Wholeness

Before the pandemic people were already leading super, technology- enhanced lives. Unfortunately most were caught up in the experience to the degree that it was mostly unconscious to them. This is most readily observable in the mass consciousness of the culture war and political divide. There are popular, consciousness-raising self-help products promoted within the mass media and internet. On the Right there are the prosperity gospel and law of attraction memes. On the Left there is the gratitude and the mindfulness movements. I notice that movements on the left don’t necessarily invoke the God symbol.

I recently performed at a $50 a plate public benefit dinner. Before the patrons rose to get their dinner from the buffet, we were instructed to bow our heads and a distinguished gentleman was called on to offer a prayer which he delivered extemporaneously at some length.

Many of those people probably don’t even think of themselves as being especially religious. This wasn’t a church meeting. It was a public meeting of the civic leaders of a small town. I suppose I’m sharing this because some IOP members might be surprised that such culture still exists. For me it is only 46 minutes away.

Oh and by the way in spite of the fact that the number of cases of covid in this area went up by 51% in the past week, nobody wore masks and social distancing was not maintained. Most of the crowd was probably over 60.

Exactly how that group of individuals connects to the media machine I can only guess. They probably have fairly sophisticated technical access. And I can guess the content along the lines of political stereotypy with a p of greater than 0.5. Still I know almost nothing of their interior lives.

The entire field of the social sciences even with it’s extension by the neurosciences in the last few decades, is still in the early stage. There’s still nothing like the consensus that exists in the field of say-- biology. There are widely divergent theories of the place of religion within the evolution of the human species. The relation of depth psychology to evolutionary biology is understood by whom? Peterson is making stabs at it. But there is nothing like a consensus among the experts. The social sciences are still waiting for their Darwin. No vision of wholeness to be seen there.

Yes, this has been something that I also observed. Generally speaking, more people on the left have also been ready to take on a lifestyle that was back to nature, more culturally aware, communal life, often said to be a “hippy” lifestyle, take up the humanities, social work etc. than people on the right. They have been looser in their social bonds, often leaving family to go abroad. More of those on the right were concerned with achieving prosperity, economic stability, and also social stability in churches, associations, controlled neighbourhoods, and weapons. The right has also seen a need to help others become like they are, whether they want it or not.

Of course, there is the discussion about what approach adds more to the prosperity of a country as a whole, and technology has a big role to play in that. Strangely, it was when there was a creative cross-over that computers made a leap ahead. Steve Jobs went from a leftish personality to an abusive dictator once his project started up. Bill Gates was, I think already more on the right when he started up. But the left made selective use of technology, mostly to further creative passions, whereas the right used technology to dominate markets and further their drive for prosperity.

We “heathens” in Europe are seldom confronted with such a display of religiosity. Even events where the church is involved, it is subdued, and the prayers are short. In Catholic federal states in Germany (yes, some are) you might see it more, but again, it is quickly performed. There are Evangelical pockets here and there that I know of, but they are few and far between. However, there the concern is that all are vaccinated that take part or have a recent test, and they were wearing masks up until they were vaccinated. I know this because I was at a birthday party yesterday, where a number of them were from Evangelical circles. Interestingly, alcohol flows freely in such circles.

I think that the country is mostly run by people on the right, whose concern for social sciences is not so pronounced. I have often noticed, when I was amongst managing directors, that my hands on experience with patients and residents of care homes was respected to a certain degree, but only in as much as I was promoting their economic goals. Any social concerns I had were brushed to one side and at best looked at as a means to get a good rating. I think this is also where a cross-over happens (which I wasn’t prepared to do wholly) and people are expected to have different goals the more they are in management.

This way, the neurosciences, amongst others, are following a path to keep the funding they have, and their goals are aligned to the money. There would be a lot to achieve if it were different, but this takes second place to ensuring that funding is available. It is a pragmatic outlook, which I remember being told was necessary for me to “get on” in higher management, and it was all around me. Not only the company I worked for, but also the control authorities, and the political leaders made this clear to me. My concerns for the mental welfare of my staff were subjects that made our talks abrasive, and I was told that “we do enough” and practically told to shut up if I went beyond the socially acceptable degree of concern.

My vision of holistic care for elderly people was also a subject that some teachers taught at nursing schools and specialist social journalists entertained, but which was difficult to transmit amongst management leaders. The subject was made the issue of the person raising it, and I was told to be innovative and find a way to make it economically viable within the available structures. There were enough people who knew that there are problems in elderly care, and this does strain the relations between staff and residents, but it was hushed. My mental health issues were equally hushed and during my absence, I was replaced. Fortunately, because I had been in higher management, I wasn’t pushed fully out straight away, but it was the welfare system of the country that caught me when I was.

Of course, I am very fortunate in that way, but my attempts to provide a service that addresses the problems in that area were a problem for those up top. My concern for my staff, who regarded me more as a counsellor than a manager, was something that I was often told that would “get in my way”… and it did.

Bob–I worked in the health department of the State of Florida for 37 years. The dehumanization of bureaucracy was thoroughly elucidated by the existentialist literature and philosophy of the 20th century. Yet it persists. It is a source of soul fragmentation, the antithesis of wholeness.

Freedom from the tyranny of bureaucracy is a huge thing of the American consciousness. It is the psychic infrastructure that supports resistance to government mandates to quarantine, socially distance, mask wearing, and covid-19 vaccines. The government doesn’t want to help you it merely wants to control you. On the right the primary function of the government is the use of force. The primary motivation for owning guns is to defend yourself against the tyranny of the government.

And white Evangelical Christians make up the largest group of this demographic. I have a close friend who grew up in a Christian fundamentalist household who defines himself, his skepticism and his political philosophy in terms of opposition to his childhood conservative religious. One can’t call oneself an atheist without reference to God.

Intellectual wholeness is coherence. If one defines oneself politically on either side of the divide, one’s political philosophy will be incoherent by virtue of its situated point of view. The goal of objectivity is a transcendent point of view. A view from nowhere would be a view from everywhere. A God’s eye view. Empirical omniscience.

The existentialist knows this is impossible. Yet this is what the quest for knowledge seeks. Nietzsche subsumed it under the will to power. But it also carries the will to Goodness Beauty and Truth. And CG Jung saw it as the engine that drives individuation–the path to wholeness.

Well, nobody can claim that you didn’t persevere. I can’t claim that kind of staying power, however, when I left school, I didn’t have a degree or even a full graduation, so it was an uphill struggle that took longer than for many people. I finally graduated in Germany, and was already 26, had a family and no profession to speak of. I was 38 before I finally trained as a nurse, having worked in industry beforehand doing unskilled labour, driving, and finally becoming a clerk and finally an office manager in a large workshop setting. Interestingly though, I did have a lot of people who were helping me by suggesting books, talking to me about literature, history, and philosophy. It was Erich Fromm who in particular caught my attention and the books listed as sources in the book, “To Have or To Be”, became my reading list.

I can appreciate the struggle you have had, having read Hillman and, of course, many books by Thomas Moore, in which the problems of the American system were portrayed. I found similar but by no means comparable problems here in my field of study. Amongst the people training for Care Management, I found myself to be the best read of all of them, and some were oblivious of Gerontology or Geronto-Psychiatry, although it was the basis for training geriatric nurses. The mention of holistic measures, the consideration of all aspects of a human life, was pushed aside in favour of contemporary measures. Strangely, the person who was most interested in what I had to say was a catholic pastor. An advising psychiatrist also became interested in my attempts to widen the scope of care, and simplify the care planning for people with dementia of various kinds.

This all took a dive when I went into management, despite attempts to increase sensitivity for the needs of the people suffering from various neurological illnesses. The idea that we could help people feel whole again, despite their ailments, help them compensate or cope, was something that I was able to include into the training of staff, with help of the psychiatrist I mentioned. We even planned to write a book together, combining care and medicine in an attempt to push a holistic approach. It didn’t happen unfortunately.

To be honest, knowing the people I know, I’m glad that there is some controlling instance, preventing the stupid behaviour that I’ve experienced. Enlightened scepticism is okay, but through social media there is an increasing number of so-called experts who are manipulating people, causing them to doubt everything. Some of these people are unable to hold a conversation without ending up shouting. I have the feeling that their anxiety is driving them, and that common sense is put aside in many cases. I can’t see a person driven by anxiety has any access to wholeness.

I agree that the identification with one “side of the divide” does put you at a disadvantage. I always have had this problem throughout my life. I remember how a conflict grew in the church about pacifism, saying Jesus was a pacifist. The Evangelicals jumped up and defended the military. I was called into the discussion because (ironically) I was known to have been a soldier, but when I presented both sides of the argument, and pointed out that both have consequences that you have to be aware of, I lost support from both sides.

Empirical omniscience may be impossible, but I believe it is possible to embrace the paradox, if you accept it as such. “For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” It is the struggle we all have, and with which we must cope. It is trust in a guiding hand and the return to self-reflective meditation that helps us achieve a modicum of wholeness.

Bob–

Interesting that you worked in the gerontology in geronto-psychiatry field. I studied lifespan developmental psychology, community psychology, and cognitive behavioral therapy at the Masters level before I entered the mental health field.

Perhaps you are familiar with Eric Erickson’s theory of adult development. According to him the stages of development and adulthood are intimacy versus isolation, generativity versus stagnation and ego integrity versus despair.

The last of these stages may have some relevance to the symbol of wholeness. According to Erickson ego integrity results when a person can look back and accept his or her life as having been good and can acknowledge and accept the self as a totality.

This means being aware of the positive and negative aspects of identity but not being threatened by this knowledge. Jung’s work to help patients become conscious of their Shadow had a similar therapeutic aim. According to Erickson the acceptance of the present self and past life experiences also allows the person who has achieved ego identity to accept the inevitability of death the future holds.

Despair results when the threat of death forces the person to realize that there is no time left to correct past mistakes or present faults. It is manifest as a discontent with life and with the self and a fear of death.

I can imagine a fruitful conversation between CG Jung and Eric Erickson wherein Jung’s concept of individuation is discussed in terms of Erickson’s developmental stages. Each of the eight stages in the life cycle was described by Erickson as a psychosocial crisis: a time when the individual is particularly sensitive or vulnerable to certain developmental issues resulting from the interaction of biological, psychological and social forces characteristic of the period in the life cycle. Jung’s extensive experience and insight into patients who came to him in times of crises plus his own visionary experiences gave him a unique perspective on the interior life of the individual in crisis.

These are all subjects that interested me deeply after finding my footing in Germany and although Ericksons theory wasn’t familiar to me at the time, before our son was born, I had been very busy informing myself about psychosocial development as a preparation for the responsibility of being a father. It is some time ago now, but I remember that there was a similar table listing the various development stages in the books I was reading, and the number was around the same. It stood me in good stead when taking up nursing training and the teacher said she quite enjoyed my interaction.

Of course, the ages are approximate and there is a degree of variation in real life, but I think that we do go through such stages in life. Our son definitely went through a similar development to what Erikson describes and I noticed myself too going through these steps. During training, our professor Erich Grond, also gave us various examples of psychosocial development, but I no longer have his book (which is out of print), so Erikson might have been in there. It does sound familiar.

There are many people who see their lives as unproductive, feel guilty about their past or feel that they have not achieved their life goals, and who will become dissatisfied with life and develop despair, depression, and hopelessness. That is the situation we’re struggling in our societies with, in my experience. But it isn’t the only problem. I was talking to a woman who is entering retirement and she feels like she has had a good life, but is now put on the side-lines, “waiting to die” as she said. Although she had moderate success, she is a singer and musician, has had a successful career in a bank, and has a stable marriage, it hasn’t led to the virtue of wisdom, which enables her to look back on her life with a sense of closure and completeness. I think that she feels like she’s leaving something behind. It is probably a phase that she will overcome, but I hear the same from many people my age, especially men.

I appreciate the fact that we don’t have a continuous state of ego integrity, but experience both ego integrity and despair. It may be that this despair is only temporary and with time she will reflect on her life positively and achieve wisdom. After all, Erikson did say that our lives are characterised by alternating states of integrity and despair that need to be balanced. From my own experience, I have been alternating in the last years of my life quite drastically but feel that I now have achieved a stability that hopefully will last.

The people I had as patients/residents were twenty years older than I am now, and some of them were serene, others were struggling, although they were both in similar states of ailment. Of course, we had many people with dementia, in which the struggle with life has various complications. I had the feeling, when observing the serene and patient people, that they had a stability that was to be revered and supported. Some lived the “inshallah” or “God willing” attitude to the full, even if they couldn’t speak a word. I would say that these people were living a wholeness that is enviable.

