Reply Thu 7 Feb, 2013 08:00 pm
What do you believe? Do we have a soul, are we a soul? or is there no soul?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 2,115 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Feb, 2013 04:37 pm
@agreen325i,
Your soul, Ag, is everything about you except your body

Whether or not it "exists" depends on your notion of existence. Given a scale of abstraction with, say, a rock near the the concrete end and, say, God near the other or transcendental end, the soul hovers just to the left of the latter
agreen325i
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 10:39 am
@dalehileman,
i guess i have none then
imans
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 02:23 pm
@agreen325i,
soul is a creation of freedom wills, in existence there is no souls

in existence the free entity is the superior conscious, superior from being constant observer rights objects
that conscious become positive since constant in the sense of the present free energy fact

that is why who keep insistin on being souls are all liars that mean constantly to b over all as one profitin from else inferiority for one life themselves

but technically souls are very miserable things being the illusion of livin from god life, the adjustment of a thing to what superior freedom want by keepin it around or enjoyin it around, illusions for creations powers over true existence condition before any reality
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 02:37 pm
@agreen325i,
Quote:
i guess i have none then
But Ag why do you say that
G H
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 03:33 pm
@agreen325i,
Quote:
What do you believe? Do we have a soul, are we a soul? or is there no soul?

For lack of any better way to put it in language, an intelligible entity is the "blueprint / instructions / formula" and the "power" for bringing about an empirical or physical manifestation in a conditioned world (the latter adhering to causal and interdependent relations between things, representing and arranging them in a scheme of co-existence). In some cases these forms may indeed correspond to something general (like a law or concept), but in others applicable to engendering the appearance of a particular body and the total of its changes over time (which includes, and might be considered where relevant as, a "soul" representing itself as an organism in an objective or interpersonal environment).

It required Immanuel Kant to finally tie-up the loose-ends of Plato's tradition, by placing the forms, or at least those which regulated perception and understanding, in "minds" rather than "at large" in the posited unconditioned or transcendent circumstance (Plato's so-called intelligible or noumenal world). Since these forms were a prior to perception and thought (i.e., the conditions that made both internal experience and the outer manifestation / order of nature possible), it would be utter folly to seek any concrete evidence for minds / souls in this phenomenal world they engendered, except for the human bodies which they are arguably "represented" as. In turn, it would likewise be a waste of time asserting that intelligible entities had some manner of definite "appearance" as they existed in themselves; because, again, it was the sensible / cognitive faculties of the mind (those forms prior to experience) that integrated them relationally together as a "place" to exist, this variety of extended shapes changing through time. Thus, "things in themselves" are empirically unknowable; they are just the other unconditioned influences that a mind receives which it converts into a conditioned world. Ergo, talk of "souls" is nonsense to those who believe there is nothing interesting to say about the transcendent (or who redundantly duplicate the empirical world in some metaphysical fashion as also non-empirical).
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 07:41 pm
@agreen325i,
The notion of a soul is, I suspect, the foundation for the belief in selves or egos. The only way I can feel comfortable with the idea is to assume--and it's only an assumption that makes me feel good--that if there is a soul it is what some think of as God. In that sense there is only one soul and we are it.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 12:25 pm
@JLNobody,
Quote:
The notion of a soul is, I suspect, the foundation for the belief in selves or egos.
Well put JL. However I'd put them in the same basket

Quote:
The only way I can feel comfortable with…..if there is a soul it is what some think of as God.

As far as degree of abstraction goes I'd put these in the same category as well. However I think of the latter, further to the right, as subsuming the former

