|
Hi Bill. Thanks for your reply and further input into this topic. A definition does not have life. It is simply a grouping of words that attempt to explain either things, concepts, ideas, and other phenomena that we come into contact with during our life on this planet. There is no such thing as a live thought or dead thought.
Just to think requires the working brain of an animate being.
Definition and experience are two separate ideas. Steiner does not make much sense in the quote you offer and the quip about dogs having a group soul is a rather "dogmatic" idea which does not conform to the accepted definition of soul being a function of thinking and willing -- something that dogs do, but rocks and plants do not. Yet, in the Ohsawan context of infinite oneness, we are told that all things are differentations of the one (soul), which includes rocks and plants. In addition the idea of dogs having a group soul (whatever that means) is something I'm sure neither you nor Steiner has EXPERIENCED. I really don't think your idea of soul fits with that of the masses.
I equate soul with energy and like energy it cannot be seen but can be harnessed and felt and has polar tendencies of negative and positive fields. Plants and rocks have energy within them as well as dogs and people. All have carbon centers with ossccilating atoms, protons, and electrons. These can be experienced and defined. Animals do have egos. Ego is defined as "self" -- and in psycoanalysis it refers to that part of the psyche that experiences the external world through the senses and has the ability to think rationally and to take appropriate actions when required. Dogs can and do rationalize their thoughts and can organize into groups, especially when wild, to more effectively hunt prey. We are not in the same ballpark here at all Bill.
Webster's reference to "sea" comes from the Middle English "soule" akin to the German "seele" -- belonging to the sea, from an early belief that souls originate from the sea. Beats me, unless they had the knowledge of evolution! Of course soul (energy) came before sea. Sorry to hear that macrobiotics is limiting without God for you. Macrobiotics was first formulated by the philosophical Taoists who did not believe in God...
Macrobiotics for me is balance with the natural environment using physical yin/yang and has nothing whatsoever to do with one's personal God. Being aware of life's oneness and its mysteries and beauty, and having the gratitude and respect for all life, however, is something I find to be an essential component of being a macrobiotic.
Anyway good to hear your side. Maybe others would be so kind in doing the same as you and giving their views as well. Nice that we are all so different.
In peace, Roy
|