Recently I’ve been considering whether the premise of reincarnation might offer opportunity for a more insightful management philosophy in regards to public policy and regulation. In particular, the potential for an individual to develop greater magnanimity of purpose with less imaginative limitations and restrictions regarding the relevance of outcomes.

On the group/macro level I primarily see potential for this philosophical approach to address rate of development against concomitant outcomes. For instance, the concept of personal wealth might be viewed in a different light when recognition is given to the human condition outlasting efforts to overcome circumstantial discomfort.

I’ll assume that I’ll find more material to address within this subject but will roll the ball and post the thread. A little feedback tends to tease out detail and provide better context for posing hypothetical questions.

Likely the reincarnation idea exists because when someone near dies its nice to think of them as being around in some way, it’s a projection that has (can have) practical psychological benefits. For example when someone near here died I saw that person in a cloud formation. Other projections involved a ‘spirit ball’ of sorts that accompanied me as I needed, but also the projections regularly involve/d animals, particularly birds (crows mostly, which are a bird I don’t like much). I also project/ed the (‘spirit’ of the) person into the family dog for comfort.

I’m not religious.

transition said:

Likely the reincarnation idea exists because when someone near dies its nice to think of them as being around in some way, it’s a projection that has (can have) practical psychological benefits. For example when someone near here died I saw that person in a cloud formation. Other projections involved a ‘spirit ball’ of sorts that accompanied me as I needed, but also the projections regularly involve/d animals, particularly birds (crows mostly, which are a bird I don’t like much). I also project/ed the (‘spirit’ of the) person into the family dog for comfort.

I’m not religious.

I’m not seeking justification for the philosophy but potential results of giving it credit and acceptance on the community level.

Morning Postpocelipse

opps

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

Likely the reincarnation idea exists because when someone near dies its nice to think of them as being around in some way, it’s a projection that has (can have) practical psychological benefits. For example when someone near here died I saw that person in a cloud formation. Other projections involved a ‘spirit ball’ of sorts that accompanied me as I needed, but also the projections regularly involve/d animals, particularly birds (crows mostly, which are a bird I don’t like much). I also project/ed the (‘spirit’ of the) person into the family dog for comfort.

I’m not religious.

I’m not seeking justification for the philosophy but potential results of giving it credit and acceptance on the community level.

But why?

Why not base this exercise on ideas that we believe to be true, rather than on a myth?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

transition said:

Likely the reincarnation idea exists because when someone near dies its nice to think of them as being around in some way, it’s a projection that has (can have) practical psychological benefits. For example when someone near here died I saw that person in a cloud formation. Other projections involved a ‘spirit ball’ of sorts that accompanied me as I needed, but also the projections regularly involve/d animals, particularly birds (crows mostly, which are a bird I don’t like much). I also project/ed the (‘spirit’ of the) person into the family dog for comfort.

I’m not religious.

I’m not seeking justification for the philosophy but potential results of giving it credit and acceptance on the community level.

But why?

Why not base this exercise on ideas that we believe to be true, rather than on a myth?

How is this an exercise based on myth? I have developed my comprehension of the scenario so that it is not simply an egocentric convenience guaranteeing my continued existence. The philosophy can be applied to providing greater context to circumstances and decisions.

For instance many things that are seemingly beyond my control are given room for being engaged with in the sense that things I might not conceive of being resolved within my own lifespan might still be worth directing myself toward in a scale of universal time. I have found the concept that every consciousness has an eternal reality empowering as far as it allows for sentience to be the purpose of existence rather than a result of it, ie, the entire momentum of the universe is ultimately a conscientious system the nature of which might be maximised by attention to detail.

The question is designed to address whether or not there is a value system with practical results that is unique to this philosophy.

It is entirely possible that I am endeavoring to illustrate and quantify practical complexities where there are only trivialities. At this point in my contemplation of the subject it is necessary to verbalise and evaluate for greater perspective…….

Postpocelipse said:

How is this an exercise based on myth?

The exercise is based on a myth in the way that it is based on reincarnation, and reincarnation is a myth.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

How is this an exercise based on myth?

The exercise is based on a myth in the way that it is based on reincarnation, and reincarnation is a myth.

