@@>-SOUL
 
  In adventuring through the historical spins of "SOUL" from
  Egyptian, through Greek & Christian, past medieval and into
  the modern psychological, one is confronted with a dizzying
  amalga of presentations. For an element of being "NEVER
  ACTUALLY" encountered beyond a human "reach-need" definition,
  it certainly has weighed HEAVY into much of "man search" and
  spiritual-ish assumptions.
      In sample, the Platonic soul (if I got it right)-("three
  parter" [reason/language, spirited/emotion, body/appetites]),
  does NOT seem to fit clearly within an "only religious" context
  (even though he seems to have helped invent the Christian version
  of it).  Others often paint it upon a hoped for reach between our
  apparent reality and THE mythic-ish "OTHER-SIDE-OF".  Freud, Jung
  and even Chardin chewed on it, ever teasing it more symbolic, more
  into, or closer, to a science "thing" (while creating newer terms
  to further label functions and meanings).
       I come away with "A conceptual SOMETHING" stretched
  (insubstantial to fragile) between a psychoanalytic couch and a
  silver threaded construct reaching into an unknowable poetic path
  between a high/low, good/bad, heaven/hell.
       Since you have read; and wandered into many more dust bins
  than I have;;;;;;;;;;;; AND CAN express yourself in "fast draw"
  clarity, I Just thought I'd get your take on "SOUL",  as your
  postings across a range of religious correlations  seem LEAN
  (avoidance?) on this aspect of the human media. My own view
  (still open ended) favors the awkwardly definable factors
  of soul (psyche) as little more than physical mind circuitry,
  however seeming exotic. That this "INTERNETY" bridge between
  physical real and "OTHER sides of" (if existent), is not even clear
  enough for me to frame clear inquiry.
 
                                     ... @@ ... Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------