Who owns your soul?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Ding an Sich
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 08:24 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173204 wrote:

Soul is....
Sublime is sublimation?
Apparent is transparent?
Reflection is deflection?
Preserved is reserved?


Digging into tomes divine/
Scattered thoughts that unify/
Groundless they believe/
The source of force which vivify/
Brings together all in one/
The Will without time flows ever on/

Hence we see the world, apparent, striving/
Underneath this fold uniting/
The world is my will, the world is my view/
My preservation standing, which I cannot undo/

Yea I think I am just going to answer silliness with more silliness when I talk to you. Very Happy
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 01:10 pm
@Dr Seuss,
Dr. Seuss;174193 wrote:
Awww, that's very nice you learned through Dr. Seuss.

I agree with the last statement that what we call truth is always open to interpretation and meaning because since we are all subjects in this world truth can only be subjective. Who is the say the psychotic's truth is false? To me their truth is closer to the Real 'truth' we call.

Not so... The truth in regard to physical reality is anything but subjective... Even moral reality requires a sense of objective truth because spiritually, and morally, we need it... Our need of truth is the proof we have, slight though it is, that we such a moral quality... Truth has a subjective quality that is not its only or primary quality...
 
Dr Seuss
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 01:21 pm
@Fido,
Fido;174305 wrote:
Not so... The truth in regard to physical reality is anything but subjective... Even moral reality requires a sense of objective truth because spiritually, and morally, we need it... Our need of truth is the proof we have, slight though it is, that we such a moral quality... Truth has a subjective quality that is not its only or primary quality...


But your truth could be my false. How would you explain that?

If psychic truth was not subjective then we would either all be ill or all sane. Obviously something different happens that we can differentiate them. That which you call objective truth in morality is nothing but someone else's subjective truth generalized to everyone else in a code of conduct such as the law etc. Spirituality we dont 'need' it look around you and see how many people are spiritually inclined. Our need for truth is nothing but the subject trying to make sense of all thats around it. Can you tell me what exists that doesn't have a name? It exists but its not truth because we have not named it yet. Its in the Real of things in that which we cannot symbolize.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 09:00 pm
@Dr Seuss,
Dr. Seuss;174313 wrote:
But your truth could be my false. How would you explain that?

If psychic truth was not subjective then we would either all be ill or all sane. Obviously something different happens that we can differentiate them. That which you call objective truth in morality is nothing but someone else's subjective truth generalized to everyone else in a code of conduct such as the law etc. Spirituality we dont 'need' it look around you and see how many people are spiritually inclined. Our need for truth is nothing but the subject trying to make sense of all thats around it. Can you tell me what exists that doesn't have a name? It exists but its not truth because we have not named it yet. Its in the Real of things in that which we cannot symbolize.

I won't explain it, but agree with it... My justice could be your injustice... My freedom could be your slavery... My morality could be your immorality.... on and on... It is a problem, is it not that there is no objective view of moral truth... Yet all these moral realities are forms of relationship, and unless we are going to be constantly at war over trivialities we are going to reach some agreement, and then what is true for you will be true for me, and what is just for you will be just for me... We cannot have moral realities as objective physical realities, but we can ourselves decide where the mean lies and what we can live with as people have always done...
 
stevecook172001
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 06:18 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173582 wrote:
Originally Posted by sometime sun
Can something that only exists by definition its self have value.
Or is the value only attributed by the definition?
Which is more valuable the described existence or existing description?
Auction lot, is it a antique or a chair?


I am asking what is the value of definition.
Also what is the definition of value.
Perhaps a new word needs to be coined 'defination'
definition of a definition;
1 a statement of the meaning of a word or phrase. 2 the act of defining a word or phrase. 3 the act of demarcating the extent or boudaries of something. 4 the quality of having clear, precise limits or form. 5 the degree of clearness and preciseness of limits or form- by definition because of what something or someone essentially is or does.
ACT, QUALITY, FORM.
Judgement.
The definition is a quality and form I was asking about.
We base our judgements (which is a measure) which are a value on the definition before the fact or act.
The definition even description is what adds the value more than the thing itself.
We think something is more valuable because there is more definition.
A antique is more valued and than a mere chair.
We base and allot value on the definition before finding what something is actually provably usable for.
So what is worth more an antique chair that may break so can never be sat upon, or a plastic garden chair which will never break?
What is the value of the aesthetic?
What is the value of the function?
Does the art make more valuable than the paint?
Many things exist that are more valuable because of their definition.
What I am asking is if something has a function and is used and usable does it first need definition to be valuable or is only value attributed by function.
In which case a soul is both a function for some so has value.
And soul for some has no function but doe shave definition so despite no function is still valued.

