Soul MateS

(paragraph separation)

fictional stone tablets“You must not have any other god but me.”
Exodus 20:3

“You must not covet…”
Exodus 20:17

(paragraph separation)

Monotheism of modern Western and Middle Eastern civilization originates very late in the history of humanity’s spiritual practices.  It doesn’t develop into a widely accepted belief until somewhere after the Age of Imperial exploration and colonization of the 16th century CE.  Before this age, mankind believed in a plethora of various gods.  Yet in stark contrast to today’s trend of historical intercontinental monotheism, mankind still has a wide spectrum of gods, god-characteristics, and various interpretations of “their god’s” revelations!  In fact, when examined in this context, mankind does not have nor will ever have a consensus on whom or what god is.  What does that suggest about reality?

* * * * * * * * * *

Golden Rule - All rights UNreserved!

Golden Rule – All rights UNreserved!

The idea, philosophy, or religious creeds of one Supreme Being is a human ego-coping mechanism for the harsh reality of humanity’s mortal existence and overall place in this vast Universe/Multiverse.  Inside some minds and systems, and for various reasons, the frailty of life is perceived as needing higher purpose.  Or does it?

Nature, as we have come to understand it scientifically and intuitively since the Renaissance, does not bear out one system, one standard, one species or animal, one race, one language, one plant, one lifespan, one restaurant (in Texas!), one website on the world-wide-web, one planet, one Sun, one galaxy…. one anything!  Why does mankind try and try unsuccessfully to force it that way?  Who sold us hook-line-and-sinker a one-dimensional, even two-dimensional law(s) of existence?  When we attend school, especially after primary education, who wants to go and be told what to think rather than how to think?  We being told what to think or how to act has never survived the test of time, anywhere, anytime in humanity’s entire history.

Look around; monism doesn’t exist.  It exists only in our own mind’s coping department.

So why do we still cling to it? Why do some try to coerce it on others?

Change – The Only Constant

(paragraph separation)

“History is a child
building a sand-castle by the sea,
and that child is the whole majesty
of man’s power in the world.”
Heraclitus

(paragraph separation)

I am nothing today what I was twenty-years ago.  I’m even less what I was thirty-years ago.  There are the typical changes:  slower recovery, slower metabolism, much grayer, older smarter children (gratefully), nothing about my home and neighborhood are the same, but inside… emotionally, intellectually, spiritually… very different.  One can choose to fight change or deny it, thus spending most of their days against nature; taking one step forward and two or three back.  Or one can choose to embrace change and move with it, recognizing that we are firmly a part of this existence; not above it, not below it.  In it!

Considering that it would take over 7-light years just to reach the nearest star in our galaxy, and a proton or neutron is 10 to (-13) the negative thirteenth centimeter and not even close to the smallest particle known, it is safe to say there is plenty of room for expansion for millions upon millions of years.  Mankind hasn’t even scratched the surface of what is possible.  Yet, for over three to four millennia or more we have consistently taught ourselves “No… not possible. Stay lazy.”  And we’ve taught each other and our children and grandchildren that we are only capable of limited love:  a mono-love when everything in nature and the Multiverse – and much of human behavior – demonstrates otherwise.

But here is the brain-warper:  energy (or mass) may never be created nor destroyed and the sum of all energies within a system is constant.  That is the Law of Conservation of Energy/Mass confirmed over and over by Einstein and other renown physicists.  Change, or transition, is the only constant.  And from conception, to birth, to youth and adulthood, from your ancestors to your descendants, then your death and into the other side… they are all an example of this law of constant change.

