Hey all! Hey Jim!
<<Since I relate the "soul" to some of the
basic emotions. Not "souly" upon the reflection factor.>>
yeah, that comes even closer to what I personally
consider a soul, too.. and I guess, it's even more the emotional bit
to soul than the ratio one - and above all, let's not forget the spiritual
aspect here (however you may relate to spirituality). Coming back to the
definitions (hehe.. there are just too many words to define in this
world, aren't there? ;-)
"soul = spiritual or immaterial part of a person,
often regarded as immortal" yeah, I forgot to mention the immortal-aspect
the last time.. and the immaterial one (I mean, yeah, we think with our material
brains but where can you find the soul, speaking in material terms i.e.? I
guess you could say it's the whole of our material processes that creates a soul
- then raised to a higher level since it "feeds" on information gathered by all
of our senses, emotions and thoughts..)
a thought that crossed my mind just now: if
someone's [like for instance our dear friend Jackson's ;-) ]
definition of reality is based on the ability of perception with our 5
basic senses, then would such a person consider a soul real? ok. I can also put
it in the more direct way: what do you think of that idea Jackson? (I know I'm
probably being a bit annoying at the moment but I'm just curious what your
response would be)
Coming back to the animals. I've got nothing
against them, really! But I just don't see how they could possibly have a soul -
i.e. according to my definition of a soul which implies a certain degree of
self-consciousness. Plus, I don't think that animals are aware of the
deeper meaning of life and so on (-so the thinking part again, i.e. insight..
and yeah, I know Jackson - I took this word from you, but ya didn't
copyright it.. hehe ;-)..........................
to be continued