How do painters paint the soul? How do they see the soul? Better yet, what does the soul look like?

You can't define feelings, you can't limit the ways to its expression or how one chooses to be express it. But what is the soul? Who termed the word soul? Does it exist? If so, what proof is there to its existence? And how do we differentiate it from the mind? The mind projects and the soul feels? Is that right? But if the mind is initiating and projecting, then how is it not the feelings of the mind? I feel it too is the soul who feels and yearns for the given or opposite things the mind projects, but I just can't help wonder how one "found" these items, how one gave these things names when they are invisible, without form and location. With that I then ask and wonder what the mind is. There is a brain, of course that one is obvious, but what are all these "extra" things?

Now curious..I just looked up the definition of the mind, and it is as follows:

Mind- is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion,will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes. The term is often used to refer, by implication, to the thought processes of reason. Mind manifests itself subjectively as a stream of consciousness.

Theories of mind and its function are numerous. Earliest recorded speculations are from the likes of Zoroaster, the Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, Adi Shankara and other ancient Greek, Indian and, later, Islamic philosophers. Pre-scientific theories grounded in theology concentrated on the supposed relationship between the mind and the soul, our supernatural, divine or god-given essence. Most contemporary theories, informed by scientific study of the brain, theorize that the mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain which has both conscious and unconscious aspects.

Which attributes make up the mind is much debated. Some argue that only the higher intellectual functions constitute mind, particularly reason and memory. In this view the emotions—love, hate, fear, joy—are more primitive or subjective in nature and should be seen as different from the mind as such. Others argue that various rational and emotional states cannot be so separated, that they are of the same nature and origin, and should therefore be considered all part of what we call the mind.

In popular usage mind is frequently synonymous with thought: the private conversation with ourselves that we carry on "inside our heads." Thus we "make up our minds," "change our minds" or are "of two minds" about something. One of the key attributes of the mind in this sense is that it is a private sphere to which no one but the owner has access. No one else can "know our mind." They can only interpret what we consciously or unconsciously communicate.

-"Mind- is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all cognitive processes." - If this is so then what is the function of the brain? Yes mind is said to be part of the brain, but how is this so? Is the brain not simply the term in itself, is it not enough to define all things? I mean with the brain all things are done, it is thought itself...so why make up the term mind, and further- soul. Higher intellectual functions- reason and memory are part of the mind? Huh? It just traces back to the brain, how confusing! Who found the mind?!Then some say emotions are part of the mind, others say they are not...well I think its all just one thing- the brain but of course.

Why am I thinking so much again. And now can I even use the term soul or mind without feelings its wrong?

It seems that no one knows and again this leads to the thought that nothing can be believed. No one knows anything, there is no source to any of it. "Mind and soul- our supernatural, divine, or god-given essence." Who said? Have you seen this supernatural, divine, or god person?

Regardless, I guess we can't limit the different and multiple ways in which each human sees the immaterial and material things. Perhaps this is what makes art so interesting in the first place, I mean if we all saw things in the same way then what would be the need for art? But I also think people see things differently because of what they have been influenced by, learned by way of the individuals they have come across on the given path they walk. And with that I fall back into this idea that teachings only differ because the information has been altered over time. Who was the first to possess all of life's information? Did this very first individual just create information out of what s/he personally believed, leaving it with no definite structure? No one knows... But if the information was valid, had it only been passed down without alteration, then we would probably all be the same. I guess in all, the alteration of beliefs is what creates diversity in life which translates into art.

I still cannot help feel bombarded by these thoughts, a swirl of confusion I paint.

Is art instinctual?

This cannot be.