Risky Business of Jerry MaGuire’s You Complete Me

elements in human bodyIn the atomic world there are 118 confirmed elements in our Periodic Table as of 2012.  However, with the cutting-edge studies being conducted over the last decade — e.g. CERN in Switzerland — this number could increase very soon.  Quantum physics is breaking open the sub-atomic world.  On the macro stage astrophysicists have only begun to discover and understand existence outside of the Milky Way.  Within the Milky Way are 300-400 billion stars, think about that a minute; that’s eleven zeros, including our own Sun.  The Hubble deep space telescope has observed approximately 10,000 other galaxies just through the single constellation Fornax; 1 out of 88 constellations that astrophysicists currently recognize.  Imagine how many more exist once we peer through all 88 constellations.  Suppose there are 10,000 galaxies in each of our 88 constellations.  That is equal to 880,000 Milky Ways each with 300-400 billion Suns like ours.

Getting a slight picture of how mind-blowingly diverse our true existence really is?

Now back down to Earth.  As of today’s posting date, the current population of the world is about 7.12 billion and growing fast!  And Jerry MaGuire tries to tell us there is only 1 single person that “completes us”!?  Does anyone realize what almost incomprehensibly FANTASTIC lottery odds those are?  If these odds were anywhere close to being realistic, there would be…what(?)…. three divorces per generation and two people in severe poverty?  Come on, seriously?  And incidentally, many ancient sacred scriptures (including Judeo-Christian) teach that life, this existence, began androgynously.  Chew on that a few minutes.

Let me be an even bigger romantic monogamy-fate-buster.  Of the 118 confirmed elements, each of us possesses 18 of those 118 in various quantities (see table above) mixing into an extremely vast diverse human race.  No one is exactly the same in their elemental form.  Which means within the law of constant change through 80-90 years (current lifespan average), the odds of perceived chemical perfection with just ONE other person is….

Well, damn near non-existent — wearing horse-blinders with dark sunshades really.  Ah, but don’t despair hopeless romantics.

Our Knights in Shining Armor Ride Everywhere!

The math that seems so discouragingly overwhelming is actually a 24-hour open buffet to all, especially if you believe there are other seekers just like you!  How can this be true?  Simple.  If any of you have ever gone onto a dating-to-marry website – or for that matter not necessarily to marry – and entered your personal parameters and your constantly changing partner-preferences, then you know that simply within your region you will receive some 20-50 returned “potentials”.  And that is just a miniscule population on the internet, on a given day or week, on a planet with 7.12+ billion.  Imagine how many potentials you’d have returned if you widened your parameters to your whole country, all of them in their unique beautiful ways suited for you.  Sorry Dr. Neil Warren of eHarmony dot com for having pulled open your Wizard of Oz curtain; marketing you got….mathematical 1-soul-matching, um…a three-ring (but glamorous) circus barring the lazy mules and donkeys that like/want the horse-blinders with dark shades!

More than enough room for all forms of human expansion!

More than enough room for all forms of human expansion!

You think that day isn’t coming?  Change is constant, especially in human interactions.

The question, concern, (or fear?) isn’t the number of soul mates each of us have our entire life because they are everywhere very often.  The more important question is how whole you want to become now, tomorrow, next year – contrary to Jerry McGuire’s fairy-tale – through the endless ways and experiences knocking at your front door or waiting outside your small tiny comfort zone/home.

The critical question isn’t quality versus quantity, but the quality to which you learn to manage the quantity.  One without the otherS is only half-as-good as the whole multi-packages, if here I can borrow the more correct slang.  Our soul mateS are also constantly changing, so none of them will be “chemically perfect” for you the 29,920 possible days (current average lifespan) you’re both together. To think so is naïve.

Do you prefer to be a one-dimensional, two-dimensional, or multi-dimensional lover?  Don’t sell yourself short like so many millions have over history risking putting EVERYTHING in one person.  I have no reservations telling my partner(s) to not do that because I, like this Multiverse, am in constant motion within and without.  Nature, and everything within or beyond, doesn’t want to put you in a tiny box.  Be part of the Multiverse’s exponential multiplication.

Share some of your examples of limiting yourself or selling yourself short.  Or please share your examples of how incredible it is to have multiple soul mates.

