Threesology Research Journal
Time Travel Considerations
page 1

~ The Study of Threes ~

FWT Homepage Translator

What is time pg 1 What is time pg 2 What is time pg 3 What is time pg 4 What is time pg 5 What is time pg 6 What is time pg 7
Time Travel

(page 1)
Time Travel

(page 2)
Time Travel

(page 3)

An exploration of time as a concept, relevance to humanity, to oneself, to a society, and other various philosophical considerations wherein Time is viewed as an actual entity that many believe was set into motion long ago (even if "actual" time is static and not dynamic as one construes from looking at a time piece or reading history written by humans); all such endeavors would fall short of an attempt at any measurement of comprehensiveness if it did not include the concept and related ideas concerning Time Travel... as well as an effort to refute some of the nonsense running rampant for mere theatrical purposes, with respect to the repetition of theories regarding time travel capability such as the often-used illustration of folding a piece of paper to explain the usage of a strong enough magnetic field to bend space in order to decrease distances... as if shortening a distance between two points of interest is the only or most profound issue to consider. Whereas such illustrations may be intriguing for novice Time Travel movie watchers, they come to be questioned by those more (philosophically) serious Time Travel enthusiasts.

As part of this discussion, we will assume that Time Travel is possible.

In various portrayals of Time Travel as seen in motion pictures and television series, there is a recurring prominent concern about there being something wrong with altering the Time-Line. Hence, various travelers are cautioned against doing or saying anything that might alter the Time-Line as it was known by the traveler(s). While some changes might be subtle, others might well be profound so as to erase or add something to the Time-Line which was familiar before one or more travelers went on a time journey... for whatever reason... even it if were based simply on the desire to view history in the making... a time travel journey for tourists (which is an idea already used, yet is used to portray disasters or calamities and not momentous events that do not display death or destruction).

In several variations of time travel, there often is (from the American Motion picture industry's script writers perspective), some representation of an historical event involving the Hindenburg disaster of 1937, the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln or some other noted public figure, or some personalized event concerning one or more Time Travelers. There are of course multiple other story lines, but they typically revolve around the cultural perspective of a given writer. In other words, even if there is an historian amongst the Time Traveling group or association of technicians, scientists, government officials (or whomever is included in the story line and are not considered an expert in one or another area of interest); the scripts of the historian(s) are typically limited to reciting commentary concerning a specific historical event involving their own culture. In still other words, the historian(s) is not a world historian or an historian whose knowledge encompasses multiple vast swaths of history, they appear to specialize in the respective culture in which the movie or television series is to be publicly viewed... as if the public in question has few citizens who know anything about history except for the dogma taught to them in their public schools regarding the heritage of their own culture. Clearly, scripts are written by those whose own historical knowledge appears to be limited to their own culture. Script writers are (can be) just as tunnel-visioned and biased as are song writers. Whereas the three (traditional) taboos of text-book publishing were sex, religion, and social class, present day script writers and song writers (and others) eschew these particular genres for their own values, these values frequently exhibit biases in philosophical consideration due to a lack of imagination (they may repeat what another movie or show has already displayed), a lack of vocabulary (they of resort to the use of vulgarisms or phrases and idioms which display a confluence with other writers on the same topic), and a lack of courage to think originally.

And speaking of Song Writers, though we could include sports players, educators, financiers, inventors, musicians, etc... virtually everyone... would it be possible to improve upon a particular profession if we were to eliminate or assist someone(s) in history by taking a trip back (or forward... or in the present) in their efforts? Despite the lack of knowledge with respect to someone in the present or future and how things may turn out, putting such alternatives as examples completes the three-patterned past-present-future ensemble of considerations which can include inter-dimensional varsities along horizontal, and/or diagonal and/or vertical orientations.

And let us not forget to mention the inadequacy of some Actors/Actresses and Directors to create images of actual characterization for a respective time period. For example, present day Blacks traveling back to a period of time where blacks were in bondage or used exclusively as some sort of laborer or servant, are frequently unable to divest themselves of their present day ego and increased vocabulary. So too are White and other Race-identified characters of today when asked to portray a figure in the past. While many time travelers appear to display the apparent correct attitude and demeanor, as far as we of the present (with our 21st century biases), this is due to the fact we of the present do not actually know how different people in different situation acted in the past... but in other instances none of the people involved in a cinematic or television production simply did not live a respective time period... nor were they taught by their parents and grandparents what people were like in the past... according to personal experiences. For example, we simply do not know how disgusting people in the distant past were such as during the Roman era. However, there is some information which can be used to describe the period more accurately to viewers in the context of the ideological parameters used for the considerations of Time Travelers.

