For the most part they are soulless, but soul is the quality they most seek, most claim, most overlook, most persecute. They might claim to be edified by the art that pleases them, when you catch them being so pleased by it, but it is soul that they suck from it, that they feed on as if in need. What would it imply to say of one that he or she is ashamed of having a soul? As distinct from not having one, of being ashamed of not having a soul? You could map out the four alternatives, having or not having a soul versus being proud or ashamed. But do those say, who are proud of having no soul really have no soul, or is that just the way their soul expresses itself? It is to do with hidden depths of experience, but also with illusions produced by mirrorings, veilings, fleeting appearances, by the ambiguity of motives. If it is anything at all, it is of the nature of the soul to conceal itself behind appearances, but unless there is some experience which makes it present, for someone, to someone, at some time, it might be nothing more than a 'way of speaking about' the hiding process itself.