Who owns your soul?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:34 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;173553 wrote:
We shouldn't scratch our souls in public. :devilish:


Does that mean no more rocknroll?
 
Twirlip
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:42 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;173555 wrote:
Does that mean no more rocknroll?

And we're back on topic:
Robert Johnson (musician) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Minimal
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 04:59 pm
@wayne,
wayne;173551 wrote:
What you seem to be suggesting is that the instinct for survival of the species somehow translates to ownership. Just try and buy a little territory from a Tiger.
Ownership is a completely different concept. If you think that we own our children, you will someday be sadly dissillusioned.


The ownership I speak of is merely perceived possessiveness. Arguably, whatever you think you "possess" is an artificial construct based on this instinctive origin -- to have perceived relative control over our immediate surroundings. Maternal and paternal instinct to me seems to, generally, gravitate to the notion we hold a special possession of another, our offspring. Surely you must agree there is some degree of possession involved? This is not to say we treat children as chattel but we feel somehow obligated to respond to their needs and, sometimes, wants. It is our perceived problem. We have relative control over their behaviour and survival. Other species reflect this.

Ownership is just who has control over something; another being can have relative "ownership" over you. Sadly you are not as free as you might first hoped.

Regards,

Minimal.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:00 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173532 wrote:
Could not the soul be described as art or art form or forming or formulation?


Well if you call it that, it only points out that it would be subjective, which it is because it doesn't actually exist. Everyone has a different interpretation, explanation and definition of what the soul is that if it were true, these explanations would be more consistent.

Just like how many people to see you arguing over if an apple is an orange? Rarely but just about every person has a different argument for what the soul is or what it's purpose is.
 
wayne
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:02 pm
@sometime sun,
What's in a name?
Does my name only signify my body?
Or does it signify something else?
Could it signify my Soul, my Spirit, the essence of me?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:22 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173104 wrote:

What? how is experience the evidence for the basis of a soul?

Not evidence any more than the experience.
Soul is experience?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:26 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun wrote:
Soul is experience?


I think over the last ten pages you've noted that the soul is just about everything.

If I may ask, sometime sun, where are you looking to go with this thread?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:27 pm
@Twirlip,
Twirlip;173134 wrote:
As you ask for a response: I, for one, would like to see a revival of this use of the term "psychology" to mean a discipline more inclusive than the empirical science which presently goes by that name. (Not that I'm holding my breath waiting for that to happen!) I'm glad if you also are suggesting this. However, I'm not clear whether that is what you are suggesting. If, rather, you are defining the word "soul" in terms of an ancient Greek word, that can be helpful, if ancient Greek philosophy is understood, but there is also the problem of having to understand something of the ancient Greek language! The Wikipedia article is suggestive, but not definitive. Bruno Bettelheim's book Freud and Man's Soul is good, as I vaguely remember. (Damn, it looks as if my copy was in that part of my library which got lost.)

Can the soul be more valuable by the language that describes it if not just for the valuable language?
LANGUAGE, does the soul speak?
Soul dialogue?
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:41 pm
@Zetherin,
Sometime sun I am greatful for the love that you share with all.
What I write of is not absolute [at least not that I am aware of] but rather experiences or studies within the scientific community. [ by no means do I call them facts, only observations]

When all the rest of you speak of the soul, are you using facts or view points?
Please if any of you are using facts please speak up so that all of us can consider your facts.

The Temporal lobe is connected to other deep structures within the brain that seem to be responsible for belief and so forth. When this part of the brain has a problem of some sort like trauma, gun shot, epilepsy and so forth the person with the problem may think s/he is god. The more minor the problem the less delusional the person may seem.
Example some may say that they are god, some may say they are jesus, some may say they are the devil, and so on. at the lesser end some may think they are a prophet.
Now the prophet part I have no problem with as I do believe that many of us could be a prophet to some degree.Smile I do think that this part of the brain makes us all different just as many other parts of the brain will.

Please keep in mind that all of this is my view point and is not 100% fact.:detective: Did you watch part 2 ? Please start at 3 minutes 50 seconds to see my point of view. Thank you for considering my point of view! YouTube - Naturalization of MInd (Patricia S. Churchland, UCSD), Pt.2
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 05:49 pm
@Zetherin,
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?

Zetherin;173182 wrote:
Are you asking, what is the value of a definition? Are you asking this from a linguistic point of view? Your writing is so cryptic, I don't know exactly what you mean.

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 ----------

Zetherin;173201 wrote:
You blow my mind. I really have absolutely no clue what you're saying.

Really, dude, you blow my mind. :surrender:

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 ----------

stevecook172001;173305 wrote:
You can't own something that does not exist.

You can, however, own a psychological constructof that something.

Can you buy and sell a psychological construct? I guess so. But, since a psychological construct can be re-made, there is a major problem with price stability.

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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:08 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun wrote:
As said if you want a clue, just ask for one.


Asking for a clue only yields more questions, so it seems.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:16 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173595 wrote:
Asking for a clue only yields more questions, so it seems.

