Skip to content

A Quantum Explanation of the “Soul”

November 1, 2012

When having an online discussion of coping with pain, someone posts a link to a guy who believes in something called “non-dualism”, which is common in Eastern thought, and says that consciousness comes from a whole, entitled “awareness”, and that our pain is just a feeling of “energy” that we attach emotional “stories” to. If you look for a “deficient self” behind the pain, you won’t find it; you’ll only find emotional images, and behind those are just energy without a story. Seems to help dissipate the pain feeling temporarily, but it comes back because I still want what I’m grieving over.

Anyway, this helped me put together a model of what consciousness might really be. On a couple of boards, we had discussions of death, and many people believe death is the end of all consciousness. It seems like it when you realize all our consciousness comes through our brains. So once the brain is dead; what’s left to feed input to consciousness? What’s left to even process data in order to have consciousness?
On the other hand, existing one moment and then ceasing to exist is hard to believe. You can potentially see it coming, and it takes a moment for us to process what we have just experienced, but even that processing time is sharply cut off. I also could never buy that we were completely “just a product of chemical processes” as many argued. It is enough that they believe matter and energy could just pop into existence by itself, and then form itself according to laws that must also have been created in the process. But how then could something called “consciousness” come from all this shifting lifeless matter?
Eventually, some scientists would begin to question these totally “material-only” assumptions, as we shall see.

Of course, Christianity and some other religions teach that each person has an individual “soul” and/or “spirit” that exists independently of the body. However, I had previously always gone along with the various Millerite movements, which argue that the bodily resurrection was necessary in order for us to be put back together as individuals. Like God is Father, Son and Spirit, and you can’t have one without the others (like to eliminate the Son’s deity, as many sects do); man was soul, body and spirit, and you can’t just throw away the body and still have the “person”. The emphasis of Paul on the resurrection, especially in Corinthians, seemed to support this, over a “disembodied” entity floating out of the body, immediately to Heaven or Hell, just to be put back into a resurrected body to continue on in Heaven or Hell later on. (And that assumes that these afterlife realms even have the same concept of “time” as this universe).

So here are my recent notes on this:


It seems singular “awareness” is what provides the consciousness, and the brain (with its storage of personal experience) provides the individual or differentiated entity, which is basically a “portion” of awareness. It’s like having one body of water, and pouring it into many different shaped containers.

This “one” entity, which we could call “mono-awareness”, could not be God as many non-dualists assume, because then we’d all be incarnations of God, and only Christ is God Incarnate. So it’s another entity created by God; let’s say, “Adam”, who was then breathed into the body, and first divided when the female was split off, and then they began dividing it into all of humanity. It could be considered “heno-awareness”, since it’s the one body of awareness we are made of, but it is not the only one out there.
This idea would actually make more sense of the Calvinistic concept of “federal headship” in more than just a physical sense; where we were all “in Adam”.

Awareness itself is not really the spirit (though it is likely the “breath of life” that God breathed into man making him “be[come] a living soul”). Animals we believe do not have spirits (what they lack compared to us; dichotomy rather than trichotomy), yet they too are “portions” of awareness.
So the “spirit” would be certain aspects of larger portions of awareness that include the faculties beyond that which animal brains have the capacity for.
So both the human soul and spirit lie in the brain (and hence depend on the body to remain an individual person).

Question that remains is, what makes the brain a receptor of this awareness?
I’m thinking it might be some sort of “resonation of vibrational energy” setup, the way radio transmission works. Life is “energy”, of course, and energy is usually manifested in some sort of motion, (if nothing more than just the atoms and molecules). I know I have seen “vibrational energy” as something associated with occult religion, so I want to be real careful here. Googling “life as vibrational energy” brought up a whole bunch of “Law Of Attraction” sites, and I still don’t buy that vibrating the right way will change mail that is already on its way to your house, as one person seemed to portray it. (That would truly be magic/witchcraft). I can see where vibration might subtly influence other people, though (hence, what we call “vibes”; this site explains it: http://www.stevenaitchison.co.uk/blog/matching-vibrational-energy). I don’t think that can be taken to too far an extent either. So a person might be more likely to send you a check, though it won’t stop a bill from coming.

I at the same time decided to read Living Your Unlived Life: Coping with Unrealized Dreams and Fulfilling Your Purpose in the Second Half of Life (Robert A. Johnson, Jerry Ruhl, Penguin, 2007), which deals with midlife from a Jungian perspective and it also began pointing to a non-dual view of life.