That assertion is based on opinion. I would require far more empirical evidence to relegate the concept to being a myth than is currently available seeing as minimum effort has been applied to validation. The question is primarily a thought experiment however.

I would require far more empirical evidence to relegate the concept to being a myth than is currently available seeing as minimum effort has been applied to validation.

arse about. it is up to proponents of reincarnation to show evidence that it is a viable theory.

JudgeMental said:

I would require far more empirical evidence to relegate the concept to being a myth than is currently available seeing as minimum effort has been applied to validation.

arse about. it is up to proponents of reincarnation to show evidence that it is a viable theory.

Whereas any genuine phenomena that might escape the attention of individuals or the group are subsequently invalid?

Postpocelipse said:

The question is primarily a thought experiment however.

It seems to me better to base such thought experiments on our best guess of the world as it is, rather than looking for specific benefits arising out of a hypothesis which we have no reason to think true.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The question is primarily a thought experiment however.

It seems to me better to base such thought experiments on our best guess of the world as it is, rather than looking for specific benefits arising out of a hypothesis which we have no reason to think true.

Well I prefer not to guess(timate) and in the case of personal perspective it is only destructive to arbitrarily accept limitations. You might have ‘no reason to think true’, but I(and/or others) may have a different experience. Primarily I am questioning making decisions on the basis that actions have only immediate outcomes. I also contend that life provides the luxury of not needing one to hold to an opinion and supplies time to contemplate a more dynamic reality than demands of the immediate might suggest possible….

The question is here for those who might find material for thought in it anyways…….

Whereas any genuine phenomena that might escape the attention of individuals or the group are subsequently invalid?

well if it is genuine then it isn’t invalid. just not noticed in your instance.

The question is here for those who might find material for thought in it anyways…….

so it’s “if you don’t agree with me then don’t respond”?

don’t post it if you don’t want contrary views.

JudgeMental said:

The question is here for those who might find material for thought in it anyways…….

so it’s “if you don’t agree with me then don’t respond”?

don’t post it if you don’t want contrary views.

don’t be a dick if you can help it. I’ll give you it’s Sunday but the question wasn’t seeking to establish reincarnation one way or the other but was designed to examine whether there might be benefits to the practice of teaching a kid that they have more potential than the human condition might suggest. If you can’t answer the question posed, who is being pedantic??

Econological is not a word. HTH

dv said:

Econological is not a word. HTH

yeah I made it up. i was looking for a more organic word than economy. on sundays I allow myself to use made up words. I have to use words other people have made up so I wasn’t sure it would get noticed.

Postpocelipse said:

Well I prefer not to guess(timate) and in the case of personal perspective it is only destructive to arbitrarily accept limitations.

It seems to me destructive to propose that some specific hypothesis has benefits which are only accessible from acceptance of the hypothesis.

Postpocelipse said:

You might have ‘no reason to think true’, but I(and/or others) may have a different experience. Primarily I am questioning making decisions on the basis that actions have only immediate outcomes. I also contend that life provides the luxury of not needing one to hold to an opinion and supplies time to contemplate a more dynamic reality than demands of the immediate might suggest possible….

But none of that requires the assumption of reincarnation.

Postpocelipse said:

The question is here for those who might find material for thought in it anyways…….

But I do find material for thought in it. That’s why I’m replying with my perspective.

Can someone assure me that Postpocelipse and transition are not the same person ?

Doesn’t much matter to me one way or the other. It’s just the internet.

>Can someone assure me that Postpocelipse and transition are not the same person ?

Like if I turned and looked and responded with my horizontal vagina.

try the veil of ignorance;

…… I’m glad I was only trying to change popular opinion and wasn’t considering material for a story on this thread.

>…… I’m glad I was only trying to change popular opinion and wasn’t considering material for a story on this thread.

You might want to explain to rumpole that I’m not you, as the person seemed to be entertaining the idea you and I may be the same person.

transition said:

>…… I’m glad I was only trying to change popular opinion and wasn’t considering material for a story on this thread.

You might want to explain to rumpole that I’m not you, as the person seemed to be entertaining the idea you and I may be the same person.

You have to admit there was a certain similarity in the style.

