I can understand your cognition of this concept and once upon a time I believed in such a concept. But upon very deep and serious reflections I have given up believing in such a concept.Tamminen wrote:Here we come to transmigration. The being of the presence is always presence for an individual self, but according to my hypothesis there is a temporal connection between those individual subjects. This may or may not be illusory and it is based on an insight that may or may not be illusory.Spectrum wrote:However 'a presence wandering through all reality' [if independent of the living person] even after physical death would be a Transcendent I and illusory as I had argued above.
The range of belief in a deeper connection between independent individuals can range from temporal [bonding] to permanently [pantheistic].
It is because all humans shared the same generic DNA and is driven by an existential drive to seek communion with some larger entity. [physical, community, divine, etc.]
The bottom line is this belief of connection is fundamentally neural, mental and psychological.
I often used the analogy of the floating iceberg in the ocean. The iceberg is apparently independent of the water when perceived by someone who is ignorant and naive of physics. However from a deeper perspective the seemingly independent iceberg is part and parcel of the whole world's large connected ocean, i.e. in term of H20.
Two rhizome plants can appear to be two standalone individual plants but in reality they are connected by underground roots as one single plant system.
Hinduism [advaita vedanta] believe all seemingly individuals [atman] are part an wholeness i.e. Brahman, just as all physical things are reducible to one great bundle of 'energy'.
As I had mentioned this somewhere, Schopenhauer argued this concept very well with his 'will [individual] and WILL [the underlying absolute Whole].
Even in many Buddhist schools the individual[s] are reduced to Buddha Nature [but this is more conditional than the absolute of other beliefs].
However at the highest level of Buddhist philosophy, the ultimate reality is 'nothingness' [emptiness] and something_ness is conditioned by the neurons, mental and the psychological.
Both something_ness and nothing_ness has its pro and cons. This is why we need to understand how
'something_ness is nothing_ness' and
'nothing_ness is something_ness' and
they work complementarily [note Yin and Yang].
The default of the majority is they are conditioned by 'somethingness' and the idea of 'nothingness' is a contradiction and dissonance to their normal life. Being stuck to 'something_ness' is a pro but it has its cons. To counterbalance the cons of 'something_ness' to maintain optimality, there is need to understand the underlying 'nothingness' within that 'something_ness.'
'something_ness is nothing_ness' is not a contradiction because they are not viewed in the SAME SENSE rather they are perceived in different perspective like how we reconcile the independent iceberg with the great ocean of water as the common denominator of H2O.
What I want to say is you [and the majority] by default are naturally conditioned to 'something_ness' and that is why you are insisting there is a deeper connection to the whole [illusory].
I agree we as individual[s] are ultimately reducible to stardust and a bundle of energy which will dissipate upon physical death. If there is a connection with another bundle of stardust and energy, it is due to a subjective psychological emotion and feeling.
The solution here is a psychological one beside the philosophical as presented above.