Why Reincarnation is Not necessary in the Social Imagination...

Inasmuch as I talk about the social imagination as the social reality, the individual reality is not to be misunderstood. I am not saying that there is no individual in that phenomenon. Its true we are a composite of all social encounters and interaction but at the end of the day, all of information defines you... who you are and are not largely based on all the agreements by choice that you made from day one of your life... including recognizing your own mother's voice. 

And, as a 'singular' collective, at the end of the day and as you move into the next day, you are still an individual and a member of something much bigger. Your body is a whole and yet your hand is different from your foot. Without either one, your body would not be the whole of who you are. So, why would reincarnation be necessary in that context? It would not because if the one changes or is remade in order to transmigrate, we would first have to consider the whole first. The whole of society and even of all human history.

Now, the Greek Philosopher Plato saw himself as a spiritual man and had many ideas on religion and theology. First and foremost, Plato believed in reincarnation. He taught that human souls had previously existed in a perfect world and there enjoyed the presence of God.

Somehow these souls committed some sin and fell from God's presence and were placed into physical bodies on Earth as a punishment. The purpose of life is to correct the soul's initial mistake and to return to God.

This could only be done through the attainment of knowledge, and since God is omnipotent Plato believed it ridiculous to assume that one's soul could gain enough knowledge to return to God in one lifetime.

In Psychology today, a very important point was made against reincarnation. Given what we now know about the enormous size and power of the unconscious—about just how much of "us" lies beneath the surface of our conscious minds—we have to admit that the defining core of who we are may, in fact, be located mostly, if not entirely, beneath our awareness (our conscious minds being mostly spectators and interpreters of our unconscious selves).

But what does even this mean? That our unconscious beliefs and habits define who we are? Does our conscious awareness, the values we're able to articulate to ourselves, have nothing to do with our identity? And what about our memories of who we've been? Without those, would not some essential part of the self be lost?

Other philosophies (Buddhism i.e.) argue the sense that we even have a self is an illusion, that despite our feeling that a unique something lies at the core of what we are, such a something doesn't, in fact, exist.

However, there has to be something of who we are and are not within our psyche in order to be a conscious social actor. This ‘constant’ about us is our sense that something about us exists or remains constant, and that who we are is comprised both of stable parts (personality, beliefs, attitudes, and so on) and unstable parts (retrievable memories, moods, interests, and so on)—and that to change any one of them (whether in the realm of the conscious or unconscious) is to change who we are in proportion to their relative stability (changing a belief, for example—like a belief in God—would represent a major change; changing a mood, on the other hand, merely a minor one).

COMMENTARY: I will first address Plato’s mistake in believing in reincarnation. 1- Plato did not take into account the state of entropy that man exists in – the second law of thermal dynamics. 2- Plato did not take into account the idea of the psyche as we just read above and how that ‘self’ would ‘mess up’ any new self in context of reincarnation … as he thought was necessary in order for man to get back to God.

Why? Because, past lives have baggage that would cause a problem for ‘moving forward’. The same baggage would also cause problems for Buddhist ideas of the non-existent self. Whether a single self or wider collective self, it’s still a life. Every life, whether ‘our own’ or a collective conscious contains residual information that would not just go away every ‘new loop’. Unless, there is someone to erase it.

Now, why would reincarnation not be necessary for Christians? Because, the living God died once and for all so that this life is the one and only one we need to live. But, even if it were possible and had been occurring before God’s incarnation (Jesus Christ His Son); we know that Christians are defined by God’s incarnation, His life, death and resurrection.

We believe that through one ‘man’ (God-Man) all sins were forgiven once and for all; thus, after Christ resurrected, reincarnation, would no longer be necessary. Jesus (God) broke that vicious circle of the sin nature recycling and attempting to move forward but forward how? Who determines what forward is?

When God (the Son, Jesus Christ, the Word) entered in only one lifetime was needed to be restored to God the Creator and His eternal Kingdom / eternal life.

If not for Jesus Christ, it would be ridiculous to assume that one’s soul could gain enough knowledge to return to God in just one lifetime.

But knowledge of what? All that God is/knows and does. First, all knowledge in this fallen world, is a mere fraction of all the knowledge that belongs to God.

All truth/knowledge like the flesh are subject to entropy – decay. Which means that all flesh and knowledge/information is necessarily the winding down of energy and matter and time included as a constraint of the fallen world’s death date. Thus, we could never keep returning to a state of entropy as all previous knowledge which was closer to the truth would be already lost.

Now, in this fallen condition, we could never know all things anyway. Adam knew all he needed to know but he sinned by not believing that he did and he questioned it. Sin is questioning and doubting God and His authority, His right as the Supreme Being. 