Ego divides reality into opposites.
Example, light and dark. In reality, that is nonexistent, and there is no difference between areas we call light and dark; you only have rays of photon energy at different wavelengths in different areas, and the dichotomy is created by receptors in our physical makeup picking up some of these wavelengths as sensory stimulation our consciousness interprets as “light”.

The first set of opposites in our ego differentiation is “I / not I”; and everything gets placed into these categories. The ego itself is said to differentiate itself from the environment at some point (its inner “images” from the outer environment; Jung and the Human Psyche) . Since we are in bodies located in a particular place and time, then this extends to “here / not here” and “now / not now”.

It’s the state of being embedded in something that creates dichotomous splits. A dimension we are looking in becomes split into “ahead” and “behind”. Yet a perpendicular line we are looking at from a distance is not divided like that, but can be seen as a whole.
However, since it represents a dimension that we are nevertheless still embedded in, a line parallel to it can be drawn through us, and the dimension is nevertheless still divided; either into left/right, or above/below. Time of course is divided into past/future.

We are naturally set up as the center of our perspective, so that the entire universe is divided by our location in it. (Space, time, chance {actualized potential reality} or identity)

See also:
http://kiloby.com/writings.php?offset=0&writingid=263


Interestingly, in the midst of thinking all of this, I find this article posted on Facebook:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/quantum-scientists-offer-proof-soul-exists/story-fneszs56-1226507452687

It draws upon Roger Penrose’s theory that our souls are contained inside structures called microtubules which live within our brain cells.

They argue that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects inside these microtubules – a process they call orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).
In a near-death experience the microtubules lose their quantum state, but the information within them is not destroyed. Or in layman’s terms, the soul does not die but returns to the universe.

That’s basically what a lot of non-theistic people I have heard, say about the afterlife. When I used to “witness” to my father, he would say “when we die, our energy just goes back into the universe” (though this was not connected to NDE’s which we were generally skeptical of).

‘If the patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says “I had a near death experience”.’

This theory was covered on the Science Channel series “Through the Wormhole”. The idea gained more attention recently (last couple of months), when a doctor who previously disbelieved in life after death, had one of these NDE’s.

Putting two and two together, it figures if the cells are damaged (which quickly happens), then they can no longer resonate with the energy, and thus, the person is “terminally dead”. Which is the usual case. However, if the cells are not yet damaged, then there is a possibility of them picking up the energy again, thus a “near death experience”; though the window for this to happen is very narrow, as the death of the cells happens very rapidly when cut off from the air when the blood stops circulating.

“In the event of the patient’s death, it was ‘possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body indefinitely – as a soul’.” Not sure completely, but I imagine if the vibrational pattern disperses, it also might to become too late for it to be picked up by the resuscitated brain. They do not explain what keeps the information “together” indefinitely; if I’m understanding that correctly. The information is “gathered” (integrated) in the brain, and I would assume, “dissipates” apart from the brain. (Or maybe it’s not the information that dissipates; it’s contained in the neurological pathways in the brain; it’s just the energy resonating with it that dissipates).
So again, it would be a very narrow window; hence why most people do not have the experience.

Not sure about all the lights and “love”-feeling people report. This would perhaps fit in with the spiritualistic non-dual concept, but then it has also been suggested that these images and feelings are the last sensations of the brain shutting down, which also makes sense.
In an earlier discussion on one of the boards, someone mentioned the idea that at the very last instance, the brain freezes consciousness in time, so that consciousness goes on in its own proper time, but this is trapped in that last instance in the world’s time. (Like the reverse of someone falling through a black hole. It ends quickly in his proper time, but is stretched out to eternity in our coordinate time). It was suggested that the consciousness would experience whatever it believed occurred in the afterlife.
I don’t know where that idea came from, but it also figures, again, that beyond this life in this universe, time is probably not what we are accustomed to anyway. Even many Christians realize this, when they speak of “going into eternity“; with “eternity” understood as possibly “a never ending present” as Augustine had put it.

So all of this does not negate the idea that we are individually created by God. In fact, a greater “awareness” (whether mono or heno) is great evidence of a “personal” God, for why would our portions be “personal”, and not the source awareness ultimately emanates from?
The brains are the “containers” that provide the individual awareness that we call “ourselves”; individual “souls”. You could say they are the different “channels” of awareness. The information contained in these brains can be put back together to be once again differentiated from the primeval energy they were carved from, whether in a resurrected body; or in some other way.

