Thread: The Spirit

I have heard, the spirit is used in reference to one or more (or all) of the 7 bodies of a human being.

I have also heard that none of the seven bodies relate to enlightenment at all, and perhaps the spirit may mean the 8th non-body, the said "source" of everything, though it seems unlikely since the word spirit has heavy connotations.

There's people who think in terms of physical and spiritual too, where there's the idea of two bodies, like the physical and astral.

I don't know how I'd define the mind, so I won't comment on that.

Passion I would say is a feeling.

Energy, from certain perspectives could be the spirit, which might relate more to the enlightenment perspective I mentioned, and even also the 7 bodies idea too.

I think different people mean different things.
It's as slippery as the ideas of God.

Personally, I don't care about any definition of spirit. -rabble-

Originally Posted by ClouD

I have heard, the spirit is used in reference to one or more (or all) of the 7 bodies of a human being.

I have also heard that none of the seven bodies relate to enlightenment at all, and perhaps the spirit may mean the 8th non-body, the said "source" of everything, though it seems unlikely since the word spirit has heavy connotations.

What are the "bodies" of a human being..?

Energy, from certain perspectives could be the spirit, which might relate more to the enlightenment perspective I mentioned, and even also the 7 bodies idea too.

Can it be distinguished though? I am getting the impression you are not a spiritualist..??

I think different people mean different things.
It's as slippery as the ideas of God.

Precisely.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What are the "bodies" of a human being..?

I don't mean to say anything with certainty, so sorry if it seems like that.

I find it hard to explain, because I'm not attached to belief or disbelief in the dogma.
Again, the 7 bodies are mentioned and interpreted differently all the time, but basically I'd say they refer to the 7 planes of being.The 8th is said to be completely different, and that everything stems from there. You may have heard something similar to 8 times in, 7 times out. There's a lot of different opinions you can find on the internet.

What I do 'know' from personal experience of 'different bodies', I don't care to define. It wouldn't be true. It would be like coming up with a description for a new sense that no-one's experienced - and if they have experienced it, then there's no need for communication in trying to describe what it is.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Can it be distinguished though? I am getting the impression you are not a spiritualist..??

I would rather not be something O'nus. Being anything defined is further away from 'being me', if you understand. It's hard to explain, because words are there for the purpose of definition.

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of energy, is that it is the motion of everything. I have some idea that matter is energy, and energy is vibration/sound/whatever.
Really difficult for me to comment, since I don't have really set ideas, and any thoughts change all the time.
Truthfully and consistently, I can't say anything but rabble.

I think that any "experts" on the topic, are the ones who you'd find to be as fanatical as any other nut clinging to some pseudo truth.

Originally Posted by ClouD

I would rather not be something O'nus. Being anything defined is further away from 'being me', if you understand. It's hard to explain, because words are there for the purpose of definition.

I understand what you mean. However, realize that this is the initial stage in the philosophy of language and identity. We can salvage language through the use of utility rather than definition or representation.

I think that any "experts" on the topic, are the ones who you'd find to be as fanatical as any other nut clinging to some pseudo truth.

Experts on which topic..?

~

Self-proclaimed experts on spiritualism, is what I meant.

Are you looking to define how people use the word "spirit" or "what" the essence of a spirit is, based on how people use the word? Similarly to how you might ask "what" honey is and I might either answer it's this stuff you can buy in stores or it's a food product produced by bees in their bodies.

It's just not that simple. Spirit is also just a word, nothing more.
By defining it, it gets limited to language and can not fully be grasped.

Lets use the example 'love'.

If you open a thread for people to define 'love', you will most certainly get
a whole bunch of different definitions, none of them are either true or false,
nor complete. Everyone has a different explanation for it, since it is solely
based on personal experience. You can't see it, you can't touch it, but it is
still existent. It might turn out to be rather difficult to explain 'love' to
someone who never experienced it himself.

But I don't really understand what it is you want to accomplish here.
I think it has been mentioned before in a different thread, the state
of mind to approach this subject is fundamental. You can try as hard
as you want to, to get these questions answered in a scientific and
lingusitic way, but that will just not be satisfying to you.

