navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Soul
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Soul Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan

0 posted 2004-10-18 11:07 PM



Soul

I see that word used a lot, and with such
ease as to suggest understanding.

So then what is soul?  What or who
is it?  Where does it come from?
What does it do?  Where does it go?
How is it related, distinct, apart
from self?

As I understand Ernest Becker, from
“The Denial of Death”, he would
characterize soul as a mad fantasy
one creates and/or accepts as a defense
against what would be the greater madness
one would experience facing, without it,
the reality of personal mortality, extinction.

So . . .?

John

© Copyright 2004 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved
Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
1 posted 2004-10-18 11:26 PM


Very interesting series of questions.  Soul, to this simple person, equates to lifeforce which all living things have, and, as such, is a reflection of how the body equates itself.  One example would be those quite advanced in years, whose inner age is in the mid 20's.  Conversely, there are those in their 20's and 30's who are very old, internally.

Main reason I have for souls existing is not so much a believe in God, though there is that, but also upon the knowledge that we are intrinsically electrical beings, and the energy emitted fills, and sometimes, overflows our physical form.  We are, in short, a mold, shaping the confines of electrical emissions.  And by doing so, our souls, in part, reflect the molding of our physical shells.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
2 posted 2004-10-19 01:36 AM


The Energizer Bunny could be characterized as an intrinsically electrical being
and the energy emitted helps him walk the walk and bang the drum.

A Japanese born and raised in Kyoto has a different mold than a German
from Munich.   Then their souls are different?   How: one’s AC the other
DC?

Could a bolt of lightning be characterized as a free spirit?


John

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
3 posted 2004-10-19 02:36 AM


The soul is our being of spirit.  The body is our being of flesh.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-19-2004 07:23 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
4 posted 2004-10-19 10:25 AM


Actually the soul is what allows us to intuitively know that we are very different from an energizer bunny.  We are men, not machines.  We are creations of God, not mere machines called men.


Without a belief in the soul, we will be forced past the cultural "myths" around us, to see ourselves as essentially mechanistic, and nothing more, like every other physical thing.  But there's something in all of us that rebels against such an idea.  Why?  Because we are more than just physical conglomerates.  We were made by a personal being who is no mere machine, and we have enough of his "DNA" so to speak, to doubt "soulless" explanations of who we are.


Much becomes existential "wishfuls" apart from the doctrine of the soul ...


- a meaningful morality, as opposed to subjective ethics.

- an ultimate purpose for being, as opposed to "the noble lie".

- a hope for immortality, as opposed to a hope in science, cryogenics, or artificial intelligence to fill the gap.

- real beauty as opposed to merely imagined beauty.    



Stephen.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

5 posted 2004-10-19 12:05 PM


The soul is man; man is the soul, though either cannot exist by itself
Does not the soul represent something living?

If it were not so….for example….how would a young dog know, it’s to turn and turn so that it can be lay down, upwind, to smell danger?  Instinct, genes, soul?

But my point being is perhaps, soul might be the reason for experiences of de javu or physhic ability?

The soul knows things that we are not taught in this life…it just seems to know things…for instance, it purifies our personalities…and when we do wrong, a war goes on inside…if we fight the personality of soul...the negative is in battle with the positive.  Think about something disturbing, and realize the uprest it sustains...now think about something that makes you utterly happy, which brings to mind a serene and peaceful outcome...?????  See the difference?

We definitely know there is a negative and a positive force involved, and when the negative force wins over…then the soul is disrupted…if we hurt another, then we hurt our own souls, progress and purpose for being here.

I believe it is one with a great power source (God)…and we are all one…alike….and in the soul world and what we do effect/affects everyone else around us…how we think, what we believe, even down to what we allow or deem as acceptable behavior. How we control and raise our children...it all has and sustains effects.  

Everyone knows there is a time to be born and a time to die….beginning and end…only thing is, no one really knows if the end, is really the end…or another beginning…which I choose to believe….what we do know it this…there is a great power source over our universe…and in all perfection nature shows the imperfection needed to flourish.  Nature also shows us whole populations shifting and changing…living organisms…plants, insects, animals….the perpetual changes unstoppable, like the waves and tides…and the certain effects of the total system/ecosystem, the great importance of every thing's existence not to mention the fragile balance and significance and need for everything and the interaction of everything, one without the other is not? Now take into account the bigger things...and their importance, signficance...everything works...gravity...molecules...plants, animals, rivers, streams...fish, micro organisms, weather and weather patterns....?  My God, consider what we've got going on here...but if one would not be present, then evenutally, it effects the entire community...seen or unseen....

One step further is this…I believe our soul purpose is to love and take responsibility for one another…which is a soul system of ecology of it's own, a sort of human ecology.  ….

When one rejects what which is right/positive for the soul...the action violates the soul...such as alcohol, rape, murder, abuse of another...it violates the perpetrators soul to the point of stagnation of growth, guilt, hurt, until one can forgive self.  And when one learns how to forgive self, then the soul will automatically forgive others and be at peace, soul harmony.  

But if it has violated the nature of things...the severe consequences of that would be stagnation of soul, physical and mental disorder, and the depletion of societies due to loss of order

If you look upon the ripple effect and testimony of nature.  We are not one without the other...we need each other...to survive…as we need the air, water, food, self awareness, beliefs, care for everything on this earth.

Our purpose is to care for others and things as we would care for our own souls…considering the effects even our decisions make...and if we’d always keep that thought first and foremost, perhaps our balance wouldn’t be so upset as it is today?

We don’t need material things, even though society tells us we do...

What we need to achieve our purpose and accelerate knowledge is harmony...within and around?  

Even light and electricity
Think of the significant purpose of all things...the threads that bind and have been so delicately woven...science...yes, but much much more....there is something so vast and unexplainable...uncomprehensible to the human mind...and yet...without the soul....we would not be.

But then, until the day of each of our ends...one doesn't know, really, does one?

These are my beliefs...whatever gives your mind, body, soul peace, cuz they are connected...as well as to every other thing/being on this earth...we are indeed brothers and therein to...brothers of the universe as well...we are responsible for the well being of all things...not just ourselves.



Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
6 posted 2004-10-19 07:49 PM


John, you completely missed my point.  I did preface with living things, so I sincerely doubt that the Energizer bunny would fit that description, or lightning bolts, for that matter.  As for bodily molds, I can see how that can be taken out of context or miscontrued if one really wants a debate.  I really didn't think it necessary to include that our souls fill our bodies, and often look like us, though the apparent age might vary.  I did make reference to that, but didn't say the explicate words.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
7 posted 2004-10-19 08:25 PM


Does a human fetus have a soul?
Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
8 posted 2004-10-19 08:30 PM


Any answer to that question, John, will hijack this thread with political/emotional/religious responses.  In short, those responses would be better suited in the Alley, so feel free to create a thread there with regards to whether or not a human fetus has a soul.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
9 posted 2004-10-19 08:32 PM


Alicat,

“ I really didn't think it necessary to include that our souls fill our bodies, and often look like us, though the apparent age might vary. “

So a hunchback’s soul will often
look hunchbacked?

John


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
10 posted 2004-10-19 08:36 PM


Alicat,

“Any answer to that question, John, will hijack this thread with political/emotional/religious responses.  In short, those responses would be better suited in the Alley, so feel free to create a thread there with regards to whether or not a human fetus has a soul.”

Sorry about that but your comment:

“ I really didn't think it necessary to include that our souls fill our bodies…”

made me wonder just when that happens.

John



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
11 posted 2004-10-20 01:24 AM


In order for our soul to "fill our bodies", our soul would have to be a lesser thing than our bodies.  It would be more accurate to say that our soul is a greater entity than our bodies alone.  That's why the cardinal belief in the soul doesn't limit the soul to the body.  


A very interesting question is how a merely physical "body" can objectify itself.  There is something in you (of you, above you?) which literally looks at your body, and objectively identifies it.  How can your body (your brain being merely a part of that body) objectify itself?  Something separate yet joined, transendent yet localized, common yet mystical is required... the soul.    


Stephen.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

12 posted 2004-10-20 07:41 AM


Stephen....Bravo....smiles and hugs...what a wonderful way to express it.


Susan Caldwell
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348
Florida
13 posted 2004-10-20 08:13 AM


Personally, I think the answer is subjective.

To me my soul is the intimate part of myself.  It is that which feels the extreme of emotion.  It allows me to feel without touch, so see with eyes closed, and to love far more then flesh ever could.  
I have given pieces of my soul to my children and they in turn will pass it on to their children.  It does not die, but lives on forever in the ones I have touched.  It is my essence.

