What, why and when about "the soul?"

[Windwalker]

Thanks for all of that. I'm not sure how I can use it. Presumably, you wrote it out to show me that there is something I'm missing looking through a scratched and dirty lens, but I still don't know what that would be.

The main reason is to demonstrate that when people speak of spirit, or soul, or God, etc., they aren't necessarily just being prescientific, prerational, fill in the blanks with magic thinkers. I believe, as well as many others who have done their homework looking into this, that there is something 'real' there beyond what the words point to. When these are viewed as metaphors, and not descriptors, then there is something to look at rationally.

The usefulness of it, is to recognize it's not all just "BS", as the 'debunkers' carelessly conclude. There something of human experience that these things are pointing to, that goes beyond a scientific perspective of reality. There is more to reality, than what the eyes of science can penetrate. But to be sure, it can be verified empirically, and should be. But how that is experienced, entails more than just thinking about it.

You seem to imply that the avoidance of symbolic language when discussing how the world works comes at a cost. I disagree.

But how is it that we presume the world must work, is the starter. If we try to use these things to fit into a scientific paradigm of reality, then that's like trying to tighten a bolt with a smile. A smile has it's function as part of life as well as a wrench does, but for doing different types of function. A world of only wrenches, is not reality. A world of only smiles is not either. But they are complementary to each other.

So, yes, in a practical sense, if we fail to grasp symbolic language, or the world of symbols, we are in fact missing a major, if not the most major part of human reality there is. Everything is symbolic, when you think of it. But symbolic of what? Rocks and atoms only? Or are there more an more subtle shades of reality that our symbols can point to? The real question, is there a more subtle and nuanced reality that is really real, beyond just physics? To me the answer based on personal experience is a resounding yes.

Sure, one could argue that I'm basically saying that I don't see what I'm not seeing, and that's correct, so I'm looking for a tangible benefit to others who say that they see more. How have their lives changed for the better?

That's easy to speak to from personal experience. I could come up with a thousand different ways to speak of this, but here's a recent example. We were driving to another state this past weekend on many miles of old highways over swampy lands that have only been patched over the past 50 years. Lots of noise and shaking in the car. We were talking to each other over these long stretches. Suddenly we hit a new segment of highway there they dug everything up and replaced the entire roadbed. Abruptly, all the noise that we had grown accustomed to and the vibrations was instantly gone.

Suddenly, the there was instant clarity. The quality of our being in our bodies and enjoying our conversation instantly changed. It was a shocking and stark difference compared to what we'd grown used to and weren't paying attention to. In other words our presence in reality was instantly of a higher quality, simply by the reduction of distracting noise and vibration. It was the same car. The same world outside. The same people, but we were instantly more calm and present and engaged with life.

Another is smoking cigarettes. As an ex-smoker, I can attest to this. Smoking dulls your senses. It dulls your sense of taste. It dulls your mind. It dulls your experience of living. But when you stop smoking and your body begins to heal itself, your taste improves. You breathing improves. You become more engaged with reality. You become calmer, more present, and you enjoy life more. Your perceptions change, without the haze of dingy smoke in your eyes, on your clothes, and on your body and in your brain. Same thing for drinking alcohol and doing drugs. You get rid of these things, and your perceptions and experience of self and reality radically change for the better.

These are examples of how there are higher qualities of life, greater visions and perspectives that change, as our consciousness is cleared and improved. It's not just life as we see it right now, but improving the seeing. Getting rid of obstacles, whether those are physical, or mental obstacles improves one's quality of life. And mentally seeing only rocks, is a limiting perspective on self and reality. It creates the limits of what can be seen and experienced, if that is what your mind will only see.

And I have found, there are infinite layers to that onion of the mind than can be pulled back to reveal yet more and more subtleness of our experienced reality. It's not fiction, but qualities of reality that are always there, just obstructed by our own minds.

How would my life change if I viewed life differently?

