Should You Plan for Your Next Incarnation?

[Laird]

The problems I have pointed out are seen in a different light: maybe the predictably really messed up human lives are part of the cost of maintaining the system of Earth experience or the so-called "Earth Adventure". This would seem to be the case; that the diseases and other challenges of these terrible lives are simply part of the natural order. Presumably no complex system, however ingeniously designed, will be totally free of errors and problems - they come about due to the complex series of engineering tradeoffs necessary to design an objective physical reality that primarily fosters human creativity and joyful living. For instance, diseases like cancer are certainly part of the inevitable cost of designing incredibly complex animal bodies, and naturally afflict non-human animals as well as humans.

Yes, although, with respect to the bit I've bolded: perhaps we could distinguish between challenges/problems/evils due to natural errors and those due to free will choices. It seems that those due to free will choices are unavoidable (by the designer of the system, assuming S/He/They respects free will highly), but with respect to natural ones... is this really the case? We know that it is possible for Him/Her/Them to miraculously heal cancer, so it would seem that this type of error/problem is fixable and thus avoidable. We still, then, don't understand why some souls are forced to live lives of nature-based suffering.

Another musing: maybe some humans actually never receive souls: absolutely everybody balked at inhabiting these particular bodies, and maybe subverted the system. These cases are the sociopaths with no conscience or empathy. They are manipulative, lie frequently, are callous and lack empathy, and have a weak or no conscience that allows them to act recklessly or aggressively, even when they know their behavior is wrong. The serial killers, for instance.

An interesting musing...

A couple of thoughts/questions in response:

1. Are sociopaths always born into bad situations? It seems to me that not all of them are, in which case it would be one way in which sociopaths are born but not the only way.
   
2. Are sociopaths so much "soulless" as "inhabited by an evil soul"?
   

Yes, although, with respect to the bit I've bolded: perhaps we could distinguish between challenges/problems/evils due to natural errors and those due to free will choices. It seems that those due to free will choices are unavoidable (by the designer of the system, assuming S/He/They respects free will highly), but with respect to natural ones... is this really the case? We know that it is possible for Him/Her/Them to miraculously heal cancer, so it would seem that this type of error/problem is fixable and thus avoidable. We still, then, don't understand why some souls are forced to live lives of nature-based suffering.

I agree re. the evils that inevitably result from the necessity of free will.
 
With regard to "natural evil":

The following is sort of an apologia that makes a case. But it is a case that I think is inherently questionable because of the vast and appalling human suffering that exists - this terrible price sometimes seems just too high for the benefits of Earth existence. Of course this is the human personality perspective, not the soul's.

There is the observed regularity of natural law. The basic laws of physics appear to be cleverly designed to create conditions suitable for human life and development. It can be surmised that this intricate fine-tuned design is inherently a series of tradeoffs and balances, allowing and fostering human existence but also inevitably allowing "natural evil" to regularly occur. In other words, the best solution to the overall "system requirements" (which include furnishing manifold opportunities for humans to experience and achieve) may inherently include natural effects that inevitably cause suffering to human beings.

This points out that there may be logical and fundamental limitations to the creativity of God (or whatever other supreme Agent or Agents are responsible for physical reality). Maybe even He or They can't 100% satisfy all the requirements simultaneously. Maybe He doesn't have complete control over nature, because that would interfere with the essential requirements for creative and fulfilling human life. After all, human achievement requires imperfection and adverse conditions to exist as a natural part of human life.

So: what if there were no limitations and by Divine command all "natural evils" like disease, earthquakes, forest fires, etc. were miraculously prevented. This would drastically reduce human suffering, but the tradeoff would be that a large part of our human drama would be turned into a divine puppet show, and by subverting the operation of natural law it would cost us one of our greatest blessings: the regularity of natural law which makes many of our achievements meaningful and science a great and beneficial enterprise.

Maybe there is a lot of truth to the old saying "life is a series of tradeoffs".

[Laird]

The following is sort of an apologia that makes a case. But it is a case that I think is inherently questionable because of the vast and appalling human suffering that exists - this terrible price sometimes seems just too high for the benefits of Earth existence.

Yep, that would be my assessment, at the very least: that the case is "inherently questionable" for the reason you provide. But I appreciate you going ahead and sharing the case anyhow.

An interesting musing...

A couple of thoughts/questions in response:

1. Are sociopaths always born into bad situations? It seems to me that not all of them are, in which case it would be one way in which sociopaths are born but not the only way.
   
2. Are sociopaths so much "soulless" as "inhabited by an evil soul"?
   

Good points. The current medical and psychological opinion is that sociopathy has all to do with especially bad circumstances of birth and upbringing. Instead, maybe many but not all originate this way, while others are primarily the result of having no soul or even an evil soul.

[Laird]

The current medical and psychological opinion is that sociopathy has all to do with especially bad circumstances of birth and upbringing.

I'm not so sure about this - what do you base it on? I ask because a few months back I read an article about the treatment of psychopathy in children and adolescents, and it pointed out that some of the children in the case studies came from loving families who treated them well; their behaviour seemed divorced from the way that they had been treated.

[Laird]

I found the article online: When Your Child Is a Psychopath.

Here's a key quote with respect to my previous response:

Researchers believe that two paths can lead to psychopathy: one dominated by nature, the other by nurture. For some children, their environment—growing up in poverty, living with abusive parents, fending for themselves in dangerous neighborhoods—can turn them violent and coldhearted. These kids aren’t born callous and unemotional; many experts suggest that if they’re given a reprieve from their environment, they can be pulled back from psychopathy’s edge.

But other children display callous and unemotional traits even though they are raised by loving parents in safe neighborhoods. Large studies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have found that this early-onset condition is highly hereditary, hardwired in the brain—and especially difficult to treat. “We’d like to think a mother and father’s love can turn everything around,” Raine says. “But there are times where parents are doing the very best they can, but the kid—even from the get-go—is just a bad kid.”

[Laird]

Just to be clear: I understand that you are amenable to my point, so I'm not so much trying to prove it to you as to suggest that you might be mistaken about the extent to which current medical and psychological opinion already supports it.

I found the article online: When Your Child Is a Psychopath.

But other children display callous and unemotional traits even though they are raised by loving parents in safe neighborhoods. Large studies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere have found that this early-onset condition is highly hereditary, hardwired in the brain—and especially difficult to treat.

So they are saying that callousness is inherited from loving parents? I'm aware that Mendel's genetics allow for apparent quirks, though constrained by well-defined rules. But is this really what is meant, or is it simply a claim made in the absence of any (to the authors' minds) plausible alternative?

[Laird]

So they are saying that callousness is inherited from loving parents? I'm aware that Mendel's genetics allow for apparent quirks, though constrained by well-defined rules. But is this really what is meant, or is it simply a claim made in the absence of any (to the authors' minds) plausible alternative?

Good pick-up, Typoz! I noticed the same thing myself, but chose to post the excerpt anyway, excusing the apparent contradiction using the same private suggestion that you made publicly: that Mendel's genetics allow for apparent quirks (I was thinking in particular of recessive genes).

But I agree, it might simply be a claim made in the absence of a plausible alternative acceptable to the authors. As indicated in a previous post, I am open to a more metaphysical alternative in which evil souls incarnate.

I think we all understand what is meant by evil, but I don't find it easy to define. Certainly in the context of an "evil soul" I find it harder to decide whether this is a meaningful term, or an ad-hoc label applied as and when it seems appropriate.

There is a pattern for example of those who are bullied or abused in childhood later adopting those traits. Does that mean the person has become evil, or are there other ways to describe it? What if for example someone who has undergone this shift towards abusive behaviour  is re-incarnated and continues the same behaviour. Are they "evil" or just reacting to previous experiences in a different lifetime?

It becomes difficult to discuss as this might seem an argument to excuse and somehow rehabilitate those who may have perpetrated monstrous acts.

Perhaps the larger issues are too big to grasp (at least for me).