"cast me gently into the morning, for the night has been unkind"
~Sarah McLachlan~

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
14 posted 2004-10-20 06:30 PM


It may help to think of it this way.

God gives the Spirit two houses:

Body, that is where the Spirit lives for time.

Soul, that is where the Spirit lives for ever.  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
15 posted 2004-10-20 08:23 PM


Essorant,

“It may help to think of it this way.

God gives the Spirit two houses:

Body, that is where the Spirit lives for time.

Soul, that is where the Spirit lives for ever.  “


Now what is “Spirit”?  How is that distinguished
from Soul, distinguished from Self, distinguished
from Heart, distinguished from the drunk next door?

John



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
16 posted 2004-10-20 08:27 PM


Stephanos,

“Without a belief in the soul, we will be forced past the cultural "myths" around us, to see ourselves as essentially mechanistic, and nothing more, like every other physical thing.  But there's something in all of us that rebels against such an idea.  Why?  Because we are more than just physical conglomerates.  We were made by a personal being who is no mere machine, and we have enough of his "DNA" so to speak, to doubt "soulless" explanations of who we are.


Much becomes existential "wishfuls" apart from the doctrine of the soul ...”

Which doesn’t argue against it all being no more than a fear or ego response to
a harsher reality as Ernest Becker wrote.

John



serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

17 posted 2004-10-20 10:20 PM


This comes from my kids:

"In Kantonese, Jeet Kune Do - way of the intercepting fist - when you pour water into a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water into a kettle, it becomes the kettle. Now water can flow or it can crash.

Be water my friend." -- Bruce Lee



(even the smilie was approved by them)

Peace

(I got some great kids.)


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
18 posted 2004-10-21 10:09 AM


John:
quote:
Which doesn’t argue against it all being no more than a fear or ego response to
a harsher reality as Ernest Becker wrote.

In a sense you're right ... there is no empirical evidence for the soul, just as there is none for the "ego" or the "self" as distinct from nature.  The realization of this is where philosophical skepticism was born.


But some notions are what C.S. Lewis called "first principles", proofs that cannot themselves be proven.  But without them, nothing else can be proven.  I think the existence of the soul falls within this category.  These are justified primarily because of the absurdity of the contrary.  There's something wrong with a doctrine (such as the strict materialist view of humanity), arrived at by reason, which would in the end invalidate reason itself.


G.K. Chesterton put it this way:


quote:
Mysticism keeps men sane.  As long as you have mystery you have health;  when you destroy mystery you create morbidity.  the ordinary man has always been sane because the ordinary man has always been a mystic.  He has permitted the twilight.  He has always had one foot in earth and the other in fairyland.  He has always left himself free to doubt his gods;  but (unlike the agnostic of today) free also to believe in them.  He has always cared more for truth than for consistency.  If he saw two truths that seemed to contradict each other, he would take the two truths and the contradiction along with them.  His spiritual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight;  he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that.  Thus he always believed that there was such a thing as fate, but such a thing as free will also.  Thus he believed that children were indeed the kingdom of heaven, but nevertheless ought to be obedient to the kingdom of earth.  He admired youth because it was young, and age because it was not.  It is exactly this balance of apparant contradictions that has been the whole buoyancy of the healthy man.  The whole secret of mysticism is this:  that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand.  The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious.  The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid.  The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid.  The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery;  but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness.  He puts the seed of dogma in a central darkness;  but it branches forth in all directions with abounding natural health.

(From "Orthodoxy")

He also wrote
quote:
In the same way the insane explanation is quite as complete as the sane one, but it is not so large.  A bullet is quite as round as the world but it is not the world ...

Their (materialist) position is quite reasonable; nay in a sense it is infinitely reasonable, just as a threepenny bit is infinitely circular.  But there is such a thing as a mean infinity, a base and slavish eternity.  It is amusing to notice that many of the moderns, whether skeptics or mystics, have taken as their sign a certain eastern symbol, which is the very symbol of this ultimate nullity.  When  they wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with his tail in his mouth.  There is a startling sarcasm in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal.  The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of today is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded animal who destroys even himself.



Such thoughts are (to me) about the best there are at expressing the necessity of believing in your own soul.  Isn't it interesting that the opposite of "fear" and "ego response" is something like courage.  But the strict materialist worldview, or even self-view, makes the distinction between fear and courage a triviality.  



Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
19 posted 2004-10-21 05:37 PM


Body ("house #1"): Spirit's house

Soul ("house #2"): Spirit's body

Spirit: ("housekeeper") Breath of God, life, inspiration

Self: ego, one's own person


God enlivens and inspires the Spirit, the Spirit enlivens and inspires the spiritual body --the Soul--and the Soul enlivens and inspires the physical body--the Body.  


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
20 posted 2004-10-22 09:41 PM


When you look in to a child eyes you can see the light from their eyes, the inocence and beauty. No one can explain what physically what a soul is, only we are the soul in the body.

Juju

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

21 posted 2004-10-25 02:26 AM


I know of a book that teaches us the truth concerning body, spirit and soul.  While penned by men it's author is God, our creator, who inspired them.
In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness..", and in 2:7, "And the Lord formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul."
Soul is the consciousness, the feelings, the desires, produced by the breath of life vitalizing the body.  "Being" is used in some translations for "soul".
A word study of "soul" in the Bible is most enlightening.  While there are many verses relating the soul of man to his feelings, desires, knowledge etc, I believe some are the most important, such as: Many times humans are called souls, Gen.12:5, 14:21, 46:26; Exod.12:4,15,16; Acts 2:37,43, 27:37; Rom.13:1 etc.  Many times the soul is said to die or be dead: Lev.19:28; 21:1; 24:17; Num.23:10; 31;19; Josh.2:13; Judges 16:30; Psalms 78:50; 116:8 etc.
When man dies he returns to dust: God told Adam in Gen.3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." KJV. And other verses: Job 10:9; Psalms 90:3; 146:3,4; etc.
Upon death a man's soul is said to go to "sheol", OT, "hades", NT, which means "the unseen". Psalms 16:10; 30:3; 49:15; 86:13; Acts 2:25-28 etc.
I hope all will be helped by this.
Arnold

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
22 posted 2004-10-25 07:20 AM


quote:
But the strict materialist worldview, or even self-view, makes the distinction between fear and courage a triviality.


Where do you come up with these things?

It's interesting that Chesterton shifts the argument from contradiction to apparent contradictions as none of those things he mentions are, in fact, contradictory.

Interestingly also, the Logical Positivists weren't interested in explaining everthing. To paraphrase Wittgenstein,

"What can be said can be said clearly, what cannot should not be said at all."

Sorry, I don't have the time to get the exact quote.

But the soul, being anything you particularly want it to be, means what you want to be regardless of what you've actually said or done, "They don't know the real me, that's not me . . . ."

It's quite seductive, don't you think?



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
23 posted 2004-10-25 09:46 AM


quote:
"What can be said can be said clearly, what cannot should not be said at all."



But is it true that what cannot be said clearly should not be believed at all?  

If that's true, then even you Brad must discard much of what you believe even now.  The naturalist or the Christian both are bound to ambiguity on many points, like it or not.  That's the way God made it.       


It's just, as Chesterton put it so well, that keeping the center foundations, keeps everything from becoming obscure.  Of course, you would (and have) pointed out rightly that everything isn't obscured for you, regardless of your beliefs.  But the Christian answer is that's because you continue to have foundations quite regardless of your beliefs.  A human soul (at least for the time being) doesn't require a belief in the soul.  


Though the Christian would also point out that this "clarity", "sanity", or relative wholeness is not guaranteed for all time, being not at all independent of the proper response to the God of all souls.
quote:
But the soul, being anything you particularly want it to be, means what you want to be regardless of what you've actually said or done, "They don't know the real me, that's not me . . . .
It's quite seductive, don't you think?

Not always.   The teaching that is sobering for every man is quite the opposite ... there is the possibility of the soul being what you don't want it to be.  There is the necessary task of seeking the will of God for the soul.  


Otherwise, you seem to be suggesting that no saints have shown positive evidence for being really so.  Though it's true that, as Paul said, "We have this treasure in earthen vessels", is it true to say that earthen vessels have never poured out anything divine?  We can still criticize any vessle with such a common skin.  It's been my experience that only the unstudied or offended tend to think that there's no evidence of God through humanity.  Knowing you're not the former (you're a pretty bright guy in my estimation), you might be offended somewhat by religious hypocrisy... which I can relate to, and sympathize with.  But there might be something to be seen and possessed beyond it.  A softening of the heart (not to be confused with a softening of the head) is what is reported by many who come to believe in more than they presently do.  