Everytime we change how we view life, life becomes different to us. And that can be either positive or negative. If we suddenly viewed life as evil, dark, and frightening, that is how we would experience it. Our life would become mistakable. We'd soon become depressed and want to die. And the opposite is true in viewing life as welcoming, supportive, and loving. Our experience of life would follow suit, and we'd become healthier, happier, and more engaged.

And all of that, is personal experience speaking. All of that is empirically supported. Not just by me, but countless others. All of that is supported by the sciences as well who study the cognitive sciences.

I wonder what value "symbols of our own transformation" have compared to a more concrete discussion of self-transformation using more precise language

Because it actually engaging your emotional and spiritual bodies, as opposed to just mentally thinking about it. Think of it like thinking about swimming, versus actually engaging your body in doing it. The knowledge gain by actually exercising the actual body is massively beyond what merely thinking about it does for you.

That is the purpose of these ritual forms and symbolic practices. It engages that "higher self" within you. If you want to get technical about it, you can consider them as "psycho-spiritual technologies". They don't need to have concrete-literal referents. Just envisioning them, engaging and enacts that deeper sense of being and self in the world, before and beyond the mere cognitive mind. We are much, much more than just thinking machines. Much more. And if we ignore that "much more" parts of our being, we are in fact, not fully engaging all that we are. Of course then, we become imbalanced.

I could say much more, but I'll let you consider these points for now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The usefulness of it, is to recognize it's not all just "BS", as the 'debunkers' carelessly conclude. There something of human experience that these things are pointing to, that goes beyond a scientific perspective of reality.

You seem to be implying that such experiences are off limit to those not trying to describe them, or not describing them in the manner you are recommending. You seem to have been saying all along that there are aspects of reality that one misses if he doesn't describe them in a particular way. Why do you think that your experiences are any more robust or relevant than mine other than that I prefer descriptive language?

if we fail to grasp symbolic language, or the world of symbols, we are in fact missing a major, if not the most major part of human reality there is.

Unless by symbolic language you mean language period rather than vague, nonspecific language (all words are symbols for their definitions), I disagree. Why do you think that one needs more than descriptive language to experience any aspect of reality, or language at all? What is the evidence for that?

Suddenly, the there was instant clarity. The quality of our being in our bodies and enjoying our conversation instantly changed. It was a shocking and stark difference compared to what we'd grown used to and weren't paying attention to. In other words our presence in reality was instantly of a higher quality, simply by the reduction of distracting noise and vibration. It was the same car. The same world outside. The same people, but we were instantly more calm and present and engaged with life.

OK, but do you think such experiences are unfamiliar to me? I'm very familiar with that phenomenon.

I hope I'm getting through to you. What is missing in these discussions is any argument for why one should adopt your way of thinking. Implied constantly is that something is being missed without it, but nothing you can describe. You describe familiar experiences such as the one above as if these might be the kinds of things missed by not thinking in the manner you are promoting. None of this gives me reason to believe that there is more of value to be known than is knowable the way I am going about knowing.

Why should I think more like you recommend? What aspect of "human reality" do you suppose my way of experiencing and describing it is keeping me from? I know joy and dysphoria. I know satisfaction and shame. I know love and grief. I find meaning in daily life and service. I laugh and I hope. I sing and draw. I feel connected to people and the living world around me, often with an associated sense of mystery, awe, and gratitude. What are you suggesting that I am missing that taking your advice would reveal? It looks like there is nothing.

This is my question (then message) to all who claim to see further. Show me what you see.

Have you seen this from Asimov? I addresses special knowledge only available through special ways of knowing not available to the empiricist. Can there be such a thing? If so, how does one know it's knowledge (i.e., facts about reality) and not just moonbeams believed by faith?

• "Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight? If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?"

 

[Windwalker]

You seem to be implying that such experiences are off limit to those not trying to describe them, or not describing them in the manner you are recommending.

Oh, not at all. One can describe these things in any number of ways, with one qualifier. So long as they point to the same general type of experience or knowledge. All that I would say, and would stand by, is that if someone says that these sorts of experiences are all just nonsense and don't exist, then that in itself will outright prevent them from access to it. If we filter out and deny something is possible, good luck going any further than that limitation the mind has set for itself.

This is true of anything in human experience. "I can't do it", will result in you not being able to do whatever that thing is. "It's not real", will even deny it to oneself if they should by accident even access it. The mind sets the limits of possibility far more than anything in actual reality does. That is the truth.

You seem to have been saying all along that there are aspects of reality that one misses if he doesn't describe them in a particular way.

I've never even thought such a thing. I prefer leaving the metaphors as open and fluid, not fixed and static. My approach is that antithesis of fixed and static. Fixed and static is the problem of literalism. "The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities", to quote from that essay again. Words like "soul" are open-ended suggestive terms, not literal descriptors. They "bristle with meanings and possibilities". They are not the only words that mean that one and only thing. Not in the least.

Why do you think that your experiences are any more robust or relevant than mine other than that I prefer descriptive language?

I'm not making comparisons of my experiences with yours. But I would say that I would be surprised if someone has experienced the ineffable, a state of being beyond words and descriptions, that would find such poetic, lofty, symbolic language to be problematic.

Why should they be hearing them in concrete-literal terms, when they've seen that words fail to describe actual Reality? That would be puzzling to me. Why would they insist upon descriptors, as if they were pointing to something mundane? Why would they imagine they should be that? Where's the metaphors once ordinary words fail, in other words?

Unless by symbolic language you mean language period rather than vague, nonspecific language (all words are symbols for their definitions), I disagree. Why do you think that one needs more than descriptive language to experience any aspect of reality, or language at all? What is the evidence for that?

Most of human experience is beyond just rocks and cars and trees and birds. Most of what we deal with mentally is subtle in nature, fluid and dynamic, and not fixed and static. As such language, when speaking of anything beyond just mundanities, such as pointing to objects, is imprecise. Why do you think so many conflicts arise?

In reality, words get in the way of life, more often than not. The best communication happens non-verbally. Not with calculated precise words. Normally daily life, is not "doing science" where language must be precise and exact. That's a mythology, like the character of Spock was meant to portray. It's not understanding what it is to be human, which is messy and imprecise. That's the whole story arc with him, being half-human, half-science and logic. It's a commentary on this exact same matter we are discussing, you in the role of Spock, and me in the role of Kirk, so to speak. "But Spock, you're half-human aren't you?"

OK, but do you think such experiences are unfamiliar to me? I'm very familiar with that phenomenon.

You asked what the tangible benefits were of pursuing spiritual practices, "for those who say they see more," didn't you? That was my answer. Those are tangible benefits to stepping beyond the mundane, and transcending it. I'm pleased you understand what those benefits are.

I hope I'm getting through to you. What is missing in these discussions is any argument for why one should adopt your way of thinking.

I'm not suggesting you adopt my way of thinking, as for one thing, my way of thinking is constantly evolving. The only thing I would suggest is to try to hear "between the lines" when someone speaks using such terms as soul, or spirit, or God, or other such metaphors. What are they pointing to that goes beyond way of thinking that reduces everything down to the "brain" or matter, or physics, or such? Are you suggesting that they get rid of imprecises language in favor of your way of thinking?

I think if anything, I would try to point out that such reductionist language, can have the effect of gutting the "magic" and mystery out of life to just mere rocks and atoms and such. As I said before, placing limits on Reality, will in fact have the effect of limiting what can in fact be experienced and known to someone. There is a balance between ungrounded, unsupportable woo woo, and static and lifeless reductionistic reason as the sole guiding light of truth. Both are equally ungrounded and unfounded in reality, in my experience.

Implied constantly is that something is being missed without it, but nothing you can describe. You describe familiar experiences such as the one above as if these might be the kinds of things missed by not thinking in the manner you are promoting.

