Divisions of the Spirit

Tom: The point of progressive discussion is to agree on a point and move forward. You must, for this purpose, agree that we will use "spirit" as the energy that sparks the body into life and allows the intellect to work as well as the physical body and the emotional. But I want you to understand.

Sylvia: I do understand, I just don't really agree. But ok, for the sake of this discussion, I do agree, and will keep it in mind until I find a better way to express it. Please go on, I am following you. There's something missing, you see. Let me try to explain.

Tom: Please do

Sylvia: The reason that I don't want to say that the spirit and the soul are different is because then it is as if the soul is out of our control, not what I have understood the spirit to be. We have a spirit, we are supposed to become more spiritual as we live longer and learn. The soul, to me, is the way to explain how the spirit is "attached" to the body, to our experience of being able to develop it. So the soul is that spiritual aspect of ourselves. We have a body and a soul. We function on the four levels that we've mentioned because we have a soul. (I don't like the word soul; I'd rather use spirit.) There is the physical realm, and there is the spiritual realm, or realms. We are told by various messengers that the origin of those realms is God. Ok, getting off track a bit, but what do you think? Am I getting a bit closer to what you mean? I do think that I don't understand the concept of soul, really. I wasn't raised with it either, and have found in the Writings more to support the idea of being spiritual than what it means to have a soul, really. I take it for granted because it is all of our capacities in one.

Tom: My purpose here is to dissect us. What I am assuming, of course, is that we have a soul. The rest is what I'm trying to dissect. So you never answered my question: Do plants have souls?

Sylvia: No, they don't.

Tom: OK.

Sylvia: Neither do rocks. Neither do animals, in fact.

Tom: No, but rocks do not have the spirit of life, but animals do.

Sylvia: Yes. Actually, rocks have that spirit of life too. Well, not life as in organic.

Tom: OK. So that is where I'm drawing the division between spirit and soul. I think rocks can channel energy or spirit, but it is not inherent in rocks to grow, hence they have no spirit of their own. When you eat a fresh rock, it does you no good, does it? If you water the rock, it does not produce anything other than perhaps extraneous organisms living upon it.

Sylvia: The way that the Writings describe this, is that rocks are also part of creation, that there is value in what they contain. (Minerals, for example) To look a little higher, people have souls while animals do not. They reflect the qualities of the spirit world, just like the rock does contain something valuable, if not living. So animals do have spiritual qualities, but do not HAVE a spirit. So they can't contain those qualities awarely. Just like a rock doesn't have the minerals awarely, or have any control over that.

Tom: Everything is of value, sure, but we are digressing. I would say the opposite. The animal does not have spiritual qualities but has the spirit of life.

Sylvia: Yes, the spirit of life. Not a spirit though, not a soul. Ok. Sorry, go on, please...(I was thinking of love, loyalty, happiness, etc, think dogs).

Tom: I think that's it for now. What I would like you to think about in this discussion is that we are redefining spirit to mean the spark of life. And we shall attach the soul to all that later. I think we would be more progressive if we think some more and perhaps if you decide, for the purpose of continuing that it is permissible to define spirit as the spark of life. Later on, there might be incongruencies with this theory that we will have to work through. Keep in mind, I'm not taking anything from the soul.

Sylvia: Ok, I think I don't want to discuss this in agreement only though. I think we would get further if we continued even if we didn't agree. I am not worried about the soul concept here. From the spark of consultation, the truth is made more readily apparent.

Tom: I'm just changing definitions of spirit in order to get deeper. Yes, you're right. In fact, you don't need to agree and it may be even better if you don't. However, unless you allow the definition of spirit as I've described, it is pointless to continue. We cannot continue. Look up spirit in the dictionary and you'll find my definition in there somewhere.

Sylvia: Yes, we can, really. But how is it going deeper to talk about the spirit of life, which we can agree is the energy that allows life to exist? That is about the physical, which is, I think, my problem with it. To me, the spirit is just the spiritual, beyond the physical.

Tom: Because we shall further dissect spirit into spiritual, emotional, physiological and intellectual.

Sylvia: I hate to say this, but it's too far from how I see it. But I still would like to hear your view on it. "Spirit" is not physiological.

Tom: But all I am asking you to do tonight is leave soul where it is, and assume a definition of spirit as that which is the spark of life.

Sylvia: I know.

Tom: And if you allow that definition, then physiological will fit.

Sylvia: Yes, but here's the thing: I don't think I want to do that. Not because I'm limited to my thoughts, but because I think it would be better for you to continue to explain to me then what you mean, and to let me continue to react with my input. We can agree to disagree here.

Tom: OK, yes.

From Merriam-Webster OnLine: Main Entry: ¹spir•it

Pronunciation: 'spir-&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French or Latin; Old French, from Latin spiritus, literally, breath, from spirare to blow, breathe
1 : an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms

15 March 2004

Sylvia: I have to explain the Baha'i concept of spirit more to you...then you'll know where I'm coming from. We see the physical as an instrument, this whole world as such, in fact, for the spirit. Just as a womb is for the development of the human form, this world is that for our souls. You know?

Tom: OK, I can see that, but I would put "soul" there instead of "spirit" (the physical is an instrument...for the soul).

Sylvia: That is what I meant, yes. Our bodies, as well, are for that development, the means to do so. It's an idea that doesn't sit well with many people; we're too attached to our physical forms.

Tom: True. But, if we are put here for a purpose, surely the purpose isn't just to occupy space with our physical form. That's what makes it funny that people get too attached. Although, the physical form is beautiful.

Sylvia: I think that you're right with saying that spirit is that spark of life, by the way. It's used as a collective descriptor in the Writings, and soul is used to specify it individually for us. I was not so comfortable using the word soul. (Too many hell and damnation stories for my liking.) It isn't just to occupy space with our physical form. It is to allow for the ever-advancing development of the human race. Because it has a spiritual purpose does not mean that we can do without the physical to exist. This is the way it has been designed. Now there's a concept that I would love to dig into more deeply.

And through that ever-advancing development, we do become closer and closer to God. That's the plan, anyway. Made in His image, remember? Just with a more modern way to understand it. I do have problems with this myself. Not problems, but a need to understand it more thoroughly. It almost seems too simple, and it seems limited. I would love to know the worlds of God, of existence, beyond our own right now. I can't wait to die and find out more, in a way. Not morbidly, mind you, just am extremely curious, and not afraid to take the next journey.

16 March 2004

Tom: OK. So, we were discussing that in order to make the points I want to make in this discussion, I am separating the soul and the spirit. The soul being the master entity that is us, taken for granted, and put on the back burner for now. The spirit, meaning, as in Merriam-Webster's first definition, the animation of the being. Correct?

Sylvia: Yes, right.

Tom: And then, I had mentioned that I think sub-domains of this spirit, which are items that can only be activated, if you will, by the spirit (let's call it life-force now to make it easier for you) are the emotions, the intellect, the physiological aspect and the spiritual. Please tell me which of these are the most difficult for you to believe and that will be the first on our agenda.

Sylvia: Okay. Considering that that life force is what is believed to have brought us into existence in the first place, (by God) it isn't hard for me to believe, as we are defining it now. The physiological aspect is of course tied to the physical the most, and the emotions and intellect are also tied to but independent of the physical as well, which I would define as our spiritual selves. Need some further clarification here.

Tom: The body itself, without the life force (shortened now to LF) is just a decaying shell, no better than the fallen tree. It decays. The physical is there, but soon will not be. However, with the LF, the physiological becomes possible; we grow. Our body grows in all its physical dimensions. One may feel that that is the lowest of the LF's functions, but without that aspect of it, we do not exist. Cannot exist.

Sylvia: Ok, yes. And, to add to my own thought from above, the LF also makes it possible then for our intellect and emotions to function, for our soul then, which is on the backburner right now but there, to function as well. We have the independent capacity to direct our thoughts and emotions to the LF more accurately, which directly increases our spirituality.

Tom: OK, yes, but you're getting ahead.

Sylvia: Ok. Go on then...I think we may need to look at that life force in two ways: (that we know of) in the physical realm, and in our human realm. It is clear that we are endowed with more than what the physical world can explain.

Tom: So then what? The intellect? The intellect is the reason center of our being. Of course this incorporates the mental, which, I believe we have decided should be termed the intellect. We learn and incorporate experiences as well as reason out incongruencies and come up with new ideas due to intellect.

Sylvia: Yes, true.

Tom: Would you like to discuss the life force now, according to what you said, or hold off for a few more minutes?

Sylvia: The intellect is, for our purposes, the "mind" of this discussion then as well. No, please go on.

Tom: OK, so now comes the emotional, and perhaps the most animalistic of our life force. Here we are nearly equal with the animals. The dog, as you mentioned the other day, has the emotion, which you attributed to "spiritual qualities". It is able to love, obey (through love), feel jealousy and anger.

Sylvia: Yes, okay. It is tied in to our physical reality more so than our thoughts alone. Affected by hormones, chemical balances, etc. Yet in humans, because we have a soul that has a capacity to be imbibed with the spirit of life, the emotions and thoughts we have can lead to a greater spirituality. What is spirit, then? What is Spirit? What is spirituality in humans? The LF is greater than we know, perhaps. As is Spirit. As is our spiritual capacity. (Getting ahead, I know).

Tom: Yes, that emotion can be controlled by our intellect, and spirituality. I think you had the most trouble with this aspect of the four the other day. You didn't want to let it in there, as I recall. But it is because of the LF that spirituality becomes able to happen. Recall that the soul knows, or so we suppose. The soul is tapped in, but for us, the soul is as the unconscious. A bit vague and seen only with peripheral vision. The spirituality, yes, as you said, helps us guide the soul.

Sylvia: Ok, I think I had trouble with seeing the LF as an independent, unguided force. We have the spiritual capacity, but the energy is given by God. The spirituality that we are capable of is directly inspired by God.

Tom: I was talking briefly to my friend Tracy last night. He read what we had discussed so far and asked me how it was then, that the Atheist, who believes in no god, could be shown to have a soul and spirituality. "Is the atheist his own god?"

Sylvia: The atheist may believe that he has no soul, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. We used to believe that the earth was flat, remember? The atheist could be a very gifted person, but without acknowledging the source of our energy etc, our knowledge is limited.

Tom: I told him it is inherent in man to believe in something, and if the atheist believes there is no god, than yes, the atheists spirituality is given back to himself. Does that make sense?

Sylvia: Well, given back to himself, sure, in his own mind. And if he focuses on the spiritual within himself without believing that the source is external, or spiritual per se, then he still develops. But again, it is limited. If not here, then in further worlds.

Tom: Yes, true. So, then, without the life force, spirituality cannot exist, because spirituality is a solely human attribute. That was said wrong.

Sylvia: Yes. Well, it is as far as we know, anyway. It is a holy attribute as well, of course.

Tom: So I think we have established how the intellect, emotion, physiological and spiritual fit as a part of spirit or life force, right? Is there anything you want to add or take away before we connect it back to the soul?

Sylvia: No, I think we understand it. Please continue.

Tom: We? You are making things way too easy on me today. Does it even make sense, though?

Sylvia: Yes, it does. The intellect, our emotions, our physiology all work together incredibly to facilitate the spiritual development that we are designed to experience in this life. It is the spirit, the life force, that interacts with us, with what we call the soul, our abilities all wrapped up in one I suppose, that makes that development possible. Yes?

Tom: Right.

Sylvia: Wow. In agreement. What else are you thinking?

Tom: I agree that all those wrapped up together work together to make our human development possible. Absolutely. Part of the human development is the reaching out for meaning and a higher power, because some part of us, although we're a reasoning species, understands (the hint from the soul) that we are not autonomous, that we were created and given life by a Higher Being. As we reach out to God, we also reach out to each other, perhaps for the "human" aspect of God that keeps us going.