But as far as definitions go:

Here is the first one from freedictionary.com

1.
a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.

To me the spirit is, what connects us to all there is.

The spirit is the total perception of a thing. For instance, a person is a physical body, but their spirit is all the combined concepts that complete that individual. Every person who knows that person and they have shared ideas with and about eachother has a piece of his or her spirit. Whenever you think about the thoughts, persona, appearance, or other characteristic of a person; your thought is part of their spirit. Basically its all of the non-physical information that is associated with you.

Whatever inspired you to post is your answer.

Paradoxically, every distinction or definition we give "it" is but a footprint of what and where "it" was.

Distinction inevitably falls short of "it" every time, because distinction is simply an afterthought of "it".

The spirit obviously moves through all things. It's self-evident in even seemingly stationary objects.

On the micro, it's what makes all quantum particles do their dance of potentiality which become affected by observation and expectation.

On the macro, it's what makes all solar systems swirl.

It's what makes now... now... and not oblivion...

Don't let scientists overly arrogant assumptions about something they haven't found yet fool you.

They'll never find "it"... because the act of finding is "it"... the act of seeking is "it"...

This game of hide and seek we play with ourselves is "it".

When it moves through you... you are without a doubt... in spirit.

Inspired.

Even scientist's incessant labeling and categorizing of everything takes a certain type of spirit. Just one look at how much they desire to label and categorize everything right down to where they think the spirit will move next shows how much they unwittingly burn with "it" and hunger for "it" like an addict starved of their fix. They simply can't stand to be even one single step behind themselves, when their misperception of "it" being just beyond their grasp, is but a carrot on a stick of their own making.

Oblivious, that playing a chess game alone where one knows all the possible moves and outcomes in advance wouldn't be much fun or a challenge, would it?

Hence... here we are...

Sometimes... one step behind ourselves....

Other times... one step ahead of ourselves...

Ahh... The Dance... of Spirit.

Humble yourselves to it.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Self-proclaimed experts on spiritualism, is what I meant.

Oh ok. Yeah, this is completely the fact, lol.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Are you looking to define how people use the word "spirit" or "what" the essence of a spirit is, based on how people use the word? Similarly to how you might ask "what" honey is and I might either answer it's this stuff you can buy in stores or it's a food product produced by bees in their bodies.

This question is right to the point, really. I like it.

The problem with spiritualists is that the word is used flexibly. I am not actually asking for the definition of the word in any sense you are asking, I am interested in seeing how the spiritualists decide to answer.

I think it exposes the main problem; spiritualists always regard the spirit as something that cannot be defined by any means necessary, not even utility. This is nonsense because the very fact that they are using the word, in utility, means that it has a functional definition that they are deliberately avoiding. That, or it becomes synonymous to other terms like "intangible" or "nothingness" etc. So, they desperately try and claim it is an all encompassing thing.

And at that point, there is no difference between a spiritualist and a Christian.

Originally Posted by dajo

It's just not that simple. Spirit is also just a word, nothing more.
By defining it, it gets limited to language and can not fully be grasped.

This is the problem right here

Even though spiritualists use the word in utility, the constant argument is that it cannot be defined or represent the spirit. However, they contradict themselves as they use the word, in utility, to assert this very thing. You yourself, dajo, just contradicted yourself as you used the word, in utility, to reference something. Thus, you just contradicted yourself that it cannot be fully grasped because, in the previous sentence, you use the word already!

Lets use the example 'love'.

I am glad you brought this up. The point is that, however someone uses love, it is always used in the same utility. It is always used in the same language games. Only because it is a subjective matter does it cause confusion for representation. However, it can be used in utility.

To me the spirit is, what connects us to all there is.

I'm ignoring the definition you used and using your personal one. What is the difference then between your spirit and plain energy that exists in all things?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The spirit is the total perception of a thing. For instance, a person is a physical body, but their spirit is all the combined concepts that complete that individual. Every person who knows that person and they have shared ideas with and about eachother has a piece of his or her spirit. Whenever you think about the thoughts, persona, appearance, or other characteristic of a person; your thought is part of their spirit. Basically its all of the non-physical information that is associated with you.

Firstly, notice the stark difference in definitions?

What are you describing sounds more like identity than spirit. What is the difference between your spirit and memories, identity, and simple sensory perception? As these are what "make up" the person, right?

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

Whatever inspired you to post is your answer.

This is a vague notion using circular logic.

Paradoxically, every distinction or definition we give "it" is but a footprint of what and where "it" was.

Distinction inevitably falls short of "it" every time, because distinction is simply an afterthought of "it".

The spirit obviously moves through all things. It's self-evident in even seemingly stationary objects.

Cyclic, the way you define spirit almost sounds like chaos theory to me. Out of curiosity, what do you think of chaos theory...?

Don't let scientists overly arrogant assumptions about something they haven't found yet fool you.

SCIENTISTS DO NOT MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS. This is wrong. Empiricists will never claim to know anything beyond a doubt. It is flat-out wrong. The best they can hope for, in the academic world, is 98%. This is always sought out after removing bias (assumptions) through countless different scientific methods (ie. double-blind studies).

Do not make assumptions about science before you obviously know nothing of things such as double-blind studies.

They'll never find "it"... because the act of finding is "it"... the act of seeking is "it"...

This game of hide and seek we play with ourselves is "it".

Distinguish "it" from nothingness.

Ahh... The Dance... of Spirit.

Humble yourselves to it.

Now it seems that there is no difference between your spirit and simply everything.

Or, perhaps, you are regarding the spirit as an ever changing, ever adapting, concept that facilitates all life?

If that is the case, this could be regarded as the chaos theory or evolution. Which is not what I expected. Can you distinguish these for me..?

I only ask for distinction to better understand.

~

Do you mean spirit as in God or the Spirit? (Like how a lot of American Indians use it)

Or do you mean more like the soul?

It seems to me you mean the latter. For me, this is what I identify with as "me". It is my being, that which all that I am emanates from(or at least through). It is something non-tangible. It moves through things, but the things it moves through do not fully represent it.

Like when I play music, what I try to do is remove all distractions and just let this flow. What I feel like I'm doing is pushing my soul through these patterns. You connect with the flow of the music and put yourself into it, you becoming a part of it all.

So I guess I would say it is what is expressed through expression, though not necessarily what others get out of that expression. It is certainly beyond any kinds of words or patterns used to express it.

This is not to say that all music is made like this, but music is about expressing something(most music at least). I personally think that "good" music is often good because of the level of expression it contains. When music contains a higher level of expression, it allows for a higher level of connection with that music(this connection is where you get the meaning, the feeling, you connect with the essence of what is being expressed, you get it). It is easiest(and in my experience only possible) to reach this level of expression when you are expressing yourself, and on deeper level your own love. You just let go and play.

I have a feeling that what I said may not make sense unless you've played an improvisational style of music like jazz, or written music yourself. But try to relate this to the experience of creating art or any kind of creative process done with love.

So for a definition let's say, an essence which you identify as you. It can only be understood through experience; no discussion will lead to understanding. It is a non-physical thing made up of your experiences.

I would also further say that just because you refuse to call it the spirit, doesn't mean that you can't understand it. Just go do something creative and find that thing that is you doing the doing and identify that. That's the soul. But you can't fake it, you have to really love what your doing or it's not gonna work.

The soul may be the same thing as the mind, but I don't know or have any strong beliefs about the mind yet. The body, passion and energy are all a part of this, a part of what you are.

Originally Posted by O'nus

This is the problem right here

Even though spiritualists use the word in utility, the constant argument is that it cannot be defined or represent the spirit. However, they contradict themselves as they use the word, in utility, to assert this very thing. You yourself, dajo, just contradicted yourself as you used the word, in utility, to reference something. Thus, you just contradicted yourself that it cannot be fully grasped because, in the previous sentence, you use the word already!

I do see your problem, I also knew what it was in the other threads concerning this subject. You've made that clear, it's just not very easy to explain it, for me at least. And I have the feeling that you have been either frustrated for a while or pressured to contradict what people say.

The thing is, I had to contradict myself to give any input you might find useful. Furthermore I was not giving THE definition (at all), I was giving a - my personal poor shot at a - definition, just as it was at that very moment, open for and awaiting change and advancement.

If I say 'spiritual', what thoughts pop into your head, what emotions?
My father uses that word sometimes, when he talks about african culture or music, he feels a connection to it and is realizing his own 'spiritual state' whatever that means to him. And he is more of a scientist (doctor).

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am glad you brought this up. The point is that, however someone uses love, it is always used in the same utility. It is always used in the same language games. Only because it is a subjective matter does it cause confusion for representation. However, it can be used in utility.

Well yes. So can spirit. Most people have an idea. But there is no one truth. If I talk about 'the spiritual state of mind', you have an idea, an image that pops into your head. Same thing happens when I adress 'true love'.

The meaning of the word love is also very dependent on your experiences with it, on what you have read and heard and have been told about it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I'm ignoring the definition you used and using your personal one. What is the difference then between your spirit and plain energy that exists in all things

Ok. I will go the other way around.

My 'belief' is, everything is connected. Everything came from one.

Science is a very fun language and it is also an important one. I am always informing myself about new discoveries and I do very much value it. But what is happening here is that science extracts one bit from the whole and the common belief is that it still resembles the original. But that is only true to a certain degree.

If you take a drop out of the ocean, you can exermine it and you can say, 'well, it's a drop of water'. But it would be false to make the assumption that the ocean is full of many, single drops, independent from each other. When you look at that little drop of water, it becomes disconnected from the ocean - the whole. The ocean is not made out of drops.

What led me to believe, feel, think, conclude this were different, often also scientific (as far as possible) lectures, articles and/or books with various subjects. And to me it does seem to point in one direction. I have read a little on quantum physics, neurology, alternative medicin, astrophysics, native cultures, philosophy, the golden ratio and such, as well as I read and experienced about psychedelica, spirituality, meditation and esoteric matters, always comparing them to own experience. (No expert at all, just trying to dip into as many jars as possible for a holistic picture)

But I also realize that I just scratched a little on the top, yet.

Anyway, to get to the point:

Originally Posted by O'nus

What is the difference then between your spirit and plain energy that exists in all things

The whole is more than just the sum of its parts.
I think, there is something that does hold everything together.

You can call that spirit (a word I barely use by the way), love, energy, nature, the universe or even god if you will - it doesn't really matter.

=========================================

I am really sorry, but I have the hardest time expressing my thoughts.

There is nothing exact here or accurate, if it didn't take me quite some time to write this, I would erase it now. :-)

Originally Posted by O'nus

Firstly, notice the stark difference in definitions?

What are you describing sounds more like identity than spirit. What is the difference between your spirit and memories, identity, and simple sensory perception? As these are what "make up" the person, right?

Memories, personal identity and sensory perception are a part of your spirit but they only make up a relatively small fraction. Most of your spirit is in other people's perception of you, and your ideas existing in other people's heads. The parts outside of yourself are really the important parts anyway, because they are what is left of your spirit after you die. This also includes any pictures that might be taken of you, any of your thoughts or ideas that have been written down, and anything that you have created in your lifetime including any genetic offspring you might have. A whole person is a lot more than what is contained in the body.

Take for instance, the spirit of 1776, or the spirit of christmas. The Spirit of Christmas is all of the ideas emotions and perceptions that together embody christmas.

I'd also like to point out that my definition is for the most part consistent with all the other definitions you might find; it is just put in a more technical and quantifiable way.

All words or concepts that point to a place that is beyond utility or distinction is "it".

Any idea or thought cannot arise without there first being an undefinable field, space, emptiness, or nothingness for it to arise in.

For all intents and purposes we can't put our finger on the matter so there is no point in futilely attempting to focus on each finger.

Instead, look in the direction it's pointing.

lol so many people to respond to...

Originally Posted by stonedape

Do you mean spirit as in God or the Spirit? (Like how a lot of American Indians use it)

I do not mean anything - I am asking the spiritualists to answer.

Or do you mean more like the soul?

*Shrugs*

It seems to me you mean the latter. For me, this is what I identify with as "me". It is my being, that which all that I am emanates from(or at least through). It is something non-tangible. It moves through things, but the things it moves through do not fully represent it.

How does that differ from simple identity and why then does it distinguish from spirit?

So I guess I would say it is what is expressed through expression, though not necessarily what others get out of that expression. It is certainly beyond any kinds of words or patterns used to express it.

Why is this called spirit and not say expression of emotion?

This is not to say that all music is made like this, but music is about expressing something(most music at least). I personally think that "good" music is often good because of the level of expression it contains. When music contains a higher level of expression, it allows for a higher level of connection with that music(this connection is where you get the meaning, the feeling, you connect with the essence of what is being expressed, you get it). It is easiest(and in my experience only possible) to reach this level of expression when you are expressing yourself, and on deeper level your own love. You just let go and play.

I understand the idea of expressing the intangible. However, is not "emotion" intangible? I could argue that we can reduce emotions to simple symphonies of neurotransmitters, but the utility of the concept is intangible. Thus, how does it differ from the spirit?

I have a feeling that what I said may not make sense unless you've played an improvisational style of music like jazz, or written music yourself. But try to relate this to the experience of creating art or any kind of creative process done with love.

Be fair - I have had my own ways of "letting go" and "enjoying the moment". Yours happens to be music. Mine may happen to be something else..

So for a definition let's say, an essence which you identify as you. It can only be understood through experience; no discussion will lead to understanding. It is a non-physical thing made up of your experiences.

Still - does this differ from simple awareness and identity?

I would also further say that just because you refuse to call it the spirit, doesn't mean that you can't understand it. Just go do something creative and find that thing that is you doing the doing and identify that. That's the soul. But you can't fake it, you have to really love what your doing or it's not gonna work.

Sounds similar to Theologian reasoning, "You must be willing to be faithful to truly believe" does it not?

The soul may be the same thing as the mind, but I don't know or have any strong beliefs about the mind yet. The body, passion and energy are all a part of this, a part of what you are.

In point then, I ask you to distinguish the spirit from identity/self.

Originally Posted by dajo

I do see your problem, I also knew what it was in the other threads concerning this subject. You've made that clear, it's just not very easy to explain it, for me at least. And I have the feeling that you have been either frustrated for a while or pressured to contradict what people say.

I am glad to see that you are perceptive. It is a rare trait.

The thing is, I had to contradict myself to give any input you might find useful. Furthermore I was not giving THE definition (at all), I was giving a - my personal poor shot at a - definition, just as it was at that very moment, open for and awaiting change and advancement.

True. Which, unfortunately, does both parties no justice.

If I say 'spiritual', what thoughts pop into your head, what emotions?
My father uses that word sometimes, when he talks about african culture or music, he feels a connection to it and is realizing his own 'spiritual state' whatever that means to him. And he is more of a scientist (doctor).

Honestly, when someone says "spiritual" I think more of a lifestyle than I do anything else. When someone says "spirit" it seems more to me like emotional support of a game or school (eg. "have school spirit"). But what about the crux of spiritualism?

Well yes. So can spirit. Most people have an idea. But there is no one truth. If I talk about 'the spiritual state of mind', you have an idea, an image that pops into your head. Same thing happens when I adress 'true love'.

Right, but then spirit does not really have any truth to it then, does it? We know what love leads to, how it is used, it's benefits, etc. However, spiritualism has fanatic followers dedicating their lives to it and yet there is no real definition of it? People dedicate their lives to something they cannot even grasp in language?

Why are there people not worshiping "nothingness"?

My 'belief' is, everything is connected. Everything came from one.

As I asserted in another thread - could we not just say that this is energy acting in a chaotic symphony?

Science is a very fun language and it is also an important one. I am always informing myself about new discoveries and I do very much value it. But what is happening here is that science extracts one bit from the whole and the common belief is that it still resembles the original. But that is only true to a certain degree.

If you take a drop out of the ocean, you can exermine it and you can say, 'well, it's a drop of water'. But it would be false to make the assumption that the ocean is full of many, single drops, independent from each other. When you look at that little drop of water, it becomes disconnected from the ocean - the whole. The ocean is not made out of drops.

Not all science is as inductive as you paint it. While I agree science has no definition or assumption of the spirit, I also must assert that even spiritualists have no real reason or justification for their beliefs while hypocritically claiming that they do.

The whole is more than just the sum of its parts.
I think, there is something that does hold everything together.

I would ask you - could this not possibly be evolution functioning in a chaotic system in which all things are bound by energy? No special "further fact"? Just that this is all we can "know".

I am really sorry, but I have the hardest time expressing my thoughts.

There is nothing exact here or accurate, if it didn't take me quite some time to write this, I would erase it now. :-)

I appreciate your input more than I can express on here. No worries.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Memories, personal identity and sensory perception are a part of your spirit but they only make up a relatively small fraction. Most of your spirit is in other people's perception of you, and your ideas existing in other people's heads. The parts outside of yourself are really the important parts anyway, because they are what is left of your spirit after you die. This also includes any pictures that might be taken of you, any of your thoughts or ideas that have been written down, and anything that you have created in your lifetime including any genetic offspring you might have. A whole person is a lot more than what is contained in the body.

Distinguish the spirit from the self/identity.

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

All words or concepts that point to a place that is beyond utility or distinction is "it".

Distinguish "it" from "unknown".

Any idea or thought cannot arise without there first being an undefinable field, space, emptiness, or nothingness for it to arise in.

Cyclic, you surprise me sometimes. Sometimes you say the stupidest things and then other times you say rather, respectively, profound things. Please, do not let this reinforce your "poetic" talk though.

What you are saying is the very depths of epistemology and I honestly would love to debate about it but let us reconcile:

Could you not say that it is not simply the original environment that gives all knowledge but an interaction of all variables?

For all intents and purposes we can't put our finger on the matter so there is no point in futilely attempting to focus on each finger.

Again, distinguish your spirit from the simple word "unknown".

Instead, look in the direction it's pointing.

We both know that this is a silly poetic anecdote. I think what you intended to say was, "Instead of trying so hard to define things, simply enjoy life and knowledge", right? I respect this, but I honestly have a dire thirst for understanding and it has so far been very efficient and beneficial in all means imaginable.

~

I thought the spirit was simply your consciousness after death...and we dont know what consciousness exactly is yet except it may be a for of undefined energy.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

I thought the spirit was simply your consciousness after death...and we dont know what consciousness exactly is yet except it may be a for of undefined energy.

As a psychological empiricist, I absolutely disagree. Neuroscience can distinguish many facilitations of consciousness via the brain. The senses facilitating the conscious mind, etc.

Can you distinguish consciousness from mind?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Distinguish the spirit from the self/identity.
~

If you mean self/identity as your personal self/identity, then the difference is that the spirit also includes the rest of reality's version of your self/identity. Otherwise, there is little difference, except the spirit also includes the self/identity's ability to do work (which would be the 'energy' that others refer to).

"Nothing"... "Unknown"... "Chaos"... or whatever else that seemingly slips through our fingers is "it", though.

Each word boiled down to it's base has a logical syntax pointing back at the speaker or conceiver of "it".

That's why I've said before that through humbling one's self into not knowing, one knows...

Giving in to "it" is essentially humbling yourself to allow the subtle inner-workings and understandings of "it" to flow through you.

When one believes themselves still searching for "it" they are basically tricking themselves into believing "it" as one step away from their grasp.

This is where I mentioned misunderstandings as still understanding but misinterpretations of understanding.

However, there "it" always is, pervading those spaces between each thought... each word... each perception... each feeling...

It has nothing to do with the chemical makeup of your brain because those same chemicals arranged in the same situation cannot possibly be aware of themselves. Chemicals are just distinctions of the functionality behind the construction of the housing for "it".

The spirit cannot be distinguished, but all must recognize it as being there.

They attach reference points to "it" which we all recognize and accept... I ... You... He... She... We... They... It...

