Baseless Speculation Time

[sdi]

1. Spirit is unity: it is a limitless mind, endlessly contemplating itself (for there is nothing else to contemplate).

2. So potent is spirit that the very ideas it contemplates are alive, and we call these souls.

3. Souls are unique expressions of life: the greatest are prime and express a single, pure nature; the rest are composite, expressing a harmony of primal natures.

4. The more composite a soul is, the weaker it is, and souls that are too weak to exist of themselves animate bodies, which act as a sort of support or crutch, allowing the soul to function even while weak.

5. Spirit is unlimited, but souls are limited by their natures; consequently, the spiritual world (which souls inhabit) is unlimited by such constraints as space and time, while the world of soul (which bodies inhabit) is limited by these.

6. A soul cannot change its composite nature (it is "baked in" to its very existence); however, by focusing on some aspects of it at the expense of others, a soul inhabiting a body may concentrate its power and gain enough strength to no longer require a body, at the cost of losing some measure of its expressive potential. (That is, it must act within the constraints of this purer nature, or else return to needing a body.)

7. Therefore, one might assume that if a soul's goal is to live in the material world, and to live well in it, then it should deliberately pursue the strategy of balancing its various natures. However, if a soul's goal is to leave the material world and live in the spiritual, then it should deliberately pursue a strategy of focusing on some natures at the expense of others.

(I am not certain of these points—indeed, on the basis that "all models are wrong, but some are useful," I am certain that there is at least something incorrect about each one—but I have a vague feeling that there's something to it. Certainly, I am pursuing the latter goal; this life is very weird; and my angel tells me that it only gets weirder from here...)

Comments

Re: How do we teach these things to children?

[emmanuelg]

Hmmm, could be that one of the reasons for telling stories to children is to give them resources for thinking about things that they will need later in life. I am thinking about any number of stories-- The Emperor's New Clothes; The crowd is not always right, see what you see. The Little Red Hen--We don't deserve to share in things in which we did not help.
--And other cultures' childrens' stories can be informative about how they see the world and what they think is important.

Re: How do we teach these things to children?

[sdi]

That was certainly JMG's take, and I've found a lot of valuable insight by meditating on parables and myths, myself.