Here's a short record of Western history's Roman influences that points to activities that are now concealed, but nonetheless practiced today, suggesting the decadence of old becomes symbolically and metaphorically practiced in politics, journalism, and business activities... With the last on the list speaking of insane leaders:

YouTube presentation: Top 10 Reasons Ancient Rome was a Perverts Paradise

The US award for sexual predators

As a modern day extension of how diverse perversion can become in the U.S.... as seen through the eyes of some Europeans, the following comedic exhibition is provided:

In one episode of the television series called "Timeless", the trio take a trip back to an era in which there was a practice of keeping slaves. It is particularly naive to send a 21st Black Physicist back to such and era and expect him to play the part of a slave, which is a character he is wholly unsuited for and the script writers as well as producer and director should have known better... despite their many attempts at authenticity and providing bits of historical information many of us did not receive in history classes. It is difficult to teach a well-educated Black how to act like a slave, when they did not have any parallel experiences thereof nor are incapable of embracing a role they are not only unsuited for but the production staff are engaging in their own version of changing the past due to the sensibilities of the present. Such writers, producers, directors and others are introducing their own version of interfering with the Time-Line by altering content to suit the desires of some present day currency of fashionable ideology to improve the image of how Blacks were in the past... for the sake of future Blacks, as if they were all articulate and would speak of freedom... because many blacks loved their masters who treated them well within the cultural constraints of the American Black Slavery period. Far too many Black actors/actresses do appreciate what it was like to be under the thumb, boot or whip of a master, and can not possibly play the role of one who was. You can't have a 21st century Black physicist portraying the part of a servant walking amongst Whites at a party with what may be termed an "uppity" demeanor that looks a master straight in the eye in a conversation where the Black thinks they are an equal.

With respect to altering the Time-Line, in some cases, Black elders who lived in the pre-civil rights era did not want subsequent generations to know how they acted, though they want the young simply to know that things were bad (and still are, not just for Blacks, but the majority of citizens that many can not even grasp what I am talking about). Far too many people are so oblivious as to the lack of equality, that it is as if the present day was a reenactment of an era where slavery, rape, and murder were accepted forms of citizen control. While many will describe bad events as a generality, mimicking the language used by others, but they will not give details about how day-to-day characters displayed behavior... perhaps because they were not keen observers of the human condition... not only of themselves, but others... and mostly just took the subservient behavior for granted.

For example, from personal history, I recall being told that as a boy, a friend of mine had come upon a Black walking on the same sidewalk... and upon seeing the (white boy), he stepped into the curb and placed his hat in his hand and asked for forgiveness (for having walked on the sidewalk at the same time as the white person). Many Blacks would not like to admit that this and other similar behaviors occurred, in order to engage in their own type of Time-Line alteration so as to conceal behavior that may cast a dimmer view on the whole of the Black community, and they want to illustrate something other so as to build up the Black Community's self-perception. Lots of people engage in an attempt to conceal the past of a personal or family activity so as alter the Time-Line for themselves, their family, a community or even a city, state, as well as Nation. History is not only written by the victors but those who want to alter the Time-Line to provide an impression of something other than the reality as it occurred.

And even though the elderly Black man stepping into the curb may have been an isolated event, the fact that blacks routinely did not look white people in the eye and sat in the back of buses is well known. So too did blacks stop talking unless spoken to... because they were treated as naive children... or domesticate beasts of burden. So too were there signs on public buses which directed blacks to sit in the back. So too were there separate drinking fountains and toilets for whites and blacks, as well as a culturally accepted aura which practiced the notion that Blacks were to "know their place"... and accept it with humility. So too was there (and still remains), a large ignorance about Blacks concerning their physical attributes, mental abilities and overall sameness of human emotion, interest and variations in taste for food, clothing, recognition, goals, etc... just like all other racially defined groups. The point to be made is that such real-life characterizations for time-travelers to the past aren't permitted to be portrayed or exhibited because present day sensibilities think it is OK to interfere with the telling of the past as it actually was in order to alter the Time-Line of impressions for those in the present and future. In effect, they deliberately change the Time-Line in an effort to create what they believe to be a better future... and thus may be termed a type of geneticist engaged in an ideological Eugenics program. In other words, both historians and those involved with Time-Travel story-telling (movies, etc...), often interfere with the Time-Line. So too do writers about Presidents and those who write their own memoirs. They are lying (or let us say recall incorrectly) in order to... or which effects a cover-up or embellishment... and thus hope to alter the Time-Line of thought concerning a person or/and an event. The primary philosophical theme being carried out in Time-Travel stories has to do with whatever it takes to make a buck and provide a plausible story-line to Time-Travel enthusiasts who are superficial in their readings and understanding of History. Truth can be as variable as are the definitions of beauty, justice and peace.