However, all references to "it" fall short of "it", as "it" dodges inference.

Comfortably cradling and propping up this reality and all in "it".

Originally Posted by O'nus

Honestly, when someone says "spiritual" I think more of a lifestyle than I do anything else. When someone says "spirit" it seems more to me like emotional support of a game or school (eg. "have school spirit"). But what about the crux of spiritualism?

Well, it has become a lifestyle. But like it is with everything that recieves the attention of the masses, there always are those that just blindly follow, turning it into a hype and use for (ego)expression or personal gain. There is, of course, a lot of bullshit out there.

The crux of spiritualism, I'd say, is trying to see things for what they are.
Realizing ones own bias and the illusions that are put up around us by human and our own lack of perception - limited to time, thinking and senses.

So, the spiritual journey is about trying to find truth in oneself, not wanting to be manipulated by external factors, and living your life asking the 'questions of life'. Also trying to find true happiness - inner peace with all there is.

Now, the way you experience this, or the perspective you are tackeling these "unanswerable" questions (by others) is solely individual. There are those, that believe in angels, believe in the land of the dead, but also those that believe there is no god - that is not the core of it, though, really - not important at all.

If you want to explore the unknown, while only relying on the language of science, you will have a harder time coming up with really innovative, new ideas or breaching into 'new dimensions' of thought. I am all for a mixture of as many different sides of a story as possible, to become at least somewhat of a holistic picture.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Right, but then spirit does not really have any truth to it then, does it?

What I say has no truth to you, only to myself.
You may or may not find it, but also noone forcing
you to look for 'it'.

People dedicate their lives to something they cannot even grasp in language?

I can put my reasons for how I live my life into language.
But there are those things that can't be fully grasped. Love, for example.

One way to explain this 'way of life' is through emotion.
Another would be a metaphorical language. If you are
looking for a scientific proof, so that it validates an individual
experience for all people on this planet - well - then you
just didn't quite 'get it' - no offense.

Why are there people not worshiping "nothingness"?

You mean nihilists?
Big Lebowsky is awesome, by the way.

As I asserted in another thread - could we not just say that this is energy acting in a chaotic symphony?

Sure we could.
But we might still have a different understanding of it.
It would take a long time, to actually get on the same page on linguistics.
Without mimic, gesture and emotion it even makes it a lot more difficult.

I also must assert that even spiritualists have no real reason or justification for their beliefs while hypocritically claiming that they do.

There is no 'one' belief. I am not claiming to have any answers or anything, but since when is experience and personal reasoning not a justification for how one lives his life. Noone actually knows what they are doing - on one way or the other, everyone is kind of trying to figure out (for themselves) what to do and what to think and where to go.

I would ask you - could this not possibly be evolution functioning in a chaotic system in which all things are bound by energy? No special "further fact"? Just that this is all we can "know".

The natural system is anything but chaotic.
Go into the microcosm, into our reality, into the macrocosm and check out the golden ratio. It's pretty close to perfect on enormous (large or small) scale - and we are not even able to view beyond our limited senses.

I appreciate your input more than I can express on here. No worries.

That's good to know. I also very much like reading and growing on your writings!

======
wait, do you speak german?
http://video.google.de/videosearch?h...8&sa=N&tab=wv#
I really liked that lecture.
Hans-Peter Dürr, quantum physicist + philosopher.
A lot about the limitation of language and science,
concluded with new findings, presented in a mainly
metaphorical language.

Originally Posted by O'nus

As a psychological empiricist, I absolutely disagree. Neuroscience can distinguish many facilitations of consciousness via the brain. The senses facilitating the conscious mind, etc.

Can you distinguish consciousness from mind?

~

well, mind to me is your collection of memories, emotions, decision making, ect while you're alive. The spirit would be whatever holds these properties after you die, if it exists.

Is the uh, the spirit, Immaterial?


If so how does it in any sense interact with the material.

good question. Perhaps those changes in vibrational frequency Apers are always talking about?

Vibration implies material. Wheres the 'link' between the immaterial and the material, surely there can't exist one, by definition they cannot interact.