There is something, within us that is not of this Earth; in fact, not of this entire Universe, as we understand it.

This blog is a forward-flowing narrative.
Please read from the OLDEST post first.
Thank you for dropping in...

In conclusion, for the preceding, the subtle distinction between “MIND” and “SOUL” is detectable through the lens of Growth. In turn, the concept of Growth is the discriminant between what is “Earthly-Real” and “Other-worldly," Real: we know that what is “Real,” in Earthly terms, has two distinctive characteristics:

1) It is substantial. That is, it is made or constituted of the elements found on this planet.

2) It is subject to “growth”; it starts small and grows larger. It ripens, matures or ages. It decays, rusts, ages and dies. It “peaks,” that is, reaches a stage of growth at which it is most recognizable as itself; as a specific phenomenon; as a class of events. All phenomena and events, on Earth, are substantial and gradual. We say, “Subject to Evolution,” that is, a specific direction of growth.

Applying this criterion to MIND, we find the criterion to fit very well:

1) MIND is materialized in an animal body.

2) It is subject to Growth and Evolution.

3) It continuously interacts with Earthly phenomena and events, which it attempts to control.

On the other hand, the same criteria do not apply to “SOUL.” By definition, the Soul is “Not of this Earth.” This is a constant in the description of what a Soul is or might be. It is said to be “immortal,” that it is not subject to decay and death; which, by consequence, also should imply that it is uncreated – but no such luck – they insist that it is “created.”

By the same token, it should not be subject to Growth and Evolution – again, no such luck – for they grant it one narrow field of play: from Evil to Good. How about from Good to Evil? No, they say, nothing goes from Good to Evil, only from Evil to Good. Now, that is a very narrow scope of Evolution and a very unidirectional one at that. Only two modes are admitted: Good or Evil. There is also only one way to win: you can only bet on Good. Which makes you ask, “WHO,” in his right mind, would only ever bet Evil?! Isn’t this what you would call a “zero sum game,” winner takes all? At least, if the evil souls were to be destroyed, we would have some movement, in this scene. “No,” we are told, “they are prescribed in Hell.” So, Growth is restricted to a one-way traffic: either Earth to Heaven or Earth to Hell. This train has only two lines. This game has only two issues.

This is not the mental image we have of evolution, on Earth. Here, a number of surprising things can happen. The most surprising things happen all the time. Well, only yesterday, this amoeba has become a human being. The dinosaurs have disappeared, even though they were doing so well. Even the Earth itself mutates, continuously.

There are many options, on this Earth. Most of them unpredictable.

Well, see for yourself how this creature that lived in caves has now built an orbiting station in Space. Would you have guessed it, a million years ago? This “Soul” is suspiciously not of this Earth. Fine. So, there is something, within us that is not of this Earth; in fact, not of this entire Universe, as we understand it.

What then, could it be?

It seems completely useless for survival. In fact, it is maladapted to Earthly conditions. It does not even recognize right from wrong, except very reluctantly. After all, the Angels are souls. Yet, they too did not recognize Good and Truth. At least, many of them did not, we are told. So, even “pure” souls are rather dumb. They do not seem to recognize their own self-interest. To say the least!

In short, even if God, the ultimate parallel reality, did exist, there is no guarantee that our “soul” will lead us to Him. Now, who needs such a dumb thing? Why burden ourselves with a Soul? Why not stay with this MIND; a child of our own world?

At this point, let us step back and practice some constructive doubt, asking ourselves:

Could MIND and SOUL be reconciled? Could they be one and the same? In the sense that in its mechanical and earthly functions, we call “it” MIND, while in its aspects that relate to the Totality of Reality, all that is, we call it SOUL?

What of we stripped this soul of its mythological contents, of Good and Evil, the Cosmic Struggle and the theme of the Return to the Creator? Could there still be left, enough, for this SOUL to remain something real? Does it have to be immortal?

It seems to me that such a SOUL would still be “natural.” Not as natural as the MIND but, still, natural. It all would depend on what we meant by “Nature.” If you restrict the extension of the word to the phenomena on Earth, you have one restrictive definition. If you broaden the scope to include the entire Universe, “visible and invisible,” in the language of the past, you still face a major problem:

Most people in most times would deny the existence of any invisible Universe. After all, they would argue, WHAT IS OUT THERE, other than more stars or more clouds of plasma? We are cataloguing Everything that is OUT THERE. We have names for everything: SPACE, VOID, STARS, etc., and since we have names, we must know everything. If you were to ask, “How about this Dark Matter, of which we know nothing and which is said to constitute 90 or even 99% of all Matter?

“Don’t you worry about that, either. We have a name for it too. It is all a matter of time before we find its own quirks and quarks.” In other words, I am being asked to have blind faith and presume that I know what I do not know. I am supposed to believe that I know the Entire Universe, all of Reality, on the strength of 1%, or 10%, of all That is.

I would have to assume that that 10% is representative of the 100%.. For that, I must assume that the Universe is homogeneous. If this Universe is that homogeneous, then why is it composed, at 90% or 99%, of some kind of material which we cannot even begin to comprehend? It would seem to me, with my feeble intellect, that a 1% or a 10% of anything, so different from the remaining 90 or 99%, must be an exception. It seems to me that the 90% should be considered “the norm.”

Why, then, is our logic reversed?

Why do we persist in this blind faith that, somehow, our 10% corner of Reality must be all of Reality? Very strange, indeed. What if, in an immortal Universe, there were immortal entities? Why would that be so “strange?”

Back to our problem: do we include, in our definition of “Nature,” that 99% of Dark Matter? Or do only consider what our telescopes see?

Is “Nature,” only and nothing else, what our telescopes see?

Is “Nature,” only and nothing else, but what we could see?

Is it, only and nothing else, but what we describe in our Physics and Chemistry texts?

Is there no other Reality, outside of Science?

Now, please keep in mind the fact that I am an atheist and that, by temperament, I am not fond of Gods, Angels, Miracles or anything of that sort. Furthermore, I am not “selling you” any ideology or faith.

I am just asking you to think with me.

So, tell me – how far does Nature extend? If you conceive it, as I do, as far more than chemical reactions, electromagnetism, the four seasons, rain and thunder, even well beyond (E=MC2), then, it must be vastly unknown and, perhaps, unknowable.

It is a truism that all teachers only teach what they know. What they do not know, they never mention or even deny it exists. The same is true of our scientists. Their discourse is about what they know, think they know. Of course, they also talk a lot about what they do not know. We all know it!

There is also the dogmatism of the “schools of thought.” The bane of civilized minds! Every historical period is dominated by some institutionalized form of thought; in fact, an ideology.

The problem with any ideology is that it sins against true reason, in two major aspects that I know:

1) Its intellectual productions are powered by a single paradigm. In the case of science, Mechanism.

2) Its intellectual productions are the product of institutional consensus, which entails compromise, hair splitting, petty quarrels, vain-glory and, finally, status quo.

There is always some “Method” involved. Mountains of information, that no one knows how to put together, but piecemeal, in scientific “theories,” about this and that and the other thing. A lot of analyses but very little synthesis. Those who attempt a synthesis indulge in histrionics, sensationalism and sleight of hand – that are outright intellectual dishonesty.