No soul here. Plenty of sole (the bottom of one’s foot).
The soul idea similar to people who say their emotions reside in their hearts or in Japanese culture that says the guts. Good colloquialisms, but bad science
@Jear77
I think we’ve had the discussion about science as one’s almighty.
Think of soul in this way: without it you would just be an animal running on instincts. You fancy/value yourself as an artistic person.
Instinctual animals don’t do art.
@griz you’re the one who said being upset won’t stop something from being so in a previous conversation concerning the collapse of society! make up your mind. Either you’re allowed to be upset or you’re not. Which is it?
@Jear77
Getting upset won’t stop something bad from happening or even make something good happen; but proper constructive concern and a plan of action based more on critical thought and less on emotional response will usually get you the most bang for your buck.
one is certainly “allowed” to get upset if they wish. It just won’t resolve that many things and has a good chance of making them worse. Also, there is a difference between having the emotion rise then controlling it . . . and letting it drive you wherever it will.
The tendency is to give the emotions the keys to the car and then fly off into speculative imagination of worst-case scenarios.
@griz so does that mean to whatever we face either individually or as a collective, it is what it is, as we have no control over it. The logical conclusion would be to shrug our collective shoulders and say “oh well” – which is exactly the attitude of nihilism.
@Jear77
Nihilism is more a messy divorce from reality.
The alternate stance would be one of meaning; starting with self in this moment. We have huge amounts of control over that, to have it go one way or the other.
As we learn to master that, we then gain competency in manipulating the environment around us (society) for greater meaning — which would involve taking note of things that make it “more” and “less” meaningful in increasingly broader context. And then we can and should start extending this to time beyond just this moment, recognizing that there is a time-stream and we are in it.
And then we can start ordering the environment which (in the phenomenological sense) is a mix of self and the society, so that things are “better” (more meaningful) and not “worse” for our progeny.
In phenomenology there is the eigenweldt (the personal world), the mid-weldt (the shared social world) and the umweldt (everything beyond). (The founding philosophers/psychologists were German if you can’t tell!) There is the idea by applying meaning to the first, we learn to apply meaning to the second. And then maximizing those two together could well provide meaning to “everything beyond”.
That facilitates facing the things we cannot change, while working to change the things we can.
@griz meaning changes with the individual, information known. Example: a guy or girl breaks up with a person. They think it’s the worst thing in the world because they were the one. Then they find out the person who broke up with them is a mass murderer. So it seems to me belief is what is at the root of 99% of the world’s suffering is how we see things. Solution: have no beliefs, ONLY facts. Fact: everything ceases to be, hence the ultimate reality is that everything is meaningless
@griz the problem with that assertion is that we can’t know. What does the word assume break down to? You asdume that there is a spiritual aspect, thereby making an ass out of you and me.
@griz meaning changes with the individual, information known. Example: a guy or girl breaks up with a person. They think it’s the worst thing in the world because they were the one. Then they find out the person who broke up with them is a mass murderer. So it seems to me belief is what is at the root of 99% of the world’s suffering is how we see things. Solution: have no beliefs, ONLY facts. Fact: everything ceases to be, hence the ultimate reality is that everything is meaningless… the ultimate truth
I mainly agree with what Jear said. I don’t believe in either; although, there was a time where I felt that souls and spirits could totally exist without a god. I just felt that since we don’t understand the universe totally, we could learn that our consciousness/energy could exist after our body dies. That itself doesn’t mean a god must exist. It could just be how our universe is. I have since stepped away from that idea.
@yin
I’ve done some study on this before proposing it to the group. The idea from many different sources is that “soul” is the human desire to grow. To advance. To “fully realize”. To “betterment”. Even “to transcend” being more than just dumb animals working off a program of pure instinct.
The idea of what I shared is less that of labels (where you and @jear77 seem to be going). as of ideas. And an idea extended to it’s ultimate “known”, renders “an ideal”.
With a god, being the purified epitome of an ideal — something just beyond reach, so always something to reach for. Ie, no limits on the Human spirit. We transcend some barrier, and find more beyond it to pique our interest. My thought is that some “god” HAS to exist so we have something to keep reaching for. Whether a god of knowledge, or experience, or sensation, or ease, or facility, or risk, or gain . . . .
So then the issue of “God” (the penuntimate, under which all these other things reside) would be a different discussion.
So what do you believe it is in you that drives you to be more than just a simple instinctual beast? One doesn’t have to ascribe to the semantics I’ve used if there are man-made religious encumbrances in those terms.
@griz My desire to enhance the lives of those I love and living my life in a way that contributory instead of exclusively consumptive. There is so much more to it than that but pretty much says it the most succinctly.
I’m not sure how anyone cannot fathom the existence of a soul, Surely they have met the person within that they are??
Who the fuck are they talking to when they ask themselves questions to make a decision? Are they on some auto pilot that navigates the journey and they just step off when the plane lands?
The soul may not transcend death, but if consciousness is not a soul then wtf is it? Is it only the synaptic neureopathy going click click click, or is it the sum that exceeds the parts. We have to call it something Why not call it a soul?
I just asked my soul a question and it said, “They are all shit for brains” and I responded, “Oh come on. That’s a bit harsh”, so if anyone takes exception to my comments; don’t blame me. Take it up with my soul.
@spitfire3dc
The prof who’s course I participate in is also a clinical psychologist and relates stories of people rather far along in their life journey that have not yet met the person within that they are.
There’s the possibility that a great many people do not undertake this journey and that it’s only the ones get seriously derailed with a stranger in the car they find they don’t know at all . . . who seek out professional help.
I appreciate that your soul is not afraid to speak its mind and that you are willing to self-correct it!
But some might notice that you haven’t provided a call-back number for your soul!
@Yoshikawa
God is more an archetype than a metaphor.
A metaphor is just a singular literary device within the story that helps to tell it; whereas an archetype is the full story the metaphors are nested within.
36 responses to “Many will proclaim there is no God, but assert that they have a soul.”
No soul here. Plenty of sole (the bottom of one’s foot).
The soul idea similar to people who say their emotions reside in their hearts or in Japanese culture that says the guts. Good colloquialisms, but bad science
@Jear77
I think we’ve had the discussion about science as one’s almighty.
Think of soul in this way: without it you would just be an animal running on instincts. You fancy/value yourself as an artistic person.
Instinctual animals don’t do art.
Plenty of soul there mister!
@griz we don’t really need such things for survival
@Jear77
Perhaps not just for creature survival.
But how desirable would such a regression back a million or so evolutionary years be?
@griz you’re the one who said being upset won’t stop something from being so in a previous conversation concerning the collapse of society! make up your mind. Either you’re allowed to be upset or you’re not. Which is it?
@Jear77
Getting upset won’t stop something bad from happening or even make something good happen; but proper constructive concern and a plan of action based more on critical thought and less on emotional response will usually get you the most bang for your buck.
one is certainly “allowed” to get upset if they wish. It just won’t resolve that many things and has a good chance of making them worse. Also, there is a difference between having the emotion rise then controlling it . . . and letting it drive you wherever it will.
The tendency is to give the emotions the keys to the car and then fly off into speculative imagination of worst-case scenarios.
@griz so does that mean to whatever we face either individually or as a collective, it is what it is, as we have no control over it. The logical conclusion would be to shrug our collective shoulders and say “oh well” – which is exactly the attitude of nihilism.
@Jear77
Nihilism is more a messy divorce from reality.
The alternate stance would be one of meaning; starting with self in this moment. We have huge amounts of control over that, to have it go one way or the other.
As we learn to master that, we then gain competency in manipulating the environment around us (society) for greater meaning — which would involve taking note of things that make it “more” and “less” meaningful in increasingly broader context. And then we can and should start extending this to time beyond just this moment, recognizing that there is a time-stream and we are in it.
And then we can start ordering the environment which (in the phenomenological sense) is a mix of self and the society, so that things are “better” (more meaningful) and not “worse” for our progeny.
In phenomenology there is the eigenweldt (the personal world), the mid-weldt (the shared social world) and the umweldt (everything beyond). (The founding philosophers/psychologists were German if you can’t tell!) There is the idea by applying meaning to the first, we learn to apply meaning to the second. And then maximizing those two together could well provide meaning to “everything beyond”.
That facilitates facing the things we cannot change, while working to change the things we can.
@griz meaning changes with the individual, information known. Example: a guy or girl breaks up with a person. They think it’s the worst thing in the world because they were the one. Then they find out the person who broke up with them is a mass murderer. So it seems to me belief is what is at the root of 99% of the world’s suffering is how we see things. Solution: have no beliefs, ONLY facts. Fact: everything ceases to be, hence the ultimate reality is that everything is meaningless
@Jear77
In the absence of arrogance there are meanings that are mostly Universal.
How is it not “a belief”, to believe one can or does have all of the facts necessary to allow for all eventualities?
@griz the problem with that assertion is that we can’t know. What does the word assume break down to? You asdume that there is a spiritual aspect, thereby making an ass out of you and me.
@Jear77
The belief that our failure means there can be no success?
@griz meaning changes with the individual, information known. Example: a guy or girl breaks up with a person. They think it’s the worst thing in the world because they were the one. Then they find out the person who broke up with them is a mass murderer. So it seems to me belief is what is at the root of 99% of the world’s suffering is how we see things. Solution: have no beliefs, ONLY facts. Fact: everything ceases to be, hence the ultimate reality is that everything is meaningless… the ultimate truth
@Jear77 what size shoe are you?
@Yoshikawa 11 if made in America
I mainly agree with what Jear said. I don’t believe in either; although, there was a time where I felt that souls and spirits could totally exist without a god. I just felt that since we don’t understand the universe totally, we could learn that our consciousness/energy could exist after our body dies. That itself doesn’t mean a god must exist. It could just be how our universe is. I have since stepped away from that idea.
@yin
I’ve done some study on this before proposing it to the group. The idea from many different sources is that “soul” is the human desire to grow. To advance. To “fully realize”. To “betterment”. Even “to transcend” being more than just dumb animals working off a program of pure instinct.
The idea of what I shared is less that of labels (where you and @jear77 seem to be going). as of ideas. And an idea extended to it’s ultimate “known”, renders “an ideal”.
With a god, being the purified epitome of an ideal — something just beyond reach, so always something to reach for. Ie, no limits on the Human spirit. We transcend some barrier, and find more beyond it to pique our interest. My thought is that some “god” HAS to exist so we have something to keep reaching for. Whether a god of knowledge, or experience, or sensation, or ease, or facility, or risk, or gain . . . .
So then the issue of “God” (the penuntimate, under which all these other things reside) would be a different discussion.
@griz the problem with that assertion is that we don’t need a unbreakable ideal. To me, it’s a literary device.
I don’t believe in either.
@novelist65 you poor soul
@Pain
Hey Pain.
Good to see you back again.
@griz ..thanks .
@novelist65
Hi novelist. Good to see you again.
So what do you believe it is in you that drives you to be more than just a simple instinctual beast? One doesn’t have to ascribe to the semantics I’ve used if there are man-made religious encumbrances in those terms.
@griz My desire to enhance the lives of those I love and living my life in a way that contributory instead of exclusively consumptive. There is so much more to it than that but pretty much says it the most succinctly.
@novelist65
So, something that gives you the desire no just live with “what is” (the way the rest of the animals seem to), but to enhance it.
That’s the essence of what for the sake of this discussion, I’m calling “soul”.
What other definitions of that word would you see as having untenable encumbrances?
I’m not sure how anyone cannot fathom the existence of a soul, Surely they have met the person within that they are??
Who the fuck are they talking to when they ask themselves questions to make a decision? Are they on some auto pilot that navigates the journey and they just step off when the plane lands?
The soul may not transcend death, but if consciousness is not a soul then wtf is it? Is it only the synaptic neureopathy going click click click, or is it the sum that exceeds the parts. We have to call it something Why not call it a soul?
I just asked my soul a question and it said, “They are all shit for brains” and I responded, “Oh come on. That’s a bit harsh”, so if anyone takes exception to my comments; don’t blame me. Take it up with my soul.
@spitfire3dc
The prof who’s course I participate in is also a clinical psychologist and relates stories of people rather far along in their life journey that have not yet met the person within that they are.
There’s the possibility that a great many people do not undertake this journey and that it’s only the ones get seriously derailed with a stranger in the car they find they don’t know at all . . . who seek out professional help.
I appreciate that your soul is not afraid to speak its mind and that you are willing to self-correct it!
But some might notice that you haven’t provided a call-back number for your soul!
@griz I broker the communication. It’s part of the deal.
@spitfire3dc but, alas, we need to know your shoe size?
@griz @Jear77 come on, don’t fight. By the way if you two were bashing each other Jear77 would win. Just saying.
@Yoshikawa
Don’t worry. We’re trained professionals!
We do this all the time.
Many without souls will proclaim there is a God.
@luftballooneyegouge
Now that’s an interesting follow-up conundrum!
In the proclaimation of the one, they are affirming the other.
@luftballooneyegouge god is a metaphor. What about what’s in the universe? I am agnostic so I don’t know if there is a god
@Yoshikawa
I wonder what a God’d smell like?
….fresh patchouli?
…lemony?
….pine?
@Yoshikawa
God is more an archetype than a metaphor.
A metaphor is just a singular literary device within the story that helps to tell it; whereas an archetype is the full story the metaphors are nested within.