ziplock

So you're telling me the spirit soul is not a conception? It's not something that occurs in the mind? It is not...The term "spirit-soul" is itself a concept. Words that are used as a catalyst for meaning, a sign post on a road. Terms like this are a minor, simplified, concept that acts as a label for a much more complex and major concept. These concepts, are of course associated to and dependant on the experience of the individual. If, for instance, you were born blind and had no experience of colour, you would not know what to apply the term "colour" to. You'd have to learn of it through other people relating it to you. Their descriptions would be the blueprints for a concept that you'd construct in relation to the term "colour."

In this cause, we have this experience of life. We observe and examine the phenomena taking place, categorizing and labelling them. Associating concept with concept, using the mind to delve deeper into the subject, to penetrate where our 5 physical senses cannot. Constructing a mental reflection of our environment in our minds. Those that most accurately reflect what is observed is those that are the most compelling to believe and thought of as the most accurate.

Considering this, I find it extremely difficult to accept that "spirit-soul" is not a concept. As the mention of "spirit-soul" triggers an associative journey through the lambyrinth of the mind coming in contact with many other concepts that culminate to produce our understanding of "spirit-soul".

The concept spirit-soul is in relation to a part of the system we're experience that we call life. There's an occurance in a certain position and we can then describe this position and it's characteristics to the extent of our ability as you have attempted to do. Our description or map would then be the "spirit-soul". We would require our senses and inquiries via them in order to arrive at our conclusions and thus fill in more of our map, and to accurately verify it's position in life's operation. Therefore, not only would it be a concept, but it would be based off our senses and stimuli that was provided by them. Or, more accurately, based off our position (I am) in relation to the senses (the body), the stimuli provided from them (the environment, or condition of the body), and the interaction between these systems, and any other contributing systems.

The terrority however is not the map, and as I quoted previously, "truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive." We can say that the occurance, the subject of our inquisition, is not a concept. Therefore, the spirit-soul is not a concept. However, this would be to confuse the subject with the concept. We'll use God, and your discussion with JahBohl to further demonstrate this. In this discussion, you have employeed the term God and associated with it certain concepts to describe it's characteristics and nature. In one thread, you applied concepts of an "undefined and enigmatic" prime mover, and then in another submitted a much more definitive and exact concept of a personality.

Now in both instances you're describing the subject matter "God." In order for something to be "God" to you it has to fit certain criteria, or have certain characteristics. One characteristic of such is the Prime Mover. You then discuss this one attribute and define it to the best of your ability. There are also anthropomorphic qualities that are contained in this criteria, and now in this thread you discuss these personal attributes.

The term God then points to some subject that's involved in our existence. This subject is independant of the concepts we create surrounding it. We attempt to ascribe truth to our concepts, however our concepts will never be the subject itself, they're of different material. Therefore, they will never be the full, absolute truth, if they're related to something else. They're a shadow of the truth as the allegory goes. If you make them independant however, unrelated to anything else, then that can be ascribed an absolute truth regardless of how absurd it may sound. This would be the epitome of ignorance.

We have an experience of course that's provided to us in this existence. We observe that the provision of this experience is dependant on the body and it's conditioned. Damaged nerves for instance leads to a different supply of stimuli. We then modify the supply consciously by placing ourselves in the most ideal environments, such as on a yacht in the Caribbean surrounded by beautiful, naked, women. This would then naturally with minimal effort produces the enjoyable experiences we desire.

We can also alter our experience consciously by the various conceptual filters we can erect. These will serve to extract desired stimuli from otherwise undesirable material. The proverbial diamonds in the rough. Certain stimuli will be ignored in favour for others shinning a certain light on the situation. This is very popular in politics such as seen in A&P where we can ignore certain circumstances in favour of others to compel people to believe our conclusions. We get addicted and obsessed with these filters just as easily if not moreso than we do our material luxuries. The filters we employ becomes our approach to various subjects.

The major concept of spirit-soul in all it's detail and depth would act as one of these conceptual filters. Interacting with it would thus induldge or satisfy our false ego just as much as interacting with the naked women on the yacht would. By becoming celibate, devoting ourselves to Krishna, always having that enigmatic concept of "God" in our mind, perhaps choosing to live in a monastary or decorating our homes with culturally appropriate objects, we've assumed an approach to life that we've determined nets us the most value, the richest experience. Someone else could've initially constructed this configuration and then provided the blueprints for it in some tangible form such as writing, we could even go as far as to ascribe truth characteristics to it. This leads to the whole comforting beliefs, or using beliefs as a crutch type of perspective.

Truth when applied to concepts acts like mortar to bricks. It binds them together, solidifies, makes it concrete. This appeals to us, as we're used to interacting with concrete objects, such as my keyboard or the chair I'm sitting on. By applying truth to something it makes it more real to us. Brings it into and manifests it within our lives. We basically attempt to make our concept the subject and to erase doubt, fear, unknowing, and inexperience. It's doomed for failure, as mentioned before the concept will never BE the subject. So what happens is when other concepts approach the subject and describe it in a more compelling way, we have a very difficult time integrating any of it due to our solidification. You have to then "break down walls" in order to be able to. Dissolve previously held conceptions. Return to a more fluid, adaptive position, instead of throwing another brick in the wall. They all come crumbling down eventually.

On another note, the hand provides the stomach with pieces of itself. The hand is afterall food. It's constructed out of the material provided by food, and if eaten by a creature such as a lion would act as food. So, by providing the stomach with food, it's providing itself with food as well after the stomach digests it. So it's providing itself with itself in order to sustain itself. Now metaphorically if we carry this over to God: by providing God with pieces of myself I'd be serving him and he'd thus serve me. Therefore, simply being alive is doing a service to God, and being alive is a service from God to me. We'd be God, and God would be us, and everything else. So there isn't really a master or a servant, there isn't really a service, there isn't really seperation, it's just existence. It's all food: food for thought, food for life, food for existence.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.