Perhaps, we could imagine that sin would be winding down and that as it does, we would become further from sin and closer to the truth… closer to the knowledge of God.  But, only to be closer to Him in an appropriate relationship as His creation. That He is God. He alone is all knowledge. Thus, we cannot nor do we need to know/have or contain all knowledge. That is for God alone. Trying to be God is not possible for His creation. That was the sin (lie) that the first man fell into.

The social imagination of one is the same as it is for the whole from which it sprang but yet it is different. It is as different as a branch on a tree that is way up at the top compared to one down lower or one in the middle or one closer to the trunk. Yet, it is the same thing... all branches make one tree. And it is the one tree that caused all branches. It would not be necessary for the one branch to be reincarnated unless the tree was first.  And, if the tree was first, why even recognize and or discuss the reincarnation of the branches...? 

In the One there are many and the One is always the many. There is no reason to be on a repetitive path to gain what is already known... there is only one path - Jesus Christ!

ONLINE SOURCES ~ https://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/historia/article/view/578#:~:text=Although%20the%20idea%20of%20reincarnation,as%20Valentinus%20and%20Basilides%20of

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/happiness-in-world/201210/the-problem-reincarnation

A 'Warped' Social Imagination... Woke is a Not Nice SubCulture!

They are 'free' in 'their' social imagination... just as free as every other reprobate in the reprobate social imagination. 

While riding my bike, I saw a woman with purple hair (not the first time either) and her purple hair was not even nicely kept or styled but rather raggedy, and or pooch sloppy. These types are often flip flop wearing creatures or else in black tutus and Doc Martins. Such people they say they are 'woke'. Nope, they have been hypnotized into thinking they are. They are simply an animal... self-centered, self-righteous butt sniffing self-serving hippies.

If anything, they paint their hair purple or blue or pink or green, wear rings in their noses, get painted with tattoos all over themselves and extort vile utterances. They will crap in their own nest if their 'woke' neighbor does it. You see, they only copy what they think is the politically correct attitude/behavior/in-group... and that's not new to society. 

There has always been a certain amount of copying of others to get an advantage, even a hand out or the legal woke right to be a lazy, dumb slob. As I understand... its an 'E' subculture. One has to wonder who made them that way or did they grow up out of the subculture corn?

The subculture social imagination has never benefited wider 'stable' social imagination known as functioning society. Subcultures are not nice people. They are not nice in their appearance, nor in their thinking nor in their behavior. They eat junk food, they sleep on floors, they let their dog off leash to shit and pee and then jump on you. 

They let their kids run wild in the grocery store, they turn their music up extremely loud as if you want to hear it. They turn on their yard lights and cause you to purchase blackout blinds. They are not nice... so why does Russel Brand go on about "if only we could all just be nice". I am sure he realizes that 'nice' is relative. 

A wise sociologist recognizes that a subculture will actively work against the norm. This is a counter-culture, so called because it runs counter to the dominant culture. Now for some that sounds likes its mean. But remember, the dominant culture is so because what they do in a place, and have been doing in a place over time, has been working and sustaining them... hence - dominant.

When I was teaching, I asked my 'college' woke students what it means to be nice and how to make the world nice. And, all they could say was 'just be nice'. So, I pressed them asking what does nice mean to you? Do you take care of your property? Do you want others to do the same? Do you think hygiene is good and modesty? Do you obey rules and policy and pay taxes? Do you read, do you even think for yourself? Do you look for value in your purchases? Do you say thank you and you're welcome? Do you ever think what you are doing is not nice?

Their eyes just glazed over in their state of WOKE! 

Now, to be fair... you don't have to look like that to be like that. I have plenty of neighbors who have over the years gone out for the mail or newspaper or amazon delivery in their just 'got out of bed' underwear/boxers or otherwise. 

People who have let their dog out at night to take a dump on the sidewalk or parkway and not feel obligated to clean it up. People who have left their garbage cans in the street after pickup, or parked an old vehicle or boat or camper in their driveway for more than an year.

People who have left loud music on until the wee hours, people who don't mow their grass, or paint their fence. People who let their kids run around like Indians, screaming and yelling as if they are being murdered. People who burn garbage that smells like old tires in their backyard (in mid-to upper middle class neighborhoods)... who knows why. 

People are not nice. And, how can you make them nice? You can't. Its the residue of this fallen world. If you heap laws on them, you heap laws on yourself until no one is free but under constant surveillance. Are we heading that way? I think so...

 

There is nothing new under the sun and so, you can put lipstick on a pig... Why? Because, all have fallen short of the Glory of God!

