Alysia:

I don't believe that merging means that one spirit has to surrender its intellect so that another spirit's intellect can take over.  Especially not,  if as Swendenborg suggests, it's always the spirit who used to inhabit a female body that has to surrender its intelllect.

Alysia, my guess is, that even though you inhabit a female body now, you believe that your spirit isn't limited to one particular gender. Why go through the trouble of developing your intellect in this lifetime, just so you can give it up when you merge with a spirit that used to inhabit a male body? Where is the National Organization For Women when we need them? They need to chime in on Swedenborg's concept of how merging works. 

LaffingRain wrote on May 30^th, 2007 at 4:35pm:

I don't believe a person needs to be a Swedenborg expert to understand what he said about the issue of a female spirit, if there is such a thing, surrendering her intellect to a male spirit, if there is such a thing. Certainly oneness can be obtained without spirits who inhabited a female body for a while having to surrender their intellect to a spirit who used inhabit a male body.

I haven't run accross any other source that suggests what Swedenborg contends on this matter. It sure doesn't feel right to me.


vikingsgal wrote on May 30^th, 2007 at 5:31pm:

Thank you so much, Matthew, for transcribing this cogent,  well-organized
argument.

I particularly like his view that our knowledge will be forever incomplete.(Remember
that in the late 19th century, it was argued that the US patent office should be
closed as everything that could possibly be invented had been invented.)
Thus, he argues for a vertical, ever- expanding growth as the ideal for both the
individual and mankind in general. Isn't this what's happening now?

Further, it is true that we choose to assign meanings based on previous sensory
experiences as seen through the filter of our own consciousness.  We need to recognize
this basic freedom of choice.

What's needful is to explore our personal use of will in assigning meanings.  Alot of
non-developmental stages could be surpassed by not working against ourselves
by resorting to habitual patterns that do not enhance anything.

At some point, apparently, we'll observe our actions and be called upon to accept
responsibility.  I think it's a good idea now to take a closer look at our own
actions and see if we were other-directed or actually having a frequent pity party.

To lead a useful life, one needs to extend one's self and focus on the needs of others.
All of us have read of people who have accomplished this.  Just now, an example
that comes to mind is a young person who sacrifices his life by physically blocking
a grenade explosion.  He acts against his basic, instinctual behavior of self preservation.

The comment about ancient people having a greater awareness of celestial good is
interesting.  I think he's hit on something there. Eons ago people did have a mystic
take on the world.  When we moved to the "only what can be measured" view.
we threw out the baby too.  These days, many recognize the sheer unknowability
of creation, and are utilizing intuition to gain insight.

Once again, thanks.  This is a fascinating thread. 

Vikingsgal

I've decided to resurrect this old thread for 2 reasons:
(1) It deals with a very important spiritual topic that is seldom discussed critically.
(2) Although some of the discussion here is the most intelligent I've encountered on any of my threads, I find most of the various suggestions finally unconvincing because of conflicting relevant claims from various "spiritual sources."  Please survey the thread and share your current thinking about this issue.

DocM wrote on Jun 4^th, 2017 at 11:38pm:

But what is there to retain? If we leave out the physical body, there are emotions and thoughts.

If I were to close my eyes, my awareness can register external sounds for example, and internal emotions and thoughts. But not only is there awareness, but also an internal initiative that decides to keep the eyes closed or to open them.

These questions strike me as potentially helpful,
(1) In our dream consciousness, we normally seem far less astute in our critical faculties and scope of awareness.  How analogous is such dream consciousness to disembodied consciousness after death? 

(2) Most of us love our families and, if it were up to us, we would be eager to reassure them of our wellbeing and survival after our death.  So why aren't  ADCs with convincing verifications more common?  Is it because most of us don't know how to make such ADC contacts?  Or is it because the earth memories of most of us become dormant soon after death?  What, then, about the exceptions who provide us convincing ADCs?  [See my ADC thread.]   Are they simply earthbound spirits whose status as such makes it easier for them to make postmortem contact with their surviving loved ones?  Or are their energetic vibrations more in sync with the loved ones they contact?   Or have they simply been able to shed limiting beliefs that prevent ADC encounters from happening?  Perhaps research into the personality types and religious/ philosophical backgrounds of postmortem ADC contactors might hint at the answer.

TheDonald wrote on Jun 5^th, 2017 at 12:39am:

The quality of awareness in my dreams that is most common is being along for the ride, like a passenger having a look out the window. Then with lucid dreams there can also be partial and not full lucidity. I've found changing the size of a pair of shoes to be harder than flying when gaining lucidity (being able to decide). The last lucid dream to my recollection was treating the objects in the dream world as 3D ojects in a computer program and then zooming into the objects and checking the resolution of the texture wrapping themselves around the forms/objects.

I would add to your questions (2): is it common to be unaware about one's death and hence the newly deceased will then not want to contact loved ones? Also I expect some deaths resulting from accidents to be quite shocking and confusing. One minute a person could be walking down a hill to suddenly loose footing, tumble down, raise up and find a familiar body in the field of view.

Following what there is to retain at death, I'll try to exemplify conscience, so help me God, with a simple and hopefully suitable example for a public forum. But first some definitions:

Conscience:
A guide for one's behaviour
Awareness of one's actions as being either morally right or wrong
Awareness of right and wrong that governs a persons's thoughts and actions
Awareness of right and wrong in one's conduct and motives, impelling one toward right action
Inner judge/voice of right and wrong to guide one's conduct
The highest sense within our self of what is good and right to do by others (1796/Crossbow)
The urge to prefer right over wrong
The responsibility of one's own words and deeds (Morrighan)

Like:
To feel attraction toward, to feel inclined, to take pleasure (feeling of enjoyment) in

Example:
I was a potato employee for my former employer, and it turned out to be a dynamic position to learn about the structure and the people from top to bottom, and sometimes assignments nobody else would do. One assignment was taking pictures of collected stray animals, in order to see if any of them became reported as missing or else they would be killed. I hesitated about the scenario and when learning about who had collected the animals. I knew the man had been convicted for harming my ex-girlfriend when she was growing up, but eventually agreed to do the snapshots.

Not knowing what to expect I stepped into the room where the animals were and my first thought was "this is wrong" and then took a closer look around. The room was barely lit, cold, damp, the cages were way too small and the animals seemed alarmed/frightened but yet settled. My emotional reaction started swirling, but composed myself quickly and decided to do what I agreed to do with smooth movements and be quick about it to try to minimise the duration they had to spend with the stranger. And of course, my exposure to the situation would end. The way back to work took a short time, while thinking about the whole situation and how to address it while my emotions were boiling and bubbling. I met my employer on the way in and told him that the pictures were taken, and that it was likely that he would be accused of animal abuse if there was to be an inspection. I don't remember the exact response only that it was defensive and swift. When I came back home and met the cat of the house, shame and post-cowardice lingered for the rest of the day, while questioning myself, how I could have done better, how my weakness betrayed my sense of doing what was right, though I wasn't really sure what was right. I did one more round of pictures and then at least the room was lit and the cages were much bigger. Soon after the collection stopped, not to my involvement.

Questions:
If what we like and what we don't like are treated as right and wrong, how likely is one to pay attention to conscience? How likely is one to be aware of one's conscience when one is wrapped up in or centred around what we don't like or what we do like, seeing that as the most trustworthy compass? Does one eye conscience when too emotional?

If you like doing good and have a clear sense of what is good then it there is a fortunate compatibility, yet if somebody likes to harm children then like is revealed to be relative.

Is a halo/nimbus symbolic of conscience? Awareness? Something else? https://ibb.co/cMFHyF