Sylvia: Yes, that capacity for love and for connectedness. I do think that we are meant to become autonomous eventually, but only when we have the ability. Spiritually, that is.

Tom: Well, we shall always need our God, won't we? Even if we become bodiless souls.

Sylvia: God exists, and we are supposed to not be able to ever really reach His level. The creator being always above His creation, something like that.

Tom: Yes. So, after all that, the spiritual aspect of the life force is the part of being human through which we reach.... perhaps like an umbilical cord, through the soul, to God. And through this cord, the knowledge of the soul becomes not so peripheral, but more clear to direct vision and the happiness and peace that comes from the spiritual relationship comes down through the cord to calm the soul and make our person happier.

Sylvia: Yes, I think that is the way of it, really. The difficulty for many is that so many religions claim to have the answers needed for that happiness.

Tom: Like every other aspect of being human, all the dimensions interact together, making each part work better. Like an oil. Yes, well, that is another thing Tracy asked me about. "How can you get over the fact that each religion is claiming their own God or gods and has the right path?" I told him that for 1000's of years, man has been defining God and religion. Lies have been propagated for the purpose of subjugation and gain. Some of those lies have become the "truth" and now, it is not so easy to determine truth from lie. This is where our intellect comes in, I believe. God did not create man to blindly follow. That would be a slap in God's face to not utilize one of our given abilities. It is for us to make the spiritual connection, to commune with God and to act in accordance with God's direction to us.

Sylvia: Yes, exactly. Wow, that is like a breath of fresh air. That's exactly what I believe as well, by the way. What I think, that is. The meaning we've attached to things has become a hindrance, in many cases. Even the terms "believe" and "worship" for example. If you really think for yourself, many truths become apparent.

Tom: Yes, and I think that is one reason many folks may think of nature as being a church over a building. There, by ourselves, we can finally be at rest with more of creation that will not try to bend our minds, talk, etc.

Sylvia: Yes. And with some luck, the church is conducive to free and intelligent thinking. The key as you have said, is intelligent consideration and putting into play those qualities that we can actually use, to learn and grow.

Tom: So, I told you that this discussion would not end up changing your mind or being in opposition to what you believe. I just felt a desire to, and perhaps for no real purpose, further define the human spirit and its difference from, and relationship to the soul.

Spirit being the life of the body, of course. Now, you may go back lumping spirit and soul together and calling the whole "Spirit".

Sylvia: Well, if I do that, it would be spirit and Spirit, in which spirit=soul. Same difference.

Tom: Is there anything lacking? Anything that should be added or could be added?

Sylvia: Hmm. I think that it was a good idea to discuss each aspect of ourselves in direct relation to the whole, as you've done. When you first started, it seemed like you were picking it apart to examine them separately, which can't really be done on their own, for apparent reasons. A moot point now. Nothing else to add really.

Tom: I think that this discussion has reached its logical end.

Sylvia: Yes. It has. Most regrettably, though.

Through the discussion, we were able to separate the non-physical aspects of the human into the soul and the spirit. The soul we took for granted and put "on the back burner" for much of the conversation, as there is yet no method for verifying its existence.

We divided the spirit, taken to mean "an animating or vital principle held to give life to physical organisms", according to Merriam Webster, into four functions: The emotional, physiological, intellectual and the spiritual. The emotional we identified as being purely animalistic and without reason. The physiological is that aspect of the spirit that allows the corpus to grow and develop. Both plant and animal have this physiological aspect. The intellectual could be further broken down because it encompasses reason and mental development. The spiritual aspect of the spirit relates to the need and desire of the human to connect with a Higher power. To the majority of people, this would mean an entity outside of the human realm. It is my belief that the professed atheist feels the same need and desire, but either channels this spiritual search within himself or seeks the fulfillment of such in fellow humans (humanism).