So I would define the soul as a neurological pattern energized by the infusion of divinely created “awareness”, and filled with images of personal experience taken in through the brain, from receptors throughout the body. If we were just the “chemicals” and neurons by themselves, then it would be possible for this to be recreated somewhere else; any time and place in the universe, and then what would that mean for our consciousness? I guess that will suggest “reincarnation” to some people, but then is the rule that each stack of experiences we call “life” can only occur one-at-a time? Why wouldn’t we be conscious of of more than one of these existences at the same time? What would that be like?
To me, that shows that we truly are unique individuals, and the particular “shape” of awareness energy takes through the experiences registered in our neurons is what makes us who we are.

Wow; how midlife forces you to look into these things!

(Computers): “firmware” “hardware” “software”
Humans: soul body spirit
Individual: ego brain psyche
goal: survival nourishment individuation
Awareness: individual sensory one whole
Primal state: safe, satisfied “naked” “unashamed”
Other terms: “mind”
reason
discursive
physical
chemical
neurological
“heart”
intellect
contemplative
Emotions: courage/fear
hope/despair
peace/anger
desire/aversion
joy/sadness
love/hate
Advertisements
12 Comments
  1. Reading another Johnson book, Inner Work (and also, Inner Gold and Owning Your Own Shadow inbetween; I put together than what you’re probably supposed to do when you follow that exercise I mentioned int he beginning and identify the energy that comes out as a feeling of a “deficient self”, is to personify it, and then work with it in another exercise called “Active Imagination”; basically talking to it.

    Anyway, here’s some more thoughts on the soul:

    Our need of appreciation is from being “relational beings”.
    And the ego being structured in a way that it fears extinction (i.e. dissolution as a separate entity). Also, because human society is structured around “give and take”.*
    Also, for me, it probably also stems from being told so much that God controls everything in life, including painful things, and promises “rewards”; so then I have come to expect something like that. (And AS also demands “tit-for-tat” compensations).

    I often wondered why there would be promises of “rewards” in scripture, if we weren’t supposed to inflate our egos. I now believe these were based on the “give and take” principles of the Law the saints were coming out from under.

    *(from a non-dual perspective, give and take is another product of the brain and its survival instinct. Ego’s “law of give and take” is the [soulish] survival instinct infused with the negative [spiritual] “knowledge of good and evil” (hence soulish animals not sharing any sense of “give and take” and having only the survival instinct). It stems from a sense of “deficiency” in comparison to separated “others” you’ve “given” of yourself, or perhaps feel something has been taken, so there’s now a “deficit”, so you want something in return to fill in for it).

    This soulish need for survival affected by the knowledge of good and evil, where we tend to judge ourselves as deficient, which pushes us beyond the basic survival instinct, to self-exaltation at others’ expense; trying to make up for this deficiency by striving to achieve, proving (and protecting) one’s self by surpassing and then ruling over others, thus needing governance by Law.

    In connection with this, I also always wondered why our egos want equilibrium and compensation so much. This is because of our feeling of separation (what the non-dualists call our differentiation into distinct portions of awareness in our individual bodies). It’s a subconscious desire to be one with every other soul; to be “equal”, so we want them to feel the pain we feel, especially when they’ve inflicted it on us; hence, the “give and take” system of justice. We also want to share good feelings. Like I feel I had a colorful life of sights and sounds (places, music, etc), and wish others were aware of it.
    Animals have the survival instinct, and are separated portions of awareness, but don’t have the cognitive awareness of separation.

  2. As part of what I’m discussing here, https://erictb.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/solar-vs-lunar-in-gender-dynamics-and-individuation has me really trying to understand what exactly the “collective unconscious”, “[larger] Self” or “psyche” (or “trans-personal” some even call it) really is. The basic Jungian definition is:

    “The collective unconscious is a unique component in that Jung believed that this part of the psyche served as a form of psychological inheritance. It contains all of the knowledge and experiences we share as a species.

