How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Soul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Transferred from The Alley Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Soul

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


100 posted 04-23-2005 09:33 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

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 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


101 posted 05-13-2005 12:17 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

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 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


102 posted 05-14-2005 10:13 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

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 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


103 posted 05-20-2005 09:59 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

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 06-21-2005
Posts 679
Pittsburgh, Pa


104 posted 07-04-2005 09:05 AM       View Profile for JesusChristPose   Email JesusChristPose   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JesusChristPose

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 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


105 posted 07-04-2005 11:50 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

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 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


106 posted 07-04-2005 01:53 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

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 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


107 posted 07-26-2005 05:56 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum93/HTML/000584.html


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


108 posted 07-27-2005 08:47 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


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

Itís interpretation is such that
itís as if life itself were some sort
of amnesia.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


109 posted 08-01-2005 02:31 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Vivo ergo animus sum

I live therefore I am a soul
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


110 posted 08-01-2005 08:56 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

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 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


111 posted 08-01-2005 10:31 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

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 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


112 posted 08-01-2005 02:32 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

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 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


113 posted 08-01-2005 06:31 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

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 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


114 posted 08-01-2005 07:16 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

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 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


115 posted 08-01-2005 11:51 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Animum habemus.  Sed habemus sanitem?

We have a soul.  But do we have sanity?

  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Soul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

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



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors