The One Assumption About Our Reality

Published on December 31, 2014 (↻ December 7, 2023), filed under (RSS feed for all categories).

We’re bringing 2014 to an end, and just as with 2013 I like to close with something constructive, something encouraging. This is especially important to me, because 2015 will mark the outward transition of my careers, a year in which I will focus more on political and, if you wish, philosophical activism. [I later changed course.]

Now, the idea that I want to anchor here is the assumption that we do live many lives. We do, indeed, get reincarnated.

How could I know? I haven’t so far discussed the concepts of belief and trust, and their neglected complements, idea and faith, so I need to use two other indications.

One is, that we all know. Intuitively. Science may have this all backwards for it can only serve us in physical, not spiritual reality (more thoughts on this later, too), so it would revolt now, but there’s literally no chance we are a “coincidence.” That you and I and our whole reality is a big bang accident is offensive and destructive to the whole magic of it all. It’s offensive and destructive to us. We are no chance products.

Two is more practical, for our dreams. Here, too, science likes to negate and put down something it can, by its own limitations, not understand, but our dreams do give us glimpses at our other lives (though they may reflect, distortingly, lives in non-physical realities, too). When I wrote about dream journaling I shared some more ideas and pointers, as some plausible theories (more so than what science suggests) come from the Seth school of thought.

We do live many lives. The one assumption we need to make for which we may never find proof, and may ever only be able to have faith in.

While I give you something very basic here (something some of you may already believe in, and others of you may reject regardless), the implications are important. They are important for in philosophical, existential studies, a number of problems can only be sufficiently explained when this one assumption is made. Just take two of them: purpose, and connection to others (who may hurt us, badly—and yet we’re not looking at a vote for the “just world” hypothesis).

I’ll leave it at this, for we don’t have much time left this year. I extend the best wishes.

Was this useful or interesting? Share (toot) this post, or maybe treat me to a coffee. Thanks!

About Me

Jens Oliver Meiert, on September 30, 2021.

I’m Jens (long: Jens Oliver Meiert), and I’m a frontend engineering leader and tech author/publisher. I’ve worked as a technical lead for companies like Google and as an engineering manager for companies like Miro, I’m close to W3C and WHATWG, and I write and review books for O’Reilly and Frontend Dogma.

I love trying things, not only in web development (and engineering management), but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on I share some of my views and experiences.

If you want to do me a favor, interpret charitably (I speak three languages, and they can collide), yet be critical and give feedback for me to learn and improve. Thank you!