Soulness, as a recognizable aspect of the soul, or of the Soul, must also possess or be possessed of an irreducible essence. That which makes soulness recognizable, or soulnessness is an important construct, as it allows one to recognize the inevitable result of this direction of inquiry—infinite regress. Souls have soulness, soulness has soulnessness, and so on. How does one avoid soulnessnessness, or worse, the elder brother of god, nessness—the essence of essence? All strata of successive nesses may be rolled, by skilled fingers,(early philosophers attempting this sort of investigation tended to underestimate the pliability of essence. Like pastry dough, essence is terribly unforgiving in terms of successive folds—its butter begins to show) into a single entity. In terms of mathematics, beyond a certain epsilon, all essences converge to a single essence. Chairness, Hairness, Scareness, Pearness, upon closer inspection (on the order of chairnessness, etc) become a single concept more fundamental and abstract than even nessness. This prime mover of conceptual structure is Charles.
The reader new to the notion of Charles may be surprised, or even disappointed, by the universal address Charles affords the inquisitive mind. The most elementary questions are answered by appeals to Charles.
--“My colleagues at the institute have concluded…Charles, and I fear I must concur.”
--“Initial data indicates the previously unthinkable…Charles.”
--“Can love taste like cinnamon, if taken in large enough doses? Charles”
--“Do armies count friendly fire exchanges as victories? Charles.”
--“If animals don’t have souls, how may the lion lay beside the lamb in the kingdom of heaven? Charles”
--“What is the soul? The soul is the soul. That is, all that is the soul is all that is the soul.”
--Can you be more specific? Charles.”