Soul

[da]

What's the word "soul" mean to you? What associations does it bring up? Is the word fraught with baggage... smelling partly of brimstone? Does it have deep connection for you? Is it ineffable and abstract? Is it like a Platonic ideal of a thing, not to be pinned down? Is it boring? Is it a handy fiction?

I'd love to have a conversation about that, to the extent we can in an online journal. Anonymous comments are fine. My hope is to have common referents to continue in another post.

I invite you to make your first comment here, that is to say without reading the previous comments before-hand. Of course feel free to read other comments too, and discuss with others, but after your first comment. :) Thanks!

[Edit to add:

I can say: the breadth of peoples' responses is pretty darn cool.

So, I suggested a dialogue. What now?

It would be one thing if we were in the same room, and could look at each other and be clear that we're going to treat this with the respect it deserved. In that situation, I would say we could just ask each other open, honest questions; questions that don't try to convince the other of our own understanding; but help the other person to articulate their truth for us. And take it from there.

We could try something like that. I'd participate. Why don't we try that?

It might go without saying, but I'll say it anyway: you're welcome to not reply to someone's question, or to reply telling them you won't reply (and that's final; challenges are not OK).

]

Comments

[dpolicar]

For me, the primary associations are as per "soulful" -- that is, associated with deeply felt and ineffable sensations. To say that someone has no soul is not to accuse them of being undead or anything like that, merely to assert that they lack depth, lack empathy, that sort of thing.

That said, while it's not quite correct to say that I believe in the existence of souls in the metaphysical sense you're invoking here -- if I get into a headspace where what I'm doing is primarily believing in some propositions and being skeptical of others, evaluating them on the basis of evidence, then I lose all grounds for believing in the existence of souls -- it is true that I resonate with the idea of an aspect of my identity that exists independent of my corporeal self.

Primarily, what that means to me is connection to things whose connection to me is not readily apparent.

[dpolicar]

Coming back and reading other comments, I'm intrigued by the prospect of a conversation among these viewpoints, but not at all sure how to initiate one... the starting points are so disparate.

[ng-nighthawk.livejournal.com]

I'm coming back here periodically to see if there are any additions, but I have to say it seems like a very touchy thing to reply to or question anyone. I suppose a supportive, "That's well put" or "That's an interesting idea" would be totally fine, but even drawing someone out on a point you were curious about seems like such a personal invasion, especially when the person knows you think differently--it could easily come off as an attack of some kind.

So, er, yeah, how to start this into a discussion is really interesting but unclear to me, too. Good thing that's da_lj's self-appointed job. Good luck to him!

[dpolicar]

Yeah, exactly.

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

I am, myself, fairly daunted.

I can say: the breadth of peoples' responses is pretty darn cool.

What now?

It would be one thing if we were in the same room, and could look at each other and be clear that we're going to treat this with the respect it deserved. In that situation, I would say we could just ask each other open, honest questions; questions that don't try to convince the other of our own understanding; but help the other person to articulate their truth for us. And take it from there.

We could try something like that. I'd participate.

Hey, this feels like a plan.

[da-lj.livejournal.com]

Thank you for all of that.

For the moment: I'm replying to everybody with the following: I added a bit to the post, with thoughts about how this might be a conversation with open, honest questions; and also that nobody feels attacked for their beliefs. So please check the post before commenting; I might need to add to it again as we go on. And you're welcome to comment with open, honest questions.

[sqrt-joy.livejournal.com]

Regarding evidence: I've often thought that faith is belief in non-physical evidence that can only be understood through personal revelation. But that's difficult, because "there be" the path to madness.

I tried to make a question out of that thought and failed horribly. Sorry. :)

[dpolicar]

Well, I'll try to engage with that thought as a question, and see what happens.

This is perhaps as much a lexical question as an ontological or epistemological one. I mean, when I talk about arriving at a belief through the evaluation of evidence, that evokes a certain set of concepts, images, potentials, and other states of mind... and when I talk about spiritual awareness, that evokes a very different set of mental states... and when I talk about faith, that evokes yet a third set.

And those three mental frames are very different and to a large extent mutually inhibitory. In particular, I have a lot of difficulty with "faith" as distinct from "awareness."

But a division in my mind associated with three sets of words, however sharp, is not the same thing as a division in the world between the things those words refer to... supposing that they refer to anything at all in the first place.

Still, thinking of faith as a result of evidentiary reasoning is not something I can easily do.

I'm also not entirely sure what the difference signifies. That is: what is the significance to you of the difference between a belief arrived at through evaluating evidence understood through personal revelation, and a belief arrived at entirely through revelation, or through accepting the authority of others, without any evidence at all?