The Overflow, Backwash, Backlog, Logorrhea, Ad Hoc, Anyone-Can-Use, No-Word-Limit SPEAKEASY

December 2, 2007

Oliver Sacks and ‘Soul’ – a post for ROS

Filed under: Radio Open Source Conversations — Nick @ 9:26 pm

I’d prefer that Sacks himself weigh in on this soul question, but I’m hardly optimistic. Instead, or in the interim at least, here’s my layman’s conjecture.

Chris’s quote of Sacks seems to me to be using the metaphysical concept of ‘soul’ more metaphorically than literally:

Thus, in answer to questions about the existence and integrity of the Self in severe mental disease, I believe that though one can be “beside oneself” or “lose oneself” for years on end, the Self itself is still present, always present, intact, entire – however withdrawn or buried it may be. I think that all psychotic distortions and splinterings of the Self are relatively superficial, even though they may dominate the clinical picture. I think the ravages of physical and mental disease are both superficial; that there is something unfathomably deep beyond their reach; that this is the best and strongest and realest thing we have; and that once upon a time this was called the Soul. [my emphasis]

Yes, I could be mistaken (a chronic risk when trying to distinguish metaphoric intent from literal), but the way I read it, Sacks is offering a plain-English sketch of a neuro/psychological feature, an “emergent property”, perhaps, of human consciousness: the “self”, the sense of “I”-ness, the central-processing center of our brain/nerve/senses matrix, the executive-level indentity-reference-point (and Decider), if you will, common to most if not all humans.
I say “most if not all”, because I’m not as sure as Sacks seems to be that every human’s sense of self can survive any or all neuro/psychological abnormalities and/or traumas. For example, if we can’t communicate with the profoundly retarded, we can hardly be certain those persons have anything resembling our commonplace sense of personhood/identity/uniqueness. If a sense of ‘Self’ is absent (or too minuscule to measure), does that mean the ‘soul’ is absent too?

I doubt Sacks meant this. I guess instead he was using ‘soul’ as a common-concept/conventional-wisdom analogue to what he means by the ‘Self’, or as a kind of metaphor for it—but since ‘soul’, in its most common meanings, is putatively immortal, it can’t be an exact analogue, I expect—especially coming from a self-described atheist. I’m no less atheistic than Sacks; and, when it comes to ‘soul’, I’m completely agnostic: “without knowledge”. I’ve never understood what the noun ‘soul’ purports to name. Perhaps Sacks is equally agnostic on ‘soul’ – hence his inability to answer Chris’s question. (Inability differs substantially from unwillingness. And as for ‘squeamish’ I think ‘armadillo’ had it right by understanding it as ‘politeness’. I doubt Sacks would have treated a question about the link between ‘music and Samsara’ any differently.) Which brings me to this—

ghostofdali writes:

After all, one thing we’re sure of is that the “soul” is located in a different place from the brain. We can’t say it’s in the heart anymore, but it’s still around someplace.

I’d like to ask ghostofdali – and Chris too, and anyone else interested, ftm – for a definition or description of ‘soul’. If you’re certain this thing exists (albeit not necessarily where it resides within a human being) then you must have some sense of its properties or identifying characteristics. So please tell me: what, exactly, are its properties? Characteristics? Its telltale ‘footprints’, if you will? How would a soul-agnostic (like me, or perhaps Sacks) recognize it? What clues or evidence should an open-minded scientist (like Jonah Lehrer) look for if she wanted to discern it? Do all persons have one? Animals? If, heaven forbid, a future mischief-maker armed with the know-how and technology to clone a human-chimpanzee hybrid did so, would a soul inhabit (or emerge within) the poor, misbegotten being?


1 Comment »

  1. I think that when people start talking about the “soul” it is something that comes into being the moment that an individual life form comes to “life”. It is that something that makes one being have a consciousness of itself as a unique entity.

    Beyond that, you will get differing conjecture on whether everyone has a soul. (Buffy the Vampire Slayer explored the concept of beings without souls, what it meant, can you get a soul through some path of redemption? Is is absolutely “bad” to be soulless?) Many don’t believe that any beings other than humans have souls. (I think that if there are souls, all beings have them, but that’s just my opinion. Mostly because it’s the Occam’s answer. Otherwise, how do you define why humans have a soul but not chimpanzees. And if chimps do, then why not other animals? It becomes impossible to define the boundaries.)

    I think this question leads to the question of what is “life”. The reason talk of the soul is so amorphous and retains a sense of mystery is because why things come to “life” is still a mystery. I mean you can talk about cells and energy, etc, etc, but why is it that in some nano-second or another non-living materia can come to “life”. Spiritualists would say that this is the moment the soul enters the picture.

    Comment by allison — December 22, 2007 @ 4:34 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: