That's a question for a native speaker of the English language. In German that concept doesn't exist as such.
On 10 Mrz., 23:37, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Then where does the mind fit into this? Does that make it squarangulation? > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OK, the anatomic triangulation then. The soul is associated with > > matters concerning the heart and the spirit with the brain. > > > On 10 Mrz., 18:09, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 10 Mar, 14:55, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > You see no connection? Interesting. Does it in any way interest you > >> > that to me soul and spirit are two different things? > > >> There are many who would agree that soul and spirit are two different > >> things. But few(er) can define the difference. So, in your opinion, > >> what is the difference between them. > > >> I'm familiar with a few different schemas with respect to spiritual > >> anatomy, if you will. The one I'm most familiar with is the > >> kabbalistic breakdown, which divides generic 'spirit' into 5 parts: > > >> Nephesh: animal soul > >> Ruach: spirit > >> Neshamah: soul (divine soul rather than the animal nephesh that we > >> [animals] all have. This was an additional soul that is, supposedly, > >> only granted to humans.) > >> Chiah: life force > >> Yechidah: divine spark > > >> Now, whilst I understand that schema, I don't know, for sure, if it's > >> valid. It certainly COULD be, but how does one test it? Until we can > >> scientifically define any of these into a comprehendable field of a > >> specific type of measurable energy, Faith is our only guide. And > >> Faith, as a guide, has millions of eyes looking in all directions yet > >> they're all blind and see nothing. ;-) > > >> I'd only be guessing but I suspect you view spirit as something > >> grosser than soul, i.e., soul is smaller, yet, perhaps, more > >> concentrated? Which, as a rational way of looking at it, would also > >> imply that there are soul/spirit aspect ratios/dilution gradients. > > >> > On 10 Mrz., 13:34, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > On 9 Mar, 15:11, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > Just to make sure I get your soul concept right, Pat, how would you > >> > > > describe the difference between a ghost story and a fairy tale? > > >> > > A ghost story is a story about ghosts; a fairy tale is, usually, a > >> > > folktale derived from some local folklore. There is some overlap, as > >> > > ghost stories may develop into fairy tales and some fairy tales > >> > > (because of the former reason) contain ghosts. None of this, though, > >> > > has anything to do with the soul. My concept of a soul or spirit is > >> > > 'a coherent field of energy'. And, in the above, I extrapolated that, > >> > > in order to maintain coherence, the field MUST exist within space- > >> > > time, therefore making it a spatio-temporal object. In fact, in order > >> > > for it (or anything) to exist, it must exist at some place and at some > >> > > time (feel free, though, to put forward an exception if you can think > >> > > of one). Existence itself is the property that places us (and > >> > > anything) within the confines of space-time. > > >> > > > On 9 Mrz., 14:00, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > On 6 Mar, 18:54, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > Speaking purely theoretically - I accept Orn's point completely, > >> > > > > > that > >> > > > > > discussions about reincarnation are pure theory - I don't see the > >> > > > > > problem. If there is a soul (theoretically speaking, since I > >> > > > > > have no > >> > > > > > idea what a soul IS), upon disincarnation it (presumably) leaves > >> > > > > > space- > >> > > > > > time. That's space-TIME. So, theoretically, there's no reason > >> > > > > > not to > >> > > > > > assume that a soul experiencing disincarnation in 2009 might not > >> > > > > > be > >> > > > > > reincarnated in 1909. Wow, I could even be Albert Einstein in my > >> > > > > > next > >> > > > > > life. Or Helen of Troy. Or my own grand-dad. > > >> > > > > If the soul/spirit is a coherent field of energy, then it must, > >> > > > > somehow, retain coherence. It could only do that given space and > >> > > > > time. That is, there is no 'coherence' outside of time (or space). > >> > > > > Ghosts, if disincarnate souls, would stand as evidence that > >> > > > > spacetime > >> > > > > is STILL a factor after disincarnation. > > >> > > > > > Personally, I have never found speculation about reincarnation > >> > > > > > particularly useful for living in the here-and-now. > > >> > > > > > Francis > > >> > > > > > On 6 Mrz., 16:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > As to theory when it comes to things like > >> > > > > > > reincarnation....theories > >> > > > > > > are like comic books. Entertaining, and keep one distracted. > >> > > > > > > As to proof...the only proof would be if one remembers > >> > > > > > > experiencing > >> > > > > > > it. I have nothing against those who make such a claim. > > >> > > > > > > On Mar 6, 4:32 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:04, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > This may be a silly question that has already been > >> > > > > > > > > answered by those > >> > > > > > > > > who posit reincarnation, or you may have an answer, Slip. > > >> > > > > > > > > But it just occurred to me that the world population keeps > >> > > > > > > > > growing, > >> > > > > > > > > over time. So let's begin to flesh out the mechanics of > >> > > > > > > > > reincarnation > >> > > > > > > > > theory. Since the world population keeps growing, new > >> > > > > > > > > souls must be > >> > > > > > > > > coming into being (on the starting premise that souls > >> > > > > > > > > exist, of > >> > > > > > > > > course). What is your belief as to whether all souls > >> > > > > > > > > reincarnate? Is > >> > > > > > > > > it that, each year, of the 300 million people who die (I'm > >> > > > > > > > > guessing > >> > > > > > > > > here, not bothering to look up how many people actually > >> > > > > > > > > die each > >> > > > > > > > > year), those 300 million souls immediately reincarnate? > >> > > > > > > > > Is there some > >> > > > > > > > > lag time? Given that the world population grows by, say, > >> > > > > > > > > 200 million > >> > > > > > > > > a year, does this mean that 200 million entirely new, > >> > > > > > > > > non-reincarnated > >> > > > > > > > > souls are generated each year? > > >> > > > > > > > > More importantly, when a new baby is born, how is it > >> > > > > > > > > decided whether > >> > > > > > > > > that new baby gets a reincarnated soul, or an entirely new > >> > > > > > > > > soul? > > >> > > > > > > > > The basic premise of my e-mail is that the number of > >> > > > > > > > > people dying > >> > > > > > > > > falls short of the number of people being born, so not > >> > > > > > > > > every new birth > >> > > > > > > > > can have a reincarnated soul. How does reincarnation > >> > > > > > > > > theory think > >> > > > > > > > > about this? > > >> > > > > > > > Firstly, whose theory? There are theories that don't limit > >> > > > > > > > reincarnation to only human form. If you count ALL the > >> > > > > > > > lifeforms in > >> > > > > > > > existence (and, not just Earthbound ones), THEN you'll see > >> > > > > > > > how full > >> > > > > > > > the pool of souls, as it were, is. Whilst I take your > >> > > > > > > > point, an Earth- > >> > > > > > > > limited view must be thrown out. Odds are that there's a > >> > > > > > > > huge > >> > > > > > > > whopping amount of life out there that could re-incarnate > >> > > > > > > > (or re- > >> > > > > > > > invegetate, for that matter!). > >> > > > > > > > Although there IS the Jewish view of 'The Guph', or 'Hall of > >> > > > > > > > Souls' > >> > > > > > > > where souls wait for (re-)incarnation. There is also a > >> > > > > > > > belief that > >> > > > > > > > the Guph can be emptied and soulless individuals born. This > >> > > > > > > > is > >> > > > > > > > explored in the Juergen Prochnow/Demi Moore film "The Seventh > >> > > > > > > > Sign" (Great film!). > > >> > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:51 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Slip, can you clarify what you mean by saying > >> > > > > > > > > > > "Thought, as I see it, is not physical or > >> > > > > > > > > > > tangible<<<<<MB > > >> > > > > > > > > > Simply for me thought is not something that you can put > >> > > > > > > > > > in a box and > >> > > > > > > > > > ship out or place in a zip lock bag for storage. I > >> > > > > > > > > > feel thought and > >> > > > > > > > > > imagination are homologous but not identical in that > >> > > > > > > > > > thought itself > >> > > > > > > > > > may be considered more of a process, which imagination > >> > > > > > > > > > uses to create > >> > > > > > > > > > ideas, concepts, theories etc. > > >> > > > > > > > > > though it is the subject of multiple scientific > >> > > > > > > > > > experiments." ?<<<MB > > >> > > > > > > > > > I may have hastened to use the expression scientific > >> > > > > > > > > > experiments, no > >> > > > > > > > > > intended reference to "thought experiments", but more so > >> > > > > > > > > > leaning > >> > > > > > > > > > towards the nature of thought, it's use as in > >> > > > > > > > > > telekinesis, telepathy, > >> > > > > > > > > > clairvoyance, the overall power of thinking, and the law > >> > > > > > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > > > attraction, much of which admittedly, is speculative > >> > > > > > > > > > and/or > >> > > > > > > > > > hypothetical. > >> > > > > > > > > > Discovering the physical nature of thought is aside from > >> > > > > > > > > > what I am > >> > > > > > > > > > projecting because once thought takes place it becomes > >> > > > > > > > > > independent of > >> > > > > > > > > > it's originating source as does the light emanating from > >> > > > > > > > > > a dead star. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > As I understand you, you posed that perspective in > >> > > > > > > > > > > opposition to the > >> > > > > > > > > > > contention that "all thought > >> > > > > > > > > > > and consciousness dies with the death of the physical > >> > > > > > > > > > > mind." Are you > >> > > > > > > > > > > arguing that when a person is alive, his thoughts are > >> > > > > > > > > > > extra-physical, > >> > > > > > > > > > > or are you also arguing that consciousness / soul > >> > > > > > > > > > > survives death?<<<MB > > >> > > > > > > > > > I'm not arguing as much as I am suggesting that thoughts > >> > > > > > > > > > are not > >> > > > > > > > > > confined to our physical being. As I posted early on, > >> > > > > > > > > > we do see light > >> > > > > > > > > > from stars that are physically non existent. I believe > >> > > > > > > > > > thoughts, > >> > > > > > > > > > imaginations and subconscious manifestations do continue > >> > > > > > > > > > to exist > >> > > > > > > > > > beyond the physical demise. I feel very strongly that > >> > > > > > > > > > the soul > >> > > > > > > > > > survives physical death > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