    The Origins of Archetypes
    Where do these archetypes come from then? The collective unconscious, Jung believed, was where these archetypes exist. He suggested that these models are innate, universal and hereditary. Archetypes are unlearned and function to organize how we experience certain things.”
    http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/tp/archetypes.htm

    “Emergence from the Self

    Jung considered that from birth every individual has an original sense of wholeness – of the Self – but that with development a separate ego-consciousness crystallizes out of the original feeling of unity. This process of ego-differentiation provides the task of the first half of one’s life-course, though Jungians also saw psychic health as depending on a periodic return to the sense of Self, something facilitated by the use of myths, initiation ceremonies, and rites of passage.

    Return to the Self: individuation

    Once ego-differentiation had been successfully achieved and the individual is securely anchored in the external world, Jung considered that a new task then arose for the second half of life – a return to, and conscious rediscovery of, the Self: individuation. Marie-Louise von Franz states that “The actual processes of individuation – the conscious coming-to-term with one’s own inner center (psychic nucleus) or Self – generally begins with a wounding of the personality”.[M-L von Franz, “The Process of Individuation” in Jung ed., Symbols p. 169] The ego reaches an impasse of one sort or another; and has to turn for help to what she termed “a sort of hidden regulating or directing tendency…[an] organizing center” in the personality: “Jung called this center the ‘Self’ and described it as the totality of the whole psyche, in order to distinguish it from the ‘ego’, which constitutes only a small part of the psyche”.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_in_Jungian_psychology

    All of this makes it sound like something just hard wired into our brains, but then other descriptions make it sound more “spiritual”, like the so-called “One”, or the Hindu “Atman”, which I see might correspond to what I discuss above.
    Like this site, http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm which explains the development of the ego from the self pretty well, concludes: “And that real center is the soul, the self, the god, the truth, or whatsoever you want to call it.”

    Then, as I report in the other topic, they begin saying it’s all “impersonal”.

    What I’m trying to understand, is what exactly ego is supposed to give way to, when it is “relativized”, which is basically what the hypothetical goal of “individuation” is. (Christians will say “God”, but this still ends up being a more collective focus, as the goal becomes “to serve others”).

  3. This one I find interesting:

    The Birth Experience
    With the birth experience comes a sudden, startling realization to the fetus ego/Soul: I am subject to forces beyond my control (therefore, the realization that there are forces other than me).

    The child is born experiencing itself to be literally the center of the universe; that is, the ego continues to be totally identified with the Self. Healthy parenting eagerly meets every need, thus reinforcing the child’s basic sense of worthiness and trust. Jung called this ego inflation and this is necessary for continued development, although later in development ego inflation is actually grandiosity.
    Soon enough, however, the world (and the parents) begin selectively meeting childhood demands and rejecting others. A child whose ego inflation continues unchecked by boundaries, healthy feedback and limits becomes “spoiled,” and grows into an adult who exhibits ego inflation through grandiosity, demands for control, and self-centeredness. When this child grows into an adult, he/she will continue to exhibit negative ego inflation, profound unworthiness, guilt, ambiguity about one’s existence, and the need to be a martyr. This occurs during the first developmental stage when the child experiences abusive parental rejection, which is rejection stemming from the projection of the parent’s shadow onto the child, and the child identifying with it.

    Intrapsychically, a child’s experience that it is not the center of the universe leads to an estrangement between the ego and Self. The ego is chastened and humbled. Initially, this is experienced, again, as alienation, but a loving environment keeps the ego from being damaged in the process. That is, the ego disidentifies from the Self while maintaining connection, which is desirable for healthy continued development. If, however, the child does not experience a loving environment (due to a primary caregiver who is alienating or engulfing), the ego’s connection to
    Self is severed and serious damage results. The ego is disconnected from its origin, its inner resources. The person is not whole and integrated.
    Healing that wound requires restoring connection with the natural inner resources of strength and acceptance (Self), without returning to the narcissism of identification with it (inflated ego).

    The Ego in Heart-Centered Therapies
    Ego Strengthening and Ego Surrender p.9
    Diane Zimberoff, M.A. and David Hartman, MSW*
    http://wellness-institute.org/images/Journal_3-2_Ego_Surrender.pdf

    Also, this one:
    http://www.vanrein.be/essays/Edinger%20on%20Ego-Self.htm
    but this one makes it sound more “divine” again. (“The Self is the central source of life, God.”)

