Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tl00115)

Dr. A.M.Bain wrote:
> 
> In message <3466763E.4301@dmv.com>, Vincent Beall <vincent@dmv.com>
> writes
> >Most ordinary use of the word soul has the meaning "spiritual-soul".
> >This soul is the essential you, it has structure, and within the
> >structure your entire self is reproduced complete with consiousness. The
> >substance of this 'organism' is spirit.
> 
> No. This organism is *informed* by spirit.  The soul has  a sense of
> "self" while the informing spirit has a certainty of Being, of I-
> dentity.
> 
> If this seems to be complete unbelievable, you're younger than you know.

We are probably in agreement, all that is is spirit. When one senses
spirit it does inform, and can in many ways, conveying color, feeling,
idea, etc.. My use of the word organism was meant only to say that the
spiriual-soul is a spiritual structure. Although, I don't see how
"spirit", which I understand as substance, can have being apart from the
host or soul. Certainly spiritual emanation conveys knowledge of the
being of it's source, but the source must have structure and not only
substance. 

Well, anyway, when we divide anything into parts it can always collapse
into an infinite regression which defeats our understanding of the parts
themselves. We really have only our experiences to reflect on
ultimately, which makes the mystery of mysteries an explanation of what
the substance of our sensations is. It is all Yesod, in otherwords, and
made transcendental in Kether. What is the substance of blue, hot, cold,
or the fragrance of a rose? These are experience; a rose is a rose, is a
rose.

Notwithstanding, my take is that the roses are the sephirot. So please
describe your understanding of spirit. If we experience spirit as having
qualities then isn't structure implied? How do you deduce this structure
and with what system of words? Why isn't soul synonomus with being?

Vincent

-- 

vincent@dmv.com

http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/