Again, I'm not promoting any way of thinking, adopting a certain language in favor of another. The only thing I would say, is get rid of literalism. Where you go with it after that, is up to you. Don't see language as the actual boundaries and limits of what we see as reality. They are conveniences and conventions. If anything, see language and conceptual thought for what it actually is. Don't mistake fingers pointing at the moon, as the moon itself.

That much I think is safe to say we need to realize as true, if we are to see beyond the imposed limits of language and the mind. Then from there, possibilities can occur. This is why music and poetry, dance, and the arts, are better communicators of that truth, than precise language is. It removes those imposed limits of words upon the imagination itself.

Why should I think more like you recommend?

From what I just recommended just now above, the reason would be freedom and possibility. The wings of the imagination and spirit, in fact do become our lived realities. And as such quality of life improves. As I said, it's not believing in nonsense and woo woo, but it's also not living within the confines of closed reality set by the limits of ideas of reality set as reality itself by "precise language". That's useful in a pragmatic sense, but not in an existential sense.

What aspect of "human reality" do you suppose my way of experiencing and describing it is keeping me from? I know joy and dysphoria. I know satisfaction and shame. I know love and grief. I find meaning in daily life and service. I laugh and I hope. I sing and draw. I feel connected to people and the living world around me, often with an associated sense of mystery, awe, and gratitude. What are you suggesting that I am missing that taking your advice would reveal? It looks like there is nothing.

I don't know that much of you personally, but I can say only for myself, there are basically infinite layers of to the onion of my experience of life that can be peeled back, layer by layer, to deeper, richer, fuller, more grounded, more expansive, more compassionate, more loving, more joyful, more life enriching, more transcendent to what was seen as "reality" before. And none of it is ungrounded, unsupported, woo woo, pre-rational magical thinking.

There is always more. And getting rid of such obstacles as mistaking fingers pointing at the moon as the moon itself, opens one up to that more. If we feel we've arrived, then we are fooling ourselves.

This is my question (then message) to all who claim to see further. Show me what you see.

Have you seen this from Asimov? I addresses special knowledge only available through special ways of knowing not available to the empiricist. Can there be such a thing? If so, how does one know it's knowledge (i.e., facts about reality) and not just moonbeams believed by faith?

• "Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight? If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so?"

Answer. Experience it yourself. Then, hear the confirmation of that from others who likewise has. If you are alone in this, that you think you're are Jesus Christ himself, then the changes are you are mad.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not making comparisons of my experiences with yours.

Your message has consistently been that there is a better way of looking at reality than my way, a way that lets one see more, see further. I've been asking you to show me the benefit of your experiences seeing further are over mine, and you have answered with things that are visible to me already.

You asked what the tangible benefits were of pursuing spiritual practices, "for those who say they see more," didn't you? That was my answer. Those are tangible benefits to stepping beyond the mundane, and transcending it. I'm pleased you understand what those benefits are.

Except, as you note, those are things I see despite my myopic eyes.

My comments were, "Sure, one could argue that I'm basically saying that I don't see what I'm not seeing, and that's correct, so I'm looking for a tangible benefit to others who say that they see more. How have their lives changed for the better?" and "OK, but do you think such experiences are unfamiliar to me? I'm very familiar with that phenomenon." It seems like the answer to the question of what this other way of knowing reveals is nothing not knowable in the way I presently explore and evaluate reality, which is my point all along.

So you don't see that you were claiming that there is a better way to think than what you think is my way? Do you recall my beginning with your comment, "the problem is the concrete-literal mind that cannot think symbolically or in metaphors. They reduce these more transcendent, subtle realities which these metaphors point us towards, as nothing more than "only existing in our minds". Nothing more than mental fictions in other words."

I answered, "I don't see a problem there. I'll tell you what I tell every other poster who implies that others' thinking is too small, too narrow, too myopic. You seem to think that the way that I think is too small and is a problem of some sort. You imply that there is another way of knowing which I have unfortunately never developed, one which alleviates this problem. If that's correct, you should be able to share some of this wisdom gleaned by this special way of knowing and demonstrate how it would improve a life knowing it. I used to ask such people what they have learned this way, but I never got an answer. None can show me any useful knowledge I've missed out on by not relaxing my standards for belief. So I don't ask any more. I just point out that this is a claim that can't be supported, and thus, one I have no reason to believe. Maybe you can do better."

