Anima is Latin for soul. Anything blessed with the gift of life has a soul. But the question is what is a soul? Is it the same as a spirit? The same as a mind?
So a plant has a soul, according to your Latin etymology, right? According to it, it's hard to view the soul of a plant as one that can never choose what to do in their existence...
Regarding your questions, I do want the same from op on that one. He is usually not supplying them in his posts... I definitely agree with your questions here. Op should definitely try to define some of his statements before making them.
A plant implies the division of all (cause) into each (effect) plant aka the spreading of sameness (soul) by differentiation (spirit) into being (essence).
The plant you see represents a being (essence); the differentiation of each plant from one another represents breathing room (spirit/spiro - to breathe), and the unseen dividing animation represents the one and only (sole/soul).
According to it, it's hard to view the soul...
...because accordance with one another makes it harder to discern soul/sole (one and only) by oneself. Nature divides each native within from one another to allow each to discern self by analysis...others suggest accord to sow discord by synthesis.
Letting go of accord; prevents discord, which makes it easier for ONE to view the ONE and only sole/soul and what it does to each ONE within...which is division from ONE another aka making each essence diverse; unique; special; distinctive; notable; solitary (soul-itary) etc.
a plant as one that can never choose what to do
Only nature does (action); which allows each native within to redo (reaction)...each plant chooses how to react to being planted. Any gardener can tell you endless stories about plants choosing to be bitchy about growing as planted.
I do want the same from op on that one
That implies a difference (I) wanting sameness from another difference (op)...one can only find likeness this way. Sameness implies the nature each different native came into being within aka the soul/sole (one and only) for each solitary being within.
not supplying
Nature implies supply (need); native implies demand (want)...the struggle for life is about resisting the supplied temptation to demand more than offered by all from one another.
try to define
To define implies artificially "affixing" what nature "frees" from one another.
Soul implies animation (anima) forwarding (for) anything within it...Latin represents a label shaped within to distract one another from forwarding animation. A label has to be mentally (ideal) and physically (idol) held onto, which tempts one to ignore the ongoing forward animation.
Anything blessed with the gift of life has a soul.
A blessing is given; a gift is taken. Life has therefore a choice to make...adapting to all given or taking from one another. Those who offers gifts are tempting one to accept poison; those who offer blessing are tempting one to sacrifice blood.
Soul/sole (one and only); hence not a quest (question) towards outcome; but also the animating origin, and each animated essence within given the free will of choice to accept quests from one another.
Soul WAS before one can suggest to one another what soul IS.
Is it the same as a spirit?
Sameness implies one and only (sole/soul) animating (spirit/spiro) each different one within.
You questioning "if it's the same as" represents a comparison of what soul differentiates aka a synthesis shaped within an analytical process.
If one draws comparisons with one another, then one ignores one and only aka sole/soul.
The same as a mind?
Mind implies differential (essence) within division (spirit) of sameness (soul)...holding onto likeness; like answers to questions, equalizes the diversity of mind.
I'm hoping me and my turtle will get to swim with whales! And I fully expect my ferret, Bear, is there waiting for me!
(Edit: cats and toads can go to heaven too!)
I get that drawing lines and making distinctions can sometimes mean blurry lines, but at the end of the day an oak is an oak, a cow is a cow, and a human a human…all defined by our particular aspects.
To be sure...a being seeks assurance from one another aka utilizing suggestion to bind consent together into a rational conflict called reason.
Nature doesn't require assurance from any native to move forwards...it's natives who require assurance from one another to keep artifice alive, while ignoring nature.
rational is an attribute of the soul and not of the structure of the human mind or brain
All attributing (bestowing) through each one within implies soul/sole (one and only)...which includes the structure of the human mind and brain AND any rational shaped within that too.
The issue...a rational tempts one (perception) to ignore all (perceivable) for one another (suggested). Ratio (a reckoning aka counting) represents a suggested tool to confine perception, yet only ones consent can operate the suggested rational of another within oneself.
Nature doesn't count (ratio)...it divides singularity (cause) into each single unit (effect).
Is human itself a soul attribute
Man (motion) > woman (momentum) > child (matter)...soul represents motion; human (hue of man) represents momentum; each attribute within represents matter.
Clarification about hue of man...motion represents light > momentum represents spectrum (color; hue) > matter represents ray.
a soul attribute, or an animal attribute?
