If we are already the essence of the spirit world subconsciously, which Plotinus (205-270), the founder of Neoplatonism, effectively believed, it’s a matter how this is expressed. For one thing, he did not refer to the subconscious mind as such; rather it being the ‘intelligence’ (of the mind) I’m fairly certain, at least to the extent one can compare metaphysical concepts. At any rate, it has been my contention our subconscious mind has outside connections, all of us subconsciously connected to the same pool of ‘being’ and intelligence... and thus, to each other.

Plotinus was a firm believer in the soul; more-so that it was an integral part of his three tier ‘system’ consisting of (1) God, (2) intelligence and (3) the soul. I think he was right in trying to express those distinctions in such a way, especially how we commonly perceive these three apparent existents. It can’t be a literal interpretation however... that implies they are different and therefore a 'part' of etherealness and what can 'part' possibly mean in etherealness? Anyway, I don’t think there can be a distinction quite that clear. We should keep in mind they are only 'effective distinctions'.

Since only our conscious mind is unique, and if there is to be individuality (at all) in the afterlife, then the conscious mind must somehow contribute to the makeup of the individual soul. One way to explain this long-held belief (in the individual soul) is to first refer to the distinction between the subconscious mind, which is not unique, and our conscious mind which is. So what does consciousness and subconsciousness have to do with the soul? One way to describe it is to say the soul is the child of both since, it seems, both contribute. The concept of a 'subconscious mind' was a great scientific step forward and a great distinction but few such distinctions exist and why I keep relying on ‘in a sense’ and ‘effectively’. Until someone stumbles upon more good descriptions such as the 'subconscious mind', metaphysics can only be addressed in vague terms.

It is not ironic I am using the word ‘sense’ in two different ways, one when I refer to our five senses, the other when I state ‘in a sense’. While a different contextual meaning, when it comes to describing the essence of the spirit world, ‘in a sense’ can be taken literally. In other words, in a world without shapes and forms, of vagueness, whatever existents there may be, whatever transpires, can only be sensed. The result will not be a clear picture… no more than any analysis of a particular taste or smell. Therefore I suspect any new senses we may acquire will be somewhat similar to our current senses of taste and smell. I just don't think we'll get anything as vivid as what eyesight provides, but I hope I'm wrong.

There is a strange similarity, and perhaps a relationship, between the spirit world and the senses of taste and smell. That’s not to say we would necessarily taste or smell anything in the afterlife, they just seem to be in a category of senses that are similar. While human senses have never been looked upon as being classifiable but maybe they should be. For example, when smelling a rose, one can’t describe the unique sensation since words do not exist to explain it; conversely, most everything seen can be explained. In other words, vision may be an exclusive sense applicable only to the physical realm... and perhaps hearing. Taste and smell seem entirely different while touch seems somewhere in-between. Since the particular taste and smell of something is indescribable, as indescribable as anything metaphysical, this tells us something very important. It tells us that's the type of reality the spirit world consists of, which is, indescribable vagueness. That is why we can't pin it down, explain it in precise terms.

I once stated that we, as individuals, in someway (subconsciously) make up the spirit world because I didn’t believe it is divisible. I said 'subconsciously' because this is where our very existence dwells. Well, in a sense, and only while in human form. I'll need to work on clarifying that more I suppose. As to any afterlife existence, I believe it will then be demonstrated that existence itself can be a matter of degree, determined largely by worthiness and somewhat by knowledge. For example, to a very small degree, hardly noticeable, even humans seem to exist in varying degrees, not physically of course but mentally. As I said, this 'degree of existence' may not be really evident until later, expressed more in the afterlife. How one obtains this knowledge, that which empowers, concerns the Divine Intellect and as to one's worthiness... well I don't need to elaborate on that.

For all believers, the goal is an afterlife. However this is perceived, it seems evident that worthiness, desire, empowering knowledge and even faith, in conjunction with each other, are determinates. While religions maintain that faith alone will acquire a satisfying afterlife, I remain skeptical; it surely requires much more effort. This afterlife, however wide the gates, and whatever it turns out to be, I think empowering knowledge (specifically) could open up infinite other possibilities in the hereafter. Empowering (spiritual) knowledge, which we acquire before death, could have a bearing because of how Mother Nature operates. In this case, the survival of the fittest 'mentally'.

In trying to explain anything related to the metaphysical realm, it is hard to be more specific. The mystics were right; languages fail miserably in explaining anything metaphysical but that is also due to a lack of understanding. To develop descriptive terms for metaphysics has been, and will remain, quite a challenge. As it is, our language will only take us to the border, as if an alien language is spoken on the other side. Progress awaits these much needed distinctions.

If we are to become a distinguishable entity in the afterlife, an individual, albeit created through a process we know nothing about, even if we only existed in a dream state, and were not active participants, it would still be an existence... wouldn't it? If it's not to be active participation, will a dream state suffice? Well, if it was a dream state, we wouldn't be in a position to know so it wouldn't matter. Besides, I don't know anyone who clamors about not being a bird for example... you take what you get. And, depending on one's memory banks, it could be sweet dreams... or a nightmare. Who knows, perhaps worthiness and empowering knowledge determines if there is to be active participation. On the other hand, the spirit world may not need any extra help. After all, what could we possibly contribute? The spirit world certainly wouldn't need our 'judgment'. Some souls might even seek some sort of 'independence' but as to that possibility, I wouldn't hazard. At any rate, some or all of this spiritual information can be extracted yourself through the Divine Intellect but how much, if any, depends on you. Reading more articles within our Phenomena section should be, I believe, of some help finding your way. My two books further explain how to tap into the Divine Intellect, albeit in a roundabout way.

A.O. Kime

Resource Box: © A.O. Kime (2003) A.O. Kime is a retired farmer and author of two books plus 70+ articles on ancient history, spiritual phenomena, political issues, social issues and agriculture which can be seen at http://www.matrixbookstore.biz
email: allen@matrixbookstore.com