A Truer Depiction of Our Truer Self

Written by Mathew Naismith 

I had my last post, The creation of the mind, queried in an interesting way which brought forth an even more interesting response from me. Spirituality is indeed about the infinite self more than the finite where's science is quite the opposite in most cases. Science is a good depiction of our finite self where's spirituality is a good depiction of our infinite self, as usual for me, one is neither more or less worthy than the other as both depictions give us a realisation  of our whole truer self as I will explain.

Reply   

Was this just an exercise in talking out loud random thoughts or is there some point to it?

My Reply

There was a point, the point is, the mind is created by conditioned preconceptions, in other words the mind couldn't exist without preconceptions. Our truer selves on the other hand is about conceptions that already exist, there is no true preconceptions within this perception.  

Reply

 "Truer selves" what does that mean?

My Reply

The self that isn't defined by preconceptions, a self that is eternal and not just of a transitory state of existence.    

I will elaborate on this further. Spiritually has always been about the infinite self where's the sciences have been about the opposite, the finite self, this is even the case when searching for the source of all creation.  For example, the depiction of a God or Goddess in spirituality, is a good indication of our connection with the infinite where's general science has always looked at the finite. Everything in general science has a start and end point like when we pass on (die), that is it, there is no more but spirituality looks beyond this perspective.

As science knows today, you can't destroy energy, only the form an energy source has created like our human form for example, however, when the human form dies, everything dies because the human form is known to science to be who we are as a whole. Spirituality looks at this differently, it's the spirit or consciousness that is who we are as a whole, this of course goes on after we die which means a depiction of our truer self goes on, the human self is never known to be who we truly are in spirituality.

What I find strange is that science knows that you can't destroy the fundamental basis of creation, energy itself, all you can do is transform energy, so if all we are in human form is a transformed form of energy, isn't the energy that created human form itself infinite therefore will go on after we die?  

However, even after we die, we are not talking about the truer self here, in this state we are still in a transitory state, a state that is still infinite in most cases. The state we are in depends on our consciousness's perceptions and preconceptions. If a consciousness after the demise of the human self is still perceiving in finite perceptions,  such a consciousness will still express preconceptions. Preconceptions are of course not a true depiction of our truer self because preconceptions work on the expressions of the finite self, not the infinite self.

This is where science makes no logical sense at all, if the building block of all creation is infinite, energy itself,  isn't this building block who we truly are, remembering all transformed forms of energy are just that, a transformation of energy from an infinite source we often call God or the source of all creation itself? 

Now when we die, is it consciousness that transforms or is it the human body? In most cases, the consciousness won't transform into it's truer self, it will stay in a finite state of consciousness. The human form will of course naturally transform into another kind of energy source but the consciousness self can stay the same as if it's still in human form, Ghosts/spirits are a good example of this. This isn't a depiction of our truer self, a depiction of our truer self is the realisation of the infinite within all things. The truer self is the realisation that anything finite is not representative of our true self, only can the realisation of the infinite depict our truer self. 

This however doesn't make the finite expression of self not a part of us, the finite part of ourselves is really only a very small part of our whole self, but, it's still a part of our whole being. The infinite self isn't a depiction of our whole self as we might also perceive, the depiction of the infinite and finite self is representative of our whole truer self no matter how small the finite part of our self is. What we have done in a reality like this one is make the finite our truer self, or, make the infinite self our whole truer self. In actuality in accordance with oneness, the infinite self is our truer self but to me, the whole truer self is representative of both the infinite and infinite self, basically, the whole truer self represents all of what we are expressive of, not what we only want to be known to be expressive of what we are!!  

It will be interesting if the discussion with this person continues.......

Reply

Ok So we're not talking facts based subject matter or science we're talking some kind of  wandering mind hoping to define something you don't understand.
I don't believe in your concept of creation, so I'll struggle to make any sense of the other things you have said here, frankly, with all due respect and I mean you no insult,  it's gibberish nonsense to me.

