affect on something/someone else.

affective
1 Tending to affect or influence.
2 Of or pertaining to the affections; emotional. (Shorter OED.)

Again, I can see no reason why or how "affective-love" is limited to the purely sexual. Perhaps you mean "affected-love" which would fit into your definition perfectly. 'Affected' is poles apart from affection, of course.

affected
1 Artificially assumed or displayed; pretended;... (Shorter OED.)

There are many other meanings for 'affected', but 'affected-love' would be as in 1 above.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Phaethonsfire
Moderator

Post Number: 346
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 11:35 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The English language has a lot of meanings for the same word, like the word 'people' can mean a lot of things, it can range from talking about people as in a nation or just a few people.
That has been the inherent problem of the German-English translations of FIGU material that in many ways and many times the English translation is faulty or lacking, it's one of the reasons why it takes so very long to publish a English translation and when its published, the German version is always included.

You quote and dictate a lot from the Webster dictionary, so I will do the same to prove a point:

When I looked up the word "Spirit" one of it definitions is that its also the Soul,

2 : a supernatural being or essence: as a capitalized : HOLY SPIRIT b : SOUL 2a c

but when I looked up the word 'Soul' especially it came up with this:

Synonyms anima, animus, ?lan vital, pneuma, psyche, spirit, vital force

The Psyche is well known to be a physical material part of the human body, namely the collective of nervous systems in connection with the brain.
However Webster is putting the spirit and the psyche in one and the same meaning, while the spirit is absolutely immortal, composed out of spirit-energy and formless while the psyche is absolutely mortal and coarse-material.

You see that the Webster dictionary explains that the Spirit and the Psyche are one and the same thing, which is a very serious mistake.
The Spirit and Psyche are different from the ground up, although essential for human evolution in the material realm are both components of the human very different and need a different approach.

You tell me how it is possible that by Websters definitions that Psyche and Spirit are the same, while in fact different from the ground up at the same time??

It is very apparent that false teachings, misinterpretations and misconceptions especially in matters of the spirit and psyche rule the world at this moment especially expressed in cult-religious thoughts and believes, the example about the spirit and the psyche proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If the definitions about Spirit and Psyche in Webster's where correct, and the responsible sciences also (Psychology contains several good insights but also several severe mistakes and misinterpretations), then this Earth would be a paradise to live on and by far most people would be happy and healthy, however, the reality is completely different.

Neither FIGU or I claim to have the absolute truth or any thing near that, we all go our path of evolution and of understanding, and that means breaking with what is assumed to be correct.
The time has come and gone to just bluntly accept and believe what is told and said, but the time has come to learn, think, analyze and to KNOW.
However everybody is absolutely free to think and feel the way he or she wants to think and feel without making that person any worse or better then the other.

Affection is solely an emotion that stems from the sexual drive and has nothing to do with the feeling of parental-love that a parent has for his/her child.

The feelings of happiness and joy are not emotions and cant exist as feelings and emotions in the same way, its like saying that spirit and psyche are one and the same thing.
Happiness is caused by a thought of happiness stemming out of inner peace and content with life and loved ones, so its a very conscious state of mind (Material Consciousness) and Psyche.

Emotions are never feelings and are reactions from a deep part of the brain, and when they are expressed they are uncontrolled and can cause havoc, feelings are always connected to thoughts and can't exist without them.

It's in fact quite simple, if this humanity would possess a logical and truly spiritual and natural philosophy based on the eternal laws of nature and Creation then there would be virtually only peace and harmony and evolution.
This is very clearly not the case, as long as definitions are mixed up and are given completely false meanings then it can't be anything else then a mess.}
Salome(Peace in Wisdom),

Jakobjn

Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Cpl
Member

Post Number: 52
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 07:29 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

“That has been the inherent problem of the German-English translations of FIGU material that in many ways and many times the English translation is faulty or lacking, it's one of the reasons why it takes so very long to publish a English translation and when its published, the German version is always included.”
You have my serious commiserations, and my apologies for not being able to read German. If I did I might be able to help or understand better. Perhaps we should discuss the German translations of the terms ‘emotion’ and ‘feeling’ in detail to see how they can be best translated. But maybe that’s a vain suggestion with my knowledge of German at zero. Do you think it possible we are talking at cross-purposes – at least to some degree? If we are not, or to the degree that we are not, perhaps you could continue responding to the following:

