Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

The variance between perceiving the body and soul as two separate entities versus intertwined seemed to bring up some issues in the Terri Schiavo case, which that article addressed. It was interesting to me that the Catholic and Methodist perspectives (the only Christian ones) advocated that the body and soul are completely separate. However, it makes sense to me that they are intertwined, since we experience so much connection between them. When a person is depressed, stressed, or worried about something it exerts a physical effect on their body. In addition, having a positive outlook versus a negative one can change how you heal or receive medical treatment. There is an actual disease where people so intensely believe that they are sick, that they actually make themselves sick or go to extreme measures to heal themselves. One of the ideas brought up is that the soul can be at different levels of development. No matter how healthy your physical body may be, your soul may not be healthy at all. While this advocates a separation between the two, I wonder if an unhealthy or poorly nourished soul has a significant effect on the physical body.

Russell wrote that there is no matter or mind, and that “mind is an emanation of body and body is an invention of mind.” I found this paradox interesting since each relies so much on the other that possibly neither exists. In class, we have discussed the possibility that our lives are run by computers, bringing up the Matrix and the topic of artificial intelligence. Could we still be considered to have souls if these situations were to be proven true? This again leads to the consideration of how interconnected the body and the soul are, and the effect they have on each other.

Multifaith Round-Up, dealt a lot with the exact moment of death in relation to the soul/body question. I have read many things on the soul and the nature of mind by many people, Nealle Donald Walsch, Bertrand Russell, Daniel Quinn, Deepak Chopla, Rume, Etckart Tolle etc... and they all tend to balance on this ability to convince us through language, something Matthew only began to touch on a few classes back with his priority argument comment. When we deal with the abstract we have to speak in poetic languages. If there is no direct, empirical data for us to analyze and study then the only things we have left to describe something that we have a true experience of but no solid grasp is abstract language. I think this gets extremely specific when we talk about things like the mind and soul. Mind, to me, is really the biggest mystery. This thing we experience almost ever single moment of our waking lives and yet we don't even have an understanding of it. "The man behind the eyes," who is he? How odd we have this ability. I mean, we probably know more about the moons of Saturn then our own functioning minds and it's relationship to body.

I have always viewed the human spirit and the soul as the same thing. I have always been taught that from the moment the human race was born, God had a plan to create each individual who ever was and whoever will be. However, I don’t believe the soul comes into existence until the fetus begins to develop. But from that point on, the soul exists indefinitely throughout the life of the person and after death it remains in heaven or hell, if that was the fate of the individual. So even though Terry Schiavo was brain dead, I believe her soul remained intact until her heart stopped beating.
I found it kind of odd that my view of the soul resembled what Rabbi Hirschfield described more than what Sister Chittister interpreted the soul to be. I agreed with Rabbi Hirschfield when he said, “Right now in the religious world, so much energy is going into proving either, her soul has departed, so the hell with her body, or she still has a soul, so keep shoving that paste into her body. Both of these extremes are a terrible mistake…” Although I believe the soul is still intact when a person is in a vegetative state, I don’t believe that leaving her on life support is necessarily the right thing to do. Ideally the person would have included in their living will what they would like to be done under these circumstances, but I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to leave a person like that. I know that I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position like Terry Schiavo was in.

There seems to be a wide consensus among religions of the world that some type of soul exists, but no real consensus as to what that is exactly. Of course different religions call for different understandings of life and the “soul”, but is it logical to say this intangible human entity even can exist? I would say no, it is not logical that the soul is a real human entity. I think the essence of a perceived soul is realized after death. In this way the soul is more like a footprint or a remnant of the physical entity, but not an individual, independent entity. Maybe a better word is legacy.