Now you're telling me that you're not comparing our experience? That's not credible. You've been advising me for pages now how to buck up my game. Are you now telling me that you weren't referring to me when you wrote about the "concrete-literal mind that cannot think symbolically or in metaphors" You called it a problem. Where is the problem?

Anyway, I think we've gone to the end of this. My position that those who have a claim of a better way of knowing that allows one to see further, to see what they call spiritual truths, are incorrect. This is based on the countless times they have been unable to produce any knowledge hidden from those they say are missing something for not following them. Do you see that that is what has happened here? In the end, you haven't shown me anything that makes me think that there is a better way to assess reality and experience, which was predicted.

In any event, thank you for an interesting and friendly discussion. Did I make my point with you, that people who make these claims simply can't back them up with examples of anything available only to those who follow their path that they claim reveals more?

 

[joelr]

According to Baha'i beliefs the soul does not enter the body, it becomes associated with the body and this happens when the soul associates itself with the embryo, not literally at the moment of conception, but after the zygote is formed. I think the first quote below should read 'around the time of conception' so the second quote below is more accurate. The soul is what gives the body life.

Each individual life begins when the soul associates itself with the embryo at the time of conception. But the association is not material; the soul does not enter or leave the body and does not occupy physical space. Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”[4]
The Rational Soul | The Human Soul | The Life of the Spirit | What Bahá’ís Believe

"According to the Bahá’í Teachings the human soul starts with the formation of the embryo, and continues to develop and pass through stages of existence after its separation from the body. Its progress is thus infinite.”
Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 204

I assume the soul was with God before it became associated with the human body, since the soul is a sign of God.

“Thou hast asked Me concerning the nature of the soul. Know, verily, that the soul is a sign of God, a heavenly gem whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 158-159.

Well Bahaullah didn't do his history research. For some odd reason Yahweh didn't tell his followers about the soul being redeemed and going to heaven, for 10 centuries?!
Then after the Greeks figured it out and occupied Israel then all the Jewish religious people get filled in? Wow what a coincidence? It's almost like they are just using Greek myths??

"
only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven.[8"

"
During the period of the Second Temple (c.515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]"

(Sanders)

-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. During the Hellenization of early religions the cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.

 

[Sheldon]

if someone says that these sorts of experiences are all just nonsense and don't exist, then that in itself will outright prevent them from access to it.

That is a no true Scotsman fallacy of course, but beyond the irrationality of the claim, it should be pretty obvious that choosing bias to believe something a priori, will obviously mean you end up believing it, it's hard to imagine a more woefully circular logic.

If we filter out and deny something is possible, good luck going any further than that limitation the mind has set for itself.

We don't need to deny anything, just demand credible testable falsifiable objective evidence. All you have is anecdotal hearsay, which by your own admission you have to have an a priori bias in favour of in order for it to be believable. Worse still this methodology can be used to believe anything, and we know it has helped humans imagine literally thousands of different deities are real, that hardly suggests the it is a reliable method.

This is true of anything in human experience.

Human experience alone is notoriously unreliable for objectively examining beliefs and claims, and that is before you hold an a priori bias, as you have admitted here you must do in order for this to work.

I'm not making comparisons of my experiences with yours.

You are making claims about your experience, that you cannot support with a shred of objective evidence. If one were to lend any credence to such claims, then there is literally nothing one could not believe, and the only response you have offered, is that we should be biased, and believe it is possible a priori in order for it to work. It's hard to imagine a more useless method for critically examine a claim or belief.

Most of human experience is beyond just rocks and cars and trees and birds. Most of what we deal with mentally is subtle in nature, fluid and dynamic, and not fixed and static.

Pease demonstrate some objective testable falsifiable evidence for this claim?