Definitions

[genkaus]

As an advocate of pan-psychism, I see proto-consciousness as a fundamental aspect of reality. Consciousness becomes apparent when substance reaches a certain level of complexity. Since the totality is the largest scale manifesting the highest degree of complexity, the totality has within it all consciousness.

Fair enough. Not a position I agree with, but this thread is not about that.

Placing ‘divine’ before truth or good, is how I distinguish the fullness of real truth/good from proximate and apparent truths and goods.

Then you'd be better served by using the word absolute instead of divine.

So, what is the difference between full good and proximate good.

Slightly different use of good/evil. Good is that which wills (similar to Schopenhauer’s Will + Idea) and strives for unity and coherence. Evil is a local lack of these qualities.

Not sure what you mean here. Unity and coherence with what?

Theological term that translates as formal properties at large scales and substantial properties at small scales.

I think you are getting mixed up between our two discussions. For the sake of clarity, specify the definition of spiritual in words unrelated to another thread. I intend to use this one as a possible reference for future discussions.

Correct. People have many levels that extend into the larger scales of form and the lower scales of substance. Personal unity at these other scales will remain after dissipation on the physical scale.

The same objection as above.

In both life and afterlife, people pursue what they love. Evil people create their own torment, whereas the good find satisfaction. For example drug users love the pleasure drugs bring even if drug use also brings much pain. Likewise a good person will endure hardships and suffering to accomplish noble ends. In the afterlife, these states become more apparent.

So, evil people love their own torment?

And you need to work on your example. If pleasure is considered to be a noble goal, then the pain caused by the drugs would be same as enduring hardships and suffering for the sake of a noble goal. It seems like you've already made up your mind as to what's noble and what's ignoble.

---

Well, it might be both. I visualize the concept of God as such in my mind, friend.

You visualize god as an atom?

Well, I have given the outlook that my ancestors had on the issue, friend. They believed that everything around them had a soul of it's own.

The view of your ancestors is irrelevant unless they are your own as well. Are they?

They don't?
How do you know that they don't, friend?
I am consistent with my own views. But our ancestors had different views on their own, and we now also have the views on soul, heaven and hell from the world religions...
Like if you really had seen, tasted, or touched soul, I might have taken your views into account.

Guess what, neither have you.

And I haven't claimed any independent knowledge here. All I'm going by is your definition. You said that souls are bound by fleshly husks, thereby implying that they cannot exist independently. And then you go ahead and talk about souls existing independently. That's self-contradiction.