I agree with you, that ‘psyche’ and ‘spirit’ are very different from each other. In this case I think the dictionaries are writing how the words are merely used by a number of people. Dictionaries -- I use the Shorter OED, (Oxford English Dictionary) and Websters as these two are the definitive volumes for English terms -- give common usages as well as, although as your good example shows not always, definitive meanings. Their reason for the psyche/spirit problem is basically ignorance: science doesn’t know the answers, so cannot be definitive. Hence in this case they can only be fair by entering commonly used definitions that are believed/used by a significant number of people. I grant you this causes confusion, but ignorance always has, and it is a good example of our need for knowledge. Once science discovers spirit/soul and proves its existence – which I think will happen later this century -- these definitions, I believe, will change. Until then we have only philosophy, hypothesis, ideas, opinions etc. These, of course, differ. This is one reason why FIGU’s use of its own definitions here is not so confusing; everyone knows there are different opinions and definitions. The whole field of psychology, for example, has been argued to be an art rather than a science, and I tend to agree – though again I believe in this century it will begin to become a more demonstrable science as pathways of the brain and mind are more clearly traced and mapped scientifically.

The words ‘feeling’ and ‘emotion’ are actually different from ‘psyche‘ and ‘spirit’ because:
1) people have their own definite experiences of these. Therefore if you want to give them new definitions, unless they are clearly defined anew in detail (requiring a great many examples given) the reader will baulk because his/her experience tells him/her otherwise. Just stating something as a fact doesn’t show me anything when my experience and language tell me something different. (This is one reason I suggested a detailed glossary. But then, I know you people are swamped and don’t have the time, personnel or resources to do half of what you ‘d like to, publication wise. I only wish I could help, but I’m swamped too.)

And 2) ‘Emotion’ comes from the French emotion and emouvoir meaning “excite, move the feelings of” (Shorter OED). When feelings move us or bring about motion that is emotion. That is what it means. ‘Emotion’ is basically feeling in motion, by definition. This is not an opinion, this is what the word means, or its etymological meaning. It is very different from the words ‘psyche and ‘spirit’ which do not have one definitive meaning. The confusion over feelings and emotions, IMO, comes in the area where the ‘movement’ is so slight that we have difficulty distinguishing whether ‘movement’ is actually present or not. We all know for example (perhaps FIGU members excluded :-)) that broadly smiling or laughing people are displaying the emotion happiness. It is impossible for us to say they are emotionless or just experiencing passive feeling. Their feelings have moved them into a degree of physical motion and action so we see they are undeniably expressing happiness emotionally (in motion). But there are all degrees. As the smile or laughter for example become less and less, when is the expression so small as to be imperceptible? Is it then there? In this gray area we are unable to clearly distinguish whether emotion is there or just feeling (though on another level it might hint at how emotion is decoded into feeling and reduced to impulses in information packets to spirit?); some might opt to call the gray area emotion still emotion while others might opt to call it feeling only. It’s like deciding when the color green becomes a shade of blue, or yellow. The shades are so fine that people and cultures actually disagree in the mid-zone as to what they are seeing. Blue and green are confused in the mid-zone, and in Japan they actually have the word aoi which may be – is -- perceived as blue or green. We would say green/blue, bluish-green or vice versa. But changing the meanings altogether can be even more confusing, like insisting there is no blue and claiming they are all actually greens and purples.

You say, “Affection is solely an emotion that stems from the sexual drive and has nothing to do with the feeling of parental-love that a parent has for his/her child.” As a statement this has absolutely no meaning unless in the same sentence it is explained what the interpretation is of ‘affection’ and also in the same sentence a word or explanation given to describe what everyone understands as ‘affection for family members and friends’ etc. In order to be understood every feeling and emotion are going to have to be explained and redefined or no one (except those deeply read in the FIGU material) will know what is being talked about, and may well reject FIGU out of hand for speaking apparent nonsense that contradicts a vast amount of their actual experience every day of their lives. I imagine this is not the first time for FIGU to hear this matter addressed. Quite honestly I’m stumped at what you are talking about with respect to emotions and feelings.

Affection’ in English implies at least a degree of thought and consideration for the other person. If synonyms help, they include: attachment, desire, passion, care, feeling, fondness, friendliness, goodwill, kindness, liking love, tenderness, warmth (Collins Shorter English Thesaurus). Not knowing the original German (and not understanding it if I did know) I really don’t know what to suggest.

“The feelings of happiness and joy are not emotions and cant exist as feelings and emotions in the same way, its like saying that spirit and psyche are one and the same thing.
Happiness is caused by a thought of happiness stemming out of inner peace and content with life and loved ones, so it’s a very conscious state of mind (Material Consciousness) and Psyche.”