* * * * * * * * * *

For further soul expansion:
I am a fan of the late clairvoyant, Edgar Cayce and most of his discoveries.  I recommend your own personal comprehensive research of Cayce’s humble astonishing medical service to humanity.  If you prefer to jump right in to the workings of “Soul Mates” and attracting them, I recommend for starters author Karen Black’s website The Soulmate Site.

Other related posts by the Professor:
The Curious Perplexity of Attachment
The Love Within and Beyond
“The One” Myth
Dare to Love…More!
Here Be Dragons
And the entire Connectivity series from a Quantum Mechanics point-of-view

(paragraph separation)

Live Laugh Love

(paragraph separation)

Creative Commons License This work by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.wordpress.com.

33 thoughts on “Soul MateS

  1. Let’s see… 3 divorces per generation? Sounds right. Incidentally, McGuire aside, where did we come-up with this need to be ‘complete/d’ by another person? Or the idea that we aren’t already whole, and complete? I would love to visit Atlantic University, one day. Cayce’s A.R.E.
    Have you read about Twin Flames?

    Like

    • Victoria…yes, 3 divorces total for each generation on the entire planet. I may need to revise that sentence to convey those phenomenal lottery odds…for ALL winners…no one loses! LOL

      Not complete? Exactly. Three-thousand plus years of repressive “total depravity” in need of a single proxy to achieve eternal bliss means….well, a number of negative spiritual-emotional cripplings, but primarily promotes ‘projection’ rather than ownership, accountability, and empowerment; which leads to greater accomplishments in greater numbers. Think of any species here that works like that with efficiency? I can name several. 😉

      Like

        • Yes, sorry… it goes without proving that when we are held accountable, we take ownership for our mistakes as well as our successes, with each of those lessons we empower ourselves more! And with more people becoming more empowered, owning, & being accountable to each other…exponentially humanity accomplishes greater things together for all.

          Does that help? 🙂

          Like

        • Oh! And I will have to checkout more closely & thoroughly Cayce’s A.R.E. I am indeed familiar with “twin flames” or twin souls, yes. However, with my heavy background in many things science (e.g. chemistry, physics, etc.) Cayce’s claim of 1 original soul being split has a very difficult time coinciding with modern Quantum Mechanics; so I’m not sure about it. How would you explain twin flames/souls?

          Like

      • Yes, that helps, in understanding your pov. It can be summed-up in one word… integrity. Wouldn’t it be delightful if our “elected” officials operated under the same constructs, of accountability?

        On Cayce: could he have meant, that 1 original soul split 7.12 billion times, and continues to, exponentially?

        How would I explain TF’s and SM’s? I wouldn’t, other than to say there is a deeply ineffable connection.

        Like

        • Ah, the Utopia of “open accountable” government. The U.S. has a semblance of it in framework, but it is certainly not perfect due to its members. That sort of “openness” isn’t possible when sub-systems (even individual relationships) are closed-off.

          7.12 billion from 1 soul? A valid question. But in my mind not one that is particularly vital now. It would’ve been when it split in two, then four, & then maybe 16. But now we’re to a point where our present & future are more important. Yet, if all 7.12+ billion souls embraced each other as family, OMG imagine that!

          However, I feel there are plenty of reasons not to fear each other; along the lines of your “ineffable connection.” If we had no fear of what happens to our soul AFTER this existence, think of how much that perspective would free-up other altruistic & philanthropic actions…along with stronger more intimate love?

          Like

      • I do imagine that; It is the normal state. We are conditioned to fear. Stronger, more intimate love, is conducive to commitment…. to the Whole.
        That, being philanthropy/altruism.

        What’s left, in the absence of fear of vulnerability?

        It would speed things up a bit, I think, if we stopped insisting on labeling and defining ‘types’ of love. Especially, “unconditional” love.

        Like

  2. This requires at least one more go-over! 😳 It’s a LOT for a married Christian momma to take in. Lol! Hmmmmm. And….change of screen name to protect the innocent…wait…are there any innocent? Bahahahaha!