I have often asked myself whether the crises that I experienced in the course of my life were “normal”, having often causes that were mostly rooted in my behaviour, which had for some strange reason, changed. I found myself is stages of distress at many times, although I couldn’t explain it to anyone. The strange thing is, that I was known to help others in similar situations. Probably the phrase, “Physician heal thyself!” is applicable to some degree (although I’m no physician). In these stages, I had successes professionally that were unusual, in that my team and I were able to help the healing process even in the case of a stroke, deep needle abscesses and other critical wounds. We were able to calm patients with brain tumours, who were becoming aggressive, and people hallucinating as in the case of Parkinson medication. We got all the “difficult” cases, and it was noted in the town, not just in the Catholic organisation I was working for. One priest actually came to me on my ward and said, “I want the same treatment as my colleague!” who we’d received supposedly bed-ridden, but after a time was able to hold services again and celebrate his sixtieth service anniversary. The second priest’s ailment was a degenerative illness against which we had no remedy.

If I go by Erickson’s stages, it was quite normal to have these crises, which were quite confusing. You tend to think that success in one area is success per se, but that isn’t the case. It is only after accepting that these alternating states of mind are normal and managing to incorporate both aspects in one’s life that a wholeness can take place. That was something I noticed in meditation, which to begin with I was going to give up, until the teacher spoke to me personally and made it clear that this was normal. It is also an aspect of mystical Christianity, but something that is often overlooked in mainstream churches. Evangelical Christians had even suggested exorcism of a kind to cope with such experiences.

It should be something that we are all looking for, in all humbleness …

As Habermas points out there is a dualism between the natural and the cultural sciences. “Whereas the natural in the cultural or hermeneutic sciences are capable of living in a mutually indifferent albeit more hostile than peaceful coexistence, the social sciences must bear the tension of divergent approaches under one roof for in them the very practice of research compels reflection on the relationship between analytic and hermeneutic methodologies.”

People who try to unite the two sciences come under attack from both sides. Although I have to say on ILP the attacks come mostly from the positivistic side.

It is common enough that the “cultural sciences” tend to use hard sciences as their handmaidens. IN the same way that physics uses maths, archaeology can use science in the collection of data, though the product of the labour of archaeology is not scientific. Much the same applies to cultural anthropology. Human geography, sociology etc also can be very empirical and empoy maths and scientific modelling but again the results sought are not science as such.
Big problems occur when the “social sciences” forget this distinction and try to impose their findings as if it were objective truth.

That is what I find interesting about Bernado Kastrup, especially after reading his “Materialism is Baloney” book, where he works his hypothesis up to M-Theory, using various metaphors along the way, including the membrane metaphor for consciousness or Mind, which suddenly harmonises with M-Theory, even though there is a distinct difference in the interpretation between him and the physicists. M-Theory is a proposal that different proposed string theory variants are actually equivalent representations of the same underlying physical theory.

Since science has produced no experimental evidence to support the concept that M-theory is a description of the real world, it is all very hypothetical, but the idea that Mind is all encompassing could be explained by aligning the theories. However, as Kastrup himself said, how can we find experimental evidence for Mind itself?

Why do we need it? Every moment of conscious life reveals it to us. Still I ask you this Bob, will you ever be able to commit yourself wholeheartedly to metaphysical idealism?

We’ve had a full-fledged metaphysical idealist on this forum for years–phenomenal graffiti. How is his view different than Kastrup’s?

Existential philosophy was born into the conundrum of modern metaphysics dominated by a materialism that couldn’t explain the consciousness in which this theoretical discourse was occurring. Metaphysical idealism flips the script.

What are the fruits of doing that? How is it better than fully experiencing the phenomena of experience as it unfolds itself to you recognizing that behind it all is an unknowable One? Does it change our existential situation fundamentally?

I think that the way I entered Christianity, through the rigid materialist view of literalism, which very soon became insufficient due to my affinity to literature and the realisation of how central the story is to us as human beings, made me prone to an Alan Watts. After six books and endless tapes, I thirsted after a more acceptable basic story that picked up loose threads that I found scattered around in spiritual traditions. I learned MBSR, a form of mindfulness meditation, read the Dhamma Pada, Tao te Ching, and umpteen books on spiritual traditions.

I accepted existentialism as the leap of faith in lieu of hard facts. One story was as good as another, but why were there so many stories, and so many varying traditions that still sounded similar? What was each proverbial finger pointing at? Why were so many people in these varying traditions right? What happened in those strange “spiritual experiences” I had? Why did meditation and contemplation throw doors and windows open, instead of clearing things up? How could it be? Was truth not one?

