Soul MateS

As part of the Alternative Lifestyles blog-posts migration over to the new blog The Professor’s Lifestyles Memoirs, this post has been moved there. To read this post please click the link to the blog.

Your patience is appreciated. Thank you!

34 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?


    • 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. 😉


        • 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? 🙂


        • 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?


      • 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.


        • 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?


      • 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.


  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!


    • 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. 😉


  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.


    • 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. 🙂


      • 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.


          • 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.


            • 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! 🙂


            • 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? 😉


            • 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. 🙂


            • 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.


            • 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! 🙂


            • 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. 😉


    • 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.


  4. Pingback: Not Who You Thought? | Professor Taboo

Go Ahead, Start the Discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s