    This one makes is sound like what we call the “conscience”:
    http://drirene.com/ego_self.htm

    Other interesting explanations:
    http://www.samuelthomasdavies.com/2013/01/the-ego-vs-self-esteem.html
    http://samvak.tripod.com/faq50.html
    http://www.melanietoniaevans.com/articles/ego.htm

  4. More interesting info from Ego Strengthening and Ego Surrender

    The conceptualization of “the ego” is far more complex than that of a
    unified collection of perceptions, cognitions and affects, but rather as
    organized clusters or patterns of these called ego states (Federn, 1952).
    [They have a separate paper on this topic:http://www.wellness-institute.org/images/Journal_6-1_Ego_States.pdf ]

    Most people do not understand that we are a loose confederation of
    fragments of identity rather than a single permanent and unchangeable ‘I’.
    Every thought, every mood, every desire and sensation, says ‘I’.
    There are
    hundreds and thousands of small ‘I’s, usually unknown to each other, and
    often incompatible. Each moment that we think of saying ‘I’, the identity
    of that ‘I’ is different. We become lost into that identity when it dominates
    our thoughts, then into the next when it takes over. Just now it was a
    thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so
    on, endlessly (Ouspensky, 1949, p. 59; Ram Dass, 1980, p. 138). Anyone
    who has meditated knows how resurgent the chattering mind can be.

    Another way of describing this phenomenon of momentary ‘I’s is in
    terms of ego states (Federn, 1952; Berne, 1961; Hartmann, 1958; Kohut,
    1971; J. G. Watkins, 1978). Helen Watkins (1993) describes the development of ego states, functional and dysfunctional. One of the basic
    processes in human development is integration, by which a child learns to
    put concepts together, such as dog and cat, thus building more complex
    units called animals. The companion process in development is
    differentiation, by which a child separates general concepts into more
    specific categories, such as discriminating between ‘good doggies’ and
    ‘bad doggies.’ As the child grows in complexity, he/she organizes selected
    similar behaviors and experiences with a defining common element into
    groupings called ego states such as “mad at mommy” or “eager to please”
    (integration). As the child develops a repertoire of these ego states, he/she
    begins experiencing each one as a boundaried state of “I” (differentiation). The separation of ego states is accomplished through dissociation.
    Mild dissociation produces “self-transparent” ego states with very
    permeable boundaries, with cooperative agreement between them for
    taking turns at being in charge. Dissociation lies on a
    continuum from this example to the opposite extreme of multiple
    personality disorder (D.I.D.), and innumerable variations in between.

    At a given moment, one of these ego states is in charge, making the
    choices, and experiencing itself as the “I.” It is conceptualized as the
    “Executive.” At one end of the continuum, the momentary executive ego
    state is leading by collaborative consensus of all existing ego states, in
    harmony and resolving conflicting demands through internal dialogue and
    compromise. At the other end of the continuum, the executive-of-the-moment is oblivious to, or in conflict with, the others. At the extreme, this would be representative of dissociative disordered individuals.

    The way out of this possession, back to authenticity and real free will,
    is through recognition of how fragmented we actually are. When we wake
    up to the unconscious nature of most of our choices and experiences, when
    we “snap out of” the state of absorption, we expand our consciousness of
    who we are to include a wider spectrum, allowing for new possibilities.
    Liberation from unconsciousness, waking up from the trance, arousing
    from the dissociation comes with disidentification from the momentary ‘I’.
    First we must become aware of, incorporate and even embrace our dark
    side, our shadow, those parts of us that we shudder to conceive could be
    within us or the parts we are afraid to grow into. Part of us may be “the
    compulsive smoker”, and another part is the great mystic, and both parts
    are intimidating to own up to. Experiencing our shadow is the “doorway to
    the real,” ripping apart the ego’s imaginary identifications (Humbert, 1988,
    p. 50) and seeing clearly into the blind spots. The ego, that succession of
    momentary ‘I’s, prefers to be always ‘I’ and nothing else, to believe “in its
    own supremacy” (Jung, 1959, p. 133).

    We begin to become aware of our many fragmented selves through the
    process of experiencing multiple levels of consciousness simultaneously,
    expanding our experience of ourselves, loosening our identification with
    any one of those momentary ‘I’s and opening to the vastness of our true
    Self. For example, in meditation we experience the “observer” watching
    the “monkey mind” of constant chattering thought. One objective part of
    us observes our “angry self” projecting our own anger onto others. You
    consider the person at whom you are angry to be behaving badly, and
    indeed he may well be. But he is really yourself. “You project yourself into
    him, your shadow appears in him, and that makes you angry. … We are
    perhaps identical even with our own worst enemy. In other words, our
    worst enemy is perhaps within ourselves.