(I hope this helps, I was a little nervous writing it)

---------- Post added 06-06-2010 at 12:55 AM ----------


You see now I found this heart-full.
I would rather suck you mind though.Smile

As said if you want a clue, just ask for one.

---------- Post added 06-06-2010 at 01:02 AM ----------


You just here said a soul cannot be owned, agreed soul is a psychological construct and then said a psychological construct can be owned.
This says that a soul by your own definition can be owned.

Please describe further 'price stability'
Thank you.

If I say that there is a spaghetti monster who made the universe, the idea exists in my brain as a material neuronal pattern. However, this does not mean that it exists anywhere other then a neuronal pattern in my brain.

If I can convince you, however, that it does exist and I further convince you of the advantages of also believing it I might even be able to get you to part with some money for the privilege of knowing the intimate details of my belief. Therefore, a price can be assigned to ownership of that belief.

However, since the belief has no external validator (a real-world spaghetti monster that exists outside of the confines of my own imagination), there is a risk of someone else coming along and coming up with a more attractive idea, thus causing a demand destruction in the demand for my idea.

In other words, without an external validator acting as a regulator on the supply and demand of ideas, they have no price stability.

Which is why, of course, religions generally engage in the practice of producing material artefacts of their belief system as after-the-fact physical validators.
 
Minimal
 
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 05:56 am
@wayne,
I would argue that possession and ownership are semantically synonymous. And I stated that possessiveness of offspring is exertion of some seemingly innate desire to control or possess. The question of who "owns" something is a matter of who has control over something. Ownership and possession is merely control -- you can have of course relative control in all matters as you cannot control every potential variable. In the formalised sense, I can see how my definition differs greatly but I am talking about the fundamental principles behind this formalised construct of paperwork and monetary exchange -- I firmly believe vestigial elements of possession exist in nature in terms of familial conditions. Sounds barbaric but I believe it to be so.

You are welcome to disagree :-)
_____
When we speak of our "soul" I interpret this as the biological units that comprise me. Soul is this "I" business; the illusion that my matter is separate from you so that I can exist as an autonomous and uniformed unit between my constituents. However, I will not be so narrow-minded so as to reject the spiritualistic view. "Soul" can come to embody, as the archetypal philosophical ruminations of Descartes would state, all that which we cannot directly observe or account for in purely materialistic terms -- emotions, morals etc.-- are related to the "spirit" or "soul". The phenomenon that underpin these concepts (mental processes) are intuitively indirect, or covert, meaning that we cannot observe the phenomenal causation as opposed to overt behaviour or events. This indirectness creates the idea there is some transcendental nature in the human condition or that there is some transfigured unison between this physical dimension and another meta-realm; see metaphysics.

Intuitively it is easy to create this alternative explanation of a "soul"; it is an empty vessel, a word like "consciousness" or "identity" but entrenched in religious doctrinal teaching and mythological instillation as opposed to acting as a conceptual descriptor. A meaningless false dichotomy that unfortunately continues to subsist despite systematic inquiry suggesting there is no sound rationale behind such a belief . One reason for this problem is that Descartes separation of body and mind was built on the bedrock to reconcile the disparity between religion and scientific breakthrough so as to create supposed compatibility. This is not to dismiss religious belief but to say empty projections of any such transfigured beings seem like a projection of value and some "eternal potential" that can be manipulated at will by some deity --- a coercive psychological doctrine or a case of wishful thinking.

Per'aps I am bitter or per'aps I underestimate the virtues of ontological separation and undermine metaphysics but I feel justified in saying all that I have said.

Forgive the tenacious ramblings,

Minimal.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/18/2021 at 07:26:49