    Like

    • Have at it “Lola Lou.” All of us have our own individual backgrounds, unique experiences, all based upon our own ancestral families & teachings. Some of those constructs are difficult to modify or reconstruct in a Multiverse that is constantly changing, including its inhabitants. 😉

      Like

  3. Lot’s of techy/sciency (I know it’s not a word, but today I decided to use it anyway) words to basically speak about multiple soul mates. Mind was nearly blown by such complex words, but I think I got your point. 😉

    First, I’d like to point out that the term soul mate doesn’t necessarily equate to a sexual relationship. Speaking for myself, there are people in my universe that understand what makes me tick and why I do the things I do (and I them). Although there’s no sexual relationship there (and no desire to create one), I consider them soulmates.

    I also consider my husband my soulmate. He knows and understands who and what I am and accepts me as is. There’s no need to hide. No room for jealousy. Our communication is strong and we share a lot of similar characteristics. We’ve been together for 20 years (married for 3). Does that mean that we’re not attracted to other people? Not at all. We’re simply not threatened by it.

    Do I take issue with people who decide to have polyamorous relationships? Heck no! If it works for them, great! Usually, from what I’ve gathered, each person fills different aspects/needs in the relationship dynamic. As a group, they work together for the fulfillment of the whole. (At least that’s my understanding) As you’ve probably figured out, my writing tends to head in that direction with D/s leanings.

    Like

    • LOL@Kitt — apologies for my techy/sciency terms. This type ‘quick’ forum (blogging) sometimes isn’t the most suited for a subject so big & vast.

      You’re correct: Soul Mate(S) are not limited to a sexual relationship only, especially in the context of original “androgyny”. “Not threatened” by attraction to others…that is a great attitude! That allows both of you to grow/change together; which most often leads to a stronger intimate bond that ‘flexes’.

      The dynamics of non-monogamous relationships (again, sexual or not isn’t the focus) are easier to maintain & grow when all parties have the ability & skills to look beyond themselves, considering the “whole”. But they also understand their own part in the whole, their value within it & can articulate that. To flat out presume or declare that NO ONE on Earth is capable (or allowed) to live that ‘open’ to others, is slavery really.

      As Victoria above alluded to, it most definitely comes down to the amount (and growing) of integrity, honor, respect & understanding (without shaming) of each other. None of that is possible when always under the ‘choking gas’ of condemnation. And underneath that is really just fear.

      Excellent comment Kitt! Thank you so much. 🙂

      Like

      • I think integrity, honor, respect & understanding without shaming should be a cornerstone for humanity anyway…even without the soulmate dynamic…but as long as people fear what they don’t understand…we’ll be stuck in this hateful cycle.

        Like

        • Bulls-eye, spot-on, WHAAM, and all other terms that define precision Kitt! It’s hard to begin walking, when we’re stuck crawling like infants. 😉

          Like

        • I’m glad you approve… 😉 Of course this also leads to one of my pet peeves…

          You know what kills me… The people who take it upon themselves to be unnecessarily cruel, to judge…and worse and do it hiding behind Christianity. As a Christian, I find it offensive for two big reasons. First, we’re all “sinners” so it’s not our place to judge simply because we may not understand. Second, it’s supposed to be about love. God’s love for man…our love for each other. Instead, there are people out there who spew nothing but hate, then hide behind the cross. That repulses me.