Out of body experiences seem to be quite ubiquitous throughout life. Rather than attributing OBE’s to something of transcendence, I think the explanation given in the reading is perfectly reasonable–OBE’s result from dissociation of neural and physical circuits. When I was in high school, I used to go skiing almost everyday there was snow. I became a regular in the terrain park as I found that rush in sliding rails and flipping off of jumps. Before starting the in-run to the jump/rail, I would always have to envision what I was going to do, and watch myself do it out of body and then landing the trick perfectly. For me, this served as a way to make the trick seem possible, for me. It also seemed to be analogous to memorizing lines in a play–you try to know what you are going to say before you get on stage–in the same respect, I tried to figure out what I was going to do before I took off from the jump. This way, I didn’t have to really think about how to go about doing a trick when taking off of a jump, I already knew what I was going to do. I think example given in the reading regarding mountaineering is very similar as OBE’s are suggested to be a way to achieve otherwise impossible feats. I also found I could relate to the early example of a moving train. Again, this seems to a kind of somatic neural detachment of the neuro-muscular circuit. In this case, the other trains movement is visually perceived as one would expect to perceive their own train’s movement. Sensory visual cues seem to be wired to autonomic motor control as opposed to somatic motor control in this case as the bracing for acceleration seems to be somewhat “pre-programmed”, as if the muscles have a memory themselves.

The first article on the Multi faith Round-Up was very interesting. What really stuck with me is how different the two Christian faiths were on the soul and whether it had left Terri Schiavo's body. I never understood why all the Christian contradict each other with silly things like who or what has a soul, and when it leaves the body. The one person who I could most agree with was Rabbi Bradley Hirschfield the Orthodox Jew, or a least his comment at the end of the article. He talked about how our advancements in medicine and technology have made it even harder in determining if souls do exist.
If this women had not been put on life support and a feeding tube she would not have lived as long as she did, so one hundred years ago she would have died and according to most of these people she would be without soul. What I liked even better was Arvid Sharma the Hindu's explanation of the "Self-Willed death," where a person may starve themselves to death if they felt they had lived a good enough life. In a way that is what Terry Schiavo was doing. The reason she went into the coma in the first place was because she was starving herself to loose weight, she did not have enough potassium in her blood, so her cells stopped working causing her to seize and get irreversible brain damage. I do not think this women ever valued her life, or body if she was starving herself, I never thought she should have been kept on life support for as long as she was. Sorry to be harsh, but I thought it was a waste of resources and time for the hospital and family to focus so much attention on someone who just wanted to waste away to begin with. If we do have souls, hers left her body when she stopped breathing and her brain stopped responding.

After reading through Ben Witherington III’s views on the spirit (rather than the soul), I would say that it is more barbaric to leave someone on a feeding tube, and Terry Schaivo was definitely less human than the person who withdrew her feeding tube. I only say this because at least that person could physically move to take out her tube. At least they could do something other than sit all day and all night. These are common human actions and I would include this ability when giving humans a definition.
I really enjoyed Arvind Sharma’s perspective on the Schaivo case (or more generally, Hinduism). I liked the notion that there is no wrong or right, just two rights and the sacrifices made by your choice. It’s an interesting way to think about and view life, whatever exactly that may be. This view really puts a lot of weight into the individual, rather than one doctrine that must be right for everyone, otherwise you’re evil and going to hell. I really liked the Hindu belief that we must try to do right in this life, even if it may not always be a complete answer as to what right actually is.

Personally, I don’t want to be on life support for more than like 2 weeks; that includes artificial feeding. Even if I woke up, there would be serious brain damage so that my life would never be the same anyway. I agree with Ben Witherington III that if there is any question as to if a person is still alive or not, she should be left alone. If she can survive, then she is still alive. If she cannot live without support from a machine, then she is dead.
The definition of death is a something I have been trying to figure out for some time for myself. I’d like to say it is as clear cut as ‘if they couldn’t survive in nature in this state, then they are dead.’ But then why do we have modern medicine? And what about viewing death as the gateway to finally get to go to Heaven? Is any sort of intervention with medicine a sin then, because it keeps you from God? I feel this question greatly pertains to my life as I start nursing school because, for my career, I will be intervening in people’s lives in order to [artificially] prolong them.

