We should decide if the issue is about soul or mind. I think soul is less essential than mind because if we didn't think, we wouldn't be aware of the concept of soul. But then if we didn't feel, we wouldn't be aware at all. So feeling is the fundamental state, then mind, then soul. I think this is what Whitman thought, too and if so, he's a step ahead of the neurologists...and into a place they can't go.
WC --- On Fri, 11/21/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Proust review: Whitman > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, November 21, 2008, 9:11 PM > All art is done by what we assume to know at the present, I > like to > think we > are individual things among other individual things, so if > anybody > can clarify > things, i want to know. What i think I know, is that every > thing in > the whole > universe is connected as one. We may ones of many little > ones that make > bigger ones. Maybe there is a big thing that is the > totality of all > humans,and > each of us is just things the make the big thing itch at > times. > mando > > > On Nov 21, 2008, at 11:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 11/20/08 8:21:11 PM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > >> > >> 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. > >> > > (1) Dualists tend to take a position about > consciousness that they > > are -- or > > should be -- a bit uncomfortable with: It exists in > time, but has no > > extension. I.e. it doesn't exist in > "space". This is rather like > > the position > > of those > > who believe in mind-independent > "abstractions" like "justice", > "evil", > > "categories", "qualities", > "essences", etc. -- those alleged > > entities are also > > accepted as having no extension. > > > > (2) You all many times have heard my mantra that all > notion is > > indeterminate, > > indefinite, multiplex, and transitory. Add this: So > are all "material" > > things. We tend to think that when we > "indicate" an object -- like > > someone's > > body, > > or even a rock -- we're citing a stable, > discrete, unitary > > object, the > > contents of which are determinate and distinctly > bounded. > > Linguistically, we > > feel > > there is a "correspondence" of some kind > between the word/name and > > such an > > object. William's good questions show that all > these assumptions, > > though > > usually > > serviceable, are fundamentally unsound. > > > > > > > > ************** > > 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)