Wokism, Statism and Globalism... How Ai is neccesary in all three in context of the Social Imagination!

 

 

Let's start from what is 'wokism'?  Jean-Francois Braunstein explores this question in his essay, "La Religion Woke". The following is a cute and paste of that essay.

The woke ideology has grown religious features, Braunstein argues in his essay. According to him, it fills the perceived void of a higher truth in the post-religious society of today.

The influence of the woke ideology seems to have reached all different corners of society. Braunstein mentions the examples of the Disney company that invites its white employees to reflect on their privileges, political activists who determine the academic climate at universities and track down old-school professors and the multiplying number of courses on anti-racism.

“In the name of the fight against discrimination, a new intellectual terrorism is taking place in Western societies”, he writes. And, Braunstein warns: This movement overthrows all the usual frameworks of thought and its objective is to “deconstruct the cultural and scientific heritage of a West accused of being systemically sexist, racist and colonialist.”

The woke movement was born in American universities but now conquers Western societies quickly. Braunstein points out that its rise is similar to that of the Protestant revivalists in the 18th and 19th centuries. According to the philosopher, it is the first time in modern history that “a kind of cult is born in universities, with its own vision of the world, its dogmas, its followers, its rights and its quasi-sacred texts.”

Even though wokists pretend to have invented a new theory, they do not act as if they work for a better world, says Braunstein. “Their religion is a religion of purification and magical thinking, where forgiveness is absent.”

Wokism is very similar to the Christian heresy of Gnosticism which grew in the 2nd century, Braunstein writes. “The body was considered to be inherently bad. The utopian vision of a pure consciousness imagined a reality in which the human spirit could be totally free from the weight of the body and at the same time from sexual differences.”

The same elements are seen in wokism, according to Braunstein. “I can feel like a man or a woman, but also an animal, a river. However, it is only in the metaverse world that you can change your body at will. In reality, doing so will lead down a catastrophic path with irreversible damage.”

Braunstein writes. “The ambiguous role of the academic world in its development makes scientific and rational criticism almost impossible. No argument has any effect on them. We can try to stop them but not convince them.”

That wokism can gain ground so quickly in the higher levels of society, such as in the political arena, is due to the gap between the elite of society and reality, Braunstein argues. He quotes Christopher Lasch, who stated in 1995 that the “intellectual classes are fatally removed from the physical side of life. They live in a world of abstraction and images as opposed to the immediate, palpable physical reality inhabited by men and women.”

The causes for this are multiple, Braunstein explains. “Youth feels the need to fight, a form of tyranny of benevolence in which part of this American youth from a privileged background was brought up.”

Some argue that wokism is born from the Christian ideal of compassion. Braunstein acknowledges that the idea of a victim needing help and understanding constitutes the background of the woke ideology. “These identity ideologies work because everyone wants to be a victim today, and this has become the absolute reference. But at the same time, the compassion claimed by these ideologies is a mad compassion detached from reality and reason. It justifies all the inversions of value and the most absurd political choices.”

Commentary ~ I agree with Braunstein on every point in his essay. Even without describing Statism and Globalism... one can read between the lines to see those ideologies stand out in his text and fit with his take on Wokism. 

Being woke in the 'liberal' mindset means blaming others for their choices made. It means full blown narcissism of the grossest kinds and the pride of being a full blown reprobate. Those who are such take pride in disgusting others with their lustful illnesses that they show off  like huge oozing pimples on the face of descent society. Who is descent society? 

Its a group of people that can think for itself. It has values that clearly designate who/what it is and who/what it is not. Sure, it can itself into trouble but also get out of it without blaming others and or looking to government handouts or some politician and his/her party. Descent society wishes it had local stores to shop in, local schools in which education is decided by them. 

Descent society likes telling corporate elites to stop selling crap and polluting their towns. It likes going to work, local doctors, church and paying fair taxes. It likes watching television without porn, violence and filthy language. It likes using common sense and does not like being controlled by somebody's wild version of history, science or faith.

Now, one should ask the question why would Ai be necessary in all three in context of the Social Imagination? It is necessary in order for the ruling elite to bring to fruition the agenda of all three with Globalism being the sum of a grand finale. 

But why? The elites cannot have or cannot allow free thinking people who have local knowledge or even common sense in the place where they live. They don't like reprobates either and they are willing to cull the herd in their end view of utopian globalism. Regardless of plagues, wars and financial crisis... Wokism, Statism and Globalism are the most dangerous; and with Ai at the helm (controlled by elites) we are living in very dangerous times. 

ONLINE SOURCE~ https://cne.news/article/2095-wokism-is-a-religion-without-forgiveness [Christian Network Europe News: 11/24/2022]