As for energy when you die that's a very simple thing to answer, no mystery and a quick google search turns up a better worded explanation or two than I can provide so I'll quote you a couple simple explanations I found online:

The energy within your body is largely found in three forms: heat, chemical and electrical. When we die the electrical energy, which is used by nerve cells to transmit signals around the body, dissipates in to heat as the electrical potentials required to maintain it are lost when the body’s cells die. The heat energy trapped within the body dissipates into the atmosphere so that your body cools to the temperature of its surroundings.
The chemical energy is maintained within the chemical bonds of the substances that make up the body. These bonds are broken either by burning during cremation, which releases the energy as heat and light, or through decomposition. The bacteria and other organisms which decompose dead organisms use the energy to grow and develop. So the energy in our bodies gets used to generate new life and will pass on up the food chain potentially to be reincorporated into another human being.


Or maybe this version:
Where the energy goes is dependent really on where you are put after death. If you are buried you are decomposed by micro-organisms in the soil which will break down all the chemical bonds in your body. Chemical bonds are where the energy is stored in your body and the organisms feasting on the body use this energy. Another thing that can happen is the nitrate in your body is fixed in the soil, this is a vital food source for plants. So the energy in the body is used by lots of different organisms and vegetation to continue life – no energy is lost.

Hopefully that takes some of the "mystery" out of the long reply you took time to write, for which incidentally I thank you taking time to do.
Have a great day.

My Reply

Hmmmm....is it you don't understand or I Neil? How much do you understand between the difference of infinite and finite consciousnesses?  I've worked in the welfare arena twice over in my life Neil, I have a good understanding of psychology and please don't be one of those people who say psychology isn't a science!! 

The psychological aspects of finite and  infinite consciousness is well defined, for example, the difference between science perspectives and spiritual perspectives is obvious would you not say? 

Reading the rest of your reply certainly proves my point between the two very distinct perspectives. You yourself within this reply have proven my point. There is no way you are able to perceive in infinite perspectives, anything other than this is of course defined as dribble or gibberish, however, I am not of the same preconception, see what I mean about preconceptions now Neil!! 

Your own preconceptions defines a boundary where's mine doesn't, this however will also physiologically occur with people who can only perceive in infinite perspectives, I find it all quite interesting. 

Reply

I don't believe it's a lack of ability on my part to understand it's more a case of my understanding leads me to believe it's gibberish.
I do not dispute aspects of psychology can be considered scientific but "spirituality" seems personal perspective on life and not scientific conclusion.
I also appreciate that studying how people arrive at some kind of spiritual perspective can be scientifically studied but spirituality itself, there's nothing scientific about it in my opinion.

Now don't even if I were to go along with this whole finite / infinite perspective conversation, (which frankly sounds like a pointless exercise),  I'd still ask the question, what of it?
If it's an exercise in trying to understand another's thought process, fair enough but beyond that?

I'm not sure where you think the scientific explanation of energy I supplied can be considered a "perspective" if that's what you're implying.
If so then it sounds like you are in denial of science and that's probably something worth spending more time considering. (not for me for you ;) )

I suspect at this point the conversation has run it's course for me so apologies if my future replies are not so swift or do not happen.

My Reply

The perception of gibberish is a psychological barrier to start with, it shows that one is unable or unwilling to look beyond their present perceptions. 

You seem to perceive spirituality to be an aspect of the personal self, I don't, for me to perceive so would be yet another barrier to becoming aware of perceptions beyond my own. Most science minded people often make this mistake and so do a lot of spiritually aware people by the way. 

To ask what of it sounds awfully strange to me, especially from anyone who is slightly scientifically minded. Finite and infinite perceptions create the reality we experience, any extremes will obviously create a reality of extremes. Why you don't find this relevant has got me, maybe too many bias psychological barriers is my guess, think on this. 

You obviously see science being more worthy than spirituality, I don't Neil, this is the big difference between you and I, my barriers and biases are minimal.