When a viewer of Time Travel movies (etc.) gets past the preoccupations of ideas being displayed by script writers, they might then turn their thoughts to questioning the relevance of the proposed arguments for accepting a given idea such as not interfering with the Time-Line. In so doing, they then venture into philosophical considerations which breech the boundaries of intellectual confluence that is repeated over and over and over again. For example, in the story of Abraham Lincoln's assassination, one time traveling character may openly consider the benefit(s) for saving the life of Lincoln... such that the lives of Blacks would have been improved upon more quickly. However, such an idea assumes that all subsequent Congresses and Presidents will want to keep in-tact any and all policies developed by Lincoln. No less, the truth of the matter is that after his assassination, there was no "Will on Capital Hill" to continue improving the plight of not only Southern Negroes, but all blacks, whereby the Civil Rights Movement need not have ever taken place because a full emancipation would have occurred. In effect, the Death of Lincoln was as if a Time Traveler went into the past and changed the history of Blacks... because the ideas of Lincoln were not a standard way of though processing that was taking place with the majority of those in Congress... or perhaps elsewhere as well. Though many people today accept the need for a Civil Rights provision for everyone, such a concept was not part of the commonality of concepts held by those in authority in Lincoln's time, and many Legislators today even decry its adopted usage. Clearly the structure of government and election's system allows too many mental diminutives to enter into office.

One idea concerning Lincoln (though some disclaim its authenticity), was that he was more interested in keeping the Union intact than he was in freeing the slaves. With this idea in mind some have furthered this view by saying he has said that if he could keep the Union better preserved by keeping slavery he would have argued for its retention... despite his reluctance to go against the "Free Soilers" political platform such as the historic slogan calling for "free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men" (where the "men" doesn't include "wo-men" and the word "free" is similarly ill-defined in terms of being related to some supposed universal standard that need no detailed explanation).

No less, let us not forget Lincoln called for "an abrogation of civil liberties and a suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus". (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013: "Lincoln, Abraham." Also: Free Soil Party). In addition, while many attribute an unparalleled greatness to Lincoln because of his efforts, and assume that all presidents somehow have a similar desire and personal capacity; there is a fifty-fifty chance for a president to make a good move and thus have the move define their presidency... often times based on making a lucky choice and not because they harbor some internal uniqueness for the public to pay homage to as if they are some sort of god-like figure that we are supposed to use tax dollars in creating a monument to them... or as is the current vogue, to have their name on a library as a means of helping to preserve themselves in history because people do not generally have animosities towards libraries. And yet, if they could, politicians would surely place their name on churches or any other structure whose function might better create a supportive role in keeping their memory alive... just as wars have done for generals and other military participants and being labeled a "war president" used to do, but has lost favor amongst many in the public. Metaphorically speaking, while a few leaders show themselves for having an ability to choose the right card, cup (containing the ball), or throw the dice to produce whatever combination is called for during a dire social event that the government itself often has a hand in producing in the first place; far too many of them exhibit an ineptness that the Congress goes out of its way to conceal or mollify in order that the overall governing system can "save face" instead of revealing how problematic the present design of the despotic formula of democracy actually is.