Quote:
In that sense there is only one soul and we are it.
Yea JL, abstraction does permit such a generalization. Myself, for what it's worth (not much hereabout) sees soul as everything about one except his body; where your def simply carries it one slight step to the right
Looking4Truth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Mar, 2013 02:44 pm
@agreen325i,
With our temporary bodies being vessels or temples, I believe our souls are one eternal soul separated into vessels to gain experiences. The eternal soul transformed into an infinite soul.
0 Replies
 
agreen325i
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 03:39 pm
@dalehileman,
i dont even know why i say that. I just dont. How can i know, and its not a good thing at all to think about, or WORRY about for that matter. It can drive you crazy.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Mar, 2013 08:31 pm
@dalehileman,
I agree that soul, self and ego belong in the same basket in that they all refer to a fictitious center of the individual. But I was wrong to say that soul is the foundation of the belief in selves or egos. The soul is a belief but self and ego refer to feelings we have of some center-of-being. We do not have such a feeling (only a belief) about "soul."
imans
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 04:43 am
if u r of one soul originally, what are u every second u still alive??/ what are ur reference to stay present same, if the soul is not u but someone else how do u know it then and who r u or what are u since else when u know it from out
why does it have to b that soul u r not since u r too

what u mean is about smthg else, u refer to kind of scripture meanings, from my opinion it says relativity and absolutely, there are degrees in being and degrees in notbeing, but that in truth would mean that there is infinite degrees so no roof no bottom no particular reference one, only abstractly the knowledge that absolute right is real

that is how existence is the answer of all and for

what can u realize constantly is ur right of being always

it is where begining and end being the same is truth

so ur rights are the reason of ur wills and means
while u dont mean any right and never existed before

but inherently the fresh free sense is an end that is why also mayb truth is superiority always infinitely
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 10:05 am
@JLNobody,
Quote:
I agree that soul, self and ego belong in the same basket in that they all refer to a fictitious center of the individual.
I would have instead used the word "abstract" or "transcendental". "Fictitiousness" is an analog not digital scale (some matters moreso than others). I find certain aspects of the transcendental very real

…whatever I mean by that

Quote:
But I was wrong to say that soul is the foundation of the belief in selves or egos.
Yes, all three terms too vague for such an assertion

Quote:
The soul is a belief
Forgive me JL but that needs clarification. It's like saying "The self is an assumption"

Quote:
but self and ego refer to feelings we have of some center-of-being.
Certainly that's true of "self" and even moreso of "ego" though instead of "feelings" I might have said "concept" or "intuition"

Quote:
We do not have such a feeling (only a belief) about "soul."
Again we're splashing around in vast generality. To me in the conventional sense "soul" suggests a religious connection of the self or ego

….still we seem to be wandering around in vague generality
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 10:19 am
@agreen325i,
Soul is Nature, Specificity, Momentum, a Set !
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 11:01 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Soul is Nature, Specificity, Momentum, a Set !
I'm not sure about the first but by the other two do you perhaps mean Fil that aspect of nature that's the way it is because it has to be, it's inevitable

Like, the eventual windup of any "humanoid" civilization as destruction by nuclear war
imans
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 11:16 am
@dalehileman,
it is amazin how far u cant step aside from any knowledge of else

the idea of existence being one way is meanin on absolute superiority freedom level where the perspective is still not true existence

as if ur god for instance was ever meant to create exactly what he does or that nature do in details all the tortures she does, or as if any individual human constant conscious time is anything to existence

what is least negative is nver present, it says how there is two opposite ways but also more how infinite is the only true existence reason
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 11:44 am
@imans,
Forgive me Im, and I realize you mean well, and thanks for the attempt to respond, but I'm wondering if you might have someone translate your posting into more-nearly colloquial English
imans
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 01:14 pm
@dalehileman,
such cheap hypocrit as if u say ur means in better english then mine

or as if wat u write matter or this forum more then the writer

or as if english is what is written and not individual sentences

go find a translator for u when u do not exist but through others u abuse

my expressions here or anywhere else dont belong but to me alone
go to hell piece of dirty rats
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Mar, 2013 02:28 pm
@imans,
M most abject apologies Im, but I can hardly understand, can only guess, any response would constitute purely guesswork

While I do get the impression however that for some reason you're positively furious; I assure you I've never entertained any such intention

But please feel free to ignore my postings, I won't feel offense in the slightest
imans
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Mar, 2013 04:07 am
@dalehileman,
inventing what to say is too easy literature proves it how ur sentences dont matter at all whatever u invent meaning
what matter from anyone is what it does objectively while there in relative terms u kicked me out
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » soul
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/19/2020 at 06:36:27