Would you mind if I bundled together two comments? First one, why use a word like 'soul'? It carries a specific (although not entirely defined) supernatural meaning. When talking about soul, either one is defending a mystical dimension (a theological duality between matter and spirit), or he is referring to some sort of psychological phenomenon that could be much better addressed with non-mystical vocabulary. In my opinion, that is.

The second comment is that *"spirit"* has been used many times as a metaphor for psychological phenomena. Fichte, a follower of Kant, would say that spirit is our ability to come in touch with a higher inner dimension, a sort infinite within. Because some ideas, like freedom, can't be defined in words or explained as concepts, they must be understood first-hand by experience. Spirit, in this sense, isn't supernatural at all. It is *our ability to sense and experience these ideas that cannot be contained in a concept*.

To him, the *spirits* of two people can't touch each other directly (since they're *processes*, not *things*). But they can communicate through works of art. Great art carries a message beyond the physical medium which is very difficult to point out, but that can be sensed by the *spirit* of another, and his spirit would elevate him to the idea within himself. Such a work would seem to someone without spirit as a mere *craft*, but would be *alive* to someone with spirit.

In my opinion, that is an elegant postulation of how *spirits* could touch. I (greatly) dislike the use of the word, but I do think life can get much richer and deeper once we can connect to and cultivate or "spirits". Even more so once we abandon the illusion that life has a hidden supernatural dimension.

Sorry for the long answer to your great post. Keep'em coming!