While so many root for Lincoln they forget he did not attempt to free Women by advocating their right to vote and a full set of equalities. Hence, what is so wonderful about preserving the Time-Line of Lincoln or so many other political leaders throughout history, when it is the government which has often played a major hand in creating conditions which lead up to "Eleventh-hour" decisions about a Hail Mary pass being made? Why not take a trip further back in time and ensure that the Founding Fathers of America permitted everyone the right to vote and received full civil liberties? For that matter, why not go back in time and prevent the French from getting involved in Viet Nam and thus preventing America from using the conflict as a means to make a few corporations wealthy off of government armament contracts? No less, let us venture into the past to keep America from engaging in a Spanish/American war that was used as a heavy-handed means of ensuring the plantation and profitability desires of the S & H sugar company... an in addition— give Teddy Roosevelt a feather in his cap for an eventual presidency he was being groomed for by those who had a slew of ulterior motives? Or why not stop (or attempt to prevent) World War I which began after a South Slav nationalist (Bosnian Serb) by the name of Gavrilo Princip killed the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his consort, Sophie, Duchess von Hohenberg? Then again, the supposed reason they were killed is that he wanted to destroy Austro-Hungarian rule in the Balkans and to unite the South Slav peoples into a federal nation, by way of taking the first step in assassinating a member of the Habsburg imperial family or a high official of the government. (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013: "Princip, Gavrilo.")

From one perspective we may think it advisable to intervene in events which led up to World war I and described as being virtually unprecedented in the slaughter, carnage, and destruction it caused. (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013: "World War I.") ...That is, as it is described by modern day writers who may not be able to put past atrocities into a relative comparison with all other wars having occurred in history in order to give an accurate account thereof. Then again, is there an inherent inclination for humanity to knowingly or unknowingly create situations in which they resemble kids on a block surrounding two or more others engaged in commentary resembling "I dare you to knock the chip off my (their) shoulder", who themselves want to join in the rough and tumble episode? How many times have fights (battles, wars, skirmishes) been "egged on" by having someone pick a fight (like the French did in Indo-China which precipitated the Vietnam war), just so another player can get into... and take over a fray, yet have the excuse that they did not start the trouble? How does a Time-Traveler person or group intervene in events involving the pecuniary and/or entertainment interests of multiple players?

And yet from another perspective, who are we, who are they... who live in other cultures to dictate to those in yet distant cultures... who seek a means to acquire freedom— even if it is at the expense of so many lives... lives that did not come to their assistance, such as the disgustingly protracted reticence of the US government in World War II until it could be assured that other countries would be indebted to it for generations to come? Indeed, World War II was a business venture for many corporations (including banks), like those in America which did business with Germany before America got into war. In fact, Henry Ford received a medal from the Germans for his many contributions to him, yet there is no taxes-paid-for museum which highlights all those who "traded with the (eventual) enemy"... despite all the ideological and other (imperialistic and colonialistic) atrocities being fomented by the Nazis. While there were protests, these did not come from either the government during or after America's entrance into the war (but not before war-stricken countries promised to pay the US enormous sums of money, gold or other resources). In fact, the US government has gotten into the war profiteering business by selling armaments in hopes that such assistance may one day lead to a conflict so that other companies can get involved to make money and the pentagon can continue adding pages to its Encyclopedia of Military Service where one or another person can be held in high regard for their part in killing and destruction by way of situation created by politicians.

Ford receiving German Medal for assisting the Nazis Public protest of Ford and his Nazi alliance

Here are a few resources for those interested in the topic of American businesses and their Nazi Alliance that the US government has never condemned such companies for nor asked them to make war reparations to the American public for all the hell they contributed to... and many are still permitted in producing war materials at tax payers cost, under the guise of legalized robbery to suit the ideological inclinations of those who want to keep the world in a state of potential danger just so they can play out their respective pecuniary-generating roles via rationalizations and rationales befitting their inclinations.

Why did those seeking to implement Communism and Socialism of the past think it their right to include the entire world as a sociological experiment? Why shouldn't time travelers go into the past and prevent World War II, even if it meant killing numerous leaders in business, government and religion? For that matter, why not kill Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Bruno Bauer, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and others responsible for contributing to the ideas of Socialism (and its counter-part Communism)? So what if history changes. Would it be better or worse?