Animal implies "all animation" for each one animated hue of man within. Soul implies animal; division of soul aka spiritual animation implies hue of man; the tribute of which implies matter coming into being.
do the two kinds cross reference each other?
There can be only one soul/sole (one and only)...two kinds represents the mental rationale "dualism and likeness" held together by your consent to the suggestion of another.
Soul moves attribute (life) across (inception towards death)...cross referencing tempts ones denial (the nail) of being moved across (a cross).
Being moved from inception towards death aka spiritual animation by soul divination (division of sole) implies the cross bearing one. To move across implies a transfer aka the transference of essence.
soul means some
Soul/sole implies one and only aka singularity...meaning tempts one to hold onto a suggested ratio by another; thereby establishing a some/sum aka an amount...as in the top of mount zion.
a framework
All implies work freeing each employed mind within from one another...it's ones consent to any suggestion by another which frames employment (ones perception) within work (all perceivable).
If one lets go of the frame; then one falls out of the picture others have painted...only then can one perceive that nature doesn't use paint to besmirch; but generates essence to draw within.
one life, rest eternity
All eternity; each ones life...no rest for the wicked (departed aka divided part).
many lives, soul evolution, one final destination
a) Each singular life can be distracted with manifold plurality.
b) Soul delineates within a straight line...only within which an evolution (circle) can be shaped.
c) Final implies "end of all"...one can only come into being (life) in-between beginning (inception) and end (death) of all, which represents ones destination (divided stance within action).
undeclared
Nature DE (to divide) CLARE (to clear) each native within...natives obscure each other with artificial unification.
Also, what is it with these posts you make? Some statement, no proof, asking to be debated on moot points... I don't get where you're coming from... Unless you're bored and asking only for a useless debate... Which is sad...
On the other hand, I have to realize what animals having souls can finally say about you defending them. They would say "baaa". They can't read your post.
Must be these satire posts I don't understand... Personally, I would say that you're wasting space with this, but I am told people appreciate satire posts for whatever reason... Even tho you never mentioned this post is satire... And no animal actually elected you as their spokes person... And you didn't provide any proof of what animal "soul" means, or defend it... Waste of space, in my opinion, but that's just me.
Of course. But it's ironic that you raised a topic and avoid defending your part... :D Even an insane person can do it. But an insane person cannot accurately defend his position.
Soul/sole - "one and only" implying the one and only motion for each divided matter within. Any definition suggested by matter to one another contradicts soul. Why? Because ones consent to a suggested definition tempts one to hold onto artifice, while ignoring that nature moves and divides each native.
I don't get where you're coming from
Soul implies the same origin for anyone animated within it...what you don't get from another represents your lack of self discernment, which one cannot get from any other.
no animal actually elected you as their spokes person
Speech isn't actual; but factual aka a fiction (word) shaped within action (sound). An animal adapting to fiction (word) over action (sound) represents a domestic servant...like most of the human animals who elected a chosen one above ones choice.
You using animals; souls; things; humans in the plural implies a rational; complex comparison shaped within your mind aka you counting together what was set apart from one another.
The process setting apart implies soul/sole (one and only) aka singularity.
All living things have
All dividing each living thing from one another implies process dividing potential..."having" represents a possession aka a living thing holding onto something, while ignoring the dividing process and diminishing ones potential.
All living things have souls, some more complex than others.
The division of all into each one, which divides one from one another...that's soul. The sum (some) of things entwined (plex) together (com)...that's you trying to shape more than all offers.
like comparing a fern to a cow
That which makes fern and cow distinct from one another...that's soul. Drawing a comparison to make fern and cow alike one another...that's you ignoring soul.
Notice the use of TO (towards)...that's the soul animating each body private from one another. Using "to" to describe a like-minded comparison...that's a contradiction. Why? Because motion divides any likeness held together...thereby establishing the whole soul to each one within.
Anima is Latin for soul. Anything blessed with the gift of life has a soul. But the question is what is a soul? Is it the same as a spirit? The same as a mind?
So a plant has a soul, according to your Latin etymology, right? According to it, it's hard to view the soul of a plant as one that can never choose what to do in their existence...
Regarding your questions, I do want the same from op on that one. He is usually not supplying them in his posts... I definitely agree with your questions here. Op should definitely try to define some of his statements before making them.