Stephen.      

      

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
24 posted 2004-10-25 10:15 AM


quote:
PRINCE CASPIAN lived in a great castle in the centre of Narnia with his uncle, Miraz, the King of Narnia, and his aunt, who had red hair and was called Queen Prunaprismia. His father and mother were dead and the person whom Caspian loved best was his nurse, and though (being a prince) he had wonderful toys which would do almost anything but talk, he liked best the last hour of the day when the toys had all been put back in their cupboards and Nurse would tell him stories.



He did not care much for his uncle and aunt, but about twice a week his uncle would send for him and they would walk up and down together for half an hour on the terrace at the south side of the castle. One day, while they were doing this, the King said to him,



"Well, boy, we must soon teach you to ride and use a sword. You know that your aunt and I have no children, so it looks as if you might have to be King when I'm gone. How shall you like that, eh?"

  

"I don't know, Uncle," said Caspian.



"Don't know, eh?" said Miraz. "Why, I should like to know what more anyone could wish for!"



"All the same, I do wish," said Caspian.



"What do you wish?" asked the King.



"I wish - I wish - I wish I could have lived in the Old Days," said Caspian. (He was only a very little boy at the time.)



Up till now King Miraz had been talking in the tiresome way that some grown-ups have, which makes it quite clear that they are not really interested in what you are saying, but now he suddenly gave Caspian a very sharp look.



"Eh? What's that?" he said. "What old days do you mean?"



"Oh, don't you know, Uncle?" said Caspian. "When everything was quite different. When all the animals could talk, and there were nice people who lived in the streams and the trees. Naiads and Dryads they were called. And there were Dwarfs. And there were lovely little Fauns in all the woods. They had feet like goats. And -"



"That's all nonsense, for babies," said the King sternly. "Only fit for babies, do you hear? You're getting too old for that sort of stuff. At your age you ought to be thinking of battles and adventures, not fairy tales."



"Oh, but there were battles and adventures in those days," said Caspian. "Wonderful adventures. Once there was a White Witch and she made herself Queen of the whole country. And she made it so that it was always winter. And then two boys and two girls came from somewhere and so they killed the Witch and they were made Kings and Queens of Narnia, and their names were Peter and Susan and Edmund and Lucy. And so they reigned for ever so long and everyone had a lovely time, and it was all because of Aslan -"



"Who's he?" said Miraz. And if Caspian had been a very little older, the tone of his uncle's voice would have warned him that it would be wiser to shut up. But he babbled on,



"Oh, don't you know?" he said. "Aslan is the great Lion who comes from over the sea."


(Prince Caspian, C.S. Lewis)

Wanting isn't always a bad thing.  Often it's the prelude to possessing.


Stephen

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
25 posted 2004-10-25 01:25 PM


Do animals have souls?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
26 posted 2004-10-25 02:07 PM


It seems suggested in Christianity that animals do not have souls.

If animals spirits do not have spiritual "houses" for their spirits then they always have physical houses, so as angels (it is said) have only spiritual "houses" but not physical.  Animals therefore are the equivelent of angels as bodily beings.  Their spirits go directly thro bodys.  Just as angels' spirits go directly thro souls, without another "body in between"  The man however has more: he has a body and soul.  While in world, man must face his soul in facing his body, face his body in facing his soul.  That seems more manifold than animals; more manifold than angels too.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
27 posted 2004-10-25 03:56 PM


"The naturalist or the Christian both are bound to ambiguity on many points, like it or not.  That's the way God made it."

Now I think that is truth.  
But there are some words to say about Naturalism, and how it inevitably partakes in Spirituality too.
Though Naturalism is not the same as Christianity, it is ever spiritual.  That is because Nature has Spirit too.  You can't miss Spirituality in Nature, or Nature in Spirituality.  Either always touches the other.  In World, in Heaven.  All Naturalists if they look into Nature right, may find the way to God.  A direct path, that even religion-perfectionists may not ever as directly thro symbol symbolize, as symbols are always in one way or another indirect.  God made Nature a path for all beings.  So that even if you can't read words, you may feel Spirit in natural things, and let that Spirit guide you to higher sense, and being and believing.  Thus Naturalists that believe they are not Spiritualists are mistaken. And Spiritualists that believe they are not Naturalists, equally mistaken.  Nature is Spiritual, and Spirit is Natural.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-25-2004 05:01 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
28 posted 2004-10-25 07:10 PM


quote:
Though Naturalism is not the same as Christianity, it is ever spiritual.  That is because Nature has Spirit too.



I was referring to the definition of naturalism which amounts to:  nature = all of reality.


This means the denial of anything supernatural as the foundation for the existence of nature.  In which case, "Spirit" would mean nothing more than a creative story, or subjective embellishment of nature in the human mind.  Because, regardless of whether someone thinks nature is "spiritual" or not, nature would be just a fact of being and nothing more.  Our commentaries would amount to nothing more than tags and titles, given by what (according to naturalism) is just a part of that same whole.


But if nature is derived from something beyond itself ... a supernatural origin and foundation ... then "spiritual" may be applied to nature without absurdity.  In which case, I agree with you that nature is spiritual, and that what is spiritual manifests itself in what is natural.  But only in schema which doesn't make nature everything there is.  Which is not "naturalism" in the sense of the word I am using.  You, Essorant, in that sense aren't a naturalist I think ... though I'm not sure.  Sometimes you sound like you agree with traditional theism, other times like eastern pantheism.  But you are definitely a "naturalist" in the sense of one who greatly respects and reveres the natural beauty and structure of the world around us.  I share that kind of "naturalism" too.  


quote:
God made Nature a path for all beings.  So that even if you can't read words, you may feel Spirit in natural things, and let that Spirit guide you to higher sense, and being and believing.


But according to Christian teaching,  (and our experience as well), nature herself is like a good thing gone bad in many ways.  Creation fell.  Mother Earth turns out to be a step mother.  Her cruelty and waste is equally obvious as her care and conservation.  Obviously such an inconsistent guide is going to lead us right at times and wrong at others.  That's where the need for revelation through words (in the bible) and historical happenings (in redemptive history) comes in.  God has said and done something clarion, that nature could only muffle wimper and groan.


Stephen.

      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (10-26-2004 01:08 AM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
29 posted 2004-10-25 09:01 PM


I think there is a all too romantic notion
of Nature here.  The Nature we in the West experience
is a Nature conquered, controlled, or at least
edited for consumption to feed our delusions.
Malaria is more a part of Nature than Bambi.
A crocodile dragging a child under more
than a squirrel taking a peanut from your hand.
They say distance lends enchantment. The Congo River
is one thing to a PBS viewer, another to someone living
in the jungle on its bank.

John

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
30 posted 2004-10-25 09:27 PM


quote:
I think there is a all too romantic notion
of Nature here...

They say distance lends enchantment.

There's some truth to that.   But the history of art and literature in less technological civilizations, reveals that the same enchantment was present even with those who had less "control".  I think that's universal.  There's always been a fierce and gentle side to the natural world ... as well as an ugly and beautiful.  The selfsame wind can comfort and terrify.


Recognizing both sides of nature is not romanticism but balance.  


Stephen.
  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
31 posted 2004-10-25 11:06 PM


Stephenos
When I say Nature or Spirit I shall mean: Nature and Spirit.  However, the words Nature and Spirit, usually distinguish different states of Nature and Spirit.  When we use Nature it seems like we usually tend toward more "physically driven" being or state.  When we use Spiritual a more spiritually driven being or state.  Over all though, I don't think God is biased for spiritual/physical like humans are; God sees all things at once, as one whole, where all things are equally part of creation.
On a higher level there is probably not much more difference between Spirit and Nature than light and shine (from the sun).  What is the difference between light and shine?  Doesn't light always have shine, and shine always have light?  If one is so convinced that things are mostly physical, then things that are not "physical" shall seem only different states of experiencing a physical whole; if one is so convinced that things are mostly spiritual, than things that are not "spiritual" shall seem only different states of experiencing a spiritual whole.  Overall though, is the whole all this or all that man says? Is God and the Universe and Nature really "biased" for naturalism or spiritualism?  I don't think so.  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
32 posted 2004-10-25 11:29 PM


Stephanos,

“There's always been a fierce and gentle side to the natural world ... as well as an ugly and beautiful.”

The natural world is neither ugly or beautiful; it is.  The fierce and gentle
sides are those of man’s view, his attempt to rationalize, even placate, beyond fact.

