Soul and the speaking self

Within the complex society that is your soul, who is responsible for what you do?

Ask your soul, and your speaking mind will speak up. It will talk your ear off about its actions and accomplishments. It will tell you about what its intentions were, how it pursued its intentions, why those intentions were the best intentions.

The speaking mind speaks very convincingly and authoritatively, and sounds for all the world as if it alone decided all these things and carried them out. It speaks so convincingly it believes itself entirely, and because it believes itself entirely, it speaks convincingly.

The speaking mind believes it represents the entire soul when it speaks on its behalf.

Sometimes it forgets it is not the whole soul, itself. It gets out of touch with the rest of the soul. It forgets that there is more to the world than words. It becomes isolated and insular.

The speaking mind can fall into a word world, an existence where only things that can be talked about are real, and anything that can’t be talked about is less than real.


Obviously, if you pay close attention to your experience, there is more to a soul than the speaking mind. Besides the speaking mind’s speech, often obscured behind it, there exist myriad spirits, known by their movements and traces, which operate worldlessly and often escape the notice of the speaking mind, and if noticed, often leave the speaking mind speechless. The speaking mind might fumble for words, invent analogies or move it to poetry.

All too often, the speaking mind dismisses these signs, or relegates it to some dull and isolating category: just a reaction, just my imagination, just a feeling, just a passing mood, just a sense — it was nothing.


Much of a soul, maybe most of it, is pure instinct, the movements in the soul and movements in the body that function silently and almost autonomously, in response to events around them, completely outside the jurisdiction of speech.

We may be tempted to exclude these tacit and unreflective instinctive movements from full citizenship in the soul. They are not soul, but just bodily reflexes. That is a mistake. They are simply the underclass of the soul. If they went of strike, the soul would lose most of its connection with the body and personhood would grind to a halt.

Then there are habits. These are acquired instincts, those aspects of ourself who run autonomously, as our second nature. Often here, too, we treat habits as unintelligent and simply mechanical. When habit leads a process, speaking mind says “my mind was on autopilot”.

Nietzsche said “Every habit makes our hand more witty and our wit less handy.” This demonstrates the alienation of habit from speech, and demonstration is how habit communicates its existence. The wit of the hand is evidenced in the subtle and unmechanical distinctions and decisions that guide its interactions with the world.

Closely related to instinct and habit is the vast and amorphous class of spirits we call intuition. The line between intuition and instinct and habit is faint and blurry.

Intuitions do most of our experiencing, recognizing, evaluating, connecting and responding.

I — my own speaking mind, that is — likes to divide them into three types: what-intuitions that recognize and relate entities, how-intuitions that act and interact, and why-intuitions that feel value in its many qualities.

The intuitions themselves have responded mostly approvingly to this classification, because they seem to use it in their cooperative activities. In other words, they — I — have adopted this framework and apply it themselves without any verbal bossing from my speaking mind. It is how I intuitively, second-naturally, perceive the world.


As a designer, I seek intuitive connections. I want anything I make to link up directly with the tacit citizens of people’s souls, bypassing, as much as possible, the speaking mind. There are many good reasons for this:

  • We function most gracefully when we act wordlessly. When we are forced to verbalize it creates an unwieldy chain of command. The speaking mind introduces a bureaucratic stilted formality to doing that makes it look like the action is being remote-controlled, because that, in fact, is what is happening.
  • The speaking mind often has things it needs to do, and the requirement to issue verbal instructions to eyes and hands interrupts its own fluent speech.
  • When we support direct interactions between our intuitions and things we make, we are able to merge with things so they become an extension of ourselves. The guitar becomes part of our mysterious musical intention and our body and the music. The pen melds our creative, discerning, responding selves through our hands, onto the paper, into the image on the paper. And, I would like to suggest, our wordless understanding infuses itself into words, strung out into sentences, paragraphs, whole bodies of spoken and written thought.


Is it possible there is no speaking mind at all, but only a posse of intuitions who have connected to certain words, ideas, concepts that allow them to conceive thoughts? These intuitions have exclusive language privileges?

What would happen if some Prometheus brought language to the wordless intuitions?

3 thoughts on “Soul and the speaking self

  1. I think the word “soul” will get in the way for many people you may want to reach because it traditionally connotes a unity you don’t intend. For many people, “soul” is primarily represented by the “speaking self”. In most everyday depictions of souls, it’s just “me” without a body. I go around in heaven or on earth (if I’m a ghost or visiting angel) and talk and laugh and do things pretty much as I did when I had a body, but now I’m my best self and immortal.

    If I understand your view, there is the speaking/reflective/narrating/voice in my head-self and then there are “myriad spirits”. And your post reads as if you’re calling my collection of myriad spirits including my “speaking spirit”, my “soul” (“the complex society that is your soul”). If I’ve got that right, then I suggest a different label–one that strongly connotes the idea of a collective. Soul does not. Soul connotes the exact opposite to most people. Why not call this complex society “the myriad” instead of “the soul”?

    What’s the cash value of trying to rehabilitate (or verwindung) a concept like “soul” when virtually all conventional descriptions/depictions of the soul emphasize just one of its myriad spirits: the speaking self?

    One other issue: “Ask your soul, and your speaking mind will speak up.” Who’s asking my soul? I assume it is my speaking self asking my soul, since that’s what the speaking mind does–it asks questions, it reflects. So wouldn’t one expect the speaking mind to answer a question posed by the speaking mind? Also, since out of all the myriad spirits only the speaking mind can speak, again, isn’t it necessary that the speaking mind speaks up on behalf of the myriad spirits?

    I understand that you are trying to help people tap into their unconscious/subconscious/creative/imaginative/call them what you will mental processes. I just think trying to fit the label “soul” (with ALL its immense connotative baggage) to this collection helps clarify things.

Leave a Reply to Nick Gall Cancel reply