    What are the healthy functions of the ego? That changes, as we have
    seen, from one developmental stage to the next. Jung (1976) proposed that
    the ego has two constituent parts: the sense of “I” we have with regard to
    our body (somatic) and the sense of “I” we have with regard to our
    experience and memories (psychical). The ego is the personal sense of
    consciousness, a personal sense of continuity and identity with itself, but is
    not the totality of one’s self. Unconscious mental processes not related to
    the ego consist of the personal unconscious (repressed material, forgotten
    material, and subliminal perceptions) and the collective unconscious
    (material that has never been conscious). The ego relates to the external
    world through four functions, namely thinking, feeling, sensation and intuition.

    It does begin assuming reincarnation (like the seven lives until nirvana and “karmic” cycles; if you don’t get over some dysfunctional behaviors, they will carry over until the “next life”).
    It is still interesting in explaining some of the basic concepts. (And the “multiple ‘I’s” matches what Johnson explained on p.110f of Unlived Life).

  5. It also concludes on the seven chakras, so what starts out as a nice scientific sounding paper ends up advocating one particular religion, Hinduism (even after referencing multiple religious concepts, including Biblical ones).

    The idea I go with here wouldn’t really fit reincarnation, because if each soul is a portion of awareness shaped by a brain, filled up with all its knowledge and memories, then how is this transferred to some other newborn person in the future? Their brain starts filling with their own experience, so where is the connection with some previous person? The only connection would be the “henoawareness” itself, but then why would one single individual “person” mold be transferred to another? You would think they would say you simply dissolve back into the “the One” or something.
    This theory would make more sense with resurrection (God reconstituting a soul’s identity with a new “container”) than with reincarnation.

    It is still interesting and informative, especially with the discussion of ego-states.

  6. P33 says “Emotions are the blood shed by ego, and when we let emotions wash through us, our
    heart opens and they help to wash the controlling part of us away”. That “washing through” is what Scott Kiloby taught for his “Living Inquiries” where you detach the energy in emotions from the “negative stories” that make them painful. But I find this process would just make me angry, as it does not resolve the outer problem. (Again, due the AS sensory overload problem).
    P14 even says “The ego that has surrendered its predominance lives consciously by
    the code “not my will but thine be done.” I wonder, from the eclectic viewpoint they hold; “thine” would obviously refer to the Self (which is basically in the place of God), but what is its “will”? Just whatever happens in life?
    (This reminds me of this article: http://www.academia.edu/277529/ENQUIRY_ON_THE_ANIMA_–_A_Mans_Quest_for_Soul_at_Midlife Alan A. MacKenzie, 2006, which mentions “an acceptance of one’s fate and submission to it.”)

    As I discussed in other articles, religion is often known for using “surrender” and “inner peace” to pacify people against demanding their rights in a world where inflated egos in power tend to rule (and want “happy subjects”). So I just can’t help the sense that this ends up feeling like the same thing.
    Western religion is tagged with this kind of control, like Christianity being used for slavery. The rebelling masses then often take refuge in Eastern philosophy; but don’t forget that they have the Caste system where this system comes from. I can imagine this stuff being used to try to pacify the “untouchables” or whatever the lower castes are by telling them their egos should surrender to the “transpersonal” instead of demanding better in this life.

    What I plan to do for now is pay more attention to the “ego-states” concept, as I see it explains a lot of “mixed feelings” I have about things.

    [Edit: should add, someone someone suggested to me, regarding the so-called “unified Self”; it may simply refer to “the soul”, as “an indiscriminate vessel containing everything that happens to us”. Individuation then might be to recognize the soul’s “multiple voices” (matching the “ego states” concept), which often aren’t in harmony with each other. A “unified Self” might be yet another dream of the ego, of a unified focus towards its goals].

  7. The “Scientific” soul theory repeated in web news again:

    SOUL SEARCHING Researchers claim that humans have souls which can live on after death
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2123380/researchers-claim-that-humans-have-souls-which-can-live-on-after-death/

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. What happens after life? - Page 18
  2. A Start to Understanding Complexes | "ERIPEDIA"
  3. Book Review: Hunziker “Depth Typology” | "ERIPEDIA"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: