Senses effecting emotions

[MelissaTaylor]

[I'm sure somebody has probably posted something similar to this and I just haven't seen it, but oh well...]

Is there really a difference between [or such thing as] soul and body? If so, where do we draw the dividing line?

I noticed that things I sense physically can greatly affect my emotions.
For example, the very first time I listened to the song 'Saeglopur' by Sigur Ros[which is an outstanding band, btw] I cried because it was so beautiful.
It's amazing that just your ears hearing certain sounds can create so much emotion in your mind.
Same goes with movies and books.. watching or reading a story can greatly affect your emotions and thoughts.

Everything you sense with your physical body has a direct influence on your non-physical mind.

Most people think of your mind [or soul] as being seperate from your physical body, but they are so intertwined.. where do you draw the dividing line? Is there even a line?


[and yes, I just realized that I spelled 'affecting' wrong in the title, but it won't let me edit it now so we'll just have to live with it...]

[Taeguk]

The "body-soul" distinction has always struck me as a dubious one, but it's an ancient one that is firmly etched in Western philosophy (thanks a lot, Plato). Arguably the past 2,500 years of Western thought consisted of dividing the world into two halves (body and soul, good and evil, reality and appearance, mind and matter, objective and subjective, noumena and phenomena, etc etc etc) and than trying to either (a) figure out how these two could possibly interact (Dualism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29)); or (b) reduce one to the other (Monism; if everything is mind you are an Idealist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism), if everything is matter you are a Materialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)). The two must either be at war with each other.

Most contemporary philosophers do not believe in a "soul" of any kind, although intractable debates over the nature of mind and matter continue to rage. Thebigview's section on consciousness (http://thebigview.com/mind/index.html) is a good place to start and conscious entities (http://www.consciousentities.com/) is a more detailed site on the debate.

Personally, the whole thing strikes me as being rather silly and misguided. I tend to side with those thinkers who opposed the distinction; the existentialists and proto-existentialists who argued that the human being must be understood as a whole. I also think Alfred North Whitehead's process pan-experientialism provides an elegant solution to the "problem" (which is largely self-created). I think the Buddhist views of the mind are even more elegant because they avoid the problem altogether.

[Ryker]

In all my searching, I have found no barrier. :loveyou:

[j000han]

Hello Mellissa

I noticed that things I sense physically can greatly affect my emotions.
For example, the very first time I listened to the song 'Saeglopur' by Sigur Ros[which is an outstanding band, btw] I cried because it was so beautiful.
It's amazing that just your ears hearing certain sounds can create so much emotion in your mind.
I listened and watched the various versions of the videos particulary the one with Bjork i liked very much.
Thanks for this hint.
MT:
Is there really a difference between [or such thing as] soul and body? If so, where do we draw the dividing line?

>
If by soul (as I have understood from your previous posts) you mean to refer to the existence of some non physical force, then I assume that in your experience you discriminate between the one (body) and the other (soul).
Is there in my experience a difference between soul and body?
Yes and no there is, allthough I hessitate to call that a ‘real’ diffrence
Between that what has brought about a body (as a material manifestation) and the manifestation itself, hence soul is singular(only one) whereas body (that arise as material manifestation from that force) is plural.
So the questions:
1[Is there really a difference between soul and body?]
2[If so, where do we draw the dividing line?]
If the answer to 1 is no then there can’t be drawn any line.
If the answer to 2 is yes then 1 might best be be refrased as:
[What is the difference between soul and my body?]
Now..
in my experience any-body is (the like as my body is) a material manifestation that comes from and arises in that what I refer to as soul.
From that experience comes the discrimination between my body(this body) and that body (any body),
However *not* the discrimination between my soul and their soul.
Iow. though I make the discrimination:
my body and your body,
yet I do not make such a discrimination as in my SOUL or your SOUL.
regards:)
johan

[Flux]

I'm inclined to agree with Taeguk--any line drawn between body and soul is bound to be highly questionable at best. Personally, I think the yearning for the soul to be independent from the body stems from our deep-seated desire for permenance and trancendence. We want our Selves, our identities, to be enshrined in an untouchable heaven of ideas.

[j000han]

I'm inclined to agree with Taeguk--any line drawn between body and soul is bound to be highly questionable at best. Personally, I think the yearning for the soul to be independent from the body stems from our deep-seated desire for permenance and trancendence. We want our Selves, our identities, to be enshrined in an untouchable heaven of ideas.

Is there in your experience a difference between soul and body?
Or are you merely inclined to believe that there is/is not such a diffrence?

[Patheya]

For the hisory of the split, the why do we split it, Taeguk covered it.

Personally speaking again-

We are one.

For the purpose of explanation, and for the purpose of communicating of how one feels, then the words 'body', 'soul', 'mind' help. But they hinder us too. They are just terms to describe what's going on.

Also, we can see that in the world, there are indviduals who seem more drawn to different aspects of the self. Some seem to be more spiritual (drawn to meditation, gratiude, discovery), to the body (sports, gym, plastic surgery), and others again have their priorities in the mind....

If we realised that the terms were just here to help us.... not define us... it would take us a step further.

[idealist]

Hi Mellisa,
I think it can be useful to conceptualize differences among mind, body and soul. Although I understand mind and body as being inextricably linked, whereas I understand the concept of the soul as something different.

For me the soul is the bridge between the Self and awareness/ego. One cannot hook a monitor up to the soul and observe it's operations, but I think it is real.

I experience my senses, feelings and emotions as part of my thinking. And what I think about affects what I feel. It is true that the neocortex can observe the mind at work, but even then, it is affected by what I am experiencing and feeling at the time.

[Abovo]

Hi there,
This is just my two cents worth, but I believe that when someone refers to the soul they are really thinking of the Self - that which is the essence of who they are apart from everything else that is not the essence of who they are. Furthermore, they may be asking the fundamental question, 'What, if anything, can be called the Self that is permanent as opposed to everything that is temporary?'
Then there is another question - If there is any such permanent Self, can we know it and define it with thought and words?
The problem with knowing something conceptually, in other words by some form of logic, is that we must know that there is nothing that we do not know that might influence our conclusion. But who can know all the things that we do not know?
On the other hand, we have the ability to simply realize things that do not need to be conceptualized in order for us to 'know' them. For instance, we realize that a flower is beautiful without having to know why a flower is beautiful before we can 'know' that a flower is beautiful.
In the same way we can realize the Self in a way that we can never 'know' the Self.
It is not a process of discovery so much as it is a light going on and we say, "Oh, that's the Self, and it's been right there all the time and somehow I've missed it and how obvious it now is!"
I can only say that, in my view, conscious awareness does not arise, it is not a function of the brain, it has no properties that are subject to change or destruction.
Conscious awareness is pure light that illuminates all - it IS the Self. It is the I AM with nothing added.
I cannot say what allows the realization of the Self to happen, but I can say that it need not take years of meditation or introspection. I find the 'Upanishads' to be a wonderful expression of the Self. I believe it is also what Christ meant when he said things like "The kingdom of heaven is within you," and "I am in my father, and you in me, and I in you". This is because the Self is infinite and undivided and we as 'individuals' are merely a geometric point in space.
To use your original analogy of music, it is our ears that hear the vibrations and our minds that interpret the sounds, but it is the Self that does the listening, and it is the Self that 'enjoys' the music.
Again, I must stress that I have no special 'knowledge' about any of this.