How far back in time do we travel in an attempt to circumvent so many atrocities, human and otherwise... but in particular, those created by humans such as the slaughter of the American Bison? Not only has humanity created war, but disease, famine, and economic/environmental distress... not to mention a lack of freedom and civil liberties. And if we travel to a time and place to assist or hinder a person or event, does it thus change our own history to the point in which we may never exist? Does this necessarily mean that if we aren't born we can not go back in time to hinder or assist that which keeps us from being born... or will such a question even come to bear upon the circumstance because it is irrelevant since time travel itself may have not come into existence? Then again, does this script-writer concocted idea have any merit? Can't we alter the past (or present) and create a new Time-Line with us in it with a different time-related scenario based on a different reality? Does it matter whether most people are born or not? Then again, here we have arrived at the point in which we must consider what is meant by making history better or worse. What does "better or worse" actually mean? Whose standard(s) of better/worse, right/wrong, good/bad, etc..., do we apply? If it is thought that by altering the Time-Line we will somehow "ruin" it, can't such an alteration also provide us with a better Time-Line for all of humanity? Do script writers avoid making changes because there imaginations are limited to thinking in terms of "change = something worse"? Are they incapable of thinking outside the box of history that they have been brainwashed with? For example, can't they imagine a society in which there is a dominant Peoples Legislative Branch instead of the present under-the-table gift giving Congress, Supreme Court and other agencies?

Would history be better or worse if Jesus, Mohammed and the Buddha never existed? Would someone else eventually come to take their place... albeit it with a different... yet similar philosophy because the overall conditions of humanity have not been dealt with adequately enough by one or more Time Travelers? If we prevented the Earth from every having a desert would the three (so-called) "Great" Monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) never have arrived on the scene, since it appears that the desolation of the desert's affects on humans incline them to seek an "over-abundant" source of salvation like one indulging in an act of over-compensation (gluttony, greed) to quench their thirst of privation? Would humanity, overall, be better or worse if modern medicine had not been invented? Or what about the development of electricity, hydraulic's, animal husbandry, or genetic breeding of plants such as the usage of wheat, corn, barely, sugar cane, potato, soybean, rice, sorghum, etc., or the domestication of a few animals such as hogs, sheep, pigs, horses, cattle, chickens, etc.? While yields and quality have been improved, what if they hadn't been... not to mention that yields have reached their endpoint of ability? Would overall humanity be worse off or better? If we say humanity is better off because of such inventions and inter-ventions, then why don't we breed for better humans in order to increase the betterment of humanity if we think that specialized breeding of other life forms is a viable enterprise? Is this any less of "playing at god" (as some claim) than the genetic manipulation of plants and animals meant to increase the betterment of humanity by an improvement in the human diet? (A diet subjected to the nonsense of government controls which are guided by the sales of certain goods so as to increase the GNP [gross national product] via the efforts of the USDA [US Dept. of Agriculture], or the usage of the U.S. Forestry to assist the logging industry.)

Let us also speak of improving the quality of humanity by improving upon the environment. Would humanity be better or worse off if there was no means of environmental pollution? Not only man-made but that created by nature as well? Do diseases hurt or help the betterment of humanity? Does the survival of humans from a plague or petulance create a more healthy humanity or simply set the stage for nature to produce yet a more virulent disease or petulance? Does an improvement in humanity require a deliberate intervention in creating conditions which rid the world of all diseases and pests... or would this lead to ever larger populations requiring greater yields of food from cereals and grains that can no longer be made to yield more?

What if we took a Time Trip into the past and introduced reading and writing in 10,000 BC? Would the humans of that time be able to grasp such advanced concepts that we of today egotistically define, or much less make usage of them? Was the brain of humans thousands of years ago much different than the commonality of brain development of today? Does the following biblical reference give us an insight into the type of brain functioning ancient humans had... despite the interpretations levied by proselytizing religious aficionados?:

From John (1:1):

In the Beginning was the Word
and the word was with god,
and the word was (a) god.

In the "beginning"... The beginning of what? Conscious thought? A community of (one) god worshippers (instead of a society with multiple gods)? Or do we simply address it with the commonality of meaning the beginning of life?... or existence... and in our present case— the beginning of time? In any event, the "word", or a given speech type/pattern was used to designate "it" (a god). And this beginning... with this particularized "word" (singularly or with varied multiplicity, depending on which religions leader was speaking)... was considered to be that which was not only "with" god, but "was" (a) god. This suggests that all other utterances were non-god expressions... even though ancient Egyptians referred to the breath as the soul... aligned with one or more deities. In speaking about the breath as the soul, as an expression of a deity, a short reference to the idea of the soul is therefore instructive since it has acquired a timelessness whose differences can be examined as if being able to travel back into time to pay witness to the various representations and interpretations of consciousness... of cognition. Hence, in a way, history permits us to time travel from the safety of our present day perches, because an actual encounter with people of the past might inevitably lead to confrontations because of vast differences we can not clearly identify without having been a part of a certain social group which embraced its own beliefs far removed from our present day sensibilities.