I agree with your second sentence here completely, except that happiness can bubble over into laughter and whoops of joy, but perhaps you’d disagree. This could also mean, that the cause of that happiness can come from something outside; the tickle or touch that makes the baby laugh in or with happiness e.g.
I disagree with your first sentence, though. ‘Spirit’ and ‘psyche’ are attempts to describe actual things, the definitive nature of which hasn’t been established. That means the jury is still out on what they actually are, so I support fully your -- or anyone’s -- investigation to redefine correctly or even more correctly these terms, or even establish a universal definition. I do agree, of course, that the feeling of happiness is not the emotion of happiness. The two are different: the feeling is passive as you define it; the emotion is when that feeling moves a person into action or movement of some expressional kind. This is correctly or logically defined (like saying 2 + 2 = 4) and I just do not see how it can be logically defined any other way.

“Emotions are never feelings and are reactions from a deep part of the brain, and when they are expressed they are uncontrolled and can cause havoc, feelings are always connected to thoughts and can't exist without them.”
How then do you explain the feelings of joy, happiness, discomfort etc that we can clearly see in an infant that hasn’t yet learnt to think?? The feeling of pain when burning oneself on a stove comes without thought. The pain is immediate, the reaction instinctual. There is no thought here, though plenty are likely to follow. You might say pain is a sensation, but it is also felt and we feel pain, making it a feeling. It’s clearly a feeling that doesn’t depend on thoughts. The baby again feels it without thinking. It can’t yet think, but it certainly feels pain.
I think the key phrase there about emotions is “can cause havoc”; they certainly can, but they don’t always and needn’t, even when expressed.

Does FIGU have a list of vocabulary it puts under feelings and a list of vocabulary under emotions somewhere? That might help appreciate what the underlying concepts are in terms of daily living and application.


“Neither FIGU or I claim to have the absolute truth or any thing near that, we all go our path of evolution and of understanding, and that means breaking with what is assumed to be correct.
The time has come and gone to just bluntly accept and believe what is told and said, but the time has come to learn, think, analyze and to KNOW.”

Me too, Jakob. I agree absolutely 100% with that. I just don’t believe in throwing away something that works very well for something that doesn’t appear to work as well that requires a Herculean effort to implement and is likely to sow profound confusion.

I’m sorry to trouble you Jakob, but I have another question, presumably easier to answer: Perhaps I misunderstand the nature of Creation as FIGU defines it; and since you/Billy/the Plejarens were the first to use the term with a capital letter (as far as I know, Jmmanuel aside); could you define Creation? Or if you can link to a comprehensive definition I’d appreciate it. You said “There is no emotion in Creation.” I had thought that Creation was all that exists in all the multi-verse or all that exists everywhere. Since emotion exists that would be included in Creation if that were the definition, hence my question.

Thanks for all your effort and answers. I really do appreciate your responses, and think it good to discuss these things in order to arrive at the best possible answers – whatever they are.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page

Phaethonsfire
Moderator

Post Number: 347
Registered: 01-2004
Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 01:49 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree with you, that Çpsyche? and Çspirit? are very different from each other. In this case I think the dictionaries are writing how the words are merely used by a number of people. Dictionaries -- I use the Shorter OED, (Oxford English Dictionary) and Webster's as these two are the definitive volumes for English terms -- give common usages as well as, although as your good example shows not always, definitive meanings. Their reason for the psyche/spirit problem is basically ignorance: science doesn't? know the answers, so cannot be definitive. Hence in this case they can only be fair by entering commonly used definitions that are believed/used by a significant number of people. I grant you this causes confusion, but ignorance always has, and it is a good example of our need for knowledge. Once science discovers spirit/soul and proves its existence ? which I think will happen later this century -- these definitions, I believe, will change. Until then we have only philosophy, hypothesis, ideas, opinions etc. These, of course, differ. This is one reason why FIGU?s use of its own definitions here is not so confusing; everyone knows there are different opinions and definitions. The whole field of psychology, for example, has been argued to be an art rather than a science, and I tend to agree ? though again I believe in this century it will begin to become a more demonstrable science as pathways of the brain and mind are more clearly traced and mapped scientifically.