Anyway, I’m quite happy to discuss the subject, and further develop my position that the overall expressed goals can be achieved without introducing the concept of reincarnation of individuals, should anyone wish to.

transition said:

>…… I’m glad I was only trying to change popular opinion and wasn’t considering material for a story on this thread.

You might want to explain to rumpole that I’m not you, as the person seemed to be entertaining the idea you and I may be the same person.

meh. his misconception not mine. is the distinction technically important?

>You have to admit there was a certain similarity in the style.

Don’t have to concede anything of the fucken’ sort.

>meh. his misconception not mine. is the distinction technically important?

I suppose something idealizing the spread of mind viruses may not think so.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>…… I’m glad I was only trying to change popular opinion and wasn’t considering material for a story on this thread.

You might want to explain to rumpole that I’m not you, as the person seemed to be entertaining the idea you and I may be the same person.

You have to admit there was a certain similarity in the style.

Anyway, I’m quite happy to discuss the subject, and further develop my position that the overall expressed goals can be achieved without introducing the concept of reincarnation of individuals, should anyone wish to.

not exactly sure what you mean with the last sentiment Rev. I was trying to conceive an advanced culture that relied on a central philosophy of reincarnation to construct it’s social and technical structure. It’s not immediately apparent where it would go or how such a culture would interact with a different culture.

transition said:

>You have to admit there was a certain similarity in the style.

Don’t have to concede anything of the fucken’ sort.

Well no, you can concede or not whatever you like. What I meant was that if you looked at it from the point of view of a disinterested observer you would see a certain similarity in the style.

Postpocelipse said:

not exactly sure what you mean with the last sentiment Rev. I was trying to conceive an advanced culture that relied on a central philosophy of reincarnation to construct it’s social and technical structure. It’s not immediately apparent where it would go or how such a culture would interact with a different culture.

I’m not stopping you.

>Well no, you can concede or not whatever you like. What I meant was that if you looked at it from the point of view of a disinterested observer you would see a certain similarity in the style.

Well yeah your definition of disinterested observer that might largely ignore the differences.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

not exactly sure what you mean with the last sentiment Rev. I was trying to conceive an advanced culture that relied on a central philosophy of reincarnation to construct it’s social and technical structure. It’s not immediately apparent where it would go or how such a culture would interact with a different culture.

I’m not stopping you.

Says you!

transition said:

>Well no, you can concede or not whatever you like. What I meant was that if you looked at it from the point of view of a disinterested observer you would see a certain similarity in the style.

Well yeah your definition of disinterested observer that might largely ignore the differences.

The words “certain similarity” do not imply total lack of significant differences.

You seem a little touchy this morning I must say (meaning I choose to say, as there is no-one here actually compelling me to say that).

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

(meaning I choose to say, as there is no-one here actually compelling me to say that).

is that discounting those who may or may not have applied mind control techniques upon you previously?

>The words “certain similarity” do not imply total lack of significant differences.

Alright, I’ll desist from pointing toward the implied generalizing attributions (and purpose)in the use of ‘disinterested observer’.

transition said:

>…… I’m glad I was only trying to change popular opinion and wasn’t considering material for a story on this thread.

You might want to explain to rumpole that I’m not you, as the person seemed to be entertaining the idea you and I may be the same person.

Lets say you both have similar opaque (but charming) literary styles.

rumpole said:

transition said:

>…… I’m glad I was only trying to change popular opinion and wasn’t considering material for a story on this thread.

You might want to explain to rumpole that I’m not you, as the person seemed to be entertaining the idea you and I may be the same person.

Lets say you both have similar opaque (but charming) literary styles.

I see others seem to agree !

>Lets say you both have similar opaque (but charming) literary styles.

Of course the alternative is that the detail of who is who may have been the subject of your comment, so confining it to that might just bring it around to just that.

A quick look at the OP sort of looks to me like philosophical wanderings, quite broad in a sense, whereas my contribution were quite personal and specific, not to mention the vocabulary strings are substantially different, to the point it’d be difficult other than through some perverse enthusiasm to confuse them.

So, if you’d like to bring it back to the proposition of who is who, rather than guess you might take it from me the OP is not my work, but don’t let me get in the way of your fun.

Back to the subject of the OP.