The Soul

[Doobah47]

The soul seems to be the notion of self-governance and self-conscience as a presiding agglomerate. Many concepts of soul do not view it as a force that decides for the individual, but as something practically impossible - a section of personal energy entirely without force. Judeo-Christian soul would appear to subscribe to this view, but Buddhism for example sees a 'soul' as something that could be inhabited, and which could provide great aid in this ongoing suffering of life (as the sanctity of nirvana).

[boagie]

An honest discussion here when it comes remotely close to Christianity is called, Christian baiting, That's not at all the case, boagie, and you, of all people, should know better.

Surely it is not, its sugar and spice and everything nice

[Ramsey]

Originally Posted by Paracelsus

Yes but do you think that the Soul is an ego based entity? I dont subscribe to the notion that I will enter paradise after death to live in some verdant lands, its just too absurd a notion for if that's the case why would a Creator design such a world as this? For his own amusement? Hmm? I don't think God is into S&M.

And yes your right about moving beyond dualism, the Buddhists have such an approach its called the Middle Way, but there are other non dualist thought structures, if you haven't read some Deleuze. A Thousand Plateaus.

I wouldn't say that the soul was ego based. But I would say that ego would be a contingent of the of the soul itself. For example, the ego could present outspoken personality, the personality you show to others, where as the soul would represent a true vision of self, knowledgeable to anyone else through sense experience, but only available to the body which that soul inherits.

If that's understandable.

But then again, I would also say the soul, was a product of the body. But I wouldn't say I had a materialist view.

[Paracelsus]

Originally Posted by Ramsey

I wouldn't say that the soul was ego based. But I would say that ego would be a contingent of the of the soul itself. For example, the ego could present outspoken personality, the personality you show to others, where as the soul would represent a true vision of self, knowledgeable to anyone else through sense experience, but only available to the body which that soul inherits.

If that's understandable.

But then again, I would also say the soul, was a product of the body. But I wouldn't say I had a materialist view.

CG Jung used the term Psyche to describe the Self/Soul unity. What I was pointing out is the absurd notion held by some religions that our souls, are us and that once we enter the paradise, the western lands, then that part of us that survived physical death, which is the soul, has our ego based personality, which is totally absurd.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by de_budding

All I gather from you so far is that a soul does not exist, is that all there is to it in your opinion?

Actually, I just found a 'soul' a few nights ago.
I find that the term 'soul' (as used by the mystics and other 'practitioners' thoughout the millennia...) to be 'Conscious Perspective'!
So, as 'Conscious Perspectives', we are all 'Souls'!
How's that for a definition? It seems rather concise.
I am, literally, a 'Soul' as are we all, 'Conscious Perspectives'. There seem to be no definitions that do not fall within the 'set' named. Are there?
There seems to be egoic 'self-images' that seem to give impressions (images) that deviate from 'who we actually are', 'Conscious Perspective'.
Ok, so I found 'soul', I think...
I still don't 'believe' it! I 'think' it.. tentatively...
*__-

[de_budding]

Yeah that doesn't sound too far from how I entertain the idea. I also considered the soul as the 'you' that is developed by the conscious perspectives of every one else. Only you know the real 'you'- unless you are able to communicate every emotion and experience with the world, hence the masses generate a separate you as a thought-object in their heads that varies from you depending on their focus. Sometimes I ask if that is my 'soul'.

Dan.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by de_budding

the masses generate a separate you as a thought-object in their heads

The 'you' that I see is in this mind. The I that I see is in this mind. The 'me' that you see is in your mind. The 'you' that you see, likewise. No one generates, no one 'creates' anything. We observe... We are Perspective.
When someone askes me something like "is your work exceptional?" the only person qualified to answer is he, as 'I' and my work resides within his mind. The 'me' that he (you) sees, is no more than a reflection of his (your) 'own' Perspective (self).

[paulhanke]

... so if you've found the soul, and the soul is "Conscious Perspective", and perspective is in the mind, does that mean the soul is in the mind? or the soul is the mind? or ... ?

[Holiday20310401]

We don't find the soul, we have a soul, lol.

Or maybe we don't. The soul is just the part of the mind that moves on after death, or rather survives death, or whatever. But that would imply that the soul is not a part of the mind because the mind does not process after death. Death is the end.

I'm confused, which definition are we talking about.

[de_budding]

Holiday,

I think some of us have our own definitions which don't entertain the concept of the soul existing after death. They are more directly related to questions of the self: What makes you, you?
The soul for me is an idea closely related to personality and character. Therefore this leads me to embrace subjective experience as the key ingredient in soul-seeking- but that's just me.

I don't think there will be many on this forum who’ll apply such a traditional definition of the soul to themselves, if at all!

Dan.