The internal and external physical components of the human body will eventually decay; this process is inevitable. However, when we begin to coordinate the relationship between non-matter (the soul or sprit) to matter, we begin to question the effects of the soul on the human body. Russell mentioned in the article that the most essential characteristic of the mind (our link to the subconscious) is memory, and that memory is associated with a physical part of the brain. If the brain decays, then those memories will also begin to decay and there is no possibility for the soul to carry those memories past death. This notion is implying that the human body and the soul/spirit are not separate entities. However, this goes against Christian religion. They believe that the one’s soul inhabits the body and releases once the body has died; thus concluding that the soul and body are two different parts and they serve different purposes. Does this also infer that the human mind is infinite because it is associated with the soul (which is also infinite)? Is there a possibility that whatever knowledge we have accumulated in life will follow us into the afterlife? Then again, that infers that the soul holds memory, not the brain which is a contradiction to Russell’s argument.

The soul is a typical topic on my mind. I sometimes worry that this world is all we have. Then at other times the universe presents itself in a way that makes me feel eternal. In the first article about the soul some of the people were talking about the Shivo case. I don't see this as a case of whether the soul exists. If the soul does exist than keeping the body alive would trap the soul. If the soul does not exist than keeping he alive has no point. Personally it doesn't make sense to keep one women alive when we could use the money to bleep no alive to keep a whole family that is staving to death in africa.Russel had some good thoughts about science trampling the soul. science is very adamant about religion being non-sense. But at tire same time belief in the soul has little to prove its existence. we can easily use an idealized vision of the world to see but seeing with perfect vision is hard. lastly I wart to emphasize near death and out of experiences. I have a lot of experience with this sort of thing five times in my life and each time has been a beautiful flash of colors that has made me appreciate life in new ways.My cousin was in jail once late at night after a long series of very unusual and unfair everts brought un there. He claims he was fed up with life. then when his rage was too men to bare he felt his body rise up and we was starring down at his body.He then claims that Le floated around the Jail. In the next cell block he saw a man being beatto death. the then retuned to his Cody and went to the emergency call device and reported. the mar whose name is John was just barely saved from being beat to death. Today the two are best friends living free from jail.

The human mind has infinite potential but it does play tricks on you. I personally do not believe in out of body experiences due to the fact that I do not think the soul can just propel itself out of the human body and return without damages. Although oddly enough, I think the soul does leave the body when one dreams. Perhaps since dreaming is a natural function our body can stand the absence of the soul, and it is even a necessary function because it allows for the soul to rejuvenate itself. It must be uncomfortable to be confined forever without a little exertion now and than.

Those excerpts from the "Out of Body experiences" article about people waking up and not being able to move their body for awhile but still in full conscious mode are actually a documented medical/psychological condition called Apnea. (It is a sleep disorder also associated with sleep paralysis.) For those who want to read more: http://www.sleepapnea.org/info/index.html?gclid=CLuYlbma75kCFQEeDQodNGtRRQ
Part of the reason why I am an insomniac is because of this, and even before I found out what was ‘wrong’ with me, I did not for one second thought it was an out of the body experience. I am not stating all of these people could have this condition, but there is another answer besides “you’re being possessed!” or “I am on a higher plane of existence.”

I cannot open up a human being and look through everything until I encounter the “Soul” because the Soul is unique and no two souls are alike. I cannot recognize something without identifying markers.

"You do not have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." -C.S. Lewis
I think this quote excellently sums up my understanding of the soul and the plane of existence that God and Heaven are. Thought is not physical, consciousness is separate from the brain and body. Because the soul is not material, it exists forever. What I sometimes wonder is IF God created the world and all things in six days, does that mean everything, and every one? If our souls have existed since creation, are we able to know other souls and interact with other people? I've met more than a few people who I've felt I've known before.
I also don't believe that the life is more important than the soul, indeed the soul is infinitely more important than the life because the life is finite, while the soul exists forever. I don't believe in the medieval understanding of Hell as worse and worse eternal suffering (was Dante's Inferno an Inspired work or was it fiction?) instead I think a soul experiences remorse and anguish after a poorly lived life. But I also take the last chapter of the Last Battle as the best description of Heaven. For me, I would forever wander in virgin forest with sun shining down through the trees, the ability to run forever, and no mosquitoes.

Some people quoted in this piece seemed to suggest that without religion, we cannot be moral people. This makes me ask the question of where my morals came from. Did I learn them from the church? Or were my parents and the people I was surrounded by more major influences? The obvious answer to me is that I got my moral standards from the people around me. There are people in the world who were brought up as strict followers of their religion and who are now morally deviant, and atheists who follow a strict moral code.
Another question that I asked myself during this reading was why some things are considered amoral and how something can be considered amoral at one time and gradually come to be, if not moral, at least not amoral. For example, dancing and Elvis used to be highly taboo in our culture, but today it is perfectly normal to dance shamelessly in front of people or to enjoy Elvis. How did this change happen?

The soul is a concept that I have struggled with. Where does it reside? I can’t seem to believe that the “soul” is different then the mind. I guess I do not know if I believe in a soul. When I think of it, I think of a human’s consciousness. These articles were interesting for me to read because I never knew that there were so many interpretations of what a soul is and when it “dies.” I think that it’s interesting that the definition of the soul differs across different religions (even between Christian religions).
I thought that Russell’s quote, “Mind is an emanation of body and body is an invention of mind” was absolutely mind-bending. I can’t seem to wrap my mind around this paradox. I guess that it makes sense considering my view of how intertwined the two seem to be, but it’s just like the “chicken and the egg” paradox, I just don’t know where to begin.

I really enjoyed reading the “Multifaith Round-Up” from Beliefnet. I think this is a helpful way to understand the many different perspectives for a single issue. Obviously, the Terry Schiavo case generated strong opinions from many people on all sides of the issue. I was completely unaware up to this point about many of the perspectives presented, partly because there were not vocal at the time. I strongly agree with Rabbi Bradley Hirschfield, the Orthodox Jew, who said, “The real test for people who are advocates for each view within their tradition will be whether they can manage to maintain their advocacy without demeaning people with whom they disagree.” This frame of mind to debating controversial issues is often overlooked. Rabbi Hirschfield made his point very eloquently; I will try to keep it in mind in the future. On a different note, it was interesting to see the many different perspectives on the issue of the soul. Again, I have to ask myself, if there is a God, why does he allow so many different perspectives on this single issue? What about the people who believe that when we die, we just die--no afterlife and no soul? I didn't see this viewpoint represented in the article.

After reading the "Multi Faith Round Up" I was disappointed that the views expressed were solely those of organized religion belief systems. I found myself wondering what other people feel to be true about the connection between the mind, body, and soul, especially those that do not use any type of scripture or rules as a guide for what they believe. I would really like to know how those that categorize themselves as agnostic or atheist feel about what happens to our soul or if we indeed have one at all. Do they think that there is a place where our soul goes after death or is the idea that we all have a soul, purely an invention of other religious factions?

I have read many things about the Schiavo case, mainly in law classes. I have alway had a difficult time with this case, mainly due to the circumstances around it, such as her spouse wanting to remarry and supposedly her life stood in his way. Either way, I cannot imagine being forced to be an empty vessel without the possibility of thinking or creating. I cannot fathom being such a burden on my family, unable to communicate or feed myself, without any possibility of rehabilitation, and the only sign of life being my ability to breath because that is the one thing my brain still has the ability to control. Many say that starving her to death is cruel and humane. On the surface I can completely relate, however, if the brain is truly dead, I would assume that the ability to feel and comprehend the pain of such an act is nonexistent.

To me, the soul is the same as someone's personality, or someone's mind. We know each individual has one, but no one can really physically prove its existence. A soul to me is the spiritual embodiment of what we will be after we pass, so to say and argue that Terry Schiavo had or didn't have a soul to me is ludacris. If someone is still alive (even if they cannot respond) how are we actually supposed to prove whether or not their mind/spirit has vanished? Just because their is no cognitive thought in the realm we can identify with, how can we assume there is nothing else?

Ben Witherington III thought's mirror my own, and in the case of Terry I believe they should have let her survive on her own after a shorter time period. Sure, someone could probably live through tubes for the rest of their life, but who would really want that? I am not saying that Terry had the capability to function on a level that you and I do on a daily basis, but there had to be some feeling inside her. To be confined to a life like that would not be "life" in my opinion. The question I do have though, if we are to let people fend for themselves at a certain point... when do we draw the limit? Would it have to be case by case? Or would it be something that doctors/family would control as it is now? I agree that the human psyche has a hard time letting go of ones we love, but death is a natural path that we all must take at some point in our lives.