For some time now, I am myself occupied with a part-time study to get my Masters degree in Psychology at the University of Leiden, and for what I can tell you is that Psychology has a firm rooting in biochemistry, neurosciences and medicine, etc, etc.
A lot of misinterpretations are still very apparent in Psychology and related sciences because of mixed up definitions, spirit, mind, soul, mental processes, etc, etc.
When you take a good look at Nature, then it will be very obvious that Nature in itself is absolutely logical, a stone which ripples the water of a pond will do that exactly according to the mass of that stone, velocity, angle of impact, etc, etc. and the result are always exactly the outcome of all those parameters.
In other words, Nature behaves exactly according to its own laws, this is only possible because of the omnipresent logic in Nature itself, if Nature would be even for the tiniest bit illogical then for example the outcome of 2+2 wouldn't be always 4, but 5 or 3 at times, that fact alone would destroy Nature, Creation and in the end the whole of Existence, because illogic is always finite (it always neutralizes itself in one way or the other), it would have a cascading effect on all things in the whole of Nature and Creation.

The core of these definition issues are that there is a big difference in the capacity of the English language versus the capacity of the German language, many German words can't be translated correctly into English.
Another example: the 'Gemuet' which is the spirit counterpart of the psyche, but when translated to English, the word 'Mind' appears, while the word Mind is used for consciousness, spirit, or thoughts, etc.

My previous example in my other post already showed that the definitions according to several dictionaries of the spirit and psyche are mixed, so according to this so-called logic, spirit, psyche, mind, etc would be all the same?
You can't use definitions of terms which basic and intrinsic nature is not established or not well known, because those definitions would be illogical in themselves, and illogical definitions will never produce an logical end result.



I disagree with your first sentence, though. Spirit and psyche are attempts to describe actual things, the definitive nature of which hasnt been established.

The current mainstream science has no well-defined and logical definition of the psyche and spirit, but it doesn't mean they don't exist or are not known on Earth.
For in example Physics, the definition for an Electron is very clear, and its known to which family (the leptons) in the standard model the electron belongs to.
Because of the clear and logical definition of the Electron, any scientist or any person with this knowledge can predict up to a great level of accuracy what its behavior will be, how ever the amount of accuracy is directly related to how much is know about the electron.
An electron is a electron, not a positron, muon, tachyon, but an electron, and the word electron has a set of known Characteristics which is clearly defined.

This principle is the same for the Psyche, Spirit, Gemuet, Logic, Emotion and Feelings, all these terms have their own intrinsic basic definitions and those definitions will be more detailed after time goes in the course of evolution.


So, when I say that the spirit is a part of Creation itself and will never die, then its true, but in the course of evolution more refined characteristics to the definition of the entity spirit will be added.


How then do you explain the feelings of joy, happiness, discomfort etc that we can clearly see in an infant that hasn?t yet learnt to think?? The feeling of pain when burning oneself on a stove comes without thought. The pain is immediate, the reaction instinctual. There is no thought here, though plenty are likely to follow. You might say pain is a sensation, but it is also felt and we feel pain, making it a feeling. It?s clearly a feeling that doesn?t depend on thoughts. The baby again feels it without thinking. It can?t yet think, but it certainly feels pain.
I think the key phrase there about emotions is can cause havoc; they certainly can, but they don?t always and needn?t, even when expressed.


Conscious thinking is developing rapidly after the baby is born, but the initial responses you see from a new born baby or infant are clearly steered from the basal ganglia and the psyche, the psyche is like a 'guardian' which reacts strongly to negative circumstances like danger, fire, physical pain, discomfort and reacts to pleasant impulses like attention or care from his/her parents, these reactions are initially emotional and primary, but not thought related yet.
When a baby cries, its not sad in the regular way, but its a reaction of the Psyche of the baby, that it needs to have to change it diaper, or needs to be fed, etc.
Many million years ago, the caveman was guided mostly by those impulses to survive, to run from predators, to fight and flee, but over the millions of years, those primary impulse have become much less important because the human has developed his conscious thoughts and feelings, which are of a much higher order then those primary impulses.

When you touch a stove, it is not your brain, or better defined, the Cerebrum or neocortex which responds, its your nervous system and the brainstem which respond much more quickly to sensory-impulses from your sensory nerves then the cerebrum ever can, that's why you pull back your hand and only when your hand is already is being pulled back you feel the physical pain.
This is again a function of the psyche which guards the body from being hurt.

As long as there are no public well-defined and logical definitions for psyche, spirit, consciousness, etc there will always be confusions as is apparent here.

I will post about Creation in a seperate post.
Salome(Peace in Wisdom),

Jakobjn

Saalome gam naan ben uurda, gan njjber asaala hesporoona!

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page