I meant to affirm that the issue of the soul's nature started with the
individual's believing in such an entity.
Interesting though, if what you believe has "nothing" to do with the truth.
I hope that most of what I believe is true. I realize that it isn't,
necessarily, true.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Proust review: Whitman
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:03:14 -0800 (PST)
So? What's the point? Actually, I find it easy to assert that everything
we know, we must first believe. And that has nothing to to with truth.
WC
--- On Thu, 11/20/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Proust review: Whitman
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 10:01 PM
> William wrote: "if there is a soul that is co-existent
> with the body or at
> one with it, then we
> need to know the extension of the body, or the soul."
> I would suggest: If we believe that there is a soul
> co-existent with the
> body or at one with it, then we need to consider what else
> we believe.
> Geoff C
>
>
>
>
> >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Proust review: Whitman
> >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:21:01 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >I want to wait until others read the book, or the first
> chapter. I;m not
> >for skipping chapters because that suggests a apriori
> judgemnt.
> >
> >Regarding the body/mind, if the mind is embodied, then
> what are the limits
> >of the body? Skin surface in? Do we include bodily
> fluids and wastes as
> >part of the body? Do we include speech? Do we include
> things thrown from
> >the body? Where does the body begin and end? These may
> seem like
> >ridiculous questions but if there is a soul that is
> co-existent with the
> >body or at one with it, then we need to know the
> extension of the body, or
> >the soul.
> >
> >WC
> >
> >
> >--- On Thu, 11/20/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: Proust review: Whitman
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [email protected]
> > > Date: Thursday, November 20, 2008, 6:14 PM
> > > In a message dated 11/20/08 10:37:37 AM,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is anyone else interested in pursuing a
> discussion of
> > > "Proust Was a
> > > > Neuroscientist"? Shall we postpone the
> discussion
> > > for a few days?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The next one is pretty farfetched-George
> Eliot's
> > > writing prefigures the
> > > brain replacing its own cells all its life,
> thus
> > > establishing human freedom.
> > > Perhaps we could skip to the chapter on Proust?
> > > Kate Sullivan
> > >
> > >
> > > **************
> > > One site has it all. Your email accounts, your
> > > social networks, and the things you love. Try the
> new
> > > AOL.com
> > >
>
>today!(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212962939x1200825291/aol?redi
> > > r=http://www.aol.com/
> > >
> ?optin=new-dp%26icid=aolcom40vanity%26ncid=emlcntaolcom00000001)