So many questions, and then the experiences with the dying, and dealing with the bereaved. Numerous articles and books from people who had been through the same, who had coping strategies and could tell stories of near-death experiences, of changed lives. All the time, I was still drawing from mainstream theology, using the rituals that had proved themselves as helpful, developing new ideas for new situations like the bereaving person with dementia, or for people who had separated from the church. This is where CG Jung entered my life, opening my mind for the reality of spiritual experiences and their connection with archetypes.

Suddenly, out the blue, you crash out, depression, and all of those you have been caring for are suddenly out of focus. What was that? You ask yourself. The silence of meditation isn’t foreign, but suddenly cold, and the texts of contemplation seem to be repeats, or bland slogans. Consolation, given by people meaning well, stings like salt in a wound. I formally left the church because, despite my commitment, the Pastors left me to deal with the crisis alone. Christianity, it seemed, failed me when I needed the most.

You retain a form of spirituality and move to something like Tai Chi, so that the silence is at least full of movement. You change your devotional texts, adopting the wisdom of many traditions, developing an interreligious, universal approach to spirituality. You remember your books from Thomas Merton (Zen and the Birds of Appetite, the way of Chuang Tzu), Jack Kornfield, Wayne Teasdale, Laurence Freeman. It helps you through until you start returning, tentatively, to Christian ideas, via the mystics, old and new.

After a while, you come to appreciate unconventional Christians like the biologist Rupert Sheldrake, who was awed by Bede Griffiths in India, who was also someone whose book, Christ in India, deeply impressed me. Sheldrakes theories of morphic resonance, linked to the idea of an aware universe, led me to Bernado Kastrup, with whom he shared a stage at some convention. Kastrup too, says that his Catholic background, which he had been prepared to give up for science, suddenly regained pertinence through his study of consciousness via AI.

I’m not sure where I’m going with his hypothesis, but it does tend to pick up loose ends in many cases. The question whether I can commit myself wholeheartedly is therefore too early. I do submit it for discussion, but I’m not familiar with phenomenal graffiti, so I’d have to look that up. As to the question of knowing rather than unknowing, I think that Kastrup is plain enough in his statement that he can only use metaphors, much like we all use metaphors in areas where our perceptions are feeble, to put it in context. We remain the people in the cave looking at shadows on the wall, and what we call God is still the ineffable One. However, the hypothesis explains to me why there can be such diverse mythologies and spiritual experiences, presenting truth from varying perspectives and out of diverse experience.

It makes me far removed from the rigid materialism I began with. I have always tried to capture my spiritual insights in a book, and the Christian book has been superseded by a rather more universal collection of wisdom.

Bob –

Phenomenal Graffiti is a guy who posts here on ILP in the religion and spirituality section.

My metaphysical skepticism follows from my reading of Kant and existential philosophy. Things appear to us in part. But we do not have perceptual access to things as they are in themselves—the whole. And that includes ourselves. The Self–the whole is inferred. Such is intentionality.

Empiricists tend to attack the imagination. But without the imagination they wouldn’t know that a cube has a side that they don’t see. Imagination underpins every dialogue. The imaginal is a layer of intelligence that underlies and supports language we are speaking and writing.

The physical sciences extend and systematize the range of phenomena so that it can be predicted and controlled. Hence we have transformed life on this planet using our technology. Now we are destroying life with it. Given that ecological context it isn’t surprising that humanity is being shaken to its metaphysical core. So I’m open to hear what you and Kastrup have to say about it. Does he have a remedy?

The denial of metaphysical knowledge is widespread, and it is understandable, because only material knowledge can be attained through our perception of the world, and through our senses. There is also the fact that our brains filter that perception, and so it does not necessarily fully correspond with the “reality” that our brains filter out. But mystical experiences, which come in many forms, in many varying circumstances, under varying physical conditions, remain a factor that changes lives, perspectives and hopes. In the 1990’s, when I was making progress in nursing, I had a friend who was a member of a monastic order until they fell out and “divorced”. He pointed me towards the modern mystics, and the international ecumenical movement bringing traditions together. What I discovered was how the various traditions correlated in practise and experiences. It wasn’t “gnosis” or knowledge, just experience, but the fact that people from these varying traditions could communicate amongst themselves showed me how narrow my view had been. My own experiences, though not understood, were therefore not unusual.

