>>80At certain times, I dismissed "spiritual suffer", yet now want to correct here: what I refered to is soul suffer [1] - surely, in my own understanding. Spirit and soul, to me, are so different, till this day I really confused by philosophers' ambiguous usage of these two terms…
If deities/gods are merely ideas, souls - (Schelling's views) - then they're not spirits. I agree spirit is somehow equal to intelligence [2], spirit is not that kind of "thing" can be assigned to individuals or collectives, even archetypes (as to archetypes, I'm only guessing here).
It is not as one-sided as soul. Soul is always one-sided. Soul is unexplainable, is closed.
[1] spirit don't suffer.
[2] In music, I agree Varese's views, regarding this "intelligence".
What is then love? I came to a feeling that,
love is proving, love (when as an action) is an effort to recognize the
truth. So it might be, Love=Truth, when love as a concept. Therefore, a mathematical proof clearly indicates this "love" in its purest and most recognizable form. Love is about wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and they're all about spirit, not soul. When I equated knowledge, intelligence, with God, I finally discovered that God can be equated with love. Here I also don't understand why everyone regards love=God as the first condition, because the condition they think is undeniable is a conclusion here.