John


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
33 posted 2004-10-25 11:30 PM


Essorant,

You're kind of missing the point. Naturalism (Physicalism, Monism etc.) is in direct opposition to Supernaturalism (Spiritualism, Dualism etc.) in that it rejects any outside force over and above the universe AND that is the universe's intrinsic nature (soul, oversoul etc.) AND/OR has consciousness separate from that universe.

When Stephen talks about Naturalism, he's talking about someone like me, not someone like you.

You can redefine the words all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Stephen and I see the world differently.

He's wrong.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
34 posted 2004-10-26 12:59 PM


John wrote:

quote:
Malaria is more a part of Nature than Bambi.

A crocodile dragging a child under more
than a squirrel taking a peanut from your hand.

and ...
quote:
The natural world is neither ugly or beautiful; it is


Then tell me ...  If the natural world just "is", why would malaria be more of a part of nature than bambi, or the crocodile more descriptive of nature than the squirrel?  Why is a child for a snack any different than a peanut?  


First you make emotionally charged appeals to what is disagreeable to humanity in nature, to make your point.  Then when I point out that there is both good and ill, agreeable and disagreeable, in the natural world, you resort to the claim of utter subjectivism to refute what I say.  


But this approach also refutes what you said at first.  If everything in nature just "IS", then your statements about what is more characteristic of nature are also meaningless and subjective.  But don't worry, I think you were closer to the truth the first time, when you complained about romanticizing nature.          




Brad:
quote:
He's wrong.


Well Brad, that's about the closest I've ever heard you come to absolutism in a single sentence.  I must be rubbing off on you at least a little.          



Essorant,  Listen to Brad in what he said to you.  

He's right.



      

Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
35 posted 2004-10-26 01:30 AM


You're kind of missing the point. Naturalism (Physicalism, Monism etc.) is in direct opposition to Supernaturalism (Spiritualism, Dualism etc.) in that it rejects any outside force over and above the universe AND that is the universe's intrinsic nature (soul, oversoul etc.) AND/OR has consciousness separate from that universe.

YOU are missing the BIGGER POINT if you think all Naturalists must be ATHEIST.
  
  
  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
36 posted 2004-10-26 01:36 AM


TRUE Naturalism (Physicalism, Monism Spiritual Naturalism) is in direct AGREEMENT with Supernaturalism (Spiritualism, Dualism etc.) in that it OBEYS any outside force over and above the universe AND that is the universe's intrinsic nature (soul, oversoul etc.) AND/OR has consciousness separate from that universe.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

37 posted 2004-10-26 04:25 AM


"Do animals have souls?"

It's my belief they have a collective soul.

and nodding here,

that lends to many questions of humanity as well, collective or otherwise.

I think we deem ourselves much too much important.

In the grand scheme of what I believe?

We don't mean spit.

ALONE.  




Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
38 posted 2004-10-26 06:37 AM


Essorant,

You sound like Ayn Rand when she had a fit over others' use of objectivism.

Copyright the word if you want.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
39 posted 2004-10-26 12:45 PM


Essorant:
quote:
. . . in that it OBEYS any outside force over and above the universe AND that is the universe's intrinsic nature (soul, oversoul etc.) AND/OR has consciousness separate from that universe.

But that's either the same thing as theism or pantheism.  Brad's point is that just because you use the word "naturalism" doesn't mean that you are describing what has been understood to be naturalism.  You are redefining it to mean either pantheism or panentheism.  But since there are terms already in place for these beliefs, to hijack the term "naturalism" only causes confusion.


You are only naturalist in the sense that a certain tradition of poetry was "naturalist" poetry.  


If you disagree, I would simply ask you to define what you mean by "naturalism" specifically.  You've been known to redefine words in the past.  Remember what you did to "sexism"?       Words have elasticity, but they're not fluid.


Karen,

You think we're less than spit?  That's pretty depressing isn't it?


Stephen.    

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
40 posted 2004-10-26 12:55 PM


Brad,

No I don't want to force clauses on other people.  [ despite my edition of your comment]
Nature is wide and encompassing, therefore to me Naturalist is too.  
It is like trying to make a diverse forest out as only one specific kind of trees even though it has very many kinds that make it a "Forest"
The forest has wolves; if you admire wolves you may call it "the wolves hall" another likes deer he may call it the "The deers' tread"  One likes how the moon comes thro the treetops at night, she calls  "moonlight forest"  There are many ways to believe and admire, as there are many ways to look at something so broad and encompassing as Nature.  And all beliefs of them have substance and truth; for we are all looking at same or similar things and inspired by them, even though we attend different aspects more than others and believe in different ways of approaching them.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
41 posted 2004-10-26 01:25 PM


Stephenos,
I'm not trying to "hijack" naturalism.  I'm trying to save the term from its state of being hijacked by cold clauses and specifications.   Naturalist a word with Nature in it, therefore its use ought to respect what Nature is, and the meaning of "Nature" modern AND ancient.
It is the same as Spiritualist--Spirit.  If I added a specification under Spiritualism saying :AND you must not eat any meat, only vegetables.  That is just silly.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
42 posted 2004-10-26 01:51 PM


You've been known to redefine words in the past.  Remember what you did to "sexism"?       Words have elasticity, but they're not fluid.


But if you go by the words that these are of, Naturalism: Nature, Sexism: Sex, you shall see my redefinitions are not without a basis.    
To me it is illogical to express "nature" or "sex" as many or more general things, and then confine naturalism and sexism for only one thing that is most narrowed and specified.  The word derived from the word that has a broad meaning should have the room to be as broad as the word it is derived from.  That means it may be narrower, but may be broader too, all within respect of what is derived from.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-26-2004 05:30 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
43 posted 2004-10-26 03:35 PM


Here is an example of pure English words (instead of greekish or latinish words):

From Old English:

(ge is pronounced like "ye" and sc as "sh"; ic as "ich" in rich)

lichama (or bodig): "body"

lichamlic "bodily; physical"

gast "spirit"

gastlic "spiritual"

sawol "soul"

Scieppend "Shaper, Creator: God"

gesceaft "creation; creature"

gecynd "nature"  

gecynde "natural"

Gesceaft is based on the word scieppan "to shape, to create"  (the pt became ft by sound changes); with a collective prefix ( sometimes used for emphasis) ge-"together". *[edit: see endnote below]

Gecynd and Gecynde are  where our modern noun and adjective "kind" comes from.  

Trying to translate such words as "Creationism" and "Naturalism" into pure English we literally it seems we come to:

shaftness/shapedness: creationism

kindness: naturalism

Sceaft of gesceaft is spelt the same as sceaft that our modern English "shaft" comes from.  I believed they may be related.  However, it looks more like "shaft" may actually be related to "shave" not "shape"    
Shaft\, n. [OE. shaft, schaft, AS. sceaft; akin to D. schacht, OHG. scaft, G. schaft, Dan. & Sw. skaft handle, haft, Icel. skapt, and probably to L. scapus, Gr. ????, ????, a staff. Probably originally, a shaven or smoothed rod. Cf. Scape, Scepter, Shave.] From Dictionary .com
Nevertheless sceaft from gesceaft were "shaft" too if it evolved to modern English.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-26-2004 09:55 PM).]

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
44 posted 2004-10-26 07:24 PM


Stephanos,

I was directing myself to Western man’s
romantic perceptions of Nature.

John


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
45 posted 2004-10-26 10:39 PM


Essorant:
quote:
Stephenos,
I'm not trying to "hijack" naturalism.  I'm trying to save the term from its state of being hijacked by cold clauses and specifications.



Essorant, my point was that you were attempting to use the word in a way that it has NEVER been used, in ancient or modern times.  I recognize that there are several different senses in which the word "naturalism" is used.  I just don't think panentheism or pantheism is one of them.  You're only confusing those who read your explanations by not using terms which more accurately refer to what you are saying.  


When you say that nature is obedient to an external mind, or has a consciousness of it's own, you are describing specific views (theism, pantheism, or even panentheism).  To call this "naturalism" is simply a mistake.  That's all we're saying.  If you doubt me, look up "naturalism" in the dictionary.  Then for further clarification look up "theism", "pantheism", and "panentheism".  


You might think the accepted definitions of these words are "cold clauses and specifications", but that's irrelevant.  It's a communication issue.  And specificity is a good thing when it's needed.  In speaking about the differences between particular worldviews, such as we often discuss in Philosophy, some precision is needed don't you think?


Stephen.    

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
46 posted 2004-10-26 10:42 PM


But eytmology is not the basis of meaning.

Usage is.

I'm not saying you're wrong about what you think Naturalism should mean. You're simply wrong when it comes to how Stephen and I are using it.