          Like

        • Oh dear! I hear ya Sista. Can I get an AMEN!? *images of Will Ferrell up on the podium*

          And if I may ride your petticoat-tails (maybe lifting them up – wicked grin) our reality/existence has been so diverse for thousands or millions of years that the Golden Rule you refer to has been Universal for TOO long! Time to evolve humanity! 😉

          Now, if I may jump out from under your petticoat-tails 😉 unfortunately, Christianity (according to its Roman-Greco foundations) doesn’t teach that Kitt. Passages like John 14:6 (and many other) don’t allow for such expansive amounts of love as you speak. 😦

          However, if you are a Neo-Christian (i.e. no specific bible) and not a fundamentalists, then those discriminating segregating passages don’t apply to your individual position. Wooohooo! 🙂

          Like

        • Are you talking about “I am the way, the truth and the light” verse? I’m sure you already know I rarely see things in black and white or like a traditionalist. 😉 As for the verse? I tend to lean towards the example he set…friends with prostitutes & tax collectors…more so any kind of strict do this or do that. Remember, when push came to shove, he was hardest on the Pharisees & Sadducees who preferred to live by the letter of the law rather than a spirit of love & forgiveness.

          Are there sins out there? Sure! Is it our place to point fingers and mete out punishments? Absolutely not. Well, at least not in my universe.

          Ou vey. Is it too early in the morning to be having a theological discussion? 😉

          Like

        • Yes indeed, I am referring to exactly that verse. Did you know Kitt that only about 25% of the sayings of Jesus/Yeshua in the four Synoptic gospels are by consensus regarded by critical scholars of linguistics, etc, including “Christian scholars” as unquestionably authentic? No surprise, most scholars agree that John 14:6 was a later addition by the 3rd or 4th generation RC fathers. In fact, most all scholars believe the gospel of John (the last gospel written) reflects nothing of what Jesus/Yeshua actually said.

          The wonderful thing is that the basic crux of what Jesus/Yeshua taught was already Universal & not entirely unique; just reworded & reworded & reworded in the common Judaic traditions — which by the way NEVER intended their ‘faith’ to be overhauled (without a condom) by the Roman Empire & Constantine.

          Too early? Nah. Never! Sadly, most fundamentalist stay ‘asleep’ always when it comes to the historical context of their “leader/Savior”. This is perfectly demonstrated by the number of blog-followers I’ve lost since posting this & other challenges to Christian-fundamentalism. LOL! Now punishment of wrongs? That’s a totally different subject & realistically based in social-political realms, NOT theology. 🙂

          Like

        • Why do I get the feeling you and I could sit here talking like this for hours…LOL! Not a bad thing, by the way. I enjoy people who engage my brain. In fact, in my younger years, my mother worried about my lack of attention span where guys were concerned. (Rarely did boyfriends last past the 2 month mark)

          It wasn’t till I got a little older that she realized why and the benefit. Too often they were either not very intelligent, but pretty to look at…or they underestimated my intelligence. Once she understood, she stopped worrying that she’d have a teenage mom on her hands and just waited to see how long it would take me to get bored again. (Shameful, I know…LOL!)

          As for punishment of wrongs, you’re right…that’s a whole different kettle of fish…and there’s a huge distinction between things that are criminal versus emotional wrongs.

          Like

        • Does that mean your Mom would really like me? 😉

          Yes, I’ve been told by women many times that I can go for hours & hours & hours!

          Seriously and back on topic, attempted punishments of emotional or spiritual wrongs is like trying to chase rabbits all through their rabbit holes! Ooooo, those waskuey wabbits! Be wary, wary quwha-it… we are huntin wabbits! 🙂

          Like

        • I’ve got a feeling you would’ve terrified my mom…LOL! Partially because she is very, VERY Bible oriented (if you catch my drift).

          I’m not even touching the whole going for hours and hours and hours thing…too many ways for my overactive brain/imagination to take that one. Hahaha!

          As for your last statement… You’re right. And now I have an image of Elmer Fudd in my head. Thanks. 😉

          Like

    • Loving 1 person doesn’t have to include a sexual encounter or relationship. And does the “level” or depth of the love have to be heavily restricted (imprisoned?) or are there OTHER issues contributing to some fear or insecurities?

      Heraclitus is one of my favorites because he was in several ways the great great grandfather of modern Quantum Mechanics.

      Like

Go Ahead, Start the Discussion!

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