The common excuse is that 'spirit cannot be defined' can be appealing because it can be taken to mean 'spirit is too loafty to define' and who doesn't like 'spirit' enjoying such a status? However, when we close exermine things in general, we soon find that everything has this tendency of posing insurmountable challenge when you try to define. So 'spirit cannot be defined' isn't as impresive as such. Specifically, yes, we can define 'spirit' like we can, everything else and no, we can't define it enough but so can't we, anything else! So we realy have no excuse but to clear confusions.

'Spirit' must not be confused with 'qualia', but there can be quale that is corelated to spirit. This is because qualia is corelated with neural activity but without a necesary causality beyond neural activity. Spirit, though, must be able to exist independent of neural activities.

Views: 63


You need to be a member of The City of Shamballa - Reiki Attunement Social Network to add comments!

Join The City of Shamballa - Reiki Attunement Social Network

Comment by Rahma on August 23, 2019 at 12:22pm

Have you now understood the following:
1.)'spirit' is as ameanable to definition as any other concept/'thing'?
2.)The difficulty in defining 'spirit' is more general and apply to 'defining things' in general?

Actually and essentially, we 'point to' and 'name' rather attempt to define things (this is a crucial step). All worded definitions are implicit 'pointing to' and 'naming'. However, you probably have a quale that you dubb 'spirit'. However, you can only 'point to' qualia if you could take someone on a tour to your inner world, which is normally impossible. This difficulty in describing 'spirit' might lead you to conclude that spirit cannot be defined. But you are in a big eror! 'Spirit' is not the qualia per-se but the cause of the qualia. The thing that is difficult to describe isn't all there is pertaining to 'spirit'. Qualia corelates with neural activities and some may have mundane cause. Ergo 'experience qualia' always has some confusion.

Comment by Rahma on August 23, 2019 at 2:38am

Finaly notice that meaningfull definition for 'spirit' is at odds with what 'new age gurus' push it down our throats. It can't be the case that we understand spirit by pure meditation. If we insist this, we tacitly deny the objective reality of 'spirit' a priori.

'gurus' fail to show us, even a priori, that 'spirit' doesn't die with them if you gun them down while they are meditating!! They tell us 'see it for yourself' as if it is a given fact that our brains, hearts or whatever, cannot deceive us when there are myriads of cases when we deceive ourselves!!

This 'spirit' has no place in annimating jupiter becaus no guru is gazing at Jupiter and many don't like science. But yes, it is busy animating trumph cause most of them are 'social scientists', 'politicians' and 'psychologists'. Clearly, they confuse spirit with a mere phantasm in their heads. This 'spirit' of gurus lack objective realy. This 'spirit' is irrelevant to the universe!

Comment by Rahma on August 23, 2019 at 2:10am

Spirit: Any imperceptible entity whose presence can only be infered from what it does to its surrounding.

This is a good definition because we can easily guide someone to understand the limits of his senses whereelse it is impossible to illustrate the limits of their minds.

This is how Jesus did to Nicodemus. He said

'the wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear it sound but you can't tell where it is comming from nor where it is going. Same is for anyone born of spirit'.

Why couldn't niccodemus tell where the sound is comming from? Because our eyes cannot see everything there is to see. The wind never make sound unless it hit an object. So we can tell presence of wind by what it does to the trees in the sorrounding. When we don't consider the sence of touch, the wind is a 'spirit'! The called it 'ru'ach' in Hebrew.

Comment by Rahma on August 23, 2019 at 1:46am

This is another common but unenlightening 'definition' for 'spirit'. The proposer opt to insist to you what spirit is not cause he think that 'material' doesn't itself require definition. Specifically, they think that we understand what we see as to belong to the category of 'material'. But we don't!! 'material' is a label that we gave it to the seen and it is not a description nor explanation of it.

So 'material' is not as meaningfull as we want it to be. There is no common property as 'material' that say both biliard ball and a stone has. So 'the immaterial' is not very informative. Just what is it in seen things that we are trying to exclude it from the other category of things and then dubb them 'spirit'?

Comment by Rahma on August 23, 2019 at 1:24am

But look at the common take on 'spirit'. It has come to mean 'something experienced within a person but which the person has no way of pointing it to another person'. This mean that 'spirit' is comming to pple as a quale whereby its possible corelation with something else is overlooked!

This is a bad '(non)definition' of 'spirit' because even the mundane events like sound has a corelated qualia which can't be described to other pple. Well, you can define the quale of sound as 'the spirit of sound', but a good definition of 'spirit' must indicate that 'spirit' doesn't require either sound or neurones to exist.

Follow On:

Translate this Site:

Have you?

Become a Member
Invited Your Friends
Made new Friends
Read/ Written a Blog
Joined/ Created a Group
Read/ Posted a Discussion
Looked at/Posted Photos
Looked at/Posted Videos
Made a donation this month
Followed us on Twitter
 Liked us on Facebook


Donate here (in any amount) if you benefited from attunements or healing or simply want to make a donation to keep the City of Shamballa network running. All donations are greatly appreciated.


© 2009-2019   Chris Comish d/b/a The City of Shamballa Social Network   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service