I don't know, do you want Stephen and I to use a different word?

Any suggestions?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
47 posted 2004-10-26 11:18 PM


quote:
I was directing myself to Western man’s
romantic perceptions of Nature.

Yes, I know.  And my response was that I don't think it's only "Western", but more universal.  There's been a widely distributed idealism of nature, as evidenced by the history of literature.


What I was trying to say, was that the reason for this is that nature does indeed have agreeable nurturing characteristics as well as adverse ones.  And it's only "natural" that one would be praised, and the other lamented in art


Stephen.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
48 posted 2004-10-26 11:34 PM


quote:
I'm not saying you're wrong about what you think Naturalism should mean. You're simply wrong when it comes to how Stephen and I are using it.

I don't know, do you want Stephen and I to use a different word?



I don't know Brad ... to use a cliche'  "If it ain't broke don't fix it".   I think Essorant should explain why "naturalism" would be appropriate for something which "supernaturalism", "theism", "pantheism", or "panentheism" all express quite well (despite their own differences).  


I for one, can suggest reasons why the word "naturalism" is inadequate to describe what Essorant believes.  It only mentions nature with nothing added to or set apart from it.  Yet Essorants beliefs contain something over and above nature, which ought to (for communicative reasons) be expressed somewhere in the word itself.  Such signification is especially needed seeing that the word "naturalism" has never been widely used in the way Essorant wants to use it.


So I'd rather persuade Essorant to use a different word, than to consider you and I using another word in this case.  It's not that I wouldn't agree to do so, but I don't think it would help eliminate the unneeded confusion that's already present, concerning what our terminology means.


I would like to ask Essorant why "naturalism" should be used to describe what he believes rather than the several other terms which might more precisely do so.  Persuade me.  Until then, I'm pretty satisfied with Webster.

Stephen.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
49 posted 2004-10-27 12:22 PM


Fair enough. But I'm interested in knowing whether of not he understands the difference.

To try to bring this back on topic, I don't believe we have a soul. You do. Playing word games isn't going to bring those two positions any closer. Either you agree or you don't, but unless you want to play, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus", how is he going to make the distinction?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
50 posted 2004-10-27 12:54 PM


When you say that nature is obedient to an external mind, or has a consciousness of it's own, you are describing specific views (theism, pantheism, or even panentheism).  To call this "naturalism" is simply a mistake.  That's all we're saying.  If you doubt me, look up "naturalism" in the dictionary.  Then for further clarification look up "theism", "pantheism", and "panentheism".  

Yes; but distinct from the way you believe in God;  One may believe that all have spiritual and natural substantialness.  My main point is that you may believe that nature and spirit are both one substantial whole and web about all.  One may be a naturalist and a spiritualist at at the same time, he doesn't need to abstain from one to partake in the other.  To a spiritualist that is also a naturalist (a spiritual naturalist or natural spiritualist, if you will) the words spirit and nature may almost become almost interchangable because spirit and nature are always interwoven; either always "communicating" with the other.  This is substantial on its own.  And need not specify theism, or atheism.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
51 posted 2004-10-27 05:01 PM


"But eytmology is not the basis of meaning.

Usage is. "


Etymology and usage.


"I'm not saying you're wrong about what you think Naturalism should mean. You're simply wrong when it comes to how Stephen and I are using it."

Well, I may say your wrong too, when it comes to how I'm using it        


"I don't know, do you want Stephen and I [me] to use a different word?"

Let us wordwrestle this one back to shape, then we may go to the next word.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-27-2004 09:20 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
52 posted 2004-10-27 10:56 PM


quote:
"I don't know, do you want Stephen and I [me] to use a different word?"


Ooops.

You're still missing the point though. Arguing over what 'naturalism' is supposed to mean or what is should mean distracts from the original question:

Is there a soul?

Answer: no


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
53 posted 2004-10-27 11:50 PM


Brad,

“Answer: no”

Then what will you give the Devil
for a donut?

(-;

John


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
54 posted 2004-10-28 02:36 AM


Brad

If there is no soul, then there must be nothing to refer to it with because there is nothing there to be referred to; didn't you contradict that by facing referring to it at all?  What are you referring to?  



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
55 posted 2004-10-28 02:58 AM


If the word exists for something, something exists for the word.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
56 posted 2004-10-28 09:34 AM


quote:
Either you agree or you don't, but unless you want to play, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus", how is he going to make the distinction?



How long have we known each other on this forum Brad?  You know I don't agree that you have no soul.  You've been made in the image of God despite yourself.  


But blaming Essorant's misunderstanding on what you percieve to be a weakness in my position or articulation of that position is kind of lame.  Especially sense I get the feeling that Essorant's view (and I think you do too) is pretty much a supernaturalistic one already, and one which absolutely believes in the soul ... he's just quibbling over terminology.  He already told you he's not an atheist.  And as far as word games bringing the two positions any closer ... I've not tried to bring them closer, but to contrast them the best I can.    


And you know I've never said that the most compelling proof for Christianity was in it's philosophical implications ... or even in the philosophical absurdities of it's counter-views.  (What's the name of this particular forum again?)  The most compelling proof is that sinners are made saints.  (experiential).  And that apart from dishonest treatment of the accounts, it's history is immutable (evidential).  Therefore, believing in no soul doesn't do justice to any of these things, and therefore lacks the explanatory power which the "soulish" worldview has.    



Stephen.    

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
57 posted 2004-10-28 09:40 AM


Essorant
quote:
If the word exists for something, something exists for the word.



But a word does not guarantee ontological realness ... apart from mere artistic creativity.  But all artistic expression ends at death if that is the case.  You have to believe in a soul which transcends death, or you and Brad essentially believe the same thing ... that the "soul" is the creation of man, not the composition of man.  


Stephen.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
58 posted 2004-10-28 09:52 AM


No, no, Stephan, never intended that to be a rip on your belief. Sorry about that.

It was intended to be a rip on the idea that if we just saw things in the right way that we could somehow come to an understanding that we are both right or both wrong.

In order for us to agree on this, one of us has to give up something.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
59 posted 2004-10-28 09:57 AM


quote:
It was intended to be a rip on the idea that if we just saw things in the right way that we could somehow come to an understanding that we are both right or both wrong.



Are you referring to the view which basically states that materialistic naturalism and theism are completely compatible views?  And that we will come to see so, as we gain more knowledge?


Stephen.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
60 posted 2004-10-28 09:58 AM


I'm referring to other people's mistakes.

"There is a unicorn in front of me."

That is either true or false. In this case it is false. Reference is not a magic world builder.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
61 posted 2004-10-28 10:04 AM


Essorant:
quote:
Yes; but distinct from the way you believe in God;  One may believe that all have spiritual and natural substantialness



That's my point Ess ... When you espouse a belief that retains the idea of divinity (God) and yet refuses to allow a distinction between God and his creation, it's called "Pantheism".  A word much better suited for what you believe, than "naturalism".  




Nature is not absolute.  God and nature are distinct from each other:  theism"


Nature is absolute.  God and nature are not distinct from each other:  pantheism"


Nature is absolute.  There is no God.  naturalism"



Stephen.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
62 posted 2004-10-28 07:39 PM


But a word does not guarantee ontological realness ... apart from mere artistic creativity.  But all artistic expression ends at death if that is the case.  You have to believe in a soul which transcends death, or you and Brad essentially believe the same thing ... that the "soul" is the creation of man, not the composition of man.

Yes, they must Stephenos.  Each word exists because there is something that exists to be referred to by it.  
A word means and refers to something, not nothing.  
Everything is something, therefore every word must refer to something.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-28-2004 10:56 PM).]

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
63 posted 2004-10-28 09:36 PM


I put some thought in to this.

The person is the soul or being.  People with after death expierences pier down at there bodies. Is this perhapps symbolism of the soul? Does the soul hate the body so? Can we not prove what a soul is because we are the soul and we want to visualize it as a sepperate entity, when in fact we are the soul chained to the body(this last line not an origanal theory by me, but some theorists beleive.)

Do animals have souls?
Hehehe. animals are relative. For now I say no, cause there is not enough evidence to sway me/

Juju      

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
64 posted 2004-10-29 12:41 PM


That's my point Ess ... When you espouse a belief that retains the idea of divinity (God) and yet refuses to allow a distinction between God and his creation, it's called "Pantheism".  A word much better suited for what you believe, than "naturalism".  

I never said that I believe everything is God Stephenos
I say Spirit or Nature are always both Spirit and Nature.  They are never just "Spirit" just "Nature"  
In other words I don't think that Nature or Spirit divide themselves.   They are always part of each other.    