At the same time, the “shadow” of oneself, elusive and unconscious most of the time, also became a reality, and a correlation to what some Christians called “the devil” seemed fitting. Whereas I found that I had to reconcile that shadow to become whole, the Christians around me avoided what they could not understand, sometimes dashing to prayer meetings to take their mind off the troubling part of themselves that they couldn’t face. Their imagination was excited by sermons and for a while I doubted myself. Psychology was spurned in those circles, and so I found myself drifting away from Evangelicalism, towards psychology due to professional ties, but also towards the Mystics and in fact towards a kind of “inter-mysticism”, drawing also from other traditions. I found this recently echoed in the following statement:

I am no longer the idealist I was back in the 1990’s and following years, but I haven’t fully lost hope. I find that we are in need of a different perspective, which essentially connects the “mystical” with the empirical in a way that people have done in the past, but with a modern understanding of what is going on. That is, walking in with eyes open, aware of the shortcoming of experiences, dreams, visions and also mythology, but also aware that there is something there that is valuable if we are to escape from the destruction that scientiscm and all forms of prejudice are bringing upon us. That is why, when I read Kastrup, I found statements like the following helpful:

Is this a remedy? No. But it is an attempt to gain a different perspective on our understanding of what is going on in this mysterious universe, and can pick up some of the loose ends dangling around. As Jeffrey Kripal (J. Newton Rayzor Chair in Philosophy and Religious Thought at Rice University in Houston, Texas) mentions in his introduction:

That is why I have been occupying myself with Kastrup.

Which highlights the idealism of scholastic resilience to be an aspect of ‘faith’ we can not discount.However the intentional will to sustain some measure of the ideal in a different form doubled down in an increasing ‘objective’ of a changing, metamorphosing type. See Dali’s ‘Metamorphosis of Narcissus’ as a sort of occult proof of a visual version of a prophetic-poetical licensed enigma.

Bob

I’ll reply in more detail later. But I think you are conflating moral idealism with metaphysical idealism. They’re not the same thing. Nor is one necessarily dependent on the other.

No, I was the other kind of idealist in the 1990’s … sometimes the double meaning of words can be a stumbling block …

I am not sure that it is really scholastic resilience that I am demonstrating here, because I am not the one who adheres to formal rules, and the people I have quoted have, by their own admission, been driven by their experience to form a hypothesis of reality that fits it. But every faith, even in the truth of a hypothesis, is tested by adversity, in whatever form.

Dali’s “Metamorphosis of Narcissus” is of course a masterpiece and captures a mystery in a way that reveals artistic genius. You are right that it captures the metamorphosis of an idea/ideal in a special way and should therefore prove how ideas can change form over time while retaining their essence. This has happened in religion over thousands of years in varying degrees of quality.

In that case it isn’t clear to me why you would say you did or didn’t lose hope in a particular metaphysical theory. What are you hoping idealism is going to do?

Felix Dakat,

lol As tab said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Could have been a residual memory.

Was there any reason for you to suspect at that time that you or your unconscious needed or wanted you to be in touch with your anima?

I kind of suspect that any man who is a wonderful, giving lover would already be in touch with his anima side. I’m just saying. :laughing:

[b]Anima defined:

  1. PSYCHOANALYSIS
    (in Jungian psychology) the feminine part of a man’s personality.
  2. HISTORICAL•PHILOSOPHY
    the soul, especially the irrational part of the soul as distinguished from the rational mind.[/b]

Now, my own approach to anima like my own approach to the soul is to ask those who believe in either one or both, to at least make an attempt to demonstrate that they do in fact exist. Or that their own does. Constituting what they then construe to be “wholeness”.

My own suggestion being that they might be willing to do so in regard to a context in which animas and souls come into conflict over particular moral, political and/or spiritual value judgments. My main interest in things like this.

But first the focus would be on providing empirical evidence beyond the belief itself that they do exist.

For example, they could go to an online community of doctors or biologists or neurologists or neuroscientists, explain to them what they do believe about their own anima and soul, and ask if there has been any evidence they themselves have found that they do exist.

And then after accumulating as much proof as they can there coming back here and sharing it with us.

Otherwise those of my own philosophical inclination will be likely to suspect that this belief in an anima or soul is embedded more in the psychological comfort and consolation some sustain in merely having the belief itself that they exist.