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.
~
|
|
Bookmarks