Plant/plat - "to spread"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/plant
A plant implies the division of all (cause) into each (effect) plant aka the spreading of sameness (soul) by differentiation (spirit) into being (essence).
The plant you see represents a being (essence); the differentiation of each plant from one another represents breathing room (spirit/spiro - to breathe), and the unseen dividing animation represents the one and only (sole/soul).
...because accordance with one another makes it harder to discern soul/sole (one and only) by oneself. Nature divides each native within from one another to allow each to discern self by analysis...others suggest accord to sow discord by synthesis.
Letting go of accord; prevents discord, which makes it easier for ONE to view the ONE and only sole/soul and what it does to each ONE within...which is division from ONE another aka making each essence diverse; unique; special; distinctive; notable; solitary (soul-itary) etc.
Only nature does (action); which allows each native within to redo (reaction)...each plant chooses how to react to being planted. Any gardener can tell you endless stories about plants choosing to be bitchy about growing as planted.
That implies a difference (I) wanting sameness from another difference (op)...one can only find likeness this way. Sameness implies the nature each different native came into being within aka the soul/sole (one and only) for each solitary being within.
Nature implies supply (need); native implies demand (want)...the struggle for life is about resisting the supplied temptation to demand more than offered by all from one another.
To define implies artificially "affixing" what nature "frees" from one another.
Soul implies animation (anima) forwarding (for) anything within it...Latin represents a label shaped within to distract one another from forwarding animation. A label has to be mentally (ideal) and physically (idol) held onto, which tempts one to ignore the ongoing forward animation.
A blessing is given; a gift is taken. Life has therefore a choice to make...adapting to all given or taking from one another. Those who offers gifts are tempting one to accept poison; those who offer blessing are tempting one to sacrifice blood.
Soul/sole (one and only); hence not a quest (question) towards outcome; but also the animating origin, and each animated essence within given the free will of choice to accept quests from one another.
Soul WAS before one can suggest to one another what soul IS.
Sameness implies one and only (sole/soul) animating (spirit/spiro) each different one within.
You questioning "if it's the same as" represents a comparison of what soul differentiates aka a synthesis shaped within an analytical process.
If one draws comparisons with one another, then one ignores one and only aka sole/soul.
Mind implies differential (essence) within division (spirit) of sameness (soul)...holding onto likeness; like answers to questions, equalizes the diversity of mind.
All living creatures have souls. We only understand from our own perspective.
Imo it would be ignorant to argue that a plant or animal doesn't when we have no idea what life is like from their perspective.
A lot of people believe that you won’t see your beloved dog if you make it to heaven.
I'm hoping me and my turtle will get to swim with whales! And I fully expect my ferret, Bear, is there waiting for me!
(Edit: cats and toads can go to heaven too!)
Your pet octopus would do better swimming with the whale
Maybe me and the turtle can tag along on 2 of her tentacles 🤔 or ride the whales, whatevs.
Is that same heaven thats in the clouds with white pearly gates?
Except niggers and Asians.
How can you be sure rational is an attribute of the soul and not of the structure of the human mind or brain (animal)?
Is human itself a soul attribute, or an animal attribute? do the two kinds cross reference each other?
And to say soul means some but not much without a framework of reference.
Christian framework, one life, rest eternity?
Hindu, many lives, soul evolution, one final destination?
Buddhist, undeclared (weird stuff)?
Growing towards the light is what a plant does, animated by its soul. Humans have free will and rationality, aspects that a plant or animal doesn’t.
Why do you say aspect that an animal doesn't? the human being is an animal with such aspects.
To rate it not an animal because of these aspects is quite subjective.
I get that drawing lines and making distinctions can sometimes mean blurry lines, but at the end of the day an oak is an oak, a cow is a cow, and a human a human…all defined by our particular aspects.
To be sure...a being seeks assurance from one another aka utilizing suggestion to bind consent together into a rational conflict called reason.
Nature doesn't require assurance from any native to move forwards...it's natives who require assurance from one another to keep artifice alive, while ignoring nature.
All attributing (bestowing) through each one within implies soul/sole (one and only)...which includes the structure of the human mind and brain AND any rational shaped within that too.
The issue...a rational tempts one (perception) to ignore all (perceivable) for one another (suggested). Ratio (a reckoning aka counting) represents a suggested tool to confine perception, yet only ones consent can operate the suggested rational of another within oneself.