In religion and philosophy, (the soul refers to) the immaterial aspect or essence of a human being, that which confers individuality and humanity, often considered to be synonymous with the mind or the self. In theology, the soul is further defined as that part of the individual which partakes of divinity and often is considered to survive the death of the body.

Many cultures have recognized some incorporeal principle of human life or existence corresponding to the soul, and many have attributed souls to all living things. There is evidence even among prehistoric peoples of a belief in an aspect distinct from the body and residing in it. Despite widespread and longstanding belief in the existence of a soul, however, different religions and philosophers have developed a variety of theories as to its nature, its relationship to the body, and its origin and mortality.

Among ancient peoples, both the Egyptians and the Chinese conceived of a dual soul. The Egyptian ka (breath) survived death but remained near the body, while the spiritual ba proceeded to the region of the dead. The Chinese distinguished between a lower, sensitive soul, which disappears with death, and a rational principle, the hun, which survives the grave and is the object of ancestor worship.

The early Hebrews apparently had a concept of the soul but did not separate it from the body, although later Jewish writers developed the idea of the soul further. Biblical references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.

Ancient Greek concepts of the soul varied considerably according to the particular era and philosophical school. The Epicureans considered the soul to be made up of atoms like the rest of the body. For the Platonists, the soul was an immaterial and incorporeal substance, akin to the gods yet part of the world of change and becoming. Aristotle's conception of the soul was obscure, though he did state that it was a form inseparable from the body.

In Christian theology St. Augustine spoke of the soul as a “rider” on the body, making clear the split between the material and the immaterial, with the soul representing the "true" person. However, although body and soul were separate, it was not possible to conceive of a soul without its body. In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas returned to the Greek philosophers' concept of the soul as a motivating principle of the body, independent but requiring the substance of the body to make an individual.

From the Middle Ages onward, the existence and nature of the soul and its relationship to the body continued to be disputed in Western philosophy. To René Descartes, man was a union of the body and the soul, each a distinct substance acting on the other; the soul was equivalent to the mind. To Benedict de Spinoza, body and soul formed two aspects of a single reality. Immanuel Kant concluded that the soul was not demonstrable through reason, although the mind inevitably must reach the conclusion that the soul exists because such a conclusion was necessary for the development of ethics and religion. To William James at the beginning of the 20th century, the soul as such did not exist at all but was merely a collection of psychic phenomena.

Just as there have been different concepts of the relation of the soul to the body, there have been numerous ideas about when the soul comes into existence and when and if it dies. Ancient Greek beliefs were varied and evolved over time. Pythagoras held that the soul was of divine origin and existed before and after death. Plato and Socrates also accepted the immortality of the soul, while Aristotle considered only part of the soul, the noûs, or intellect, to have that quality. Epicurus believed that both body and soul ended at death. The early Christian philosophers adopted the Greek concept of the soul's immortality and thought of the soul as being created by God and infused into the body at conception.

In Hinduism the atman ("breath," or "soul") is the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes. The jiva-atman is also eternal but is imprisoned in an earthly body at birth. At death the jiva-atman passes into a new existence determined by karma, or the cumulative consequences of actions. The cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) is eternal according to some Hindus, but others say it persists only until the soul has attained karmic perfection, thus merging with the Absolute (brahman). Buddhism negates the concept not only of the individual self but of the atman as well, asserting that any sense of having an individual eternal soul or of partaking in a persistent universal self is illusory.

The Muslim concept, like the Christian, holds that the soul comes into existence at the same time as the body; thereafter, it has a life of its own, its union with the body being a temporary condition.

Source: "soul." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Continued on page 2: Time Travel Considerations (page 2)

Page initially created: Saturday, 26-May-2018... 09:06 AM
Initial Posting: Initial Posting: Tuesday, 29-May-2018... 11:45 AM
Updated Posting: Monday, 18th-June-2018... 10:07 AM

Your Questions, Comments or Additional Information are welcomed:
Herb O. Buckland