On the out of body experience article, I believe it can happen. Just the same as when you go to a theme park and ride a roller coaster for a few hours, your body begins to sink into the mattress. Under the right conditions and proper training, I think it is possible to disconnect your mind from your body. If not, how could martial arts masters endure endless amounts of pain but not flinch a muscle? Even when considering the realm of dreams, you mind disconnects from reality and allows you to freely experience things as if you were there. Definitely a possibility in my book, same as life on other worlds.

I, too have viewed the spirit and the soul as the same thing. From what you learn in religious events, and what you learn from your peers, and on TV, the soul leaves your body after you die and that is what goes to heaven, while your body stays. It is kind of interesting how different Christianity religions can view the soul as. To me it is what your personality is what your heart is what makes you the person you are. That is what will determine if you go to heaven. A good soul is something that God would want is what I heard.

I really enjoyed reading “Multifaith Round-up: Views of the Soul” but it made me think about life a lot. I don’t want to be on life support or a feeding tube for a prolonged period of time, but I don’t want to have to decide that for my family. This is a controversial topic and that’s why it gets so much press and discussion. Many people don’t know how they should feel and sometimes look to religion for help. I agree that the body and soul are two different things like the Catholic and Methodist people interviewed. I’m not really sure I would look to religion to make a life decision like staying on life support or not. Obviously I can’t make that decision when I come to it because at that point I won’t be able to make a decision but I’m just not sure religion is where I will find my answer.

One commonality out of all the religions represented in “Multifaith Round-Up” is that each one believed in some form of soul that is connected with the body during life. What changes between religions is how long that soul remains with the body and the circumstances surrounding death.

I was very interested in how Hinduism had the three guidelines that one may follow to make a moral decision, yet even with these guidelines the end decision may rely upon favoring one guideline over another, or the potential impact of karma on one’s action or choice.

On a fundamental level, I most agreed with the views of the Buddhists and the Pagans, mostly because they seemed very similar in certain aspects. According to the Buddhists, if there is no detectable level of dream-like mental activity, then the soul (or mind) is no longer with the body, and it’s time to let nature take its course and allow the physical life that is left to pass. In a more spiritual sense, I also agree with Buddhism in the sense it could also impede the soul’s progress into another life, or whatever comes after this one. According to the Pagans, they believe that the body and brain are the physical vehicles, and that there is no point in keeping the physical part alive when the soul is missing.

In reading Beliefnet’s collection of religious perspectives regarding the case of Terri Schiavo, I thought it interesting that the Christian interpretations were the shortest and least imaginative. Many of the other religions allowed for more flexibility in determining the correct moral course of action in such a case. I was particularly captured by the Hindu perspective. According to Arvind Sharma, Birks Professor of Comparative Religion at McGill University, “Hinduism as a tradition accepts the presence of moral dilemmas as authentic. It accepts ambiguity as a part of life.” A decision between two options is not always a decision between right and wrong; it is often a decision between right and right. One must choose one moral course at the expense of another and live with the consequences of the decisions made. Eventually, karma will present reward or punishment accordingly.

It was also interesting to read “What is the Soul?” by Bertrand Russell. Among other things, Russell points out the irony that “physicists assure us that there is no such thing as matter,” and I was fascinated by the concept. When I touch a wall with my hand, for example, I am not actually making contact with it. The electrons in the atoms that make up my hand are repelling against the electrons in the atoms that make up the wall. My brain interprets this force as touch, and I can feel the texture of the wall as its energy stops my hand from pushing any further. Given this reality, can I really consider my hand and the wall to be solid objects? Since atoms are made of almost 100% empty space, my hand, the wall, me, and everything in the universe are made more of energy than they are of “solid” matter. Perhaps even human consciousness is just a bundle of perpetual energy residing in the brain. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, perhaps this consciousness must live on after death in one form or another. This is an interesting physical idea that perhaps could even be scientifically tested.