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
65 posted 2004-10-29 12:51 PM


quote:
Yes, they must Stephenos.  Each word exists because there is something that exists to be referred to by it.  
A word means and refers to something, not nothing.  
Everything is something, therefore every word must refer to something.


This is just wrong.


ipun jom dokcho

Are three words.

What do they refer to?


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
66 posted 2004-10-29 07:49 AM


What are their etymology and usage?
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
67 posted 2004-10-29 11:20 PM


Hint: It's an imperative.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
68 posted 2004-10-30 09:44 AM


An imperative refers to doing something.  


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
69 posted 2004-10-30 06:46 PM



Wes Þu hal "Be thou hale"

Wes [imperative of wesan "to be"]





[This message has been edited by Essorant (10-30-2004 08:46 PM).]

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
70 posted 2004-10-30 08:52 PM


Soul
is the music
of the human heart

Soul
is what makes us stand apart
from other living things

Soul
is the art of the heart
in its purest form

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
71 posted 2004-10-30 08:55 PM


An imperative refers to doing something that does not exist.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
72 posted 2004-10-30 09:10 PM


How may you do something if something to do does not exist!



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
73 posted 2004-10-30 09:21 PM


Time.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
74 posted 2004-10-30 09:54 PM


What time has things that do not exist?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
75 posted 2004-10-30 10:01 PM


Have you been eaten by a T. Rex?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
76 posted 2004-10-31 12:40 PM


No; they are not present in such a way that they may eat me, yet.        They are in prehistory, in artifacts, in words, in memory, in imagination, in lore; many things refer to them because we know they were physically present on earth at one time and that they exist.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
77 posted 2004-10-31 01:50 AM


Midnitesun,

“Soul
is what makes us stand apart
from other living things”

Please be advised that my mother expects Fifi,
Mimi, and Sammy to be in Heaven with her.

I’m on my own.

John

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
78 posted 2004-10-31 06:21 AM


Time:  Now + Now + Now + Now = Now


Place:  Here + Here + Here + Here = Here


Here + Now = Existance



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
79 posted 2004-10-31 10:41 AM


I will explain those equations.  
Of course I don't think dinosaurs, the Roman Empire and McDonalds are all here "right now" in our "here" and "now"
The use of "now" and "here" above is in reference to the "now" and "here" of all things as "one" whole.  The whole universe, is just that, the whole universe, everything in time--in any point of time--always exists to the whole universe looked at all at once (at all times).  And everything in place--in any point of place--always exists to the whole universe looked at all at once (at all places).  As humans we may not look at every time and place all at once, therefore time and place are "divided" into "distances" and "folds" . Consider though:

Time

This second (now) This minute (now), this hour (now), this day (now), this week (now), this month (now), this year (now), this century (now), this millenium (now) this world-age (now), this universe-age (now).  The bigger the time-view/picture, the bigger the NOW.  

Place (starting at my house           )

My house (here), Regina (here), Saskatchewan (here), Canada (here), North America (here), America (here) The whole world (here), the whole universe (here) The bigger place-view/picture the bigger the HERE.  

Therefore all things in the whole are in one "here" and one "now".  Everything exists.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
80 posted 2004-10-31 06:42 PM


quote:
The whole universe, is just that, the whole universe, everything in time--in any point of time--always exists to the whole universe looked at all at once (at all times).
Cool.

Tomorrow, I think I'll go to the bank, Ess, and cash the royalty checks they haven't sent me for the books I haven't written yet. And I think I'll use the rather substantial fortune I'll receive to have my dead mother cured of cancer and book us both a flight to Tau Ceti.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
81 posted 2004-11-01 10:43 AM


I never said the Universe is an anarchy.  God sets order and might to choose; and our choice may only do within the order and might that is given to us.
Everything is not arbitrary and free because there is Order and Nature set over the whole Universe.

Man doesn't see the whole universe; therefore he may not make a choice in respect to the whole universe all by himself.  God sees the whole universe though; therefore if we make a choice in respect to God's will it serves the whole universe.  Everything we choose is held in the whole universe forever.  God holds all.  When you curse God hears that curse forever.  When you hurt, God feels that hurt forever.  When you think God sees that thought forever.  When you sin, God sees that sin forever.  Everything exists, and everything exists forever as a part of the whole universe.  You can't remove anything from the Universe.  Every paint brush stroke makes and is part of the whole picture, forever.  Whatever "picture" you paint for yourself, goes into the whole picture too.

Some fly that only lived for one second on earth yet, lives forever in the "picture" of the whole universe.  It is forever "here" in the universe.
And every mote of the flies body, and every mote of his spirit is still in the body and the spirit of the whole universe.  The soul though, must keep a beings individual spiritual wholeness in a spiritual body, that whether or not it is in a bodily body,  God keeps it fastened to him and life and one's own self.
    

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

82 posted 2004-12-06 08:11 PM


Gentleman: while such philosophic word games might be mind expanding, to understand "soul"
you must go to the Bible.  Do a word study and you will find that "Adam became a living soul" when God breathed the breath (spirit) of life into his prepared body (Gen.2:7). It will be seen that soul is the consciousness, the feelings, the desires, produced by the breath of life vitalizing the body. One synonym for "soul" is "being", used in some
translations.  Many times man is called soul
in the scriptures.  When man dies, his soul dies and is said to go to sheol (OT) or hades
(NT), the "unseen".  Free moving, air breathing creatures (fish, fowl, land animals) are called "soul creatures".

Arnold

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
83 posted 2004-12-06 08:18 PM


I am not a person.
I am a succession of persons
held together by memory.

When the string breaks,
the beads scatter.


Lindley Williams Hubbell

Also:

http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem86.html


Either or both of which raise questions.

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

84 posted 2004-12-12 05:31 PM


Huan,  what questions?  Arnold
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
85 posted 2004-12-24 12:48 PM


Brad

May I return to dinosaurs?  

I think there is a flaw in saying that "dinosaurs" don't exist physically on earth today as well.

It is not any lack of existance, but a lack of ground to use the word "dinosaur"

Where we use the word "dinosaur" is only where we have ground really thro man's great work with earthfindings that met the being-shape we call "dinosaur"
  
It is no longer proper to call sand that was once shaped into a sand castle a "sandcastle" as it is no longer in the shape that we refer to with that word.

But the shapebearer that is also shape "sandcastle" is still all existant.  And the shape "sandcastle" is fully born into the shape we call "sand" again.  

All the same shapebearers that bore the shape "dinosaurs" are here, just in
different shapes:  fossils, "artefacts", "sand" etc.
I don't believe any grain of existance is lost when something's shape changes,  but every shape is fully borne into a different shape.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
86 posted 2004-12-24 07:37 PM


Essorant,

that argument works (sort of) for ontologically real things, that existed in space time ... ie, dinosaurs.  But how would it defend the reality of fictitious things ... like Cerebus, centaur, or dryad?  


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
87 posted 2004-12-26 02:07 PM


Stephenos

I can tell you something about the "forest" but then I get mixed up and tangled about trying to tell you about more specific things about the trees of that forest.  All I feel quite sure about is that if there is a forest, the trees must exist, And everything about the trees as well.  I think every tree in a forest stands up in existance and become the shape known as the forest, and therefore that everything smaller about the trees must stand up in existance to become the shape known as the tree, and everything smaller to become the shape known as leaves, until there are no shapes that aren't shapes that ultimatly become the "whole" forest.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-26-2004 11:30 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
88 posted 2004-12-29 12:06 PM


"Seo sawul is þæs lichoman hlæfdige and heo gewissað þa fif andgitu þæs lichoman swa swa of cyne-sætle."

"The Soul is the body's lady and she governs the five senses of the body as from a royal throne"


Ælfric, Lives of Saints, "Nativitas Domini Nostri Iesu Christi"

[This message has been edited by Essorant (12-30-2004 06:02 PM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

89 posted 2005-04-13 08:31 PM


Essorant.  So you are saying that death is not the opposite of life?  That Adam, made from dust, and to dust returned (Gen.3:19), still exists in some other form?  And all who have died?

Arnold

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
90 posted 2005-04-16 04:04 PM


Arnold

Life doesn't ever cease to exist but becomes something else as a different shape of its own self.  
Just as light is called "light" and "darkness" because it becomes increased and decreased, life is called "life" and "death".  Light is the brightest state of light, darkness is the darkest state of it.  Life is the most increased state of life, death is the most decreased state of it.  
In truth life may actually be the most increased state of light too, and thus dying may be solid light becoming unsolid light again, and bright light becoming dark light, darkness.  
The universe's light is moved so fastly and brightly that it becomes living things, but then it slows down and becomes light again, and then darkness, and then death.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-16-2005 09:43 PM).]