Nature doesn't count (ratio)...it divides singularity (cause) into each single unit (effect).
Man (motion) > woman (momentum) > child (matter)...soul represents motion; human (hue of man) represents momentum; each attribute within represents matter.
Clarification about hue of man...motion represents light > momentum represents spectrum (color; hue) > matter represents ray.
Animal implies "all animation" for each one animated hue of man within. Soul implies animal; division of soul aka spiritual animation implies hue of man; the tribute of which implies matter coming into being.
There can be only one soul/sole (one and only)...two kinds represents the mental rationale "dualism and likeness" held together by your consent to the suggestion of another.
Soul moves attribute (life) across (inception towards death)...cross referencing tempts ones denial (the nail) of being moved across (a cross).
Being moved from inception towards death aka spiritual animation by soul divination (division of sole) implies the cross bearing one. To move across implies a transfer aka the transference of essence.
Soul/sole implies one and only aka singularity...meaning tempts one to hold onto a suggested ratio by another; thereby establishing a some/sum aka an amount...as in the top of mount zion.
All implies work freeing each employed mind within from one another...it's ones consent to any suggestion by another which frames employment (ones perception) within work (all perceivable).
If one lets go of the frame; then one falls out of the picture others have painted...only then can one perceive that nature doesn't use paint to besmirch; but generates essence to draw within.
All eternity; each ones life...no rest for the wicked (departed aka divided part).
a) Each singular life can be distracted with manifold plurality.
b) Soul delineates within a straight line...only within which an evolution (circle) can be shaped.
c) Final implies "end of all"...one can only come into being (life) in-between beginning (inception) and end (death) of all, which represents ones destination (divided stance within action).
Nature DE (to divide) CLARE (to clear) each native within...natives obscure each other with artificial unification.
What's your definition of a "soul" then?
Also, what is it with these posts you make? Some statement, no proof, asking to be debated on moot points... I don't get where you're coming from... Unless you're bored and asking only for a useless debate... Which is sad...
On the other hand, I have to realize what animals having souls can finally say about you defending them. They would say "baaa". They can't read your post.
Must be these satire posts I don't understand... Personally, I would say that you're wasting space with this, but I am told people appreciate satire posts for whatever reason... Even tho you never mentioned this post is satire... And no animal actually elected you as their spokes person... And you didn't provide any proof of what animal "soul" means, or defend it... Waste of space, in my opinion, but that's just me.
Why climb the mountain? Because it’s there.
No argument for your own point, huh? Waste of space indeed.
I am not obliged to engage with anybody, handshake.
Of course. But it's ironic that you raised a topic and avoid defending your part... :D Even an insane person can do it. But an insane person cannot accurately defend his position.
Just food for thought.
Interesting, kinda, sorta.
You have nothing of value to say. Ever. Why waste people's time?
See you in your next bs post, where I expose your lies easily, and you dodge the topic. :)
All the best.
You need to stop all this. Alternative usernames have been banned here for this behaviour.
Well...bye!
Soul/sole - "one and only" implying the one and only motion for each divided matter within. Any definition suggested by matter to one another contradicts soul. Why? Because ones consent to a suggested definition tempts one to hold onto artifice, while ignoring that nature moves and divides each native.
Soul implies the same origin for anyone animated within it...what you don't get from another represents your lack of self discernment, which one cannot get from any other.
Speech isn't actual; but factual aka a fiction (word) shaped within action (sound). An animal adapting to fiction (word) over action (sound) represents a domestic servant...like most of the human animals who elected a chosen one above ones choice.
You using animals; souls; things; humans in the plural implies a rational; complex comparison shaped within your mind aka you counting together what was set apart from one another.
The process setting apart implies soul/sole (one and only) aka singularity.
All dividing each living thing from one another implies process dividing potential..."having" represents a possession aka a living thing holding onto something, while ignoring the dividing process and diminishing ones potential.
The division of all into each one, which divides one from one another...that's soul. The sum (some) of things entwined (plex) together (com)...that's you trying to shape more than all offers.
That which makes fern and cow distinct from one another...that's soul. Drawing a comparison to make fern and cow alike one another...that's you ignoring soul.
Notice the use of TO (towards)...that's the soul animating each body private from one another. Using "to" to describe a like-minded comparison...that's a contradiction. Why? Because motion divides any likeness held together...thereby establishing the whole soul to each one within.