Never said it would be easy.
Is this not the perfect description of what philosophy is?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:18 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173596 wrote:
Never said it would be easy.
Is this not the perfect description of what philosophy is?


Don't you think we should try to be as clear as possible when we write things? There are so many things in philosophy just waiting around the corner to confuse us, it seems best not to deliberately use vague, obscure language to make the process that much more difficult.

Stop saying it is everything, and please try to explain what exactly you believe a soul to be. If you cannot do that, I don't know how we will progress. The word salad we are seeing here is getting to be rather annoying, don't you think?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:21 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173596 wrote:
Never said it would be easy.
Is this not the perfect description of what philosophy is?


In a way yes, but you will annoy people if you keep rehashing the same question just in a different way. Similar to moving the goal post. Since one way get's refuted you just spring another question but you don't seem to realize that you are asking the same one, except you change maybe one word within the question. So in this sense you are not philosophizing.

This is how it sounds:

You: Is god green?

Me: No there is nothing to substantiate that a god would be green. (I know stupid response but you get the point)

You: Okay, then is god red?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:34 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173598 wrote:
Don't you think we should try to be as clear as possible when we write things? There are so many things in philosophy just waiting around the corner to confuse us, and so it seems best not to deliberately use vague, obscure language to make the process that much more difficult.

You wound me again.
Do you think I intentionally want to be unclear?
Do you think I don't want to be seen or to be able to see clearly?
Do you think I am a purposefully confusing entity that has confusing and disorientation as his goal?
I'm just learning to walk and think for myself here,
Because that is what I am and my philosophy is.
Childlike. Ignorant form.
And so few offering to be my big brother and hero,
to actually encourage and enforce me,
you blame me for not growing fast enough when there are so few roll models around to aspire toward.
Give me a good example of a peer,
here and I will try and be more like them then?
Or more like you?

(try your best not to answer this post)

---------- Post added 06-06-2010 at 01:35 AM ----------

Krumple;173600 wrote:
In a way yes, but you will annoy people if you keep rehashing the same question just in a different way. Similar to moving the goal post. Since one way get's refuted you just spring another question but you don't seem to realize that you are asking the same one, except you change maybe one word within the question. So in this sense you are not philosophizing.

This is how it sounds:

You: Is god green?

Me: No there is nothing to substantiate that a god would be green. (I know stupid response but you get the point)

You: Okay, then is god red?

Not the time or the place.
And maybe if someone answered one of my questions there would be less need to rephrase it.
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:42 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173606 wrote:
You wound me again.
Do you think I intentionally want to be unclear?
Do you think I don't want to be seen or to be able to see clearly?
Do you think I am a purposefully confusing entity that has confusing and disorientation as his goal?
I'm just learning to walk and think for myself here,
Because that is what I am and my philosophy is.
Childlike. Ignorant form.
And so few offering to be my big brother and hero,
to actually encourage and enforce me,
you blame me for not growing fast enough when there are so few roll models around to aspire toward.
Give me a good example of a peer,
here and I will try and be more like them then?
Or more like you?

(try your best not to answer this post)

---------- Post added 06-06-2010 at 01:35 AM ----------


Not the time or the place.



Sometime sun. You are way ahead of many please do not give up on us all. You have much to offer I can only hope that you will feel the same way about the rest of us. Surely we all can be wrong at sometime or another your friend Robin.:flowers:
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:52 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic;173609 wrote:
Sometime sun. You are way ahead of many please do not give up on us all. You have much to offer I can only hope that you will feel the same way about the rest of us. Surely we all can be wrong at sometime or another your friend Robin.:flowers:

What I meant to say was that I see you as either my equals and occasionally a peer will pop up, I just dislike it when I am made to face my deficiencies is all. It is not pleasant to be told you are less, even if there may be a valid point I would still like to see all as equal rather than belittle.
I am being a big baby I suppose.

Who owns your soul?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 06:56 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173613 wrote:
What I meant to say was that I see you as either my equals and occasionally a peer will pop up, I just dislike it when I am made to face my deficiencies is all. It is not pleasant to be told you are less, even if there may be a valid point I would still like to see all as equal rather than belittle.
I am being a big baby I suppose.

Who owns your soul?


No one is belittling you. It's just some criticism, especially in a thread where the subject matter is as metaphysical as it gets. And I'm pretty sure it's not some sort of deficiency like you claim, because I have seen you write clearly before.

It seems whenever I point something out that someone doesn't like on this forum, it is considered an attack. I am not belittling or attacking you sometime, and I don't know why you think this.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:14 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173299 wrote:
All soul is all life, All life is all God, All God is all soul.
This is my position.
Now whether I put my self there or something else did is not yet known by me.

Zetherin This was and is my answer.
But again I am not so delusional as to think someone else might not have a better one.

My language; sometimes I am tight sometimes I am lose, sometimes I have fun sometimes I deduce.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 07:19 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;173622 wrote:
Zetherin This was and is my answer.
But again I am not so delusional as to think someone else might not have a better one.

My language; sometimes I am tight sometimes I am lose, sometimes I have fun sometimes I deduce.


Alright, soul is all life. So, soul is everything.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/12/2022 at 03:58:37