Arnold M
Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195

91 posted 2005-04-17 12:45 PM


Essorant, you better read and study the Scriptures, for in them you will find the truth of life and death, not from some Eastern mysticism.

The God who created the universe, through Christ Jesus, has left us a written revelation, the Bible.  While written by many men over many centuries, they are inspired by God, and are a unified whole, presenting the story of redemption.

Now, if you believe that, then we can learn the truth, for the Scriptures must be the final word on the subject in question.

Arnold

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
92 posted 2005-04-17 03:03 PM


Arnold, I suspect you're going to find that such absolutes are firecrackers which inevitably go up in smoke and, if held too long, take a few fingers with them.

Case in point. How can you logically berate Eastern mysticism, or much of anything else, when everything was created by the same God?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
93 posted 2005-04-20 01:44 AM


Ron,

Error, misunderstanding, heresy, and sin were all created by God too ... if you want to insist on it, just because they fall into the category of "everything".  And yet that kind of bare ontological relation to him, certainly doesn't mean that he approves.  


I want to be careful here, and not be too harsh on Eastern mysticism (because there is much truth in those traditions of thought), but I would have to say that what's wrong in them is still wrong.  And they do deny, in their very foundational tenets, the unique Judaic view of reality which the Bible expresses as "Truth".  Of course, I would rather make distinctions about specific Eastern beliefs, rather than to lump them all together as "bad", because that's not the case.


(sorry Brad- we're talking again)  


Stephen      

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
94 posted 2005-04-20 08:12 AM


quote:
Error, misunderstanding, heresy, and sin were all created by God too ... if you want to insist on it, just because they fall into the category of "everything".  And yet that kind of bare ontological relation to him, certainly doesn't mean that he approves.

Doesn't it?

Remove error, misunderstanding, heresy or sin as possibilities and we would not only have a very different universe, Stephen, we would have a very different God. Each serves a purpose. So, too, I believe, do non-Judaic views of our world. One only needs to watch a bird in flight to realize the Truth of the Bible is not all-inclusive. Is that a lessening of Christianity? Or an expansion of the Christian God?

To imagine an infinite being limited to a single voice defies all sense of reason.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
95 posted 2005-04-21 09:18 AM


It's okay to talk, Stephen. I just think there are other things as well.

I like metaphysics as much as you do.

I just think the physical world and the human world are still open for philosophical talk.

Personally, I think people are simply intimidated by physics and sociology. And the simple truth is

"We don't know" but we're pretty sure "We might be wrong."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
96 posted 2005-04-21 12:13 PM


Brad,
Even though the soul is usually more religious and metaphysical issue, I don't think anyone shall object to welcome more scientific approaches within the same topic and thread.  Just like in a more scientific thread we may welcome more religious perspectives too.  Feel free to bring forth "physical" pieces.  
Every piece helps the puzzle

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
97 posted 2005-04-21 03:11 PM


quote:
Me: And yet that kind of bare ontological relation to him, certainly doesn't mean that he approves.


Ron:  Doesn't it?
  


No it doesn't.  Is approving and allowing for the existence of something the same thing as approving or condoning it?


quote:
Remove error, misunderstanding, heresy or sin as possibilities and we would not only have a very different universe, Stephen, we would have a very different God.



I've never even suggested removing these things "as possibilites".  Such a metaphysical overhaul would not even be thinkable in human terms.  All I'm suggesting is that protest / dissapproval (against our own sins firstly) IS within the scope of human responsiblity.  And if God does this very thing, within his own written and historical revelation of himself, then so may we ... albeit much more carefully, to make sure we're truly agreeing or disagreeing with him, rather than taking the knowledge of good and evil into our own hands.


A bird in flight also shows that it takes certain characteristics to fly ... there is exclusivity in the most "free" things you could ever observe.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that God's truth isn't spread wide and far, in ways we can hardly comprehend.  I'm just saying that complete relativism doesn't mesh with the kind of world he created, nor with the kind of God he has declared himself to be.  


quote:
Is that a lessening of Christianity? Or an expansion of the Christian God?



That depends upon what you mean.  Syncretism or Catholicity?  (And I don't mean Roman Catholicism, but an openness to truth whereever it is found).  Frank Peretti once said, there are two ways to get rid of God, to say "God is nothing" (the creed of atheism), or to say "God is everything" (the creed of hinduism).


quote:
To imagine an infinite being limited to a single voice defies all sense of reason.



I think that's okay as long as you don't forget the unity and oneness of the great Monotheism you profess.  Does infinite mean infinitely diffuse and contradictory like the 6 million Hindu gods?  God has given his words to many many different messengers ... and yet there is a coherence and relatedness about it all.  But coherence is not a necessary ingredient to the Eastern mystic, or the Western Relativist.


The book of Revelation says he speaks with one voice, and yet describes his voice as a voice "of many waters".  Diversity is not what I'm against.  But somewhere diversity trails off into the lie.  And we don't need to be taught that the lie doesn't exist, under the misunderstanding that God made the lie too.  


Stephen.  
  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
98 posted 2005-04-22 03:14 PM


When truth is at its strongest it is called "truth"
When truth is at its weakest it is called "lie"

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
99 posted 2005-04-23 08:53 PM


Essorant,


So if I intentionally decieve you, and cause you real harm, would it make you feel any better for me to say that I was just utilizing "weak truth" to get what I want?


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
100 posted 2005-04-23 09:33 PM


Not at all.  But it makes me feel a bit better to know that a lie is always in some way or another still the "truth".  Though is a corruption, or confusion, or a mistake, no matter how mixed up it is it is still the "pieces" of the truth, and not some empty vacuum, or some foreign matter, or somthing woken from the depths of a bottomless fire called hell, but the actual "pieces" of the actual truth. No matter how mixed up some thing is, it is still, even in the most confused and round about, indirect, mixed up way, the "pieces" of "the truth"! It is not something else than the truth, but the truth itself represented in a wrong way.

If someone says a dragon is in the forest, and s/he knows there isn't a dragon in the forest, that still needs to refer truly to the forest itself, truly to a dragon, and truly to the act of being in the forest.  One can't not truly refer to things and places, and actions, in order to get to the part where s/he puts something in the wrong order: that what s/he truly refers to is not where truly referred.  Whatever pieces one chooses to mix up, s/he always needs pieces that are not mixed up as well.  That is because words, always truly refer to things, even if our sentences don't have some of them in the right order.  Each word is always a truth in itself.  When you say "God" you can't lie.  When you say "dragon" you can't lie.  But a sentence, however, doesn't always have those truths in the right order.   "dragon" may be nothing but the truth, but "The dragon is in the forest" is where the lie was placed.  

A word is a perfect truth.  But a sentence is not.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (04-24-2005 12:14 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
101 posted 2005-05-13 12:17 PM


Essorant,

in an extremely roundabout way you've pointed out the obvious ...  that statements may represent a twisting, perversion, and distortion of the truth.  Therefore, a lie can't even exist apart from the truth.  In that sense, every statement contains "truth" no matter how contorted.  But the distinction between truth and lie is not lessened thereby.  In fact it is amplified.  Just think how a photo of a close friend injured, might affect you more poignantly than a photo of an injured stranger.  The fact that "truth" is so familiar, so immanent, so vulnerable, so touchable by the lie, makes the lie that much more insidious.  So calling a lie "distorted truth", only serves to underscore it's contrast to the true truth, because now you've added the element of deceitful disguise ... the "lie" under your smiling euphemism is thereby painted one shade darker.


Stephen.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
102 posted 2005-05-14 10:13 PM


Essorant,


I don't know If I'm getting across to you what I'm attempting to.  But if I may use three literary examples to illustrate the kind of feeling I get when I think of the difference, and yet the undeniable likeness between truth and a lie.  If I can't explain it to your head (probably because I can't explain to mine either, exactly) perhaps I can convey it to your heart.    


#1)

     The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die'.
    
     "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.  "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil".  

     When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.  She also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.  Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leves together and made coverings for themselves"
  (Genesis 3:2-7, emphasis mine)


#2)

... I found that the very commandment that intended to bring life actually brought death.  For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.  Did that which is good, then, become death to me?  By no means!  But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (Romans 7:10-3, emphasis mine)


#3)


"I am fond of cricket, and am president of a certain club.  I invariably attend the matches unless the house happens to be on fire.  I have enough of the sporting instinct to be able to take defeat cheerfully- if the defeat falls within certain limits.  It must not be so crushing as to be a positive humiliation, nor must it be by so fine a margin as to constitute itself a tantalization.  Of the two I prefer the latter ...  To be beaten by a hundred runs is bad, but bearable;  to be beaten by an innings and a hundred runs is humiliating and horrible;  to be beaten by a single run is exasperating and intolerable  (F.W. Boreham, Mushrooms on the Moor)



I know that the contexts of these passages are somewhat different than what we're discussing.  But there is a common principle.  In the first example, the forbidden fruit did produce a result exactly as promised, but far different than what was expected.  In the second example, sin took something good and excellent, the very commandment of God, and produced death with it.  In the third example, losing a game of cricket was most unbearable when it was the closest to winning.  We can all relate to these feelings.  


Whenever we are lied to, or deceived, these very same motifs are involved, and produce those strange emotions that follow.  


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (05-15-2005 06:01 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
103 posted 2005-05-20 09:59 PM


Stephenos
You make very strong points.  Sometimes the smallest lie may be the harshest sore.
But I don't think that anyone truly and strongly believes in a lie.  They believe in a lie with doubt, misunderstanding,  confusion, and with impermanance.  That's not at all the same as a traditional and shared belief, such as a religion, that offers clarity, strength, and permanance, the contrary from a lie.  Religions are all truths.  That doesn't mean that some don't have more clarity, strength, and permanance than others though, just like some ships fare better out on  sea than others.  However, just as ships are made for faring on waters, so are religions for faring in life and learning.  Some ships hold more treasure-hord than others, some Religions hold more truth than others.  But even though a ship or religion may have the richest and most glorious hord over the sea, that doesn't mean it is closer to our hearts either.  The littlest charm,  passed down from one's ancestors, may have less richness and less truth, but may be dearest to the heart and dearest to all in the afterfollowing family's line.  Why should s/he give that up, for more truth and richness, when it is strengthened by the family, and strongest in his/her heart?  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
104 posted 2005-07-04 09:05 AM


Arnold M ~ With regards to your biblical interpetations of the soul... You sound like an improved version of myself.

... however, unlike myself, it doesn't appear you have any "takers."

~ Your interpetation is quite logical, sensical, and what I would believe to be much closer to the truth than any traditional christian interpetation, indeed.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
105 posted 2005-07-04 11:50 AM


I believe the whole Universe has the equation: Spirit + Body = Soul.  How may it not?    W
What we call soul is actually just the "part" of the soul we are most pleased to call "soul" as distinct from the other parts of the soul.  That is, basically, the part that may move itself and behold itself.  And the more spiritual soul (part of the soul) imagined as if it is not one whole soul with the body (the more physical/less spiritual part of the soul) The truth is, we are grown fond of calling only the spiritual part of the soul "soul" and the physical part of the soul "body"  While really they are both Soul, because the Universe itself, and everything in it therefore, eternally inspired and having the inspiration of Spirit, is a soul.   The distinctions make sense though.  We don't refer to heaven and earth as "the universe" as much as we refer to them as heaven and earth.  We inevitablly need to refer to them differently as "heaven" and "earth" because they are severely different within despite still being the very selfsame Universe.  The truth is from a universal perspective though, Heaven and Earth are still, God and Men, clouds and rocks, and all other things  one eternal soul: the Universe.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
106 posted 2005-07-04 01:53 PM


All things are one "spectrum" but have different names according to extreme differences and increased and decreased states, and subspectrums, of its own self:


          

         __________Light_________
        |           |            |
    "Darkness"   "Shadow"      "Light"


      
             Light (continued)
                    |

         __________Life___________
        |                         |
     "Death"                   "Life"
                    
             Light (continued)
                    |
                    
         _________Truth___________
        |           |             |
     "Lie"        "Myth"       "Truth"

             Light (continued)
                    |
         __________Soul___________
        |           |             |
     "Body"      "Spirit"      "Soul"



  


Between all of them is that same and "constant" link: Light.  Everything may just be a light that has many different shapes and states to it, including more solid and less solid shapes and states. We don't usually think of more physical things as "light"  In a universal sense though, that may be a mistake.  Light may be the supreme "timber" that all things are made out of, in the Universe.  And that's why, as differently as they are stretched into different shapes, at the origin and universal "core",  all things are just more or less knots of the same simple string: Light.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
107 posted 2005-07-26 05:56 PM


/pip/Forum93/HTML/000584.html



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
108 posted 2005-07-27 08:47 PM



In the end, even if it exists,
what would be soul be
that you would recognize?

It’s interpretation is such that
it’s as if life itself were some sort
of amnesia.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
109 posted 2005-08-01 02:31 AM


Vivo ergo animus sum

I live therefore I am a soul

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
110 posted 2005-08-01 08:56 AM


however the materialist view is such that life is some sort of vexing illusion, and nothing more... insanity is worse than amnesia.  


Nonexistence ----- A ----- Nonexistence


does A = life?

does A even equal existence?


If you say "Yes, logically so",
I would reply that what you call logic itself is derived from and based in the infinitesimal nothing called "A".  

If you are soulless, then I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that you are nothing ... even now.  Perhaps that's why a culture saturated with materialist philosophy has seen more suicide than ever before.  


Of course you can say that believing in the soul (or by implication in the Father of souls), is only a form of wish fulfillment.  But as G.K. Chesterton wrote, "... If a man prefers nothing, I can give him nothing", so some wishes are better than others, and some may reflect genuine truth, as hunger pangs tell of the existence of real food.

Stephen.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
111 posted 2005-08-01 10:31 AM


quote:
I would reply that what you call logic itself is derived from and based in the infinitesimal nothing called "A".

And I would respond that was a typically human centric viewpoint, Stephen. Logic, math, electricity, and quantum physics are not "derived," but rather discovered and used.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
112 posted 2005-08-01 02:32 PM


I believe the spirit may have a more spiritual "body", not just a physical body or state.  Therefore the equation spirit + body = soul, does not just refer to spirit + earthly body = soul.  Indeed we may be souls with our physical bodies, but we may also be souls with spiritual "bodies" as well.  So that the equation might be changed to this: spirit + physical/spiritual body.  That's why I referred to the spirit having two "houses" earlier.  We are souls because we have spirit and an earthly "house" and live; but we may also be souls because we have a spirit and heavenly "house" and live: a "house" within a "house" And a spirit within both of them.  Therefore the word "body" in the equation: spirit + body = soul, should not be used so narrowly to only mean our flesh and bone.  I believe almost everything has some bodily existance and no one proved otherwise so far; so to suggest that the soul ceases to have bodily existance because the flesh and bone of our soul goes back to dust, doesn't stand very strongly to me.  It simply may mean that the earthly part of our bodily existance ceases to be part of our soul, not that the soul ceases to have bodily existance at all.  
Just some things to wonder upon.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-01-2005 05:19 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
113 posted 2005-08-01 06:31 PM


It is a wonder that even most physical parts -- the flesh and bone-- left behind by the most spiritual part of the soul, the spirit with a fleshless body, remains even without the most spiritual part, a soul as well.  That is because any physical thing is never fully absent of spiritual energies but remains eternally linked with spiritual things in the universe, even though it has no active spiritual force.   Even though a rock to a human appears to have no unphysical forces in and about it, it is proven by Science that the rock indeed has energies, and these energies are if not directly, indirectly part of the same energies that enliven man.  The difference though is that the rock doesn't have what it takes to make anything of the energy that is within it.  It remains an object, but still has a distant likeness to a living being, with a bodily and spiritual existance.  
The flesh and bone, left behind as a "soul" are just as immortal as the soul that left it.  They become other things and grow, and are inspired, just as the soul that left them, become other things, and grow and are inspired.  There must not be any mote that was ever left behind or forgotten that ever disappeared from the universe.  Whatever from the past you refer to is either still in a very similar shape, a distantly similar shape, or a very different and new shape, or many shapes that may be similar to what they were before as one, and some that may be unsimilar to what they were before as one.  Thus, all things exist for ever, and in one way or another are "souls" just not always in the same shape and livelihood.
And though we may not trace exactly where everything came from and where everything goes to, we may surely trace that everything comes from something, and everything goes to something too.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-01-2005 08:19 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
114 posted 2005-08-01 07:16 PM


Ron:
quote:
Logic, math, electricity, and quantum physics are not "derived," but rather discovered and used.



Okay.  Discovered and used, then.  Regardless of how you phrase it, my original point remains the same.  


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
115 posted 2005-08-01 11:51 PM


Animum habemus.  Sed habemus sanitem?

We have a soul.  But do we have sanity?

  

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Soul

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary